General enquiries on this form should be made to: - Defra, UKrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=11150_… · Web viewTraining and awareness on water efficiency for all staff

General Enquiries on the form should be made to:Defra, Procurements and Commercial Function (Evidence Procurement Team)E-mail: [email protected]

Evidence Project Final Report

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The Evidence Project Final Report is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra websiteAn Evidence Project Final Report must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code WU0136

2. Project title

Use of Water for Cleaning Livestock Units, Abattoirs, and Meat Processing Plants

3. Contractororganisation(s)

Promar International, Alpha Buildings, London Road, Stapeley, Nantwich, Cheshire, CW5 7JW

URS, Royal Court, Basil CloseChesterfield, Derbyshire, S41 7SL

54. Total Defra project costs £ 48,405(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................. 20th October 2011

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 1 of 36

mailto:[email protected]

end date.................. 30th September 2012


6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so......................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing Evidence Project Final Reports contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that

they be made public. They should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the Evidence Project Final Report can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the intelligent

non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.

Livestock units, abattoir and meat processing businesses are reliant on water for a substantial number of day to day operations. Government policy is encouraging all businesses to become more resource efficient and provide assistance to target improved management of water, particularly by resource intensive industries (including agriculture, processing and manufacturing). Water resources have become a national priority in the last five year as a result of significant variations in weather patterns. Defra commissioned this research project to conduct a detailed assessment of the use of water for cleaning livestock units and abattoirs. The objectives of this project were to:

Review and assess available data and literature on water use, specifically for cleaning, within dairy, pig, poultry units, abattoirs and meat processing plants.

From the available data seek to identify relevant benchmarks (such as level of consumption, efficiency costs, system / technology) for use of water for cleaning.

Reference and identify best practice businesses and technologies which could be applied across the four types of business.

Using case studies present best practice, economic and environmental impacts associated with use of water for cleaning livestock units, abattoirs and meat processing plants.

Volume and cost of water for cleaning livestock units, abattoirs and meat processing plantsDairy Units: As high consumers of water with costs associated with using water varying from £31/cow/year to £100/cow/year, it can be argued there is real potential for dairy farmers to reduce annual water usage and cost (DairyCo, 2009). However, with the average spend made by dairy farmer on water saving technology is £1,811 (DairyCo, 2011), it is necessary for farmers to better understand the benefits and return on investment which water saving technology can bring. Beyond better training and farm operational practices, low-cost techniques such as the use of lower pressure water should be considered along with the correct nozzle types for different applications should be attractive to dairy farmers.

Pig Units: Of all livestock farm types, pig units are the smallest consumer of water, even when taking account of drinking water (Defra, 2010). Comparison between different farm-types has illustrated that straw based systems with a liquid based diet are the most efficient units in terms of usage of water for cleaning purposes. These systems used 56.32 litres/pig compared to a dry fed, fully slatted system pig unit using 106.63 litres/pig (BPEX, 2004). The straw based, liquid diet based system provides a 50 per cent saving in use of water for cleaning activities.

Poultry Units: Poultry units have a close synergy with pig units in terms of their approach and management of water use for cleaning purposes. IPPC guidance is targeted on both these sectors, with the aim to mitigate potential environmental impacts which could result from mismanagement of manures and effluent where they have come into contact with water. Overall, water consumption across all poultry units for cleaning is small – Broilers: 0.012-0.120m3 per m2 per year and Laying Hens: 0.01 (cages) and >0.025 (deep litter) m3 per m2 per year (IFC, 2007). Investigation into drinking water has not been a priority objective for this research study and an assessment of the different drinking water methods has not been made. The difference between ratios of water use for cleaning activities between broiler units and caged laying hens can be explained in terms of the quality and design of buildings. Raised slatted floor areas in caged houses do need to be dismantled and cleaned separately, and the cages themselves


which have to be cleaned properly.

Abattoirs and Meat Processing Plants: Abattoirs and meat processing plants in the UK have a considerable requirement for water which is an integral and vital part of the processing system. Water volumes in abattoirs are affected by the type of processes within the plant, dependent on the slaughter capacity and whether a single species is processed or multiple species. The figures in the table below show total water usage in terms of cleaning and discharge) per annum by each livestock group, covering all abattoir across the UK.

Animal Water Usage (cubic metres (m3)

Water use (cubic metres) (m3) per tonne of product (WRAP, 2011)

Effluent Discharged (cubic metres) (m3)

Poultry 5,655,043 3.23 1,884,129Bovine 3,598,540 2.14 1,612,852Porcine 1,487,483 1.63 1,324,389Ovine 1,508,007 2.16 985,913Total 11,849,073 - 5,807,283

Increasing training and awareness of water saving benefitsThere is a core message emanating from the research that these businesses require significantly better training and management support to reduce water use and why it is beneficial to the farm enterprise. Training should focus on where and how water wastage occurs such as washing down, choice of washer technology, and recommend the benefits of installing water saving nozzles or start/stop foot pedals.

Abattoirs and meat processing plants are also affected by the similar training problems and the use of water meters should be a prerequisite to saving water as this will allow an understanding of where wastage is occurring. Additionally, staff training should be conducted with the plant operators. Installing water saving nozzles or start/stop foot pedals has no value if these are not operated correctly.

The primary and secondary research in this study generally identified that water usage could be reduced by 30% simply by suitably monitoring usage (e.g. water meters) leading to increased awareness and actioning of various zero-cost initiatives.

The following points are recommended for the research findings: Awareness amongst abattoir operators needs to be raised regarding the methods of water efficiency

and the costs/payback involved. The mandatory use of flow measurement and reporting of water use should be considered across the

industry. The issue of converting water use between different animals needs to be addressed (In order that

abattoirs slaughtering different animal types can be compared for efficiency on a like-for-like basis. Wastewater treatment and reuse should be promoted, and in particular the requirements for effluent

re-entering the potable network should be formalised and publicised.

Actions for farmers and abattoir owners to invest in water saving actions; opportunities for livestock units, abattoirs and meat processing plants to invest in further water saving actions is dependent on the source of water. However, the following are proposed as primary actions:

Small Sites Commitment to undertake an annual water audit. Leak detection equipment. Flow meters installed to each main process stage and site area. Operator training in identifying water wastage. User operated start/stop mechanisms for water flow. Low pressure washdown equipment and low flow nozzles where possible.

Medium Sites Leak detection equipment. Flow meters installed to each water application across the site. Operator training in identifying water wastage. User operated start/stop mechanisms for water flow. Filters to all floor drains and separate blood collection and storage system. Low pressure water system where possible (washing applications).


Large Sites All techniques identified for medium sites. Flow meters linked to PLC system for automatic data logging. Simple water treatment for further use in non-potable applications. Rainwater harvesting where rainfall is sufficient. Improved building design and infrastructure to take account of water saving in pig, dairy and

poultry units.

Project Report to Defra

As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include:

the objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Exchange).

Report for Defra Project WU1036


The Use of Water for Cleaning Livestock Units,

Abattoirs and Meat Processing Plants

Tom Gill, Promar InternationalElizabeth Bonsall, Promar International

Paul Henman, Promar InternationalChris Woolgar, URSPaul Francis, URS

December 2012


1. Introduction

There is a current need to more firmly establish the volume and use of water by livestock units (specifically Dairy, Pig and Poultry) and abattoirs and meat processing plants. This is chiefly for three reasons:

Livestock units, abattoir and meat processing businesses are reliant on water for a substantial number of day to day operations.

Government policy is encouraging all businesses to become more resource efficient and provide assistance to target improved management of water, particularly by resource intensive industries (including agriculture, processing and manufacturing).

The climate is changing, and recent fluctuations of weather patterns have made it clear that adequate water provision can no longer be taken for granted.

This report, therefore, seeks to provide a detailed assessment of water used for cleaning activities by three types of livestock unit, and abattoirs and meat processing plants. The data presented in the report is drawn from that which is currently accessible. In doing so it will also identify gaps in the information provision, and has used qualitative research methods including a business survey and case studies to try and present a clear picture concerning water usage that can inform dissemination may be better facilitated in the future.

2. Aims and Objectives

The overall aim of this work was to provide information to allow Defra to establish how and where water is used in cleaning processes by livestock units and abattoirs. The extent of this work specifically focused on water used for cleaning and the techniques / technologies used by the businesses to manage water resources in this regard. Water used for cleaning purposes covered both abstracted and mains tariff water.

The specific objectives of this project were:

Review and assess available data and literature on water use, specifically for cleaning, within dairy, pig, poultry units, abattoirs and meat processing plants.

From the available data seek to identify relevant benchmarks (such as level of consumption, efficiency costs, system / technology) for use of water for cleaning.

Reference and identify best practice businesses and technologies which could be applied across the four types of business.

Using case studies present best practice, economic and environmental impacts associated with use of water for cleaning livestock units, abattoirs and meat processing plants.

These objectives were met within a structure that takes livestock units (Dairy, Pig and Poultry), and abattoirs and meat processing plants in turn, and concludes with an overarching view of livestock units and abattoirs together, and offers recommendations for future action. This structure is as follows:

Volume of water use on livestock units and abattoirs Dairy. Pig. Poultry. Abattoirs and meat processing plants.

Water efficiency measures for cleaning activities in abattoirs and meat processing plants

Livestock units Abattoirs

Survey findings

Livestock units. Abattoirs.

Case studies

Main findings and conclusions


The report is rounded off with a summary of the findings on water used for cleaning purposes on farms and abattoirs and some consideration of the key action points to be addressed in the future.

3. Volume of water use on livestock units and abattoirs

As climate change continues to become a more prominent issue and energy saving techniques and processes are developed to reduce greenhouse gas, all types of industry are seeking to reduce their ‘carbon footprint’ and operate a more sustainable business. The need to ‘save’ is no more pertinent than with water as it becomes an every-scarcer commodity. Using water efficiently directly reduces consumption, and reduces associated energy costs (pumping, heating, treatment). Factoring in animal drinking water and feed crop growing a worldwide average of 15,409 litres of water is used to produce one kilogram of consumable beef (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011), of which 544 litres is municipal potable water. The respective UK figures are 9,849 and 251.3.1 Livestock units

UK agriculture is a significant consumer of water and its application on farm can vary from water for livestock consumption, irrigating crops in situ, preparation of produce, cleaning and washing purposes, and food safety and hygiene (RASE, 2010). Sixteen per cent (16%) of all the water in the UK is used by the agricultural industry. Of this 39% is being utilised by the livestock sector and is estimated to be around 180 million m3 per annum (Defra, 2010). In respect of on farm activities, 7% is consumed by cleaning routines specifically wash down.

Table 1 below illustrates the total volume of water used by agricultural activity and average use per farm.

Table 1 – Total volume of water used by agricultural activity Activity Total water used

(million m3)Average water used per farm

(m3 per farm)Irrigation 70 36,600Spraying 4 100Wash down 13 310Drinking water for livestock 75 1,810Other agricultural uses 1 90Other non-agricultural uses 18 1,070Leakages 2 730Total 184Source: Defra, 2011

The potential for water savings and identifying relevant benchmarks can only be determined once an assessment of baseline water use and requirement in terms of cleaning regime has been made. In this regard, the Environment Agency (EA) has produced best practice guidance in 2004 and 2007 to inform livestock farmers of cleaning water volumes but there is a considerable difference between each livestock type.

Figures 6 and 7 (see appendix to this report) demonstrate the substantial difference in target values between animal types. For example, a dairy cow can generate 9,125 litres of wash water per annum compared to a farrowing sow at 452 litres of wash water per annum. The level of focus and investment made by the farmer to reduce usage from cleaning activities is heavily connected to the primary source of water used on the farm. Defra (2010) has reported on the options most commonly used by farm type and it demonstrates the heavy reliance on mains water. Table 2 presents these options by farm type. Table 2 – Water sources used by farm types

Mains Groundwater

Reservoir

River abstracti

on

Other surface course

abstraction

Harvested

rainwaterRecycled

Other storag

e facility

Dairy 75% 63% 10% 13% 0% 6% 5% 2%Mixed Arable & Livestock 88% 37% 10% 10% 6% 10% 1% 1%Pigs 90% 39% 8% 4% 2% 6% 2% 0%Poultry 84% 33% 12% 4% 0% 11% 2% 0% Where farmers have exploited groundwater (or alternative abstraction) sources evidence identifies that these sources have become viewed as ‘freely available resource’ to the farmer and often result in an even greater


increase in water usage, particularly for cleaning activities. The survey findings and case studies completed as part of this research study provide further supporting evidence in this regard.

Overall, the evidence illustrates the considerable challenge facing the livestock industry to influence the behaviours of farmers in order that mitigations or adaptations are made to water consumption patterns (Thompson et al, 2007). Greater emphasis is required to encourage livestock farmers to review water requirements and target specific areas of the business such as cleaning routine, choice of technologies and recurrent leakages

3.2 Abattoirs and Meat Processing Plants

Whilst it is difficult to reduce water usage in crop growing and animal welfare, it is possible to make efficiency savings with potable water and transfer unnecessary use of potable water to use of rainwater or groundwater. Figures in the table 3 below show total water consumption for different animals (Wrap, 2011).

Table 3 – Water Use across the Abattoir and Slaughterhouse IndustryAnimal Water Usage (m3) Effluent Discharged

Poultry 5,655,043 1,884,129Bovine 3,598,540 1,612,852Porcine 1,487,483 1,324,389Ovine 1,508,007 985,913Total 11,849,073 5,807,283

The UK produces 1,242 billion litres of potable water per year (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011), thus abattoirs and slaughterhouses account for approximately 1% of all drinking water produced in the UK.

Whilst 1% may seem insignificant, abattoirs are just one part of one of hundreds of industries in the UK and yet they consume a hundredth of the country’s potable water. This clearly highlights abattoirs as a major area of potential in national water footprint reduction.

Figure 1 – Stages of the Abattoir Process

The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) (2005) reports on the number of abattoirs falling into the small, medium and large categories, as per Table 2, below:

Table 4 – UK Abattoirs by SizeNumber of Sites Percentage of Production Average Slaughters per Site1

Small 154 2% 1.364 per yearMedium 116 46% 41,638 per yearLarge 20 52% 273,000 per year

The potential for water savings can only be determined once baseline water usage has been established; water meters are a critical component for establishing this and tracking efficiency savings.

ETBPP (2000b) states that the installation of water meters alone could save between 20% and 30% on water usage, through greater awareness of wastage and encouraging better management. This saving can quickly off-set the initial cost of the meters. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most abattoirs only meter water as it enters the site and do not have sub-meters for measuring water use throughout the process, with less than half of abattoirs in the UK using sub-meters (The Environment Agency 2010).

1 Based on 10.5 million cattle per year across the UK (VOA, 2005)


ETBPP (2000a) cites Buxted Chicken Limited (a medium sized poultry processor) which installed water meters totalling £3000 and was able to immediately reduce its mains water bill by £300 per week solely through greater operator awareness thanks to the water meters. Further savings were made by fitting flow restrictors to six sections of pipework and making the main water pumps variable speed. In all, £15,000 was spent on water efficiency techniques, producing total water and effluent savings of £150,000 per year.

4. Water Efficiency for cleaning activities by livestock units and abattoirs

4.1 Livestock units

The 2011 NFU water survey reported on the level of adoption by all farm types of on-farm water management measures. For measures which impact on cleaning management and improving efficiencies, the results demonstrated that stop valves and trigger controls are being implemented (Figure 8). However, the findings also reinforced the lack of training and education amongst farmers with limited completion of water audits or investing in leak detection systems.

The Environment Agency has outlined best practice guidance to livestock units which should be applied in two stages:

Stage one should be to record and review water use within the business and reviewed annually.

Stage two is to produce a plan for optimising water use for cleaning housing, and consider the following measures: A plan identifying all water supply and distribution pipework for water at the installation; Installing stop taps and drain valves in the water distribution system; Installing covers on water tanks; Fitting hoses, hand lances and washing equipment with trigger controls; Taking measures to pinpoint leaks and excessive use; Identifying the position of the water meter; Brushing, scraping, squeegeeing and pre-soaking dirty areas before washing down; Cleaning housing and equipment with high-pressure cleaners for a short duration after each production

cycle; Annual calibration of drinking water installations and meters.

4.1.1 Dairy Units

Of all the livestock types, dairy farms have the greatest demand for water, with costs running from £31/cow/year up to £100/cow/year (DairyCo, 2009). Outside of livestock drinking, the main uses of water on dairy farms were: Plate cooler water. Collecting yard and parlour washing down. Plant washing. General water use. Sprayer use. Slurry flush systems. Domestic use.

These activities are responsible for generating between 50 and 75% of water use on the average dairy farm per annum. This can cost the farm between £300 and £22,000 – a significant variation. Existing evidence does not distinguish the volume and cost of water use for cleaning purposes between different farming systems (e.g. fully housed units) and the use of different bedding materials (straw, sand, lime ash or gypsum).

The adoption of simple, low cost efficiency measures can have a considerable impact on reducing water wasted from washing and cleaning procedures. Usage can vary between 15 litres/cow/day and 50 litres cow/day in the most extreme cases. The primary efficiency measures which dairy farmers could adopt are:

Dry pre-cleaning of parlour, collecting and dispersal yard before use of water. Adopting low volume hose or power washing – reduction of 10-15 litres/cow/day. Re-use of water from plate cooler. Identify and resolve leaks.


Application of smart metering – however, no pre-existing literature has been identified which illustrates the cost / benefit of implementing this technology.

Reduction in the time spent washing equipment by 30 mins per day.

International research estimates a combination of adopting these 2 or more of these measures can reduce usage for cleaning purposes by approximately 20%. For example, by adopting a dry pre-cleaning process, switching from a high volume washer (typical flow rate of 80 l/min) to low volume or pressure washer (12 l/min) and reducing cleaning time by 30 mins per day will save 876 litres of water per day, every day.

There is also a need to review government standards for parlour plant washing equipment. Existing ISO guidance is out of date compared to modern direct line to plant systems which have the ability to use less water. Manufacturers are reluctant to set wash volumes below this as plant would then be non-compliant with ISO standards.

4.1.2 Pig Units

Pig farms similarly have a great demand for water. BPEX have identified water management as a primary objective within the Pig Industry Roadmap and are working to support the industry to consider the use of disinfectants, building design, and cleaning techniques which can support the reduction of volumes of cleaning water.

Typically water use within pig farms is concentrated in the following areas: Livestock drinking water. Cleaning – pre-soaking and washdown. Animal cooling.

Defra and the Environment Agency have identified that farrowing sows and weaners (13-30Kg) generate the greatest volume of wash water (litres/pig place/week). However, depending on the type of farming system, water used during cleaning practices is influenced by the type of feeding and housing system. Analysis of the BPEX Stotfold Finishing Systems Research (BPEX, 2004) has shown that liquid fed, straw based systems use approximately 50% less water for cleaning activities compared to fully slatted systems whether they use a dry or liquid feeding system. Table 5 below presents analysis of the trial results.

Table 5 – Inputs and waste productionWater used (litres) Fully slatted Straw basedDrinking and liquid feed Liquid Dry Liquid Dry Per pig day 7.69 5.91 6.72 4.46 Per pig 640.46 522.2 602.2 419.85Cleaning Per pig day 1.28 1.21 0.63 0.61 Per pig 106.13 106.63 56.32 57.34

Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) (2006) intensive pig and poultry advice note applies to all large pig farm systems with either 750 sows and/or 2000 production pigs over 30kg. The advice seeks to encourage farmers to manage cleaning water and disinfectant use effectively to limit nitrate discharge. The note also provides a useful summary of the primary efficiency measures which are as follows:

Identify all water supply and distribution pipework for water at the installation. Insulation of exposed water pipes to reduce freezing. Stop taps and drain valves. Covers for water tanks. Hoses with trigger controls. Pinpoint leaks and areas of excessive use. Brushing, scraping, squeegeeing, and pre-soaking dirty areas before washing down with detergents. Cleaning housing and equipment with high-pressure cleaners for a short duration after each production cycle. Annual calibration of installations and meters.

Further improvements can be made by reading of meters quarterly and annually, and comparing meter readings within specified time periods.


4.1.3 Poultry

In comparison to other livestock sectors, poultry units are not as resource intensive on water supplies compared to dairy enterprises. Of total water use in agriculture (Defra, 2006), poultry farming accounted for 4% or 11,956million m3 which includes drinking water. Regardless of the specific poultry farming system e.g. intensive or extensive, these units have demands on water needs within three key areas of operations2:

1. Drinking water. 2. Shed evaporation cooling systems. 3. Shed cleaning.

Comparatively, the proportion of water used on poultry farms for cleaning to drinking water is small. Interviews conducted with broiler producers verified the difficulty from existing cleaning regimes. Water for cleaning purposes is of very little concern unless the farm is reliant on mains tariff water. These qualitative findings are reflected in the Environment Agency’s estimated wash water range figures. Regardless of the farming system, litres/animal/day of wash water will vary between 5-6 litres. Whereas, drinking water requirements range from 10-100 litres per bird depending on species and stocking density.

Poultry farms above 40,000 birds are expected to adopt the same efficiency measures as pig farmers (section 4.1.2). Intensive installations are expected to control wash water to minimise the potential for ammonia pollution and nutrients from manure, litter and slurry. Three specific measures which are encouraged by IFC (2007) to improve efficiency are:

Scraping of dry waste prior to washing out with water. Use of high-pressure or low-flow nozzles. Use of hot water or steam in cleaning activities as this can reduce the amount of water used by 50%.

However, the level of water consumed in cleaning processes is impacted by the regime adopted by the farm. The extent to which poultry businesses will seek to control and apply more water efficient practices for cleaning is affected by the use of contract cleaning. Whilst contractors follow the specific instructions of the farmer, there appears to be minimal encouragement for either party to apply resource efficient actions. Some poultry farms outsource all cleaning to contractors and as long as the building is fit for use within a required timeframe, there is little worry about the volume of water which has been used. Only one of the farmers interviewed actually specified how much water could be used by the contractors.

4.2 Abattoirs and meat processing plants

4.2.1 Management of Water Efficiency

The following have been identified as being effective techniques to aid creating a culture of water efficiency amongst staff and are typically low cost methods of simplifying the process of saving water. Central computerised sub meter reading systems to monitor and record water use with a Programmable Logic

Controller (PLC) or else daily manual reading. Water management plan with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and regular audits. Training and awareness on water efficiency for all staff and at induction for new starters. Consider the integration of water efficient techniques in any new projects at the design stage. Address water consumption aspects in preventative maintenance system, e.g. ensure water leaks are reported

and repaired quickly, solenoids and level controls are operational.

4.2.2 Water Efficiency Techniques

The following have been identified by various sources as being effective cleaning techniques aimed at reducing water use.

Dry pre-cleaning of process areas before wet cleaning, e.g. squeegees, cyclonic vacuums. Avoid unnecessary hosing of blood and meat scraps into the drains. Ensure catch pots are in place during cleaning (for example by installing lockable catch pots). Fit hoses with spray nozzles, and optimise water pressure at jets, nozzles and orifices. Use flat jet nozzles to provide maximum impact and velocity. A spray of up to 60° provides wide coverage and

a sweeping effect to propel solids towards floor drains. Use of an automatic water supply shut-off on trigger operated spray guns or hoses.2 Queensland Chicken Growers Association


Use cold water for first rinse as warm water will make protein materials adhere to surfaces and prolong cleaning.

Low pressure water network reducing the flow rate at hose points - It is reported that water from a hose at 1.5MPa and 60l/min is as good at cleaning vehicle wheels as water at 0.3MPa and 250l/min, but the former uses 75% less water (European Commission, 2005).

Audit and review the cleaning contractors and chemicals used in cleaning. Timers or sensors should switch off taps and boot washers after use and water temperature for hand washing

should be minimised. Use automated chemical dosing to minimise consumption, optimise concentrations, record and monitor

consumption and audit cleaning contractors. Review whether better chemicals are available. Catch-pots and screens/filters placed on floor drains to prevent solid waste from entering the public sewer

reducing the strength of wastewater treatment required. Vacuum cleaners to collect meat scraps prior to washing preventing them from entering the sewer. Automatic carcass detection for washing to remove need for continuously running showers. Automatic hand washing station (infrared) to remove the need for continuously running taps. Covered/sealed knife sterilisation boxes with custom-made slots for knife to reduce splashing. Limiting the lairage time of animals and incorporating slatted flooring with built in drainage to reduce the need

to wash down. Naturally ventilated lairage to reduce cooling water use. Collection and use of lairage manure on agricultural land as opposed to discharging it to sewer. Demand controlled water teats to prevent using excess drinking water and removal of toughs which would

need to be cleaned. Timed use of the vehicle wash station with automatic cut off to encourage drivers to adapt to more efficient

cleaning technique. Double-drain system, whereby blood is sent to a holding tank and then the drain is switched to send rinse

water and the remaining blood to sewer. The blood is then collected by tanker. Increasing carcasses bleed time to reduce the amount of blood escaping in downstream stages. Steam scalding via tunnel of moist air at 60°C/100% humidity as opposed to scalding water tank. Use of a holding tank for highly contaminated effluent so that it may be discharged to sewer slowly over a

longer period, mixed with lower strength effluent. Analysis and recording of effluent quality regularly to aid identification of causes of high-contaminant effluent. Screening of solids from effluent, including use of a fat trap. Treatment (e.g. Dissolved Air Floatation (DAF) Plant, Anaerobic Treatment or Aerobic Digestion). Discharge of clean effluent to river to reduce/remove trade effluent charges.

4.2.3 Wastewater Reuse

Depending on the type of treatment used treated effluent can be reused in the abattoir at various stages. As a minimum, lightly contaminated grey water can be reused for truck washing at the site entry/exit and, at the extreme, highly contaminated effluent can be converted to potable water with sufficient treatment.

The cost to reuse water depends on the quality and quantity of the effluent and quality required for the intended reuse of the water. For instance wash-down water from the bleed stage is likely to be of an inferior quality compared to water from operator hand-wash stations and will therefore require more expensive treatment to attain a sufficient quality standard for reuse. Additionally the evisceration area will require a higher quality treated water than the wheel wash.

There are 235 licensed red meat abattoirs in Great Britain (Food Standards Agency, 2011) but 23 sites (owned by eight companies) account for 56.3% of cattle processed (Wrap, 2011). These reputable sources indicate that most UK abattoirs are sufficiently small that water treatment strategies will not prove effective at reducing overall costs and, while mains potable water remains low-cost and reasonably plentiful in this country the deciding factor will always be directly financial rather than water associated.

Whilst it is unlikely to make economic sense to invest in water reuse schemes at small abattoirs, it is not definite. A case-by-case assessment will need to be made to ascertain the precise cost and payback period for each site, with different scales of reuse potentially viable at some abattoirs.

4.3 Rainwater Harvesting


Replacing the use of potable water with rainwater can be a cost effective solution to lessening the impact on the water cycle for livestock units, abattoirs, and meat processing plants. Once installed, a supply of water can be sourced at effectively zero ‘per litre’ cost (discounting maintenance). The total quantity of rainwater that can be captured in a year can be calculated as V=0.8×P×A (Envirowise, 2008), where:

V=Volume of Water Captured (m^3).

P=Precipitation (annually) (m).

A=Area of Roofs and Hardstanding usable to Collect Rainwater (m^2).

5. Survey findings

A business survey was distributed to farm and meat processing businesses through a postal survey and followed up with a telephone interview to unresponsive businesses. The survey was conducted to provide an additional tier of data to add value to the evidence and literature assessment. The purpose of the survey was to gain a better understanding of water usage from a cleaning perspective.

5.1 Survey strategy

Two surveys were designed for livestock units, abattoirs and meat processing plants. Each survey contained 20 questions to limit participant time and capture broad perspectives on a focused number of issues. A brief outline of the survey content is as follows:

The livestock survey covered each farm type (type of unit, size of herd or breeding/laying places); Water Consumption and Purpose; Water Sources – whether private source or municipal; Water Management and Efficiency; Attitudes of Farmers towards water as a resource and future reduction; Technology and Techniques currently used by farmers to reduce water use for cleaning ; and General Comments.

The abattoir survey broadly covered: animals Processed (type and number); Water Consumption and Purpose; Water Sources – whether municipal or a local private source; Effluent Discharged; Water Metering – whether any is in use and what data can be ascertained; Efficiency Technologies – whether any are being used or considered; Regulations and General Comments.

5.2 Coverage and response to the Survey

The livestock survey was completed by postal invitation and was issued to 500 livestock units (400 diary and 100 pig and poultry). A response rate of 23% (115 farm respondents) was achieved against a target of 20%. However the return rate from pig and poultry farms is not representative of the sector and the quality of the returns gave a rich picture of volume requirements and cleaning water management issues.

A postal invitation to complete the online survey was issued to 180 UK abattoirs, and was responded to by 10 sites. Unresponsive sites were contacted by telephone with a further 33 sites completing the survey during the call. A response rate of 24% was achieved against a target of 20%.

5.3 Livestock Units

5.3.1 Farm respondents

The following points summarise the scale and characteristics: The number of dairy cows ranged from those in the 0-50 bracket and those milking over 300 cows. The bracket

with the most respondents was between 101 to 150 dairy cows3. For pig farms the average number of sow places was 700, much higher than the average herd size stated by

BPEX for 2012 of 724. The number of fatteners on farms ranged from 650 to 6,500. The approximate weight of pigs varied with some farms producing finished pigs at 114kgs, with others

producing piglets at 7kg’s. The number of poultry layers varied from respondents with 50, to those with 16,000. Broiler farms varied from having 125,000 birds on farm to 840,000, producing 7-8 batches a year. The size of farms varied, with the most frequent dairy farm size being between 101-200ha, with pig’s 401-

500ha and poultry 50ha or less.

3 There is an inherent bias towards larger herds due to farmers who tend to use / have used consultants have higher numbers of cows.4 BPEX, 2012


5.3.2 Water Sources

The survey findings have demonstrated that most farms are still heavily reliant on mains water. Of the farmers surveyed, 70 continue to rely on mains tariff water as their primary source. This has a direct consequence on cleaning procedures resulting in many farmers wasting blue (potable) water which does not need to be used for many cleaning activities. A proportion of the respondents cited that they used abstracted groundwater in addition to mains water with the aim of reducing water costs. However, this does not improve efficient management of water resources but the survey found that only 19 farm respondents were using alternative water sources such as harvested rainwater. More detailed analysis has identified that cost and lengthy return on investment has inhibited increased take up of this technology.

5.3.3 Water Monitoring and Cleaning Regime

Approximately two thirds of the total respondents specified that they undertook some form of monitoring their water usage. Poultry and pig enterprises were particularly focused on monitoring water – however they were more concerned about livestock drinking water and not reducing volumes in terms of cleaning water. Figure 9 demonstrates that those livestock businesses which spent more time actively monitoring and reviewing water usage, also have spent less on the implementation of water saving technologies in the last three years.

This illustrates the benefit of assisting farmers to improve knowledge in how to monitor water usage and highlights investment in capital expenditure isn’t always necessary. Only 15% of farm respondents had undertaken water audits and were aware of the EA best practice guidance. However, those who had undertaken an audit considered it worthwhile and beneficial to the business.

5.3.4 Efficiency Technologies

The most obvious method of engaging in water efficiency is to actively reduce the overall volume of water used by the farm through reduced time in cleaning practices and adopting pre-dry cleaning techniques. Ten main techniques were identified during the evidence gathering phase of this project and were included as part of the survey. The results are presented in the appendix, figure 10 in terms of high or low priority. Opinions given as part of the top five responses were:

Plate cooler re-use (66 per cent) by respondents stated that they had installed this technology. With this being the most common technology for reducing water and cleaning on dairy farms.

Adapting nozzle, hose and washing techniques (69 per cent) but alternative mechanisms to change pressure or flow rate were still deemed to be inadequate.

Hot water washing (57 per cent) is viewed positively but considered expensive. Most farmers stated it has beneficial hygiene results but costs too much to do on a regular basis.

Pre-brushing/scraping (43 per cent) aims to remove the worst of the waste matter prior to using water or compressed air for cleaning. This is viewed as standard practice but less than half of farmers considered it to be a way to reduce water.

Pre-soaking (37 per cent) by using a foam, detergent or degreaser.

5.3.5 Importance of reducing cleaning water

Farm survey respondents were asked to rank the level of priority they gave to reducing the volume of water generated from cleaning activities. Figure 11 illustrates that over 60 per cent of farmers were undecided and non-committal in terms of whether they would adopt further changes to cleaning practices. The findings suggest there is a considerable perceptions and attitudes issue which needs to be addressed by the industry. Unless water prices rise considerably in the short term, it is unlikely the vast majority of farmers will make simple changes to how cleaning practices are undertaken.

5.4 Abattoirs / Meat Processing Plants

5.4.1 Types and Number of Animals Processed

Figure 1 indicates a good spread of animals amongst the survey returns, with most sites processing more than one animal type. Based on the total tonnages slaughtered the sites can be broadly spilt into small, medium and large groups, as per Table 1. This shows how the number of large sites compares with the much greater number of small and medium sized sites.


Table 1 – Animal Slaughters by Site Size

Site Size

Annual Tonnage Range

No. of Sites

Total Annual Tonnage

Percentage of Tonnage Processed

This Survey National (VOA, 2005)

Small 0 2,328 21 13,247.1 3% 2%Medium 5,715 – 21,803 15 17,9426.4 41% 46%

Large 4,7740 – 143,829 3 243,929.2 56% 52%

*5 out of 44 surveyed sites did not provide sufficient slaughter data

5.4.2 Water Sources

As part of the survey, three water sources were looked at – Mains (Potable) Water, Groundwater and Harvested Rainwater. Only one of the surveyed sites does not use mains water, relying solely on a ground source. In total four sites harness groundwater and five sites utilise rainwater harvesting. None of the surveyed sites use all three water sources.

The fact that one site can abstract 419,000m3 of groundwater is evidence that it is possible to run an abattoir solely with groundwater as a water source (where available) and completely remove the need for mains water on a day-to-day basis. A backup mains connection would still be required to allow for the groundwater source running low, as evidenced by the aforementioned site using just over 6,000m3 of mains water last year (1.5% of total water used).

5.4.3 Effluent

13 out of 44 surveyed sites treat their effluent prior to discharge, but no sites recycle their treated water. When the sites treating wastewater are broken into small, medium and large groups a different result emerges. All three large sites treat their wastewater, whereas only four out of 21 small sites treat theirs. With medium sized sites the ratio is 5 out of 10.

Over half the sites surveyed provided no answer as to where they send their effluent. When filtering out only those sites which identified where they discharge effluent, and which identified their annual water usage, only 11 sites remain. Of these, five discharge to a local water course (total 1.75Mm3/year) and six discharge to a public sewer (total 0.5Mm3/year), inferring that the ‘heavy’ dischargers use water courses to alleviate their trade effluent charges.

5.4.4 Water Metering

The two survey questions on water metering yielded very sparse results. It is apparent, particularly after talking with a number of abattoir operators, that water metering, other than at the site boundary, is not common practice. 35 out of the 44 surveyed sites have just one water meter monitoring incoming flow and a further four sites have no metering whatsoever. Two sites did not provide an answer; three sites have only two sub-meters and one further site have ‘a number’ of meters.

5.4.5 Efficiency Technologies

The most obvious method of engaging in water efficiency is to actively reduce the overall volume of water consumed by the abattoir through the implementation of a number of techniques. Eight main techniques which came to light during the literature review phase of this project were included as part of the survey, the results of which are given in Figure 2.

6. Case studies

Eight case studies of farm enterprises and abattoir/meat processing plants that responded to the survey indicated that they would be interested to present their business as a case study.

Four of the case studies are summarised below illustrating key headlines and look to bring to life the realities of managing water for cleaning activities for these businesses and demonstrate how and why they have adopted certain techniques and technologies.

Case: A dairy unit with 160 cows


This farm is a mixed dairy / arable enterprise which has 160 dairy cow herd averaging 8,500 milk per cow. All the stock are accommodated at this site during the winter.

Water Management

The farm uses a combination of bore hole and mains water. The mains water usage from the most recent meter readings available gave a usage of 12m3/day (annual use 4380m3). The bore hole water does have a meter but it is not regularly recorded. A sample reading was taken for this case study as an average over a few days and give a reading of 9m3/day (annual usage 3285m3). This gives an estimated annual water use of 7665m3. Actual water use breaks down in terms of

Summary of total water use m3/yr % NotesLivestock drinking 5,150 57.6

Plate cooler water use 2,701 30.2 Note: plate cooler water is only partly reused on this farm

Milking plant cleaning (internal) 537 6.0 Cleaning water makes up about 11.5% of total water use

Bulk milk tank cleaning (internal) 40 0.4Milking parlour washdown 429 4.8

Other uses 30 0.3Domestic use 54 0.6

Total 8,941 100.0

Washing procedures

Milking plant cleaning (internal) on this farm accounts for just over 50% of the total cleaning water. The routine on this farm is that bore hole water is first used as an initial cold water rinse (approx 200 litres/milking). The hot water wash is mains water (hot water cylinder capacity is 295litres); the plant is then rinsed with cold mains water (approx 250litres/milking).

Bulk tank washing (internal) on this farm this is less than 4% of the total cleaning water. This is determined by the manufacturer’s settings and there is little scope to be changed. The most efficient modern bulk milk tanks can use wash volumes as little as 1.5% of the tanks capacity, as is the case with this farm where the use is 1.8% of tank capacity. On this farm the borehole water that has gone through the plate cooler is fed to the bulk tank hot water cylinder - thus reducing the water heating costs.

Parlour wash down this is approximately 40% of the cleaning water on this farm. This is significantly less then on many farms; it is not untypical for 75% of the total cleaning water use to be used for external parlour wash down. The reason for this farms lower volume is that the parlour hose is not a power volume hose. It comes from the borehole reservoir and the pressure is simply from the head of water in the reservoir. This parlour hose had a flow rate measured at 25litres/min (and this would be on maximum head as the reservoir was full at the time of the measure). This farm is considering putting in a powered volume hose for parlour wash down. This farm also uses a surfactant spray is used after parlour wash down. The product is intended to help water wash dirt off more easily. It is applied through a pressurised hand garden sprayer.

Case: A pig unit with 700 breeding sows and 800 nursery and 800 finishing places

This enterprise produces finished pigs at 115kg or 170 days for a contract with Cranswick supplying Tesco. The business underwent over five years ago which resulted in the installation of six new buildings. The business targets the production of 1,100 weaners every three weeks. Annually, this equates to 17.3 batches of pigs from 720 breeding sows.

Water management


All of the water used on this farm comes for mains supply, When water comes onto the farm it is split between water for consumption (drinking) and water for cleaning. The water destined for cleaning is pumped into a 12,000litre central point tank which has a ball tap and so automatically fills once water is used. There is no meter on this central tank but there is the opportunity to put one on. The water which is split off for consumption is monitored with regular water readings, currently teat drinkers are used. The water for consumption is pumped and stored in two 193 tanks. The system is pressurised at 180bar and is pumped along pipes around the buildings, with points where lances can be attached for cleaning. Up to 3 people at once can be using this source for cleaning water, this can use up to 60litres/min, accounting to 20litres/minute for each person. If only one person it using the central system for cleaning then they will receive 25litres/minute. The below table summarises the typical annual uses:

Water use Volume (m3) Percentage of total consumption

Notes

All stock drinking 13,107 89% This is a total cost of £15,523.02 at the current cost of £1.18/m3.

Cleaning Farrowing Nursery Finishers Sows Alleyways

1,656 747.36 207.6 389.25 77.85 234

11% At the current £1.18/m3 the water cost if usage is the same would be £1,954

Total 14,764 100%

Washing procedures

The pigs are fed on a dry feed system. The unit is split into two systems; the sow housing and the rest. Dry and pregnant sows are housed on straw and cleaned every 12 months but the straw bed is scraped out regularly. The rest of the unit (farrowing, nursery and finishing pigs) is a slatted system which must be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected between each 3 week batch.

Farrowing house is cleaned out every 3 weeks, when a batch is moved on to the next stage of the production process (nursery building). The farrowing house is fully slatted and will take 1 man a couple of hours to clean 10 crates, with the 90 crates taking in all around 18hrs. There are usually 3 people on the cleaning of the farrowing buildings.

Nursery and finishing houses are cleaned in a similar process to the farrowing house. Both houses are fully slatted and the cleaning procedure will be undertaken by 1 or 2 people. The process is less time consuming compared to the farrowing house. The nursery house takes approximately 8 hours for one man to clean and the finishing house takes approximately 15 hours.

Water savings

A reduction in pressure to low volume could save 10 litres of water per lancer. This could save 358m 3 (saving £422/annum) of water per annum used for cleaning the nursery and finisher buildings. Water meters are currently meters installed on the systems supplying water for consumption and these are monitored regularly but not on the tank for cleaning. This could easily have a meter fitted; this would allow cleaning water use to be monitored. Harvesting rainwater could save the required 1,656 cubic metres of water needed for cleaning purposes. However, whilst this scheme could save £1,954 (1,656 @ £1.18/m3) per year by reducing the need for mains water for cleaning procedures. This is dependent on capturing all available rainwater.

Case: A poultry unit with 840,000 broiler places

This farm was originally established 15 years ago and a further 8 sheds were added about 8 years ago. The unit capacity now totals 840,000 bird places. There are 7 batches reared per year to an average age of 36.5days and an average weight of 2.2kg/bird.

Water management


All the water used on this farm comes from a farm bore hole. The water used is exclusively for the poultry enterprise. The farm has an abstraction license that costs just under £1,000 per year. There will be some maintenance and repair cost associated with the bore hole and electricity to pump the water. The volume used in the last 12 months was 42,800m3, assuming an abstraction cost of say £0.15/m3 the annual cost for water on this farm may be £6,420. Mains water if supplied from Anglia Water would currently cost £1.45/m3, thus if mains water was used rather than the bore hole water it would cost this farm £62,000/year – some x10 the current cost of water to this farm.The water used for cleaning on this farm has been estimated as just 1.5% of the total volumes used. The table below summarises the typical annual uses.

Water use Volumes (m3) % Notes

Poultry drinking 42,160 98.5%

Cleaning 640 1.5% @ £0.15/m3 cleaning water cost is only £96/year.

