A Survey of Water Use and Common Industry Practices in Commercial Broiler Processing Facilities

2004 Poultry Science Association, Inc. A Survey of Water Use and Common Industry Practices in Commercial Broiler Processing Facilities J. K. Northcutt 1 and D. R. Jones USDA-ARS, Russell Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30604-5677 Primary Audience: Poultry Processors, USDA Personnel, Researchers SUMMARY A survey of commercial broiler processing facilities across the US was conducted to determine overall water use. Seventy-two percent of the respondents reported using city water to process broilers, and 66% reported discharging to city sewers. Over 41% of the responses were from facilities located in the Southeast; however, there was no relationship between location (region of US) of facility and water use or location of facility and water recycling/reuse. Overall, the average water use prior to implementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) was 20.6 L/bird, while the current post-haccp water usage was reported as 26.0 L/bird. Analysis of data also showed a significant relationship between the amount of water used to process each broiler and the size of the broiler being processed. In addition, over 38% of the respondents reported that they recycle water, and a significant relationship was observed between the amount of water recycled and the size of facility. Data from this survey may be used to assist companies interested in establishing water conservation programs or conducting water audits. Key words: broiler, processing, water, Hazard Analysis, Critical Control Point 2004 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 13:48 54 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM Adequate water supply is critical for the processing of poultry as water may be used during electrical stunning, defeathering, carcass washing, carcass chilling, product and nonproduct movement, and facility sanitation [1, 2, 3, 4]. In the early 1970s, the amount of water used to process one broiler was reported to range from 49 to 57 L [1, 5, 6]. In the 20 yr that followed, water conservation efforts gradually reduced this number to as low as 15 L per bird at some facilities [1, 5, 7, 8]. However, conservation efforts were practically nonexistent after 1998 when the Pathogen Reduction, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System Final Rule (HACCP) was implemented. Immediately after the implementation of the HACCP regulation, poultry processing facilities reported doubling, and in some cases even tripling, the amount of water used to process each broiler [1, 3, 8, 9]. Although increasing the amount of water used for processing seems to have made it easier for facilities to meet the HACCP regulation, it has also resulted in other logistical problems such as excess wastewater treatment and disposal and pressure on other areas of the operation to conserve water [2, 5, 10]. Several reports have indicated that rigid water restrictions by municipalities have 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed: jnorthcutt@saa.ars.usda.gov.

NORTHCUTT AND JONES: BROILER PROCESSING WATER SURVEY 49 forced some of broiler processing establishments to limit processing capacity because water is either not available or wastewater treatment and disposal are at maximum load [2, 10]. Woodruff [10] reported that poultry processing establishments may be further limited in operational capacity because of continuing drought conditions, concerns over water quality, and extra water going to residential areas to service the growing population. Gersema [11] has suggested that as the concern for the availability of high quality fresh water continues, there may be a decline in food production and an increase in food prices. Furthermore, agencies such as the Pan American Health Organization and the World Health Organization have reported that by the year 2025, the earth s water supply will just be enough to sustain life for the projected 8.9 billion people with no water left over for other operations [12]. Realizing that water can be a limiting factor, the poultry industry is actively pursuing new technologies to improve processing efficiency, optimize water use, and find alternatives to water without compromising product safety [2, 5, 10]. One alternative is water reuse or recycling. The USDA has begun to allow water reuse under certain conditions and in certain areas of poultry establishments provided the reused water meets specific standards. These standards and water reuse guidelines are listed in the Federal Register