Advertisement

Waste and Biomass Valorization

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 397–404 | Cite as

Tool for the Assessment and Prediction of Animal By-product Resources

  • Urmas SannikEmail author
  • Peep Pitk
  • Lembit Lepasalu
  • Väino Poikalainen
Original Paper
  • 147 Downloads

Abstract

This study was motivated by the need to make better use of animal protein from animal by-products (ABPs). The goal was to develop a tool to monitor and assess the production and use of ABP resources in cooperation with both companies and state authorities. Data was gathered from a wide variety of sources, and was used to determine the number of animals (by species) and yield of various types of ABPs categorized into risk categories produced per animal during meat processing. The reliability of this data was tested using both direct observation and by comparing with additional data sources. Only the number of animals of each species processed are required to estimate the quantities of the various types of ABPs produced within each risk category. During evaluation of the calculation-tool it was estimated that 22,741 tons of ABPs are generated in the slaughterhouses certified within Estonia annually. The quantity of ABPs delivered by meat processing plants for reprocessing as 1st category waste was 4888 tons in 2013. This total exceeds our estimate by ~3.5 times. We thus conclude that ABPs from lower risk categories are being sent for reprocessing as the highest risk-category of waste. This implies that the meat industry is making insufficient use ABPs as raw material. A strategy for developing a fully functional and efficient system to manage ABP recourses within slaughterhouses is discussed, and our tool, together with these ideas could be used to develop and implement such a plan within processing companies in other countries.

Keywords

Animal by-products Slaughterhouse Meat processing Waste prediction 

References

  1. 1.
    Arvanitoyannis, I.S., Ladas, D.: Meat waste treatment methods and potential uses. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 43(3), 543–559 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boland, M.J., Rae, A.N., Vereijken, J.M., Meuwissen, P.M., Fisher, A.R.H., van Boeckel, M.A.J.S., Rutherfurd, S.M., Gruppen, H., Moughan, P.J., Hendriks, W.H.: The future supply of animal-derived protein for human consumption. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 29(1), 62–73 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desmarchelier, P., Fehgan, N., Smale, N., Smali, A.: Managing safety and quality through the red meat chain. Meat Sci. 77, 28–35 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Field, R.A.: Mechanically recovered meat. In: Jensen, K.W., Devine, C., Dikeman, M. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences, pp. 721–726. Elsevier Ltd., Oxford (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer, G.: Meat Products Handbook. Practical Science and Technology. Culinary and Hospitality Industry Publications Services (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jayathilakan, K., Sultan, K., Radhakrisna, K., Bawa, A.S.: Utilization of byproducts and waste from meat, poultry and fish processing industries. J. Food Sci. Technol. 49(3), 278–293 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juste, J.: Use of animal by-products of slaughterhouses for the production of biogas. Legal aspects and characterization. Libro de Actas II Congreso Español de Gestión Integral de Deyecciones Ganaderas, pp. 337–346. International Workshop on Anaerobic Digestion of Slaughterhouse Waste. 9–10 June 2010, Barcelona (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karim, A.A., Bhat, R.: Gelatin alternatives for the food industry: recent developments, challenges and prospects. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19, 644–656 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lehto, M., Salminen, P., Valtari, H., Venelampi, O.: Guide for handling and disposal of by-products in small abattoirs. Ruoka-Suomi teemaryhmän julkaisu, Finland (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marcos, A., Al-Kassir, A., Mohamad, A.A., Cuadros, F., López-Rodríguez, F.: Combustible gas production (methane) and biodegradation of solid and liquid mixtures of meat industry wastes. Appl. Energy 87(5), 1729–1735 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ockerman, H.W., Basu, L.: Edible rendering—rendered products for human use. In: Meeker, D.L. (ed.) Essential Rendering, pp. 95–110. National Renders Association, Arlington (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ockerman, H.W., Basu, L.: Edible rendering-rendered products for human use. In: Meeker, D.L. (ed.) Essential Rendering. Ohio State University, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ockerman, H.W., Hansen, C.L.: Animal By-Product. Processing and Utilization. CRC Press LLC, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olgo, T.: Organisation of Animal By-Product Handling. Report of the National Audit Office to the Riigikogu, Tallinn Estonia (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pitk, P., Kaparaju, P., Vilu, R.: Methane potential of sterilized solid slaughterhouse wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 116, 42–46 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pearl, G.G.: By-products. Inedible. In: Jensen, W.K., Carrick, D., Dikeman, M. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences, pp. 112–125. Elsevier Ltd., Oxford (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Regulation EC. Laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Regulation (EC) no 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 (OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 1). Official Journal of the European Communities (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Regulation EC. Laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation). Regulation (EC) no 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009. Official Journal of the European Communities (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Regulation EC. Laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive. Regulation (EC) no 142/2011 of the European Commission of 25 February. Official Journal of the European Communities (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sannik, U., Lepasalu, L., Soidla, R., Põldvere, A., Saar, R., Tänavots, A., Poikalainen, V.: Calculation model for assessment of animal by-product resources in Estonian meat industry. Agron. Res. 13(4), 1053–1063 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Segarra, A.E., Rawson, J.M.: Foot and Mouth Disease: A Threat to US Agriculture. CTS Report for Congress. USDA (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Selmane, D., Vial, C., Djelveh, G.: Emulsification properties of proteins extracted from beef lungs using a continuous rotor/stator system. J. Food Sci. Technol. 44, 1179–1188 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Toldra, F., Aristoy, M.C., Mora, L., Reig, M.: Innovations in value-addition of edible meat by-products. Meat Sci. 92(3), 290–296 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Viileberg, M.: Estonian Meat Market 2010. Estonian Institute of Economic Research, Tallinn Estonia (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vireen: Reports form Estonian Business Register. Tallinn Estonia (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Voog, A., Männaste, K., Nõmmik, M.: Estonian Meat Market 2013. AS Emor, Tallinn Estonia (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Urmas Sannik
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Peep Pitk
    • 3
  • Lembit Lepasalu
    • 1
  • Väino Poikalainen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Food Science and Technology, Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal SciencesEstonian University of Life SciencesTartuEstonia
  2. 2.Competence Centre of Food and Fermentation TechnologiesTallinnEstonia
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations