Vol 1~Iss 2, Meat Packing Journal, May~June 2014

The international magazine for the meat and poultry industry

P.58

the rise of the small processor

P.12

food safety best practice reviewed

P.28

The case for Steel conveyor belts

MEAT PACKING J O U R N A L

CUT SLICE DICE

Examining cutting equipment trends and improvements in safety

getting hormonal a look at the arguments surrounding hormone use

the limits of automation mpj explores the barriers to development and use of automated processing

May~June 2014 volume 1 | issue 2 ISSN 2054-4685

© 2014 Multisor

Increase Sales, Decrease Shrink!

MAPLOX® program, a low-oxygen packaging system, maintains the freshness, flavor, and color of case ready meats while providing an extended shelf life well beyond that of high oxygen systems. Our experienced packaging specialists will develop a customized solution to assure optimum performance and cost effectiveness, resulting in extended shelf life, increased sales, and reduced shrink. Call us today!

For More Info

www.multisorb.com

C o Mmen t

It's all about image

T

Editor's choice

C

ontroversy in the use of hormones to accelerate animal growth is tackled by Technical Editor James Chappelow. The differing opinions and a lack of solid research leaves the topic open for debate and interpretation.

Hormonal about beef, page 26-32

www.meatpacking.info

he meat industry's image has come under attack once again.

UK graffiti artist Banksy posted his latest work online depicting cuddly toy animals attempting to break free of a cattle truck, presumably en route to a slaughterhouse. Elsewhere, the publication of Farmageddon, a scathing book attacking the meat and agricultural industries has received widespread press coverage.

These are just the latests in a series of public relations disasters the industry has faced in recent years. The horse meat scandal that shocked European consumers triggered a much greater level of scrutiny and mistrust in the food chain that is yet to have softened.

There is no denying that the meat industry has an image problem. But is this justified and what can we do about it?

Our cultural association with the food chain has changed drastically since animals were reared, slaughtered and butchered within reach and sight of the average man.

Over time farming has been industrialised and moved further from the consumer. Slaughtering has become a factory process in massive facilities and out of sight. And now even the butchering of meat has all but disappeared from public eyes. Case ready meats are loaded onto shelves by men who rely on the labels to identify the product.

This cloaking of the food chain has had two effects. First is to make

The industry needs to be seen to be changing consumers squeamish about seeing meat production. In his comment last issue (MPJ 01/01 pp.16-26) renowned chef and foodie Hugh FearnleyWhittingstall argued it was nonsensical for the general public to wince at seeing the slaughtering of a cow when they will happily watch a lion gut a deer in a nature documentary. In response to this Fearnley-Whittingstall published images of his own cow being slaughtered, which ironically shocked some readers of our first issue.

A second effect of this cloaking of the food chain is scepticism.

Fuelled by often inaccurate stories of fast food production, consumers have been led to believe all sorts of terrifying accounts from the slaughterhouse, which are only reinforced by real scandals.

Without an open and honest response from the meat industry, mistrust of the food chain builds. As Fabio Conti of Sandvik writes (see article pp.28-34) the industry needs to be seen to be changing. The first step to this is surely to throw open our doors and show the world how their meat is produced. Danish Crown does this exactly with its public tours of it pig slaughterhouse at Horsens (MPJ 01/01 pp.42-51).

With the support of lobby groups and industry associations, the meat industry must disseminate accurate information about food production.

It must not be a rose tinted view, but a bare bones, naked truth. We must work to remove any lingering practices that we are ashamed of, not hide them from view. Only then can we rebuild public trust.

Modern meat slaughtering and processing is a business to be proud of. The excerpt from Jude the Obscure on p.11 shows how far the industry has come to ensure the welfare of animals. We have developed impressive equipment and practices to ensure the integrity of the supply chain and we must now shout about these from the roof tops.

Rhian Owen rhian@meatpacking.info @Meat_Packing

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 3

OVER 100 YEARS OF EFFECTIVE STUNNING Accles & Shelvoke established in 1913 are world leaders in the manufacture of captive bolt humane stunning equipment. Products include the “CASH� Stunning range designed for the humane slaughter of small animals up to larges bulls. With over 90 years of experience, Accles & Shelvoke has developed a strong client base working with Government organisations, major food retailers, veterinarians, meat technologists, large and small meat plants worldwide.

For full details on the whole Accles & Shelvoke range please visit: www.acclesandshelvoke.co.uk Stunners shown below from left to right: CASH Special .25, CASH Magnum .25 & CASH Cowpuncher

www.acclesandshelvoke.co.uk Accles & Shelvoke Ltd Selco Way, Off First Avenue, Minworth Industrial Estate, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, B76 1BA, UK Tel: +44 (0) 121 313 4567 Fax: +44 (0) 121 313 4569 Email: sales@acclesandshelvoke.co.uk

C o n t en t s

7 10 12

36

42

52

60

www.meatpacking.info

News

the latest news from around the world and across the industry

Book Review

Farmageddon: The True Cost of Cheap Meat by Phillip Lymbery

food safety

Keeping on the right side of food safety legislation is vital.

James Chappelow looks at the rules, restrictions and controversies, while Fabio Conti argues for the use stainless steel

Automation

The benefits of automation are both in productivity and safety, but technical and financial barriers hamper uptake. Rhian Owen looks to equipment manufactures to beat these challenges

cut, slice, dice

Improving yield, productivity and safety are the drivers for development in cutting technologies.

Rhian Owen cuts into the issues

Specialist plant

Specialist processing is proving a route to market and opportnity for growth. Alex Conacher reviews the rise of the niche

show time

A look at VIV Europe and the World Meat Congress in China

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 5

Sustainability Total system solutions

Uptime

Lower cost of ownership Scan for a sneak preview of the new Technology and Product Development Center video.

Reliability Throughput

Optimization

Ingenuity Made to Order.® It starts with you. Provisur® designs innovative food processing solutions adapted to meet your specific application – from fully integrated systems to stand alone equipment and service. With Provisur by your side, you’ll experience optimal line performance.

Our solutions enhance your product quality, improve throughput and yield, with uncompromising food safety, all at the lowest cost of ownership. Plus, you are backed by a team as dedicated to your success as you are.

Provisur Technologies. Ingenuity Made to Order.

© 2014 Provisur Technologies, Inc.

®

provisur.com AM2C® Integrated Systems

Beehive®

Grinding & Mixing

Cashin®

Separating

Formax® Forming

multitec™ TST ™ Coating

Cooking

Weiler® Freezing

Slicing

Autoloading

ne w s

china beef IMPORTS SET to SURGE

C

hina is expected to increase its beef imports by up to 20 percent a year for the next five years due to domestic production, which, despite governmental investment, is still very limited, according to a report by rural lender Rabobank.

Despite measures to minimise its dependence on foreign beef, China faces a growing gap in beef supply.

Rabobank believes hat China's beef production will not be able to catch up with the country's surging demand for protein.

Rabobank’s latest report, stated that China will need to allow a substantial increase in imports in order to cover the supply gap.

DC slaughterhouse ‘gains momentum’ denmark: Operations at Danish Crown’s new beef cattle slaughterhouse Holsted, Denmark, are ‘gaining momentum’, the company stated recently. The plant has been up and running since early March and new records are being set every day.

The company recently reported that 547 animals were slaughtered in a single day, the highest number of cattle to be slaughtered so far. The aim is to slaughter 900 animals a day once the slaughterhouse is fully run-in.

The IT that controls the machinery in the slaughterhouse is still presenting some challenges, Dutch Crown stated.

Following the recent closure of the old factory in Holstebro and the partial closure of the plant in Skjern, manning is almost in place.

At present, a total of 172 production employees are working in Holsted.

CFIA seeks power to fine processors canada: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is proposing to give itself the power to fine meat processors that break food safety laws, The Canadian Press reported. www.meatpacking.info

The report stated: "The structural supply deficit will force an increase in beef imports, including smuggled beef, of nearly 20 percent - or even double the current import volume by 2018."

Until recently there has been a lack of government support compared with pork and poultry, which beef cattle productivity is low in comparison to other countries. The report added: "China’s beef cattle supply shortage is a structural issue and the industry itself faces many challenges. It lags behind other major beef-producing countries in all the key aspects, such as genetics, breeding, productivity, farm management and grassland/feed resources."

Proposed fines, or administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) would range from CAD 2,000 to CAD 15,000.

The agency can currently issue written warnings for plants with food safety problems. In serious cases, the CFIA has the power to suspend a processor's license and close a plant.

Ron Davidson, spokesman for The Canadian Meat Council told local press that such fines are not needed. Davidson said that the meat industry does not need ‘yet another enforcement tool’.

Maja and Bizerba announce partnership Germany: Maja and Bizerba will work together in a bit to increase their market presence and implement joint projects in the future.

Maja’s product range includes derinding and skinning machines for meat and poultry in addition to slicing machines and portion control meat slicers. The partnership enables Maja to integrate the CWP Neptune checkweighter as well as other industrial weighing machines from Bizerba into its systems, Bizerba stated.

The CWP Neptune is for use in environments subject to exacting hygiene requirements. It satisfies the hygienic design criteria of the European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group (EHEDG) and offers safety for easily perishable and

unpackaged foodstuffs.

Connected directly to the FP 100 and FPE 155 meat portioning systems from Maja, the CWP Neptune calculates the exact weight of the sliced portions and automatically filled trays. The portioning system communicates with the checkweigher via an interface. This in turn allows the defined recipe to be transferred automatically from the machine to the scales. In return, the Neptune CWP transmits the weight class statistics back to the portioning system for evaluation.

“Maja is firmly established in the food industry”, says Dieter Conzelmann, director industry solution market at Bizerba. “We are delighted to have found a partner in Maja, whose expertise complements ours. Working together will allow us to offer our customers integrated systems that make their processes more efficient and reliable, without the need for complex interfaces and software adjustments.”

Natuvas range improves shelf life the netherlands: VaessenSchoemaker, which offers clean label solutions for meat products, now has a range of clean label antioxidants and antimicrobias that provide a longer shelf life. The products protect meat and poultry from oxidative rancidity and microbial spoilage without the need to declare additives.

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 7

ne w s

Taiwan toughens chicken labelling

I

n March this year it became compulsory for chicken meat sold in retail markets in Taiwan to show labels indicating if the products have been refrigerated or defrosted, the country’s Council of Agriculture (COA) announced.

The COA said in January 2014 that the enzyme inspection method will serve as the only inspection and certification method for this chicken meat product.

Based on the principle of executive synchronisation, agencies such as Ministry of Health and Welfare,

Ministry of Economic Affairs, and Consumer Protection Committee have all come together in integrating this inspection into legislation and regulations.

From the beginning of March, retail stores that fail to comply with the new regulation demanding proper labelling of chicken meat products have been given a probation period to correct the violations.

If those violations are not corrected before the deadline expires, stores may face fines ranging from TWD 60,000 to TWD 1.5M (US$2,000 to US$50,000).

Multivac presents new products germany: Multivac has expanded its portfolio and is introducing additional products. The company is presenting an entry-level model for thermoforming packaging, as well as a new label dispenser at Interpack 2014.

The new R 085 entry-level model for thermoforming packaging is suitable for packaging both sliced products and individual items, and is able to run rigid as well as flexible films. The R 085 can be used to produce packs with inert gas as well as vacuum packs.

While Multivac's Marking & Inspection new label dispenser has a modular design that allows adaptation to the requirements of all sectors.

In future it will form the basis for all the company's marking systems and was first integrated into Multivac conveyor belt labellers.

The integrated control and drive electronics with servo technology allow exact positioning of the labels on the packs, the company stated.

Japan gives pork tariff break to Australia japan: Japan will lower its tariff on pig meat shipments from Australia in a trade agreement between the two countries, according to news reports.

The deal also reduces import duties on beef.

The levy will drop to 2.2 percent 8 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

from 4.3 percent, within a quota that limits volume to 6,700t in the first year and rises to 16,700t within five years. Pork imports from Australia were some 700t in the 12 months to the end of March 2013.

The Asian nation imported 738,455t of pork in 2013, of which 38 percent came from the US. Japan also earlier said that it would gradually lower tariffs on imports of frozen beef from Australia to 19.5 percent and cut duties on chilled beef to 23.5 percent. That compares with 38.5 percent.

The trade accord with Australia is expected to take effect next year.

DuPont unveils new test for Listeria USA: DuPont Nutrition & Health will introduce its BAX System RealTime PCR Assay for genus Listeria, the company announced. DuPoint stated that the test combines shorter,

simpler sample preparation and faster real-time processing.

The DuPont BAX System RealTime PCR Assay for genus Listeria can be used for detecting Listeria in a variety of products and has been validated on frankfurters, cooked shrimp, spinach, queso fresco cheese and environmental surfaces. The assay allows processors to test for both Listeria and Salmonella in the same batch, with results for both organisms in around an hour.

“Listeria species can be an indicator that harmful Listeria monocytogenes is present, which can cause serious illness, particularly for persons with heightened susceptibility,” said Rob McPheeters, diagnostics leader, DuPont Nutrition & Health. “This new assay demonstrates our commitment to providing the best value in sciencebased solutions for evolving food protection needs to help producers and manufacturers significantly reduce this risk.” www.meatpacking.info

MAREL

ne w s

and established a business model that ensures our customers receive the same high standards of service and support wherever they are in the world. Coupled with our market-leading equipment and pro-active new product development programme, these have helped to drive our success even in the recent troubled economic times.”

Ishida Europe is the European subsidiary of Ishida Co Ltd of Japan, the inventor the multihead weigher that revolutionised the accurate weighing and packing of a huge variety of products.

Marlen hires new regional sales manager

denmark: Marel displayed systems and solutions at its Meat ShowHow in the company's new facility in Copenhagen. The event, which took place in April, included demonstrations of equipment such as the pork fore-end and deboning line, DeboFlex.

Marel's solutions on display included StreamLine, Trim Management System, case ready marinating line, BBQ steak line, pork steak line, beef steak line and Innova Software Solutions. The event also included keynote speakers.