and Federal Directives [13, 14]. Because of the emphasis on food safety and the reduced availability of water, a survey was conducted of broiler processing establishments across the US to identify common operational practices and the effects of these practices on water use. MATERIALS AND METHODS A survey was conducted of all broiler slaughtering establishments in the continental US [15]. Each establishment was asked to provide the following information: Whether or not they are on city water and city sewer. The average number of birds processed each day (size of facility). The average size (kg of live weight) of birds processed. TABLE 1. Categories of data and the percentage of respondents based on region in US A Region State B Respondents C (%) West CA 8.8 HI WA TX Central AR 32.4 IN LA MO MS WI Southeast AL 41.2 FL GA NC SC TN Northeast DE 17.6 MD OH PA VA A Only those states with a facility that responded to the survey are listed. B Two-letter state code. C P < 0.001. Number of days and shifts the establishment runs each week. Average water usage (L/bird) before and after HACCP implementation. Whether or not the establishment recycles water and how much water is recycled. Whether or not the establishment uses a truck or transport coop washing station. The type of broiler reprocessing. The type of evisceration equipment. The types of carcass antimicrobial agents. Completed surveys were returned by fax or regular mail. Information regarding water usage was used to calculate the difference due to HACCP implementation by using the following formula: H 2 O (L/bird) = H 2 O after HACCP H 2 O before HACCP. Data were analyzed using the frequency procedure of SAS software [16]. Significance was determined by the chi-squared operation or goodness-of-fit test. Responses to surveys

50 JAPR: Research Report TABLE 2. Categories of data and percentages of respondents for size of facility, average bird weight, amount of water used to process before and after Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP), difference in processing water due to HACCP, and amount of water recycled Processing parameter Small Medium Large P A Number birds 125,000 125,001 250,000 >250,000 NS processed/d (20.9%) (38.8%) (40.3%) Average bird 1.81 1.82 2.72 >2.72 0.0001 weight (kg) (25.4%) (58.2%) (16.4%) Amount of 21.0 21.1 30.0 >30.0 0.0001 water used (70.3%) (26.6%) (3.1%) before HACCP (L/bird) Amount of 21.0 21.1 30.0 >30.0 0.0102 water used (23.9%) (50.7%) (25.4%) after HACCP (L/bird) H 2 O <3.8 3.8 7.6 >7.6 NS (L/bird) B (37.5%) (29.7%) (32.8%) Amount of 75,708 75.709 757,080 >757,080 NS water recycled (44%) (16%) (40%) A Probability values correspond with the percentages of respondents within the category (shown in parentheses). Nonsignificant (NS) probability values indicate P > 0.05. B Increase in processing water after HACCP implementation was calculated as follows: reported water use after HACCP reported water use before HACCP = H 2 O. were categorized before the chi-squared operation could be performed (Tables 1 and 2). Chisquared determined, at the 0.05 significance level, whether or not a relationship existed between the categories. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION One hundred forty surveys were faxed or sent via regular mail to broiler processing establishments across the US [15]. Of these 140 surveys, 68 surveys were completed and returned (48.6%). As the responses to the broiler surveys were received, information was categorized according to region or location in the US (Table 1). Table 1 also shows the percentage of the responses within a given region of the US (P < 0.001). The majority of the facilities responding to the survey were located in the Southeast (41.2%), which represents the area responsible for over 42% (approximately 3.4 billion broilers) of the annual US broiler production [17]. Over 32% of the responses were from the central region of the US, which represents approximately 30% (2.5 billion broilers) of the annual US broiler production [17]. The remaining responses (8.8% for West; 17.6% for Northeast) were from areas where broiler production is not as plentiful (<20% of TABLE 3. Percentage of respondents based on size of facility A and region in the US B Small facilities Medium facilities Large facilities Region (%) (%) (%) West 4.5 1.5 3.0 Central 1.5 17.9 13.4 Southeast C 6.0 14.9 19.4 Northeast 9.0 4.5 4.5 A Small facilities ( 125,000 birds/d), medium facilities (125,001 to 250,000 birds/d), and large facilities (>250,000 birds/d) B P < 0.05. C One facility in the Southeast did not report size.

NORTHCUTT AND JONES: BROILER PROCESSING WATER SURVEY 51 TABLE 4. Relationship between truck and coop washing stations and size of facility A,B Truck or coop Small Medium Large Total washing facilities (%) facilities (%) facilities (%) (%) Yes 11.9 7.5 9.0 28.4 No 9.0 31.3 31.3 71.6 A Small facilities ( 125,000 birds/d), medium facilities (125,001 to 250,000 birds/d), and large facilities (>250,000 birds/d) B P < 0.05. the annual US broiler production or less than 1.5 billion broilers each year) [17]. Data were also categorized according to size of facility (number birds processed/d), average bird weight at processing, amount of water used to process each broiler before and after HACCP implementation (L/bird), difference in water ( H 2 O) due to HACCP implementation and amount of water recycled (Table 2). Categories for average bird weight at processing were based on the product specialty and represented the fast food, traditional ice pack, and large bird deboning markets [18]. Also included in Table 2 are the percentages of respondents within the category and the corresponding probability values. Size of facility, difference in water due to HACCP ( H 2 O), and amount of water recycled were not significantly different among the respondents (P > 0.05). However, average bird weight at processing (P < 0.0001) and amount of water used to process broilers before (P < 0.0001) and after HACCP (P < 0.0102) were significantly different among respondents (Table 2). Most of the respondents (58.2%) reported that they process mediumsized broilers (1.82 to 2.72 kg) with 21 to 30 L of water per bird (50.7%). Before the implementation of HACCP, over 70% of the facilities surveyed reported using <21 L/bird. In addition, 3.1% of the facilities reported using more than 30 L/bird before HACCP, whereas this number has increased to 25.4% after HACCP (>30 L/bird after HACCP). The average water use for all of the respondents was 26 L/bird with an average increase of 5.4 L/ bird after implementation of HACCP. These values are comparable to those reported by Thornton and O Keefe [2] in their recent survey of 43 broiler processing plant managers, but they are lower than the values (>34 L/bird) reported immediately after HACCP implementation [3]. Table 3 shows the relationship between size of facility (small, medium, or large) and region of US (Central, West, Southeast, and Northeast). Most of the responses from the Southeast came from facilities that were categorized as large (19.4%) or medium (14.9%). A majority of the responses from the West and Northeast US (4.5 and 9.0%, respectively) were from small facilities ( 125,000 birds/d), whereas those from the TABLE 5. Relationship between water use at the processing facilities and size of the facility A,B Small Medium Large H 2 O C,D,E facilities (%) facilities (%) facilities (%) Small increase 7.8 10.9 18.7 Medium increase 10.9 14.1 4.7 Large increase 1.6 14.1 17.2 Total with an increase (%) 20.3 39.1 40.6 A Small facilities ( 125,000 birds/d), medium facilities (125,001 to 250,000 birds/d), and large facilities (>250,000 birds/d) B P < 0.05. C Increase in processing water after Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) implementation was calculated as follows: reported water use after HACCP reported water use before HACCP = H 2 O. D One small, one medium, and one large facility did not report water usage prior to HACCP implementation. E Seven facilities reported no increase in water usage after HACCP implementation.

52 JAPR: Research Report TABLE 6. Relationship between the amount of water recycled A and the size of the facility B,C Small facilities Medium facilities Large facilities Recycled water (%) (%) (%) Low recycling 12.0 32.0 0.0 Medium recycling 8.0 0.0 8.0 High recycling 0.0 4.0 36.0 A Low recycling ( 75,708 L/d), medium recycling (75,709 to 757,080 L/d), and high recycling (>757,080 L/d). B Small facilities ( 125,000 birds/d), medium facilities (125,001 to 250,000 birds/d), and large facilities (>250,000 birds/d) C P < 0.001. Central US were generally considered to be medium (17.9%) or large (13.4%) facilities. Approximately 72% of the respondents reported that they use city water (P < 0.001) to process broilers, and 66% reported discharging wastewater to city sewers (P < 0.01). Additionally, a majority of the respondents (97%) reported that they operate 5 d each week (P < 0.0001), and 85% of the respondents operate 10 shifts each week (P < 0.0001). Twenty-eight percent of surveyed facilities indicated that they use a truck or coop washing station (P < 0.001), and there was a significant relationship (P < 0.05) between use of these stations and size of the facility (Table 4). A majority of those facilities that wash trucks and coops (11.9%) were classified as small facilities, whereas another 9 and 7.5% were classified as large- and mediumsized facilities. Similarly, Thornton and O Keefe [2] reported that 23% of their respondents indicated that they clean their trucks and coops. Table 5 shows the relationship (P < 0.05) between the size of the facility (small, medium, or large) and H 2 O. Most of the small facilities experienced a small (7.8%) or medium (10.9%) difference in their water use with HACCP, whereas the medium facilities experienced medium (14.1%) and large (14.1%) differences in water use due to HACCP. Conversely, large facilities had a small (18.7%) or large (17.2%) difference in water use due to HACCP. Of the facilities that responded to the survey, 38.5% indicated that they recycle water; however, this was not significant. The amount of water that the facilities recycle was also not significant. Twenty percent of the respondents categorized as a small facility recycle water compared with 36% of medium and 44% of large facilities (P < 0.001; Table 6). No relationship was observed between location of facility (region) and water recycling. In addition, no relationship was observed between the number of days or shifts the facility operates and the amount of water recycled. Nearly 44% of the respondents to the survey use Streamline Inspection System (SIS) for evisceration, whereas 24.2 and 11.2% of the respondents use New Evisceration Line System (NELS) and NuTech, respectively (P < 0.0001; Table 7) [19]. Another 12.9% of the respondents reported using a combination of NELS and Nu- Tech, and only 8.1% of the facilities reported use of other systems. No relationship was found between type of evisceration system and average water use by facilities. In addition, no relationship was observed between the type of evisceration and H 2 O (L/bird). Furthermore, there was no relationship between the type of evisceration and the type of reprocessing (online, offline, or both). The majority of the facilities responding to the survey used chlorine (45.5%) or a combination of chlorine and acidified sodium chlorite (ASC; 27.3%) as an antimicrobial agent (P < 0.0001). However, only 7.6% of the respondents reported using ASC alone. Approximately 12% of the facilities surveyed reported using trisodium phosphate (TSP) as an antimicrobial agent, TABLE 7. Type of evisceration line A used by respondents B Type of evisceration Percent respondents SIS 43.6 NELS 24.2 NuTech 11.2 NELS and NuTech 12.9 Other 8.1 A SIS = Streamlined Inspection System; NELS = New Evisceration Line System. B P < 0.0001.

NORTHCUTT AND JONES: BROILER PROCESSING WATER SURVEY 53 TABLE 8. Percentage of the respondents based on bird size A and water usage B,C Water usage (%) Bird size Low Medium High Small birds 7.5 16.4 1.5 Medium birds 16.4 22.4 19.4 Large birds 0.0 11.9 4.5 A Small refers to broilers 1.81 kg; medium refers to broilers 1.82 to 2.72 kg; large refers to broilers >2.72 kg. B Low water usage refers to 21.0 L/bird; medium water usage refers to 21.1 to 30.0 L/bird; large refers to >30.0 L/bird. C P < 0.05. and all other types of antimicrobial agents (chlorine dioxide and other) accounted for only 7.6% of those reported. There was no relationship between the type of antimicrobial agent and the amount of water used to process each broiler. Table 8 shows the percentage of the respondents based on size of bird processed and amount of water used to process each broiler (P < 0.05). The majority of the respondents that process small birds use 21.1 to 30.0 L of water/bird (16.4%) or 21.0 L/bird (7.5%), and 1.5% reported that they use over 30 L/bird. Approximately 12% of the surveyed facilities that process large broilers use 21.1 to 30.0 L of water per bird, and another 4.5% use more than 30.0 L/bird. None of the facilities that process large birds reported using 21.0 L or less per broiler. The majority of respondents (22.4%) that process medium-sized broilers reported using 21.1 to 30 L/bird, and another 16.4% (< 21.0 L/bird) and 19.4% (>30.0 L/bird) reported that they use low and high amounts of water during processing. Data from this survey provide important background information for identifying the relationship between operational practices and water use in broiler processing facilities. It may prove to be useful to those facilities seeking to implement water conservation and reuse programs or to those facilities conducting water and wastewater audits. CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 1. A survey of broiler processing facilities across the US indicated that the majority of the facilities process birds with city water (72%), discharge wastewater to city sewers (66%), and operate 5 d each week (97%) with 10 shifts each week (85%). 