Totals 42,800 100% Assuming an abstraction cost of £0.15/m3 this is a total of £6420/yr

Washing procedure

Once a poultry batch has left the shed contractors come in (within 24hrs) with skid steer loader buckets, and high pressure air blowers to scrap and blow the manure/litter out of the shed. The idea with the air pressure blowers is that it achieves a more effective clean than simply scrapping or brushing. The air blowers are effective in removing the dust on the walls and roof. It is important as much dust and manure is removed before cleaning with water. A second contractor comes in to wet the whole house down (walls, floors, feeders, drinkers etc). A foaming agent is used with this to help lift the dirt. This is left to soak for 30 mins or so. The contractor now uses cold water pressure washers to wash down the whole shed. The contractor has a tank of approximately 1000 litres that is filled 3 or 4 times to clean each shed. Disinfectant is applied to walls, floors, feeders and drinkers. Just prior to the new batch of poultry entering the shed a fine mist of disinfectant is dispersed in to the shed via the ventilation system.

Design points that help to aid cleaning

The sheds on this site have a smooth composite panel walls and a low (0.5m) ‘dwarf wall’ of smooth concrete around the edge. The concrete floors are of a smooth finish to aid cleaning. The sheds have a gentle slope to one side and one end and all the water runs to a single dirty water tank for disposal. Key design points: 1. Smooth float concrete floor; 2. Sloping to outlet to aid drainage; 3. Smooth concrete ‘dwarf walls’ to allow loader to be pushed against; and 4. Drinkers and feeders on pulley/ winches can be moved out of way easily to allow more effective cleaning.

Other points to note: On this farm a meter reading is taken every month to monitor usage. The disinfectant mister system has been fitted recently to provide more effective disinfection and uses just a light mist of water rather than a full wetting. Alternative methods used on some farms include using orchard sprayers that also provide a fine mist to distribute the disinfectant effectively.

Case: An abattoir processing 31 million birds per annum

This plant employs a number of water efficiency techniques including lockable catch pots in floor drains, dry pre-cleaning, efficient spray nozzles and auto-detect hand/boot wash stations, cold wash before warm wash, low pressure wash water system and a staff awareness campaign to minimise water consumption. Effluent is treated onsite prior to being discharged into the local river.


Wastewater Treatment

The plant is operated by Severn Trent Services, this bypasses the need for the abattoir to have in-house staff as all operation and maintenance activities are carried out by the sub-contractor. A description of the works is shown in Figure 4. As the effluent from the abattoir is discharged into a river the discharge consent is to a very high standard, but there are no trade effluent fees to pay. Based on the Mogden Formula and using trade effluent cost data from the Wrap, the cost of discharging this effluent to sewer can be calculated as 50.9p per cubic meter of effluent. This equates to £628.19 per day; a sum which is saved by discharging effluent to a river rather than a public sewer. Furthermore, by using treatment plant influent data the cost of discharging untreated effluent to the public sewer can be calculated. This is £2.01 per m3, or £2,480.61 per day. These figures infer that £1,852.42 would be saved each day by using this treatment plant, if effluent were discharged to the public sewer. A further £628.19 is saved each day by diverting the discharge to the local river. Allowing for £150,000 in annual running costs the abattoir effluent bill is reduced by £495,000 per annum and, given a capital expenditure of £1.2M, the payback period for the treatment plant is 2.4 years. For a hypothetical site discharging the same effluent to the public sewer the saving is £330,000 per annum, giving a payback period of 3.6 years.

Water Awareness

The management run an aggressive awareness programme amongst the staff to promote turning off taps after use, checking for drips, use of dry-cleaning methods etc. by using posters around the site to convey the effects of water wastage on the company and the environment.

Washing Procedure

The clean-up of any mess is performed during processing, and detergent sprays/ squeegees used at break time, without applying any water. A wash down is only performed at the end of a shift. Dry-cleaning or ‘agitation’ by hand is performed prior to any wash in order to loosen waste products from the plant and floor and reduce the required water pressure. Agitation tools are colour coded by plant area to prevent cross contamination of different wastes. Used wash water is collected in a drainage system which is kept completely separate from the outdoor drains in order to keep the cleaner surface water segregated so that this is not treated by the effluent plant. All drains inside the plant also feature siphons to prevent large meat scraps and other solids from entering the drainage network. All water taps, as well as machinery, are checked each evening to ensure nothing is left running. This again reinforces the water efficiency message by actively engaging staff in monitoring.

Water Savings

Prior to the implementation of these water efficiency techniques, the site was using an average of 11.52 litres per bird. This data was retrieved from historical records at the site. The average figure across 2012 (up to 19 th

August) is 10.13 litres per bird – a reduction of 12% and a comparison is displayed in the table below

Period Water Use (litres/bird) Water Use (m3/tonne)Historical 11.52 7.482009 10.41 6.762010 10.65 6.922011 10.40 6.752012 (1st Jan to 19th Aug) 10.13 6.58

Summary of Water Use at the site

The difference in water use between 2012 and prior to the efficiency programme is 0.9m3 per tonne. This equates to a total water saving, based on the projected 2012 slaughter total (35,810,432 birds), of 49,777m3. In financial terms this is a water bill reduction of just over £55,000 per annum, or 12%.

7. Main findings and conclusions

A number of water efficiency techniques have been discussed in this document along with a number of potential barriers to implementing these. Of core importance is the need for better management and awareness of water use. Specifically, the use of water meters is a prerequisite to saving water as this will allow an understanding of where wastage is occurring. Additionally, staff training should be conducted to raise awareness of water wastage


with the plant operators. Installing water saving nozzles or start/stop foot pedals has no value if these are not operated correctly.

For both livestock farmers and abattoirs, there is an inherent challenge for small-medium sized businesses to make time for training and upskill their pool of labour. This is an extremely difficult and sensitive issue – working long hours and having little time to dedicate to staff development. It is recommended that improved integration of environmental / water saving training into existing courses would be a beneficial step forwards.

Livestock units

Dairy Units – as high consumers of water with costs associated with using water varying from £31/cow/year to £100/cow/year, it can be argued there is real potential for dairy farmers to reduce annual water usage and cost. Survey findings demonstrate that the average volume use of water for 2011 was calculated as 4,520m3/per annum. This is higher than the average we found for 2009 (4,483m3/per annum) and 2010 (4,329m3/per annum). The estimated average cost for a dairy farm was calculated at being £5,017/per annum, a rise from the 2009 figure of £4,977. However, with the average spend made by dairy farmer on water saving technology is £1,811, it is necessary for farmers to better understand the benefits and return on investment which water saving technology can bring. Beyond better training and farm operational practices, low-cost techniques such as the use of lower pressure water should be considered along with the correct nozzle types for different applications should be attractive to dairy farmers.

Pig Units – are the smallest consumer of water, even when taking account of drinking water. Comparison between different farm-types has illustrated that straw based systems with a liquid based diet are the most efficient units in terms of cleaning water. These systems use 56.32 litres/pig compared to a dry fed, fully slatted system using 106.63 litres/pig – approximately a 50 per cent cleaning water saving. The European Commission consider it is the choice of wash water practice – using pre-soaking, high pressure cleaning, dry floor cleaning etc that is a greater determinant on reducing water needs than investing in expensive, innovative technology such as robots, For pig and poultry farms in 2011 the average volume of water use for mains was found to be 11,420m 3/per annum, higher than the 10,487m3/per annum in 2010. This was calculated at an average mains water cost for pigs and poultry of £12,676m3/per annum.

Poultry Units – have a close synergy with pig units in terms of their approach and management of water use for cleaning purposes. IPPC guidance is targeted on both these sectors, with the aim to mitigate potential environmental impacts which could result from mismanagement of manures and effluent where they have come into contact with water. Overall, water consumption across all poultry units for cleaning is small – Broilers: 0.012-0.120m3 per m2 per year and Laying Hens: 0.01 (cages) and >0.025 (deep litter) m3 per m2 per year.

It is evident that most farmers who responded to the survey don’t implement change to cleaning procedures despite a large proportion of respondents undertaking a basic form of regular monitoring of water usage. They consider it to be a small element of farm operations unless they are wholly reliant on mains water. This perception was reaffirmed by respondents, with 70 per cent of businesses stating that less than 25 per cent of their water bill is because of the cost of cleaning.

Of the farmers who stated that they were looking to invest in new water saving cleaning regimes, the majority were going to concentrate on more basic and less capital intensive projects.

The majority of businesses felt that water used for cleaning accounts for less than 25 per cent of water use, this does show that farmers do know it is a consuming part of the business and a cost area for the enterprise.

There were mixed attitudes from farmer respondents towards the priority given to reducing cleaning water, with a variable number of businesses monitoring or knowing the volume used for cleaning

More education and training is required. Of the cleaning water saving techniques, for dairy, plate cooler re-use technology is the most popular. Nozzle hose and washing techniques is a popular technique for reducing cleaning water across the different

enterprises.

In comparative terms to energy, water prices remains relatively low but even a marginal increase in charges can have a substantial effect on farm businesses and they are actively working to reduce costs.

Abattoirs and Meat Processing Plants


Beyond these quickly implementable, low-cost techniques, the use of lower pressure water should be considered, along with the correct nozzle types for different applications. Sites could also install floor-drains with screens, divert blood to a separate holding tank and implement a dry-cleaning regime, all of which are likely to provide additional water efficiency for medium cost.

At the high-cost end, sites can install automation systems to prevent over-dispensing of water, and implement a wastewater treatment and reuse scheme. At a slightly lower cost, rainwater harvesting can provide relatively low-cost water, although this still must be disposed as effluent.

Ultimately the ability or desire for a site to commence any water saving programme lies in the cost and payback period of each specific practice. This is likely to mean that the larger a site, the further it will go on the cost-scale of water efficient techniques; a view which is backed by the survey results. Simply rationalising the industry into fewer, larger, abattoirs, or forming local cooperatives of abattoirs or cross-industry facilities could increase water efficiency and, given the rate of small abattoir closures in recent years, this may be where the industry is headed.

Whilst a greater than expected number of survey returns were received (24%) many of these were sparse in data. It is evident that abattoir operators do not often have readily available data regarding water efficiency and may not hold water efficiency in high regard compared to their commercial activities.

If water efficiency is to be brought to the forefront of the industry it must be cost effective and operators must be convinced of this. The key factor is the payback period in reduced water bills.

As discussed earlier, the key aspect of water efficiency is awareness (If you don’t know about water usage, you can’t reduce it) and more needs to be done on a national scale to improve the awareness of operators in both the general aspects of water efficiency as well as the site specific aspects.

General awareness is ok, with 41% of sites currently considering water efficient techniques and technologies but this figure should ideally be much higher and closer to100%, with all sites constantly monitoring water use and evaluating new efficiency methods.

Site specific awareness appears limited due to the lack of water meters around abattoir sites, making it impossible to know accurately where and when water is being used. Only the total water consumption is known, courtesy of the water meters as water enters site. Requiring operators to install additional water meters could be a suitable method of ensuring they are fully aware of their water use, particularly as the most basic volumetric flow meters can be purchased for around £50 and electronic instantaneous flow meters with logging capabilities for around £1000-£2000.