Burger King opens ITS first SA meat plant south africa: Burger King has opened its first meat processing plant in South Africa. The company’s joint venture partner Excellent Meat, a local meat processor and distributor, is assisting the US-based hamburger chain with its rapid expansion plans in South Africa and the rest of the continent.

The joint venture has launched a meat handling factory in Elsies River, Cape Town, South Africa. By www.meatpacking.info

2015 the plant is expect to be able to produce 3M patties per month to support the growing demand.

Burger King SA is on track to source the majority of its ingredients from local suppliers. By the end of the year more than 92 percent of its products will be locally produced.

ishida wins queens award Great britain: Weighing and packaging equipment specialist Ishida Europe has won a Queen’s Award for Enterprise, the UK’s highest accolade for business success.

The company has received its award for International Trade.

Ishida Europe has been recognised for increasing exports as a percentage of total turnover from 65% to 76%. To deliver this growth, Ishida has implemented a strategy that has both facilitated increased market penetration in established markets, and also enabled entrance into new geographic regions.

“This is an outstanding achievement and is the result of the hard work and dedication of all our employees,” comments Ishida Europe managing director Graham Clements.

“From our establishment in 1984, we have always recognised that we operate in a global market

ISHIDA

Marel showcases red meat technology

USA: Manufacturer of food processing equipment Marlen International announced the appointment of Andy Jaspers as the company’s newest sales manager, providing regional coverage and sales support in the Midwestern states.

Jaspers recently served as the director of R&D at West Libery Foods, where he worked for 12 years.

Brian Owen, national accounts manager, Marlen International, said: With Andy’s extensive experience in product development, project management, and innovation, he brings a wealth of meat processing experience to the Marlen team. I’m confident both our customers and our company will benefit from his contributions.”

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 9

B o o k

re v ie w

The Rotting Stench of Capitalism?

Farmageddon: The True Cost of Cheap Meat by Philip Lymbery with Isabel Oakeshot.

Right: Excerpt from Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy published in 1895 by Osgood, McIlvaine, & Co.

R

eaders will reel in disgust from this book. This far-reaching indictment of industrialised farming around the world will sicken most stomachs. Lymbery and Oakeshot are 21st century prophets of doom with the money-grabbing exploiters of animals clearly in their sights. As you prepare the Sunday Roast throw down your blood-stained knife and quake at the wicked consumption of your planet that will lead to damnation.

After a worthy tribute to Rachel Carson, the author of the seminal study, Silent Spring, Lymbery and Oakshot begin their investigation of the current state of industrialised farming.

This is a picture that is hidden from the majority of us. The bucolic view in sepia hue of the old farmstead, where lambs gamble and sheep safely graze turns out today to be a chimera. All over the world new methods have pushed the traditional aside. Too often they have replaced them with a nightmare reminiscent of one of the circles of Dante's hell.

The description of the milk cows of Central Valley California sets the reader on their hellish journey. In this relatively small valley over 750,000 cows kept in small pens produce US$6bn every year. They also produce the same amount of dung and urine as 90 million people. Unsurprisingly, this has led to horrendous environmental problems. Flies are the only insects to survive, fed from the slurry pits that inevitably accompany the factory farms and creating in incessant nuisance to all who live and work in the valley. Drinking water is contaminated so that only bottled water can be trusted.

Beef cattle in Argentina are reared in conditions that are similarly divorced from nature. With an investment of US$10m in a “foodlot facillity” one rancher is described who's “25 strong team of workers rear and fatten 4,000 beef cattle in conditions designed to 10 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

maximise profit by getting the animals to market weight in the shortest possible time”. Here the authors make the link between arable and factory farming as to feed all these animals the traditional pastures have been replaced by crops of GM soya grown only to feed animals. Some 70% of all arable farming takes the form of feed for animals. There is an illogic in this that needs to be faced.

Philip Lymbery has long been a champion of Compassion in World Farming yet along-side this perhaps another organisation, Common Sense in World Farming, needs to be formed. In so many of the cases that Lymbery investigates it could be argued that the Law of Unintended Consequences took hold, yet really anyone with their eyes open would say, “Wasn't that obvious?” In the post war struggle to feed the ever-growing world population, well-meaning farmers and governments indulged in methods that were bound to have predictable side-effects.

Are people really so ostrich-like that they could not see the ill effects of battery hens, the impact of killing bees or the difficulties of dealing with lagoons of pig manure? Or was this just hidden by the lure of profits?

Farmageddon puts the clock at one minute to midnight. It is accepted that change for the better is not only possible but is happening. As a polemic it is successful. Solutions are offered only in the last chapter. Many of these are familiar and seem to have their roots in visions of another age of farming. Is this good enough for a planet that is up to its neck in slurry?

This harping back to a bygone era fails to understand the true requirements of modern farming. It also falls short of appreciating the developments in modern welfare and slaughtering processes the accompanying excerpt from Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy published in 1895 shows just how far we have already come. www.meatpacking.info

b o o k

re v ie w

The time arrived for killing the butchering was timed to take pig which Jude and his wife had fattened in their sty losing more than a quarter place as soon as it was light in the morning, so tha during the autumn months, and the t Jude might get to Alfreds of ton without The night had seemed stra a day. ngely silent. Jude looked out was covered with snow-of the win dow long before dawn, and perc snow rather deep for the sea eived that the ground "I'm afraid the pig-killer won son, it seemed, a few flakes still falling. 't hot, if you want Challow to be able to come," he said to Arabella. "Oh, he'll com e. You must get up and mak scald him. Though I like sing "I'll get up," said Jude. "I like e the water eing best." the way of my own county.

He went downstairs, lit the " fire blaze flinging a cheerful shin under the copper, and began feeding it with bean-s talks, all the time without e a can reason of that blaze--to hea into the room; though for him the sense of cheerfu lness was lessened by though dle, the t could be continually heard water to scald the bristles from the body of an anim al that as yet lived, and who ts on the from a corner of the garden water boiled, and Jude's wife . At half-past six, the time se of appointment with the but voice "Is Challow come?" she aske came downstairs. cher, the d.

"No." They waited, and it grew ligh ter, with the dreary light of said, "He's not coming. Dru nk last night, I expect. The a snowy dawn. She went out, gazed along the road, snow is not enough to hind and returning "Then we must put it off. It er is "Can't be put off. There's no only the water boiled for nothing. The snow may be him, surely!" deep in the valley." more victuals for the pig. He "Yesterday morning? What ate the last mixing o' barleym has he lived on since?" eal yesterday morning."

"Nothing."

"What--he has been starving "Yes. We always do it the last?"

"That accounts for his cryi day or two, to save bother with the innerds. What igno ng rance, not to know that!"

"Well--you must do the stic so. Poor creature!" king--there's no help for it. is such a big pig I had rath er Challow had done it. How I'll show you how. Or I'll do it myself--I think I could.

Though and we can use 'em." ever, his basket o' knives and things have been already sen as it "Of course you shan't do it," t on here, said Jude. "I'll do it, since it He went out to the sty, sho mu velled away the snow for the st be done." with the knives and ropes at hand. A robin peered dow space of a couple of yards or more, and placed the stool in front, n at the preparations from sinister look of the scene, flew away, though hungry. the By this time Arabella had join nearest tree, and, not liking the got into the sty, and noosed ed her husband, and Jude, the affrighted animal, who rope in hand, rage. Arabella opened the , beginning with a squeak styof him Arabella bound him dow door, and together they hoisted the victim on to the surprise, rose to repeated cries of stoo The animal's note changed n, looping the cord over his legs to keep him from stru l, legs upward, and while Jude held its ggling.

"Upon my soul I would soo quality. It was not now rage, but the cry of despair ; long ner have gone without the pig than have had this to do!" -drawn, slow and hopeless. my own hands." said Jude. "A creature I hav "Don't be such a tender-hea e fed with rted fool! There's the sticking un too deep."

-knife-- the one with the point. Now whatever you do, don't stick "I'll stick him effectually, so as to make short work of it.

"You must not!" she cried.

"The meat must be well bled That's the chief thing." , and to do that he must die the meat is red and bloody!

Just touch the vein, that's slow. We shall lose a shilling all. I was brought up to it, bleeding long. He ought to a score if and I know. Every good but be cher keeps un "He shall not be half a min eight or ten minutes dying, at least." ute if I can help it, howeve r the from the pig's upturned thro at, as he had seen the butche meat may look," said Jude determinedly. Scraping the "'Od damn it all!" she cried, "that ever I should say it! You rs do, he slit the fat; then plunged in the knife with bristles "Do be quiet, Arabella, and all have a little pity on the crea 've over-stuck un! And I telling you all the time----" his might.

"Hold up the pail to catch ture!" the blood, and don't talk!"

However unworkmanlike the stream she had desired. The deed, it had been mercifully done. The blood flowed out in a torrent instead of dying animal's cry assumed in riveting themselves on Ara bella with the eloquently kee its third and final tone, the shriek of agony; his glaz the trickling ing eyes who had seemed his only n reproach of a creature reco friends. gniz ing at last the treachery of those "Make un stop that!" said Ara we are doing it ourselves." bella. "Such a noise will bring somebody or other up Picking up the knife from her e, and I don 't want people the and slit the windpipe. The pig was instantly silent, his ground whereon Jude had flung it, she slipped it into to know dying breath coming through "That's better," she said. the gash, the hole "It is a hateful business!" said he.

"Pigs must be killed."

The animal heaved in a fina l convulsion, and, despite the black clot came forth, the rope, kicked out with all his tric last strength. A tablespoon "That's it; now he'll go," said kling of red blood having ceased for some seconds. ful of she. "Artful creatures-- the The last plunge had come y alw ays kee p bac k a drop like that as long as so unexpectedly as to mak they can!" e Jude stagger, and in reco in which the blood had bee vering n a waste, all through you!"Ju caught. "There!" she cried, thoroughly in a passion. "No himself he kicked over the vessel de put the pail upright, but w I can 't make any blackpot. There's main part being splashed only about a third of the who ove an ordinary obtaining of mea r the snow, and forming a dismal, sordid, ugly spectac le steaming liquid was left in it, the le-t. The lips and nostrils of the relaxed. animal turned livid, then whi to those who saw it as other than te, and the muscles of his "Thank God!" Jude said. "He limbs 's "What's God got to do with dead." such a messy job as a pigkilling, I should like to kno live." w!" she said scornfully. "Po or folks must

www.meatpacking.info

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 11

F o o d

s af e t y

the battle for

food safety

Food safety is an ever present hot topic. The meat supply chain is at risk from chemical, microbiological and physical hazards. Technical editor James Chappelow looks at the rules surrounding hygiene and how meat handling plants can meet them

12 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

F o o d

s af e t y

M

EAT EATING should bare no relation to Russian roulette. The public have the right to regard the meat they buy to be fit for human consumption “from farm to fork�. Yet concerns about meat safety abound. They range from the world-wide panic about the potential danger from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) through deadly outbreaks of E-coli to countless individual cases of food poisoning. To this has been added the spectre of bioterrorism. The food chain seems threatened. Meat potentially comes under attack from a wide range of bacteria; there are many points in the processing of products where physical and chemical contamination may occur; and issues such as the use of pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and genetic modification need to be considered.

Consumer confidence in meat safety remains remarkably high. This is overwhelmingly a cultural matter. Meat is as much a staple of the modern diet as bread. Meat eating survives the frequent shocks to the market. The recent appearance of horse flesh as beef in the UK generated many questions but had only a marginal and short-lived impact on sales of meat. The simplicity with which the horse flesh was tracked across Europe if anything had a positive effect. It showed that the concept of traceability is working.

This confidence is justified from the point of view of food hygiene. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) of the United Nations lead the fight across the world for food safety. This is increasingly important as global food markets develop. Through the Codex Alimentarius, the FAO has encouraged risk management through the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system. The Codex also publishes an ever growing body of advice and guidelines for safe food production. The HACCP system is widely accepted, particularly in the developed world. In the EU, for example, it has been mandatory since 1993 for all stages of the food industry. It is based on a number of stages: Conduct a hazard analysis Determine the critical control points (CCPs) Establish critical limits Establish a system to monitor control of the CCPs Establish the corrective action to be taken when a CCP is shown not to be under control Establish procedures to ensure that the HACCP system is working properly Establish an appropriate documentation and record keeping system for the HACCP. Many governments have followed this up with their own food hygiene and safety legislation.

This can be staggeringly complex. In the United www.meatpacking.info

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 13

F o o d

s af e t y

States, for example, there is a multiplicity of authorities responsible for regulation both at Federal and State levels. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has overall responsibility for meat, poultry and processed egg products while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) looks after all other foodstuffs. Added to this since 9/11 are the interests of the Homeland Security Act which is concerned with the possibilities of bioterrorism.

A long list of Federal Law and regulation backs up these authorities, as do, with varying degrees of efficiency, the State level inspections and regulations. As might be expected, the EU also has many regulations on food safety and hygiene. In member states such as the UK these have been simplified effectively to make them accessible for the user. Australia and New Zealand share a set of regulations and in more advanced countries the contingencies set down for food safety have much in common. They usually adopt the HACCP system and common sense lies at their heart.

Microbiological hazards

M

icrobiological hazards represent the most obvious dangers to consumers. The most common bacteria found on meat are: Enterobacteriacae – the group of bacteria that predominantly live in the intestines of animals and includes the most common of the major food-borne pathogens such as Salmonella, Yersinia and E.coli O157.

Generic E.coli, which live in the intestines of animals and are shed in the faeces.

Salmonella species – this may arise from faecal contamination but it can also arise from the processing environment.

Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Enteritidis – these often cause disease in humans Listeria Monocytogenes – a pathogenic bacteria that occurs in the environment that can survive and grow at chill temperatures which can cause a problem in ready to eat foods.

In addition, parasites such as the Trichinosis larvae, which is found commonly in wild bore (although not in domestic pigs for over 25 years in Europe) and the cysticercus bovis, found in cattle, need to be taken into account.

