Assessment of Energy Consumption in a Meat-Processing Plant—a Case Study

Wojdalski, J.; Dróżdż, B.; Grochowicz, J.; Magryś, Anna; Ekielski, Adam

doi:10.1007/s11947-012-0924-4

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The energy usage of food processing plants is highly variable and depends on many factors including plant size and location, mechanization of the processes, utilization of processing capacity, equipment age and efficiency (Cierach et al, 2000;Tkacz et al, 2000;Houska et al, 2003;Markowski et al, 2004;Marcotte et al, 2008;Norton and Sun, 2008;Banach and Ywica, 2010;Campañone and Zaritzky, 2010;Li et al, 2010;Gogate, 2011;Wojdalski et al, 2013). The combined electrical and natural gas energy used at this plant was 623.1 MJ/1000 kg LBW or 392.6 MJ/ head, which represents less than 2% of the energy footprint of beef (e.g., Rotz et al, 2013).…”

Section: Natural Gasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water and Energy Use of Antimicrobial Interventions in a Mid-Size Beef Packing Plant

Ziara

Dvorak³

et al. 2016

Appl. Eng. Agric.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data regarding the water and energy usage of current antimicrobial interventions in beef packing plants is scarce. The objective of this study was to collect representative water and energy usage data in a beef packing plant, with emphasis on antimicrobial interventions, to provide baseline data for comparison of new intervention technologies developed by researchers. Permanent and portable water flow meters were installed on the plant's plumbing system to collect water flow data from March 2014 to March 2015. A local utility company was hired to meter electricity at the different subsystems using portable data loggers. The natural gas used in each subsystem was estimated by the amount of steam required to heat the water to the desired temperature and assuming the boiler efficiency as 82%, as estimated by the plant personnel. All data was normalized per 1000 kg live body weight (1000 kg LBW). The overall plant-wide water usage was 2968 L/1000 kg LBW (355 gal/1000 lb LBW). The antimicrobial interventions used 15.7% of the total water usage while viscera and byproducts processing, and overnight cleaning water accounted for 19% and 39% of the total water usage, respectively. The water usage was 100, 16, 253, and 97 L/1000 kg LBW for the pre-evisceration wash, organic acid spraying, carcass wash, and thermal pasteurization, respectively. The total metered electrical energy was 110.5 MJ/1000 kg LBW, over 96% of which was used by the plant's cooling and hydraulic systems. The overall plant-wide natural gas usage was 512.6 MJ/1000 kg LBW, 11.6% of which was used by antimicrobial interventions for water heating. The viscera and byproducts processing, overnight cleaning, and other usage and losses, accounted for 11.7%, 36.1%, and 40.6% of the total natural gas, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Natural Gasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water and Energy Use of Antimicrobial Interventions in a Mid-Size Beef Packing Plant

Ziara

Dvorak³

et al. 2016

Appl. Eng. Agric.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Energy consumption in the meat processing industry is plant-specific, affected by many factors such as facility size, processing technologies used, production capacity, etc. (Klemes, Smith, & Kim, 2008;Wojdalski, Dróżdż, Grochowicz, Magry s, & Ekielski, 2013). Despite the fact that tremendous variability exists in terms of energy consumption in the meat industry, energy savings can be obtained through proper housekeeping practices and process optimization, such as insulating steam and hot water pipes, recovering waste heat from byproducts or blowdown water for boilers, optimizing motors and pumps in the desired efficiency, minimizing energy usage, etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of water and energy use at process level in the U.S. beef packing industry: Case study in a typical U.S. large‐size plant

Ziara

Dvorak

et al. 2018

J Food Process Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food processing industries consume intensive water and energy to produce food products. However, their water and energy data are scarce and require for good measurement approaches. This study presents data collection and analysis of process‐level water and energy use in a large‐size U.S. beef packing plant through a combined use of portable and in‐line meters and theoretical calculations. The kill floor and plant cleaning are the primary water users, accounting for 28.7 and 24.0%, respectively. The refrigeration compressor system is the largest user of electricity, consuming 24.5% of plant‐wide electricity. Heating of water for plant cleaning and food safety purposes is the largest thermal energy use in summer (81%) and second‐largest in winter (49.7%), with unit heating values of 625 and 666 MJ/ton live cattle weight in the summer and winter, respectively. Twice as much thermal energy is used in the winter than summer due to space heating requirements. A regression analysis found that as outdoor temperatures increased, a slight water use increase and larger energy use decrease were observed. Practical applications Currently available data on water and energy use in the U.S. beef packing industry are scarce, thus limiting the ability to develop new water and energy efficient technologies and policies based on an understanding of the current baseline operations. The current study conducts a detailed assessment of water and energy use at process level to enhance the understanding of the food‐energy‐water nexus in the beef processing industry, where limited data are available. Engineers can apply this case study as an example to share with their clients seeking to collect and analyze data with the goal of identifying water and energy conservation approaches. These results will inform beef processing researchers as they design novel technologies with that may result in improved water and energy efficiencies.

show abstract

“…To obtain such a fast cooling, the industry needs equipment that provides higher heat transfer rates. Additionally, the use of large blast chillers incurs quite a reasonable investment and maintenance costs, and high energy consumption (Wojdalski et al ., ), and due to the length of time necessary to completely chill large meat products, represents a recognisably ‘bottle neck’ for the production line, as identified through an online questionnaire‐based survey addressed to meat producers and cooling equipment manufacturers and suppliers, undertaken as part of the COOLMEAT project.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and quality evaluation of large meat joints cooled by a precommercial immersion vacuum cooling prototype

Drummond

Meinert

Koch

et al. 2015

Int J of Food Sci Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of independent studies were conducted to document the performance of an immersion vacuum cooling (IVC) prototype. Pork hams of commercial size were cured, cooked and then cooled using either a chill cabinet, a chilling room or the IVC prototype. Cooking and cooling losses, temperature profiles and selected product quality properties were compared. Results showed that no growth of spores was detected on either IVC or chill cabinet hams, while growth was detected on chilling room hams. Texture attributes comparison concluded that all tested samples were equally juicy and tender. Thiamine retention analysis showed that the observed decrease in concentration was irrespective of cooling method. Average cooling time from 50 to 20°C (at sample core) was approximately 90 min. Overall, it can be concluded that IVC is a time-reducing cooling method that has no deleterious consequences on product safety or quality.Evaluation of an IVC prototype L. Drummond et al. 2067 Results and discussion Cooling profiles, cooking and cooling losses and sample quality evaluationAn example of the temperature profile from the challenge test with C. perfringens for each of the three Evaluation of an IVC prototype L. Drummond et al.

show abstract

Assessment of Energy Consumption in a Meat-Processing Plant—a Case Study

Cited by 17 publications

References 22 publications

Water and Energy Use of Antimicrobial Interventions in a Mid-Size Beef Packing Plant

Water and Energy Use of Antimicrobial Interventions in a Mid-Size Beef Packing Plant

Assessment of water and energy use at process level in the U.S. beef packing industry: Case study in a typical U.S. large‐size plant

Safety and quality evaluation of large meat joints cooled by a precommercial immersion vacuum cooling prototype

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About