Even if water use is accurately monitored, many sites are multi-animal and it is not possible to apportion the water use between different animals. Ideally a conversion factor would need to be agreed to convert, for example, m3/tonne poultry into m3/tonne beef.

91% of abattoirs surveyed have previously implemented water saving techniques, with larger sites more likely to have implemented more techniques. Those sites (four) which have implemented no techniques are either small in size or did not provide their size. Only 41% of sites are considering further water saving techniques in the next five years.

It is clear water use varies widely between abattoirs and there are definite savings to be made at those sites which are less efficient.

7.2 Key Benchmarks

Evidence suggests that low-cost techniques could reduce mains water use by up to 30%, simply by being aware of water wastage and training operators to recognise wastage.

Medium-cost techniques such as low water pressure and changing nozzle types are not likely to create much efficiency; evidence suggests up to 10% water saving could be made.


High-cost methods such as water treatment and rainwater harvesting can remove up to 95% of mains water usage, depending on the scale of treatment involved.

Although data is limited it is highly likely that water consumption reduction of 30% across the abattoir industry is possible without the need for consolidation of sites. It is recommended that further detailed study is carried out across a wide range of abattoir sites to ascertain if this is achievable.

7.3 Recommend Water Saving Techniques for Livestock Farms and Abattoirs

Abattoirs/Meat Processing PlantsSmall Sites Flow meters installed to each site area Operator training to identify wastage User operated flow start/stop

mechanisms

Large Sites All techniques identified for medium

sites Flow meters linked to PLC system

for automatic data logging Simple water treatment for further

use in non-potable applications Rainwater harvesting where rainfall

is sufficient

Medium Sites All techniques identified for small sites Flow meters installed to each water

application across the site Filters to all floor drains and separate

blood collection and storage system Low pressure water system where

possible (washing applications)

Livestock Units

Water Efficiency & Cleaning Practice

Options

Efficacy Efficiency Relevance Likely Farm Application

Low cost

Pre-soakingReduce washing timeSmart MeteringDry cleaning, Brushing & squeegeeing before washingHot / Steam Cleaning

High High All Farm Types

Simple to adopt, requires training and demonstrable benefits can be achieved in terms of water usage.

Medium cost

Low-flow nozzles

Pressure washing High Medium All Farm Types

Proven technology but not readily applied

High cost

Rainwater harvestingConstructed Wetlands

Specific building construction & design

Water reuse through purification

High Medium-High

Dependent on system in place

Uncertainties with farmers on animal safety grounds

Will only serve those who can afford to invest

7.4 Action Plan and Possible Future Work

The following points are set out below as potential areas for further investigation and/or to be taken forwards by Defra and industry partners.

The use of water meters and leak detection should be a prerequisite for livestock farmers to drive saving water as this will allow an understanding of where wastage is occurring.


Awareness amongst livestock farmers and abattoir operators needs to be raised regarding the methods of water efficiency and the costs/payback involved.

The mandatory use of flow measurement and reporting of water use should be considered across the industry. The issue of converting water use between different animals needs to be addressed. Wastewater treatment and reuse should be promoted, and in particular the requirements for effluent re-entering

the potable network should be formalised and publicised. A review of ISO guidance in relation to modern dairy farming would be recommended as government

standards are out of date in comparison to the most efficient technology embedded in milking parlour design. Presently, manufacturers are reluctant to set wash volumes below existing ISO standards as the plant would then be non-compliant.

Consideration to investigate the wastage of water by drinking water systems in poultry and pig units.

The case studies and a series of supporting fact sheets have been produced (alongside a consolidated, in-depth research report) to aid the dissemination of the project outputs. These have been produced with farmers and abattoir/meat processing plant operators in mind.

References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.


LIVESTOCK UNITS

Anon. 2011. Biacton. Biacton plus and chlorinated water. [On-line] Accessed:29th November 2011. Available from: http://www.biacton.co.uk/biacton-plus-and-chlorinated-water/

Anon. (not dated). Dairy Farm Energy. Retrieved November 19, 2011, from Water Systems: http://www.dairyfarmenergy.com/Chapter_PDFs/6_Water_Systems.pdf

Armstrong, D. K. (2000). Animal Production Science. Retrieved November 19, 2011, from Water-use efficiency on irrigated dairy farms in northern Victoria and southern New South Wales [Abstract]: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=EA99132

Baldwin, A. (2009, December 2). Retrieved November 19, 2011, from Maryland: Constructed Wetlands - Maryland Investigates Dairy Waste Treatment Methods: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/Section319II_MD.cfm

BPEX. 2004. Finished Pigs: Systems Research Production Trial 1. [On-line] Available from: http://www.bpex.org.uk/downloads/295081/283355/Finishing%20Pigs%20Systems%20Research.%20Production%20Trial%201.pdf Accessed: 13th February 2012

BPEX. 2011. Advancing Together: A Roadmap for the English Pig Industry. [On-line]. Accessed: 30th November 2011. Available from: http://www.bpex.org.uk/KTRandD/environmentHub/PigIndustryRoadmap.aspx

Bray, D. B. (2009). University of Florida IFAS Extension. Retrieved November 19, 2011, from Water Budgets for Florida Dairy Farms: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ds121

Brugger, M. 2007. Water use on Ohio dairy farms. The Ohio State University. [On-line] Accessed:1st November 2011. Available from: http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/pdf/Water_Use_Dairy.pdf

Business Link. (n.d.). Use water efficiently in your food and drink business. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Business Link: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?r.i=1083191519&r.l1=1079068363&r.l2=1082900135&r.l3=1083191430&r.s=m&r.t=RESOURCES&topicId=1083191430

Canadian Pork Council. (2005). Manitoba Pork. Retrieved November 2011, 15, from Practices & technologies aimed at reducing environmental impacts from hog production: http://manitobapork.com/uploads/cpcGuideHog.pdf

Chase, L. (2001, December 19). How Much Water Do Dairy Farms Use? Retrieved October 19, 2011, from Cornell University North West New York Dairy, Livestock & Field Crops Team: http://www.nwnyteam.org/AgFocus2006/Aug/Water.htm

Clean Environment Commission. (2007, October). Clean Environment Commission. Retrieved October 19, 2011, from A report on current knowledge of key environmental issues related to hog production in Manitoba: http://manitobapork.com/uploads/CEC%20Final%20Report%20from%20UM.%20October%2023%202007.pdf

Cranfield University. Not Dated. Water use in UK Agriculture – resources, limitations. [On-line]. Accessed 3rd November 2011. Available from: http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/sustainable_agriculture/downloads/jerry_knox.pdf

Cronk, J. (1996). Texas Water Resources Institute. Retrieved November 19, 2011, from Constructed wetlands to treat wastewater from dairy and swine operations: a review: http://lshs.tamu.edu/docs/lshs/end-notes/Constructed%20Wetlands%20to%20Treat%20Wastewater%20from%20Dairy%20and%20Swi-0455557643/Constructed%20Wetlands%20to%20Treat%20Wastewater%20from%20Dairy%20and%20Swine%20Operations_A%20Review.pdf

Crothers, G. (not dated). Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Retrieved October 23, 2011, from Water use in the dairy processing industry: http://www.abare.gov.au/interactive/Outlook08/files/day_1/Crothers_food.pdf

DairyCo. 2009. Effective use of water on dairy farms. [On-line] Accessed: 1st November 2011. Available from: http://www.dairyco.net/library/farming-info-centre/environment/effective-use-of-water-on-dairy-farms-(1).aspx


http://www.dairyco.net/library/farming-info-centre/environment/effective-use-of-water-on-dairy-farms-(1).aspx

http://www.dairyco.net/library/farming-info-centre/environment/effective-use-of-water-on-dairy-farms-(1).aspx

http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/sustainable_agriculture/downloads/jerry_knox.pdf

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?r.i=1083191519&r.l1=1079068363&r.l2=1082900135&r.l3=1083191430&r.s=m&r.t=RESOURCES&topicId=1083191430



http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/pdf/Water_Use_Dairy.pdf

http://www.bpex.org.uk/KTRandD/environmentHub/PigIndustryRoadmap.aspx

http://www.bpex.org.uk/downloads/295081/283355/Finishing%20Pigs%20Systems%20Research.%20Production%20Trial%201.pdf

http://www.bpex.org.uk/downloads/295081/283355/Finishing%20Pigs%20Systems%20Research.%20Production%20Trial%201.pdf

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/Section319II_MD.cfm

http://www.biacton.co.uk/biacton-plus-and-chlorinated-water/

DCSF (Dairy Chain Supply Forum). 2008. The Milk Roadmap May 2008. [On-line]. Accessed: 21st November 2011. http://www.dairyco.net/library/farming-info-centre/business-management/milk-roadmap.aspx

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2011, May 10). About the Climate change projections. Retrieved October 25, 2011, from UK Climate Projections: http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2009). Guidance for Farmers in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones - Storage of organic manures. London: Defra.

DEFRA. 2011. Nitrogen Vulnerable Zones (NVZ’s) – Guidance for Farmers. Storage of Organic Manure, Leaflet 4 PB12736d. [On-line]. Accessed: 30th November 2011. Available from: http://adlib.everysite.co.uk/adlib/defra/content.aspx?doc=251227&id=251471#table2

Defra. 2011. Water Usage in Agriculture and Horticultre: Results from the Farm Business Survey 2009/10 and the Irrigation survey 2010. [on-line] Available: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-farmmanage-fbs-waterusage20110609.pdf Accessed: 10th February 2012

Ecowise Environmental. (not dated). National Meat Industry Training Advisory Council Limited. Retrieved May 24, 2011, from Abattoir water conservation: http://www.mintrac.com.au/files/newsletter/Environment%20mgr%20network/Ecowise%20VIC.pdf

Environment Agency. (2003) Optimum use of water for industry and agriculture: phase 3. Best Practice Manual. R&D Technical Report W6-956/TR2. Agricultural components – Weatherhead, E.K., Knox, J.W., Twite,C.L. and Morris, J. SRK Consulting and Cranfield University.Environment Agency. 2006. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC): Intensive farming: How to comply: Guidance for intensive pig & poultry farmers. [On-line]. Accessed: 30th November 2011.

Environment Agency. (2006, December). Agriculture and the Water Framework Directive. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from Environment Agency: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/briefing_agriculture_1622435.pdf

Environment Agency. (2008, September). Best Farming Practices. Retrieved October 2011, 2011, from Environment Agency: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0908BOMP-e-e.pdf

Environment Agency. (n.d.). Water for the future: Managing water in the South East of England. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from Environment Agency: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/waterressesummary_2005304.pdf

Environment Agency. 2011. Water for life and livelihoods; Agriculture and the Water Framework Directive.[On-line]. Accessed 21st November 2011. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/briefing_agriculture_1622435.pdf.

Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme. (2000, March). Envirowise. Retrieved October 24, 2011, from Reducing water and effluent costs in poultry meat processing: http://envirowise.wrap.org.uk/uk/Our-Services/Publications/GG233-Reducing-Water-and-Effluent-Costs-in-Poultry-Meat-Processing.html

European Commission. (2011, March). Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for The Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs Draft 1 - March 2011. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from European Commission Joint Research Centre: ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/eippcb/doc/irpp_d1_0311.pdf

Falk, D. (2010). Idaho OnePlan. Retrieved November 19, 2011, from Fresh Water Needs for Dairy Farms: http://oneplan.org/Stock%5CDairyWater.asp

Food and Agriculture Organisation (2007). Poultry Production and the environment – a review. Retrieved November 21 2011. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/events/bangkok2007/docs/part2/2_2.pdf Farmers Weekly. (2010, August 4). Dairy water care saves thousands. Retrieved October 25, 2011, from Farmers Weekly Interactive: http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2010/08/04/122660/Dairy-water-care-saves-thousands.htm

Food Standards Agency (FSA). 2007. Milk Hygiene on the Dairy Farm. Food Standards Agency Scotland.


http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2010/08/04/122660/Dairy-water-care-saves-thousands.htm

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2010/08/04/122660/Dairy-water-care-saves-thousands.htm

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/events/bangkok2007/docs/part2/2_2.pdf

http://oneplan.org/Stock%5CDairyWater.asp

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/briefing_agriculture_1622435.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/waterressesummary_2005304.pdf

http://www.mintrac.com.au/files/newsletter/Environment%20mgr%20network/Ecowise%20VIC.pdf

http://www.mintrac.com.au/files/newsletter/Environment%20mgr%20network/Ecowise%20VIC.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-farmmanage-fbs-waterusage20110609.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-farmmanage-fbs-waterusage20110609.pdf

http://adlib.everysite.co.uk/adlib/defra/content.aspx?doc=251227&id=251471#table2

http://www.dairyco.net/library/farming-info-centre/business-management/milk-roadmap.aspx

http://www.dairyco.net/library/farming-info-centre/business-management/milk-roadmap.aspx

[On-line]. Available: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/milkhygienedairyfarmscot.pdf [Accessed: 10th February 2012]

Froese, C. a. (2001, October). Manitoba Livestock Manure. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from Water consumption and waste production during different production stages in hog operations: http://www.manure.mb.ca/projects/pdfs/99-01-28.pdf

FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Committee). 2011. Five Freedoms. [On-line] Available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/fawc/about/five-freedoms/. Accessed 13th February 2012

Health and Safety Laboratory. (2008) Exposure to Dust and bioaerosols in poultry farming – summary of data and observations. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr655.pdfInternational Finance Corporation. (2007). Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Poultry Production. Retrieved November 14, 2011 http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/gui_EHSGuidelines2007_PoultryProd/$FILE/Final+-+Poultry+Production.pdf

Hurnik, D. 2005. Investigations into optimal washing and disinfection techniques for pig pens. [On-line]. Available from: http://www.londonswineconference.ca/proceedings/2005/LSC2005_DHurnik2.pdf

JTS Global. (2005). JTS Global. Retrieved November 19, 2011, from Water Systems & Dairy Farms: A report on water systems for Dairy Farmers, and the benefits associated with using purified water in farm operations : http://www.jtsglobal.com/PDF/JTS_water_dairy_farm.pdf

Kern, J. (2003). Constructed Wetlands. Retrieved November 19, 2011, from Seasonal efficiency of a constructed wetland for treating dairy farm wastewater: http://www.constructedwetlands.net/referenties_0705.pdf

Manitoba Clean Environment Commission. (2007, December). Manitoba Clean Environment Commission. Retrieved November 15, 2011, from Environmental sustainability and hog production in Manitoba: http://manitobapork.com/uploads/Hog%20Production-%20Final%20Report2.pdf

May, J. (not dated). Michigan State University. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from Estimated Water Usage on Michigan Swine Farms: www.msue.msu.edu

MDC (Milk Development Council). 2007. Farm Management of Water on Dairy Farms. 2007. [On-line]. Accessed: 29th November 2011. Available from: http://www.dairyco.net/media/10351/effectiveuseofwaterondairyfarms.pdf

MLC Consulting, QMS, Hybu cig Cymru and EBLEX. (2011, January). EBLEX. Retrieved October 25, 2011, from Resource use in the British beef and lamb processing sector: http://www.eblex.org.uk/documents/content/research/rd_cc_g_f_ps_-_2resourceusewater_100211.pdf

NFU (National Farmers Union). 2011. NFU Water Survey. 2011 Overall Results. [on-line] Available from: http://www.demonstratingcatchmentmanagement.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NFU-Water-Survey-2011_-FINAL-EXTERNAL-V4-2.pdf Accessed: 10th February 2012.

Nyachoti, M. a. (not dated). University of Manitoba. Retrieved November 19, 2011, from Water in swine production: A review of its significance and conservation strategies: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/pork/pdf/swineseminar2010/bab24s13.pdf

Oracle Utilities. 2009. Smart metering for water utilities. Oracle White Paper, September 2009. [On-line]. Accessed: 28th November 2011. Available from: http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/utilities/046596.pdf

Thompson. J.R, Bell. N.A, Rafferty. M. 2007. Efficacy of come disinfectant compounds against porcine bacterial pathogens. Pig Journal, Volume 60. [On-line] Available: http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/2788/efficacy-of-selected-disinfectants-against-porcine-pathogens. Accessed: 13th February 2012

University of Warwick - Warwick HRI ADAS. (2007). Opportunities for reducing water use in agriculture - WU0101. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=14402

Van Deun, R. (not dated). Constructed Wetlands. Retrieved November 19, 2011, from Treatment of dairy


http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/2788/efficacy-of-selected-disinfectants-against-porcine-pathogens

http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/utilities/046596.pdf

http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/pork/pdf/swineseminar2010/bab24s13.pdf

http://www.demonstratingcatchmentmanagement.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NFU-Water-Survey-2011_-FINAL-EXTERNAL-V4-2.pdf

http://www.demonstratingcatchmentmanagement.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NFU-Water-Survey-2011_-FINAL-EXTERNAL-V4-2.pdf

http://www.eblex.org.uk/documents/content/research/rd_cc_g_f_ps_-_2resourceusewater_100211.pdf

http://www.dairyco.net/media/10351/effectiveuseofwaterondairyfarms.pdf

http://www.msue.msu.edu/

http://www.londonswineconference.ca/proceedings/2005/LSC2005_DHurnik2.pdf

http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/gui_EHSGuidelines2007_PoultryProd/$FILE/Final+-+Poultry+Production.pdf

http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/gui_EHSGuidelines2007_PoultryProd/$FILE/Final+-+Poultry+Production.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/fawc/about/five-freedoms/

http://www.manure.mb.ca/projects/pdfs/99-01-28.pdf

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/milkhygienedairyfarmscot.pdf

farm wastewater with constructed wetlands: http://www.constructedwetlands.net/tisza4/HMV_RVD_tisza4.htm

Water Treatment. (2011). Water Treatment. Retrieved November 2011, 19, from Reverse Osmosis: http://www.water-treatment.org.uk/reverse_osmosis.html

Water-Treatment. 2011. Water-Treatment.org. Water Filters. [On-line]. Accessed: 29th November 2011. Available from: http://www.water-treatment.org.uk/water_filters.html

Water UK, n.d. Waterfacts: Water Prices. [Online] Available at: http://www.water.org.uk/home/resources-and-links/waterfacts/waterprices [Accessed 16 November 2011]

Willers, H. K. (1999, June 2). ScienceDirect. Retrieved November 10, 2011, from Potential of closed water systems on dairy farms [Abstract] : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBB-3WM4JMH-K&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1758607555&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_ve

ABATTOIRS AND MEAT PROCESSING PLANTS

Abattoir, 2010 Abattoir – Welcome to the Slaughterhouse – Abattoir UK. [Online].Available at: http://www.abattoir.org.uk/abattoir-uk.html[Accessed 28 November 2011].

Australian Industry Group, n.d. AIG7082_Meat Water Saving Factsheet: Meat and Meat Product Manufacturing. [pdf] Victoria: Australian Industry Group.Available at: http://pdf.aigroup.asn.au/environment/7082_WPA_fact_sheet_MEAT.pdf[Accessed 13 October 2011].

Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM), 2007. Water Reuse: A Sustainable Alternative Water Supply for Industry in the UK? [pdf] London: CIWEM.Available at: http://www.ciwem.org/policy-and-international/current-topics/water-management/water-reuse.aspx[Accessed 18 November 2011].

Chatterton, J. et al, 2010. The Water Footprint of English Beef and Lamb Production – A Report for EBLEX. [pdf]Available at: https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/5425[Accessed 18 November 2011].

Danish Crown, n.d. Description of the Danish Crown Slaughterhouse in Horsens. [Online].Available at: Danish Crown http://www.danishcrown.dk/custom/horsens_uk/3755.asp[Accessed 28 November 2011].

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, n.d. Use Water Efficiently in Your Food and Drink Business. [Online]Available at: Business Link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?topicId=1083191430[Accessed 18 November 2011].

Ecowise Environmental, n.d. Abattoir Water Conservation. [pdf]. London: National Meat Industry Training Advisory Council Limited.Available at: http://www.mintrac.com.au/files/newsletter/Environment%20mgr%20network/Ecowise%20VIC.pdf[Accessed 24 May 2011].

English Beef and Lamb Executive (EBLEX), 2011. Resource Use in the British Beef and Lamb Processing Sector Factsheet 2: Water. [pdf] London: EBLEX.Available at: http://www.eblex.org.uk/documents/content/research/rd_cc_g_f_ps_-_2resourceusewater_100211.pdf[Accessed 25 May 2011].

Envirowise, 2008. EN896 Reducing Mains Use through Rainwater Harvesting. [pdf] Didcot: Envirowise.Available at: http://envirowise.wrap.org.uk/uk/Our-Services/Publications/EN896-Reducing-mains-water-use-through-rainwater-harvesting.html


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBB-3WM4JMH-K&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1758607555&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_ve



http://www.water.org.uk/home/resources-and-links/waterfacts/waterprices

http://www.water.org.uk/home/resources-and-links/waterfacts/waterprices

http://www.water-treatment.org.uk/water_filters.html

http://www.water-treatment.org.uk/reverse_osmosis.html

[Accessed 15 November 2011].

Environment Agency, 2006. Agriculture and the Water Framework Directive. [pdf]Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/briefing_agriculture_1622435.pdf[Accessed 18 November 2011].