The possibility of a direct link between BSE in cattle and the appearance of variant CreutzfeldJacob Disease (CJD) in humans has meant that particular care is now taken to remove Specified Risk Material from slaughtered cattle, all of which is banned from the food chain.

Physical hazards come from a wide range of sources during meat production. The UK Food Standards Agency has listed the following as 14 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

likely “foreign bodies” to be found in meat: string that has been eaten, broken needles from veterinary treatment, metal from rails, clips, tags, machinery, knife blades, grease, oil, paint flakes, rust, plastic, rubber bands, jewellery, pens, buttons, hair, glass splinters, bone splinters, wood splinters, dust, dead insects and animal droppings. It is certain that the list could go on.

It serves as a warning.

chemical hazards

C

hemical contamination of meat represents a third area of hazard. The WHO established the Global Environmental Monitoring System – Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment Programme (GEMS/Food) to regulate chemical contamination of foods. Contaminants that are of concern include drug residues, heavy metals, cleaning supplies (particularly ammonia and chlorine that may be used to fight bacteria) nitrites, hormones (see artilce pp. 20-26), pesticides, antibiotics, dioxins and mycotoxins.

There is much contention surrounding the use of many of these subjects that is beyond the scope of the present article, but these arguments will be the subjects of further study.

A trustworthy and reliable hygiene regime in the food industry is dependent on the quality and training of the personnel. First, it is essential that at least one person in each plant is trained in the use of the HACCP system. That person must be fully committed to making HACCP work. Daily records must be kept and checked. Every worker should be fully aware of the hygiene requirements of their part of the process within a plant. For this the appropriate equipment needs to be available and proper training given in its use. The cleaning of meat plants should not be regarded as the realm of the least experienced and lowest paid operatives just because cleaning is a job that most dislike.

In fact, it is better for the most experienced to take charge of cleaning and sanitation. Between 10 and 20 percent of the total working time should be allocated to cleaning. Proper clothing must be provided.

Personal hygiene needs to be part of the requirements. An adequate number of washbasins should be available with hot and cold water running water, cleaning products and a hygienic drying method. Staff toilets should never open into rooms in which food is handled.

People employed in (or visiting) food plants may be a source of microbiological or physical hazards and anyone who might be carrying a disease (who might have infected wounds, sores or diarrhoea) should not handle food or enter a food handling area. Illness or symptoms need www.meatpacking.info

F o o d

www.meatpacking.info

s af e t y

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 15

F o o d

s af e t y

16 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

to be reported immediately. Contamination happens quickly.

The location, design, layout and construction of a food plant itself is crucial. Premises should not be liable to flooding nor near to businesses that use or produce toxic chemicals. The design of buildings needs to take into account the need for proper cleaning, the need to avoid dirt traps and the need to control pests and air-borne contamination. Windows may need to be kept shut during some processes and ventilation filters that can be easily cleaned can be fitted instead. Where necessary there should be insect screens on windows – which also need regular cleaning.

All floors and work surfaces should be made of impervious, non-absorbent, washable, corrosion resistant and non-toxic materials. All machinery should be installed so that it may easily be cleaned as well as the area around it. It is important that the fabric of the building be properly cared for and regularly checked. If not there are increased dangers of physical contamination as wear and tear takes its toll. Leaky buildings provide an additional route for the entry of microbiological contamination to enter the food process.

The plant need to be sufficiently large to allow for the necessary separation of processes.

This should include adequate lairage at slaughterhouses, where good hygiene and animal welfare meet. Animal pens need to be sufficiently large and easily and regularly cleaned. There also needs to be a completely separate space for any sick animals and a room for post mortem inspections by vets. The UK FSA recommends separation in space or time of the following operations: stunning and bleeding; scalding, depilation, scraping and singeing of porcine animals; evisceration and further dressing; handling clean guts and tripe; preparations and cleaning of other offal; packaging offal; dispatching meat; Removal of animal heads if not done at time of slaughter.

In general, the design of the plant should take into account the logical flow lines for production in particular to avoid the possibility of cross contamination. Each batch of animals dealt with should be separated from other batches and there should be no possibility of cross contamination between species. www.meatpacking.info

Above: A vat bin and tote washer

s af e t y

Cleaning itself has to be much more than a wipe down with a damp dishcloth where meat processing is taking place. The plant must be physically clean, chemically clean and microbiologically clean. A full cleaning schedule should be written and testing for bacteria should be regularly carried out and documented. Wherever meat is processed and handled it will soil surfaces and equipment.

Water and cleaning products can also leave films on the same surfaces. Protein, fat and minerals are not soluble and are more difficult to remove. In the US a seven step cleaning process is advised for hand tools, equipment and facilities: Dry clean the area, picking up all the solid scraps; Scrape equipment with a rubber scraper to remove as much contamination as possible; rinse all surfaces with luke-warm water at between 100 and 120oF; Wash with an alkaline solution and brush; Rinse with hot water of about 180oF Sanitise with chemical solution Let drip dry or remove excess water with a clean rubber scraper.

Workers are warned not to use hot water on surfaces immediately as they will simply cook the proteins and make them more difficult to remove. High temperatures should also be avoided if they lead to condensation as this will create a good breading ground for bacteria.

This kind of cleaning will not remove all the bacteria. For this chlorine or iodine based disinfectants are used and a contact time of at least 30 seconds is recommended. Managers are advised to always follow the instructions on cleaning fluids especially to get them to the right concentrations.. Disinfected, dry and cool premises are the most likely to discourage the growth of bacteria.

It is obvious that a good supply of potable water will be needed to maintain good hygiene in a meat plant. Microbiological and chemical hazards are often water borne. Many microorganisms can survive for long periods of time in water. Pollution, particularly involving either human sewage or faecal matter from animals, represents a major hazard to the food processing industry. A pure water supply that is then kept in a storage tank or in pipes that are not in frequent use can become a danger.

Microbiological contamination in a tank can spread to all parts of the plumbing system May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 17

douglas machines

F o o d

s af e t y

douglas machines

F o o d

and be transferred to the meat. Recycled water should only be used either if it is of the same quality as the original potable supply or if it is only for use in ways that cannot effect the wholesomeness of foodstuffs. Waste management is almost as important. Great care needs to be taken in the disposal of the unwanted by-products of food processing.

Any animal's digestive tract may be home to a variety of bacteria. Gut spillage an lead to the contamination of carcases and the cross contamination of other carcases. Specified Risk Material has to be disposed of according to legal requirements. All such waste, if left around the plant, will attract pests if it is inappropriately stored. Both the supply of water and the disposal of waste should be part of the HACCP system of the plant.

The fight to process food safely is greatly aided by temperature controls in the plants.

Bacteria are far less likely to multiply in low temperatures. Meat intended for freezing should not be left for too long before being frozen, although a necessary stabilisation period is inevitable. A freezing temperature of -12oC is no longer required in the EU but -18oC is expected for meat described as “quick frozen”. The effect of freezing is not to destroy bacteria, however, but at temperatures below -8oC it just stops them growing. Once it defrosts, the bacteria in meat will grow again. Cooked meats that are not properly chilled are the greatest source of food poisoning. This happens because of inadequate heat treatment when a high temperature in cooking is not maintained for long enough.