2. Facilities reported an average water use of 26.0 L/bird, which included an increase of approximately 5.4 L/bird since the implementation of HACCP. 3. No relationship was observed between water usage and size of facility (birds processed/d), location of facility (region), type of reprocessing, type of antimicrobial agent, or coop- or truckwashing stations. 4. A significant relationship was observed for the amount of water recycled and the size of the facility, with large (44%) and medium (36%) facilities recycling more water than small facilities (20.0%). 5. A significant relationship was observed between the size of bird processed and the average amount of water used to process each broiler with more water being used to process mediumsized broilers. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Carawan, R., M. Taylor, P. Curtis, and K. Keener. 1999. Liquid assets for your poultry plant. North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Publication CD-20. www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ foodsci/ext/pubs/. Accessed June 2002. 2. Thornton, G., and T. O Keefe. 2002. Poultry processing: Washing troubles away. Poult. USA 3(8):40, 42, 44. 3. Jackson, W. C., and P. A. Curtis. 1998. Effect of HACCP regulation on water usage in poultry processing plants. Pages 434

54 JAPR: Research Report 439 in Proc. Natl. Poult. Waste Manage. Symp. J. P. Blake and P. H. Patterson, ed. Auburn University Printing Service, Auburn, AL. 4. Keener, L. 2001. Water: Ensuring its safety for use in food processing operations. Food Saf. 7(5):22 26. 5. Richardson, S. 1999. And then along came HACCP. A.K.A. water conservation and waste water management. Pages 1 10 in Proc. US Poult. & Egg Assoc. Poult. Processors Workshop, Atlanta, GA. 6. Carawan, R. E., W. M. Crosswhite, J. A. Macon, and B. K. Hawkins. 1974. Water and waste management in poultry processing. Environ. Prot. Technol. Ser. EPA-660/2-74-031. 7. Merka, W. 1993. Water conservation in poultry processing. Pages 156 161 in Proc. Natl. Poult. Waste Manage. Symp., Columbus, OH. Auburn Univeristy Printing Service, Auburn, AL. 8. Perkins, M. 1999. Water recovery and reuse: Solutions for poultry processors. Proc. Poult. Health Processing. 34th Natl. Meeting, Ocean City, MD. 9. Northcutt, J. K. 1999. Personal communications with broiler processing facilities in Georgia. 10. Woodruff, S. R. 2002. Water treatment strategies Water reuse. Pages 127 134 in Proc. Natl. Poult. Waste Manage. Symp. Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL. 11. Gersema, E. 2002. Researchers warn water crisis looms as countries mismanage water. Environ. News Network. October 17, 2002. http://www.enn.com/news. Accessed April 2003. 12. White, G. C. 1999. Water: Earth s most important natural resource. Page xi in Handbook of Chlorination and Alternative Disinfectants. G. C. White, ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 13. USDA. 1999. Sanitation Performance Standard Compliance Guide. Fed. Regist. 64(202):56400 56418. 14. USDA. 2000. Sanitation performance standards, F. Water supply and water, ice and solution reuse. Directive 11,000.1. 15. Who s Who in the Egg & Poultry Industry in the U.S. and Canada. 2002/2003. Pages 192 228. Watt Publishing Co., Mt. Morris, IL. 16. SAS, 1999. SAS/STAT User s Guide. Release 8.0 ed. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. 17. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2003. Poultry Slaughter 2002 Annual Summary. http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/ reports/nassr/poultry/ppy-bban. Accessed May 2003. 18. Martin, G. Thomas, Jr. 1995. Yield standards for today s product mix. Broiler Ind. 58(7):26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 38, 40, 42. 19. NuTech evisceration system, Stork Gamco, Gainesville, GA.