Environment Agency, 2008. Best Farming Practices. [pdf] Bristol: Environment Agency.Available at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEHO0908BOMP-E-E.pdf[Accessed 18 November 2011].

Environment Agency, 2010. Sector Performance Review 2010 - Slaughterhouses and Animal By-Products Industries. [pdf] Bristol: Environment Agency.Available at: http://www.netregs.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Sector_Performance_Review_Report.pdf[Accessed 10 May 2011]

Environment Agency, n.d. Water for the Future – Managing Water in the South East of England. [pdf]Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/waterressesummary_2005304.pdf[Accessed 18 November 2011].

Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme (ETBPP), 2000. GG234 Reducing Water and Effluent Costs in Red Meat Abattoirs. [pdf] London: ETBPP.Available at: http://p2pays.org/ref/23/22904.pdf[Accessed 22 November 2011].

European Commission, 2005. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Slaughterhouses and Animal By-products Industries. [pdf] Brussels: European Commission.Available at: ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/eippcb/doc/irpp_d1_0311.pdf[Accessed 12 May 2011]

First for Farming, 2009. European Slaughter Plant uses Robots to Stay Ahead. [Online] (Updated 8 October 2009)Available at: http://www.first4farming.co.uk/F4F/news/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=NYCJAPH0N5CRNWNJH4WCFEQ?article_id=fwi118252&print=yes[Accessed 18 November 2011]

Food Standards Agency, 2011. Approved Red, Poultry and Game Meat Establishments. [Online] (Updated 15 November 2011)Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/meat/meatplantsprems/meatpremlicence[Accessed 18 November 2011]

Hoekstra, A. Y. and Mekonnen, M. M., 2011. Global water scarcity: The monthly blue water footprint compared to blue water availability for the world's major river basins. [pdf] Delft: UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education.Available at: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report53-GlobalBlueWaterScarcity.pdf[Accessed 18 November 2011].

Lukehurst, C. T. et al, 2010 Utilisation of Digestate from Biogas Plants as Biofertiliser. [pdf] Paris: International Energy Agency.Available at: http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/publi-task37/Task37_Digestate_brochure9-2010.pdf[Accessed 18 November 2011].

Meat and Livestock Australia, 2002. Eco-Efficiency Manual for Meat Processing. [pdf] Sydney: Meat and Livestock Australia.Available at: http://www.ecoefficiency.com.au/Portals/56/factsheets/foodprocess/meat/ecomeat_manual.pdf[Accessed 13 October 2011]

Meat and Livestock Australia, 2010. A.ENV.0086 Industry Environmental Sustainability Review 2010. [pdf] Sydney: Meat and Livestock Australia.Available at: Red Meat Innovation


http://www.redmeatinnovation.com.au/project-reports/report-categories/environment/industry-environmental-sustainability-review-2010/a-env-0086-final-report[Accessed 13 October 2011]

Meat and Livestock Australia, 2011. Promoting Responsible Use of Resources for a Healthy Environment – The Industry Impact. [pdf] Sydney: Meat and Livestock Australia.Available at: http://www.mla.com.au/files/e499c051-8061-4545-a7c9-9e93010099e9/MLA-Ensuring-sustainability-230211.pdf?bcsi_scan_AB11CAA0E2721250=flUO1cAv+j4R3DbKotJrUtNUuZkoAAAAWxBjHw==:1[Accessed 18 November 2011].

M. M. Mekonnen and A. Y. Hoekstra, 2011. National Water Footprint Accounts, The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Production and Consumption. [pdf] Delft: Unesco –IHE Institute for Water Education.Available at: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report50-NationalWaterFootprints-Vol1.pdf[Accessed 16 November 2011].

Meteorological Office, n.d. UK Mapped Climate Averages. [electronic print]Available at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/ukmapavge.html[Accessed 17 November 2011]

Muhirwa, D. et al, n.d. Characterization of Abattoir Wastewater of Kigali, Rwanda. [pdf]Available at: http://www.bscw.ihe.nl/pub/bscw.cgi/d2607045/Muhirwa.pdf[Accessed 15 October 2011].

Odebrecht, 2011. Aquapolo Project – The Logic of Reuse. [Online]Available at: http://www.odebrechtonline.com.br/materias/02801-02900/2815/?lang=pt[Accessed 18 November 2011]

Ofwat, n.d. Non-household Customers :: Your Water Bill :: How Non-household Customers are Charged. [Online]Available at: http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/nonhousehold/yourwaterbill/hownonhousehold/trade/mogden[Accessed 16 November 2011]

Oliver, A., 2006. Water Tariff Increase in Manaus (Brazil): An Evaluation of the Impact on Households. [pdf] Paris: Développement Institutions & Analyses de Long terme.Available at: http://www.dial.prd.fr/dial_publications/PDF/Doc_travail/2006-10_english.pdf[Accessed 18 November 2011]

Rainharvesting Systems, 2007. Case Studies List. [Online]Available at: http://www.rainharvesting.co.uk/pages/case_studs/cs_studs_lst1.html[Accessed 01 December 2011]

Small, A. et al, 2006a. Presence of Salmonella in the Red Meat Abattoir Lairage after Routine Cleansing and Disinfection and on Carcasses. Journal of Food Protection. [Online] 69 (10), pp 2342-2351 Abstract Only.Available at: Refdoc.fr http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18193036[Accessed 15 October 2011]

Small, A. et al, 2006b. An evaluation of simple cleaning methods that may be used in red meat abattoir lairages. Meat Science. [Online] 75 (2), pp220-228 Abstract Only.Available at: Science Direct http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030917400600235X[Accessed 15 October 2011]

Small, A. et al, 2006c. Construction, Management and Cleanliness of Red Meat Abattoir Lairages in the UK. [pdf] Meat Science, [Online] 75 (3), pp523-532 Abstract Only.Available at: Science Direct http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174006002993[Accessed 15 October 2011].

Spraying Systems Co, 2000. B498 An Engineer’s Guide to Spray Technology. [pdf] Wheaton: Spraying Systems Co.Available at: http://service.spray.com/web/register/view_lit.asp?code=B498[Accessed 18 November 2011].

Spraying Systems Co, 2009a. TM410A Optimizing Your Spray System – Spray Nozzle Maintenance and


Control for Improved Production Efficiency. [pdf] Wheaton: Spraying Systems Co.Available at: http://www.spray.com/Literature_PDFs/TM410A_Optimizing_Your_Spray_System.pdf?bcsi_scan_E956BCBE8ADBC89F=0&bcsi_scan_filename=TM410A_Optimizing_Your_Spray_System.pdf[Accessed 18 November 2011].

Spraying Systems Co, 2009b. B459C Spray Technology Reference Guide: Understanding Drop Size. [pdf] Wheaton: Spraying Systems Co.Available at: http://de.spray.com/Portals/0/pdf/B459c.pdf?bcsi_scan_AB11CAA0E2721250=0&bcsi_scan_filename=B459c.pdf[Accessed 18 November 2011].

The Beef Site, 2002. Understanding Beef Carcass Data Reports. [Online] (Updated October 2002)Available at: http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/750/understanding-beef-carcass-data-reports[Accessed 17 November 2011]

Thompson, A. J. et al, 2007. WU0101 Opportunities for Reducing Water Use in Agriculture. [pdf] London: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.Available at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=14402[Accessed 18 November 2011].

UK Rainwater Harvesting Association (UK-RHA) (n.d.) Rainwater Harvesting. [Online]Available at: http://www.ukrha.org/[Accessed 28 November 2011]United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2004. Guidelines for Water Reuse. [pdf] Washington: USEPA.Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r04108/625r04108.pdf[Accessed 18 November 2011].

Valuation Office Agency (VOA), 2005. Practice Note : 2005 : Appendix A : State of Industry Report – Abattoirs. [Online].Available at: Valuation Office Agency http://www.voa.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Manuals/RatingManual/RatingManualVolume5/sect5/PreviousRevaluations/e-rat-man-vol5-s5-pn-2005-appa.html[Accessed 28 November 2011].

AppendicesFigure 1 – Types of Animal Slaughtered by Site


Figure 2 – No. of Sites that have implemented and considered each Technology


Balancing Tanks

FlocculatorChemical DAFAeration TankBiolgoical DAFAuto-Sampler

Sludge TankDewaterer

Polymer

NaOH Acid

Coagulant

Compressed Air

Inclined Screen Fat Trap Pumps Drum Screen

Polymer

Return Liquor

Effluent to Sewer Return Sludge

Pumps

Pumps

Skip

Skip

Skip

Incoming Sewage from

Site

Flow Rate 2.3l/s

Figure 3 – A Wastewater Treatment Plant Schematic

Balancing Tank

FlocculatorDAF PlantAeration Tank

Clarifier Treated Effluent Tank

Sludge Tank

Coagulent

Caustic

Flocculant

Inclined Screen Sac Screen Pumps

Effluent to River

Pumps

Skip Mixers

Anoxic Tank

Air Blowers

Tertiary Clarifier

RAS TankSludge Tank

Divert Tank

Bypass

Tankered Offsite

Tankered Offsite

Incoming Sewage from

Site

Figure 4 – An Abattoir Wastewater Treatment Plant Schematic


Livestock Type:

Cattle and Pigs

Production cycle

(weeks)

Wash water

L animal /day

Wash water

L animal /year

Dairy cow 56 25 9125

Dry sows & gilts 52 0.086 31.4

Boars 52 0.086 31.4

Farrowing sows 5 5.63 452.1

Maiden sows 10 0.086 31.4

Barren sows 10 0.086 31.4

Weaners (<20 kg) 4 0.286 104.4

Growers (<50 kg) 5 0.371 135.4

Finishing pigs 11 0.229 83.6

Figure 6 – Target wash water range for cattle and pig production systems

Livestock Type:

Poultry

Production cycle

(weeks)

Wash water

L m floor area

Wash water

L bird /year

Pullets 16 5 1.1404

Broilers 7 5 2.7083

Laying hens – caged 56 6 0.2445

Laying hens – non caged

56 6 0.4678

Broiler & laying breeders & cocks

44 5 0.9420

Ducks 7 5 4.1270

Turkeys (m) 20 5 5.3719

Turkeys (f) 16 5 3.3592

Figure 7 – Target wash water range for poultry systems


Figure 8 – adoption of on farm water management measures

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes

No NothingUp to £5,000£5,001 - £10,000£10,001 - £20,000£20,001 - £50,000£50,001 +

Figure 9 – Monitoring water usage vs. Water Saving Investment

Figure 10 – Prioritisation of cleaning regime and choice of technique


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 (Low Priority)

2 3 4 5 (High Priority)

Figure 11 – Level of priority livestock farmers give to reducing water from cleaning activities


Documents

General enquiries on this form should be made to: - Defra, UKrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=11150_… · Web viewTraining and awareness on water efficiency for all staff