Some bacteria are surprisingly heat resistant.

The process of wrapping meat and transporting it to retailers adds more dangers to public health but, again, the HACCP system should work to lessen the problems. All the hygiene regulations that apply to meat plants 18 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

Above: A Douglos Machine belt washer is an effective sanitation solution to keep conveyor belts clean

also apply to retailers, of course, but the problems are on a different scale. Yet the hazards remain the same.

All the way from “farm to fork” meat products run the danger of contamination. In the more advanced world rigorous systems of inspection are in place to protect the consumer.

This may not always be sufficient. In January of this year the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was given the lowest passing grade when audited by US FSIS inspectors. The aim was to check whether or not the Canadian standards for red meat poultry and egg products matched those required in the US. The Canadian system was found wanting in a number of respects, not least in failures to enforce HACCP protocols.

In 2012 there had been an outbreak of E-coli O157:H7 which cause sickness in 18 people and the recall of eight million pounds of beef. This demonstrates the need for continuous vigilance throughout the industry. The message is clear.

The task is set out in laws, regulations and advice. It is in the interest of the industry as a whole to maintain high standards as this is the route to consumer confidence. Where proper care is taken and contamination is reduced as far as possible, so the product ends up both looking better and satisfying the customer. It is what meat eaters expect, deserve and, in the vast majority of cases, are given.

references and further reading Dr Cocker, R, 2003. Hygiene in Food Processing. Chapter 2 Why Regulation?

Longley, R. The US Food Safety System, A Case of Shared Government Responsibilities. http://usgovinfo.about.com/ od/consumerawareness/a/The-Us-Food-SafetySystem.htm FAO Codex Alimentarius – various guidance papers, http://www.codexalimentarius.org/ Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific of the FAO. Cleaning and Sanitation in Meat Plants.

Rosenberg, M, 2013. We're eating what?

Contamination in meat. Food For Thought, Huffington Post.

Sanitation and Handling Practices for Fresh Meat Processing and Retailing. Alabama A & M and Auburn Universities.

UK Food Standards Agency. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) in meat plants.

UK Food Standards Agency. Hygiene and food safety guidance. http://www.food.gov.uk/ business-industry/guidancenotes/hygguid/#.

U167JOZdXKg www.meatpacking.info

F OO D

S A F ET Y

hormonal about beef The European Union and the United States are attempting to end the quarrel over the long-running World Trade Organisation dispute on hormones fed to cattle. Technical editor James Chappelow investigates why there has been such a significant gap between the continents

20 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

F OO D

T

HE beEF Hormone War ended in April 2012. This tit-for-tat conflict between the European Union and the United States ignited after the 1996 EU ban on the use of hormones in farming animals was applied to imported beef and beef products. Immediately, the US and Canada filed complaints to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Sanctions were applied by both countries to trade with the EU. The WTO supported the suspension of concessions to the EU in annual amounts of US$116.8m and CA$11.3m respectively. In 1998 a WTO report found the EU was "inconsistent with the agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures". A 2003 amendment of the original EU ban satisfied the WTO but not the USA and Canada. Sanctions against the EU continued.

Discussion in 2009 led to a memorandum of understanding - a road map for a settlement of

www.meatpacking.info

S A F ET Y

the dispute. In three stages, the EU agreed to increase a tariff rate quota for high quality beef (not treated with hormones) so that by 2012 a total of 48,200t would be imported from the US and Canada to the EU at a customs duty set at zero. At the same time both Canada and the US suspended all related sanctions on the EU. So US and Canadian beef finds its way to the EU while the EU maintains its ban on the use of beef hormones. Everyone is happy.

The settlement, however, side-steps the point.

Why was there such a big gap between the US and the EU on the issue of beef hormones?

Neither side has changed their basic position.

A ban on the use of hormones in animal farming still holds sway in the EU while US producers continue to maintain that growth hormones are harmless to human health. In the US in particular there is a growing head of steam to strident calls for more investigation

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 21

F OO D

S A F ET Y

of all food additives, which is met by solid reassurances from the meat industry that fears about hormones are groundless. Campaigners such as Martha Rosenberg, making use of work by EU scientists amongst others, claims that, “Americans are blissfully unaware of the synthetic hormones zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengestrol acetate that are part of the recipe for production of US beef.” (Huffington Post, 11/06/2013) while the US Meat Institute claims, “The beef industry relies on the use of hormones to help provide consumers with a wholesome, affordable and increasingly healthy beef supply.” The battle lines for further warfare have been drawn.

The current debate started as early as 1981 when, partly in response to consumer pressure, the EU first prohibited the use of growth hormones in animal farming. These included 17B-oestradiol, testosterone, progesterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengestrol acetate – the most widely used growth hormones. The prohibition then caused the international dispute when it was applied to imports in 1996. The EU Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) then carried out a thorough re-evaluation of the risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products for the six hormones listed above. The general conclusion was that no acceptable daily intake (ADI) could be established for any of these hormones. The concerns of the Committee were that an increased exposure to hormones can be associated with an increased risk of cancer and detrimental effects in development.

The effects had been seen in high dosages in animals and humans but “there is no compelling evidence suggesting that their effects do not also occur at low doses”.

More detailed findings of the SCVPH report made worrying reading: Hormones exert their effects differently at different stages of life.

All segments of the human population are susceptible, including the developing embryo, foetus and prepubertal children.

New published data argue for low doses of natural and synthetic estrogens having a deleterious effect on the normal development of secondary sex organs in experimental settings.

Experimental studies provide strong evidence that 17B-oestradiol exposure is the most consistent risk factor in breast cancer.

The SCVPH conducted a thorough review of the most up to date scientific researches into the possible impact of growth hormones on human health. Much of this research is in its infancy and makes use of new microbiological techniques that yet require validation. Scientists 22 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

F OO D

www.meatpacking.info

S A F ET Y

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 23

0 n ea

F OO D

oil

yb S ASo F ET Y

B

G ,R R ,C

B,

RK

an be y So

K

R ,C

R R, ,C

RB B,

5000

6000

B

Figure 1: Levels of oestrogen in foodstuffs

Soybean oil Cabbage Hen's egg Beer Potatoes Milk

2 nanograms

Beef from HPG treated steer 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

200,000

201,000

Level of oestrogen in nanograms per 100 grams

are able to look beyond the direct physiological impact of the hormones to investigate matters such as their genotoxic potential. Investigation of 17B-oestradiol, for example, has led to the hypothesis that besides oestrogen-receptor mediated effects, DNA damage effects may contribute to carcinogenicity. It was accepted that interpretations on this issue differed. While some studies suggested that residual amounts of oestradiol, progesterone and testosterone in meat constituted “an acceptable risk to the consumer" others pointed to “an increased lifetime risk for certain forms of cancer...even at low dose of added dietary exposure”.

More time for continued research is needed.

SCVPH identified particular areas in which further study is taking place: The role of hormonal imprinting in early stages of life.

The delicate endocrine equilibrium at different stages of life which requires study of individual age groups and sexes in the assessment of hormone exposure.

