2016
DOI: 10.13031/aea.32.11615
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: 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.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
2
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In our study, the water use in the kill floor was 246.2 L/t LCW, which is comparable with findings (252 L/t LCW) from Pagan et al (2002). The same situation applies to water use in plant cleaning (1,185.6 L/t LCW) in this study similar with water use in plant cleaning from other two studies (982 L/t LCW from Pagan et al (2002) and 1,157 L/t LCW from Ziara et al (2016). The water use in antimicrobial interventions (320.4 L/t LCW) from our study is also found to be close with the findings from another study reporting a similar value (369 L/t LCW) for these antimicrobial interventions (Ziara et al, 2016).…”
Section: Comparison Of Water and Energy Use With Previous Studiessupporting
confidence: 89%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…In our study, the water use in the kill floor was 246.2 L/t LCW, which is comparable with findings (252 L/t LCW) from Pagan et al (2002). The same situation applies to water use in plant cleaning (1,185.6 L/t LCW) in this study similar with water use in plant cleaning from other two studies (982 L/t LCW from Pagan et al (2002) and 1,157 L/t LCW from Ziara et al (2016). The water use in antimicrobial interventions (320.4 L/t LCW) from our study is also found to be close with the findings from another study reporting a similar value (369 L/t LCW) for these antimicrobial interventions (Ziara et al, 2016).…”
Section: Comparison Of Water and Energy Use With Previous Studiessupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The same situation applies to water use in plant cleaning (1,185.6 L/t LCW) in this study similar with water use in plant cleaning from other two studies (982 L/t LCW from Pagan et al (2002) and 1,157 L/t LCW from Ziara et al (2016). The water use in antimicrobial interventions (320.4 L/t LCW) from our study is also found to be close with the findings from another study reporting a similar value (369 L/t LCW) for these antimicrobial interventions (Ziara et al, 2016). This similarity may be because these three antimicrobial interventions are automatic processes, often using similar equipment across the U.S. beef packing facilities.…”
Section: Comparison Of Water and Energy Use With Previous Studiessupporting
confidence: 89%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Furthermore, meat processing in slaughterhouses and packing plants requires a large amount of water, for washing and cleaning, which is then discharged as wastewater. For example, the water used in a mid-size beef packing plant is approximately 3000L/1000 kg live weight slaughtered (Ziara et al, 2016).…”
Section: Animal Processing and Meat Industrymentioning
confidence: 99%