The reliability of estimate used in previous risk assessments and the need to find quantitative estimates of risk.

The possible genotoxic effects of growth hormones.

The possible links between hormone residues in animals and the observed increase of hormone associated diseases in many countries around the world, particularly breast and prostate cancer.

The potential environmental impact of the use of growth hormones, especially in 24 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

combination with other substances.

It is unsurprising that, despite the many inconclusive and conflicting factors in scientific work that awaits completion, SCVPH concluded that there was insufficient reason to reverse the EU ban on the use of the six listed natural and synthetic hormones used in meat production.

This view is not accepted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) nor the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They stand by the outcome of a joint committee of the Food and Agriculture Administration and the World Health Organisation (FAO/WHO) which states that the amount of growth hormones that make it into food products is safe for eating.

The FDA argues that in comparison to hormone levels that occur naturally in both cows and humans the levels of residues after treatment with growth hormones are minute. The FDA also argues (as is pointed out by Amanda Barrett in her article, “The Controversy over added Hormones in Meat and Dairy”) that steroid level in beef are much lower than those found in eggs or milk and that plant oestrogens, which act like oestrogen in the body, are supplied in high levels by many vegetable products.

Since the 1950's the FDA has approved the use of a number of hormones to promote growth in cattle and sheep, including natural testosterone, progesterone, oestrogen and their synthetic equivalents – the same as the EU banned list. These drugs are made as pellets that are put under the skin on the back of the animal's ear. The implants have a 'zero day www.meatpacking.info

F OO D

withdrawal', which means that the meat may safely be eaten at any time after the treatment.

When the animals are slaughtered the ears are discarded and do not enter the human food chain. The FDA sets the safe limit for hormones in meat, “at a level of drug in the meat that would be expected to have no effect on humans based on extensive scientific study and review.”

There are two pillars to the FDA policy. First is the belief that no harm can come from the addition to animals and humans of hormones that are already present naturally and which the human body is equipped to process. Secondly, the FDA emphasises the tiny size of the dose of hormones that may be present in residues, especially of the synthetic hormones, which are subject to extensive toxicology testing.

This is backed by the work of scientists such as Terry Etherton, Professor of Dairy and Animal Science at Pennsylvania Sate University who commented on the dangers from insulin-like growth factor (IGF): “Just to get the amount of IGF secreted in your saliva and digestive tract in a day, you'd have to drink about 95 quarts of milk.” Similarly, Ann Macrina, from the same department commented on the level of estrogen

S A F ET Y

estrogen and zeranol was blamed. In blood tests of the children excess of estrogens were found.

A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) investigation followed. One chicken was found to have higher than normal levels of estrogen in 150 – 200 samples of chicken, beef and milk, no residues of DES, zeranol or estrogen were found. The results were not verified by other laboratories.

Attempts to study an outbreak of breast enlargement in boys and girls in Italy - blamed on hormone residues in school dinners - failed because sample were ‘not available'.

Warnings from some scientists, such as Roy Hertz of the National Cancer Institute, who wrote of the carcinogenic risks of estrogenic additives, tend to be met with counter arguments based on the idea that other factors need to be taken into account. For example, Marcia Herman-Giddens of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health asserts that meat milk and similar foods may trigger early puberty because they are rich in protein, calories and nutrients. Children’s weight problems, accompanied inevitably by processed foods, high-calorie drinks and lack of exercise, may contribute more to the early onset

there is no evidence such small quantities of growth hormones impact on health Food and Drug Administration agrument

in meat: “A three ounce serving of beef from an estrogen-treated cow contains less than a billionth of a gram of estrogen, a level around 400,000 times lower than that in women and 100,000 times lower than that in men”. The FDA argues that there is no evidence that such small quantities of growth hormones can have a significant impact on human health.

Growth hormones have been used in the US for animals since the 1930s. Problems have occurred but the USDA and the FDA have been slow to act on occasion. The growth additive Diethystilbestrol (DES) was known to be carcinogenic in 1938 yet the FDA and USDA approved its use in 1947. With the Delaney Law of 1958, Congress acted to ban the addition of any carcinogens to foods but DES continued to be used on the grounds that it did not leave detectable residues in meat. Even when a link was made between DES and some cancers in 1971 and DES had been banned by 20 other countries, it took the FDA and the USDA until 1979 to put a US ban in place.

This tendency to stonewall in the face of a crisis is also shown in the reaction to an epidemic of premature sexual development and ovarian cysts in Puerto Rico between 1979 and 1981. Contamination of meat in the form of www.meatpacking.info

of puberty. Other factors such as pesticides, flame retardants, plastics and a whole range of chemicals in the environment that can disrupt hormones may also play a part. Herman-Giddens view is that far more research needs to be done before hormone residues should take the blame.

The Meat and Pharmaceutical industries in the US are well equipped to defend themselves when it come to justifying the continued use of growth hormones along-side the many other food additives that are commonly used in farming, including antibiotics, tranquillisers, pesticides, drugs, flavours and industrial waste.

The US Meat Institute is able to cite a “a worldwide scientific consensus” in support of the use of growth hormones and it asserts that, “The world's scientific community has agreed that both naturally occurring and synthetic hormones are safe when used according to label directions in food-producing animals.” Its own studies reveal that, “About one pound of beef raised using synthetic estradiol contains about 15,000 times less of this hormone than the amount produced daily by the average man and about nine million times less than the amount produced by a pregnant woman.” This, of course, completely backs up the stance of the FDA and the USDA. May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 25

F OO D

S A F ET Y

The fight against the use of growth hormones in beef continues in the US. On the lowest level, increasing numbers of scientists and campaigners suggest reducing the intake of beef and choosing to eat ‘organic' beef – from animals that have had no hormone treatments.

Dr Walter Willett of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health advocates cutting back on meat eating to no more than two servings of red meat a week. On such a level of consumption it would not matter whether or not the meat were ‘organic'. The extra cost of ‘organic' meat would then be irrelevant. An interesting criticism of ‘organic' farming come from Professor Bruce Chassy from the University of Illinois Food Microbiology Department. He claims that growth hormones are better for the environment as they lead to higher production from fewer cattle.

Other critics have become more emotive and strident. The principal shock tactic has been to look for links between growth hormones and cancer, in particular breast cancer and prostate cancer. Does the uncontrolled use of estrogen in beef have a link to the fact that one in three Americans may suffer from some form of cancer? This remains an unanswered question but one that concerns those who are part of the 50 percent increase in breast cancer cases since 1965. Here the FDA case is not helped by the revelation that in 1986 half the cattle sampled by the FDA had hormones illegally implanted in muscle, which resulted in high residues that could have ‘adverse effects'. In the same year a highly critical report entitled Human Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs was produced by the House Committee on Government Operations. The findings showed that the FDA favoured meat producers and veterinarians over its legal obligation to protect consumers. It stated that “most additives are used without evidence of efficacy, monitoring methods, and minimal safety of consumers of meat, milk and poultry”. The FDA was accused of entering the “world of deliberate chemicalisation” Martha Rosenberg as been one of the most vociferous critics of the use of hormones, which are high on her list of contaminants in meat in her article We're Eating What? (Huffington Post). Her analysis of the dangers of growth hormones in beef is based on the EU SCVPH work. The “increased risk of breast cancer and prostate cancer” are highlighted alongside the judgement that melengestrol acetate “is 30 times more active than natural progesterone”.

The Breast Cancer Fund and the journal Anti Cancer Research are also cited to back Rosenberg's assertion that Zeronal may carry a high risk in connection with early puberty and 26 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

breast cancer. Yet the use of the word “may” also echoes the SCVPH report, which is littered with uncertainties. Many questions remain unanswered and much more research is needed to remove the many doubts about growth hormones.

Since the EU ban was introduced, no other country in the world has banned the use of growth hormones. The advice of a neutral power in this dispute - Australia - seems to give a clear picture of how matters stand. Hormone growth promotants (HGPs) have been used in Australia for over 30 years and 40 percent of the cattle are raised in this way.

Two thirds of the cattle are exported. It has been found that there is a negligible difference in the hormone levels in beef from cattle that have been given HGPs and those who have not.

The Australian Department of Health and Ageing has concluded that “there is unlikely to be any appreciable health risk to consumers from eating meat from cattle that have been treated with HGPs according to Good Veterinary Practice”.

The EU position is judged to be “contrary to overall scientific opinion” including that of the World Health Organisation. The Australian Department of Health and Ageing has found no evidence to support the ban.

And what of the consumers? Meat consumption seems not to have been affected by this dispute. Other factors seem to be of more importance – such as price and quality. There is no clarity about the impact of hormones.

Further scientific investigation increases the complexity of our knowledge without offering clear and simple answers

references and further reading Council of European Union statement 26 April 2012. Transatlantic trade dispute on hormones comes to an end Meat and Livestock Australia. Hormone growth promotants http://www.mla.com.au/ Cattle-sheep-and-goat-industries/Food-safetyand-quality/Hormone-growth-promotants M.Rosenburg: Various articles, particularly We're eating what? Huffington Post US Meat Institute: Fact sheet on Hormones FDA Fact sheets: Consumer concerns about hormones in food. Steroid hormone implants used for growth in food-producing animals.

Austin American-Statesman, March 1989.

U.S. Policy turns blind side to dangers of meat additives.

Amanda Barrett, 2012: The controversy over added hormones in meat and dairy. http://www. med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=90869 www.meatpacking.info

MEAT PACKING J

O

U

R

N

A

L

Sign up for a GET ONLINE GO DIGITAL Sign up for a www.meatpacking.info

F OO D

S A F ET Y

28 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

F OO D

S A F ET Y

The case for

stainless steel With a higher upfront cost, stainless steel conveyors can be considered a luxury of a modern processing facility. But Fabio Conti, global product manager for food applications at equipment manufacturer Sandvik, looks at the benefits of a stainless steel conveyor belts for improving hygiene in food operations and argues that reduced cleaning times and a wide choice of sanitation methods can make steel conveyors commercially viable in the longer term

www.meatpacking.info

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 29

ALL IMAGES: SANDVIK

conveyors

F OO D

S A F ET Y

A

little more than a hundred years ago, a metallurgist in the steel city of Sheffield, England completed the world’s first commercial casting of a material that would have an impact far greater than he could ever have possibly imagined.

His immediate objective was to solve the problem of premature wear in the barrels of guns used by British soldiers.

However, and by no means uniquely in the annals of history, innovation driven by aggression would have an impact across more benign applications.

The alloy that Harry Brearly created in August 1913, a mix of iron and chromium, was stainless steel and it went on to transform the worlds of construction, manufacturing and food processing and handling.

While subsequent developments, notably the addition of nickel to the alloy (by Brearly’s successor at the lab, one Dr WH Hatfield) would progressively improve the performance of stainless steel, its core properties are the reasons why it remains the material of choice for so many food related applications.

The fact that stainless steel does not corrode or rust means there’s no risk of a reaction with or contamination of the foodstuff being stored or processed. And, critically, it can be steam-cleaned and sterilised for maximum hygiene.

corrosion barrier

S

tainless steel remains free of rust because of the interaction between its alloying elements and the environment. It contains iron, chromium, manganese, silicon, carbon and, in many cases, significant amounts of nickel and molybdenum. These elements react with oxygen from water and air to form a very thin, stable film that consists of such corrosion-resistant products as metal oxides and hydroxides. Chromium plays a dominant role in reacting with oxygen to form this film. In fact, all stainless steels by definition contain at least 10 percent chromium.

The presence of the stable film prevents additional corrosion by acting as a barrier that limits oxygen and water

30 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

S A F ET Y

Cleaned with foam and low pressure cleaner after 16h

Soiled and dipped in water

F OO D

Stainless steel

www.meatpacking.info

Damaged stainless steel

Solid plastic

Damaged solid plastic

Modular plastic

Damaged modular plastic

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 31

F OO D

S A F ET Y

access to the underlying metal surface. Because the film forms so readily and tightly, even only a few atomic layers reduce the rate of corrosion to very low levels. The fact that the film is much thinner than the wavelength of light makes it difficult to see without the aid of modern instruments. Although the steel is corroded on the atomic level, it appears stainless.

For Sandvik, the arrival of stainless steel opened the door to new markets, enabling us to extend our expertise in steel, conveying and steel belt-based processing across the food manufacturing industry.

In 1858, Sandvik founder Göran Fredrik Göransson became the first person in the world to successfully produce steel using the Bessemer process. In 1901, the company produced the world’s first steel conveyor belt and Sandvik Process Systems was born. And in 1921 the firm commenced production of stainless steel.

Throughout the 20th century, Sandvik has

challenge not only of compliance with strict legal regulations in terms of health, hygiene, safety and traceability, but also of being seen to be taking every step possible to distance itself from the practices of the past. And meat cutting operations – with their multiple stages of handling, cutting, transporting, carrying and re-handling – are right at the heart of this.

Good food hygiene practices must be maintained, hazard prevention plans implemented, and every precaution taken to minimise risk of bacterial build-up. In terms of equipment, anything that could come into contact with meat products – directly or indirectly – must be easy to clean and, where necessary, disinfect (both in terms of ‘cleanability’ and ease of access) and in reasonable condition, i.e. not scored or worn.

These guidelines cover all surfaces on which meat is handled, and one of the most critical pieces of equipment in this respect is the

The industry faces the challenge distancing itself from the past Fabio Conti, global product manager for food applications at Sandvik

been responsible for introducing stainless steel belt-based processing to a whole range of food applications, from fish cutting and meat boning to ice cream freezing and chocolate conveying.

Today, food products as diverse as fruit, vegetables, nuts, confectionery, shellfish, poultry, cookies, tea, coffee, fats, emulsifiers and more are processed on stainless steel belts.

For some applications, the thermal properties of steel are key to its use. Processes such as freezing, cooling, steaming, dehydration and baking (the latter based on carbon rather than stainless steel) all benefit from the belt’s ability to conduct heat and operate in different conditions, whether intense hot, cold or humidity.

hygiene first

W

hat’s common to them all though is the superior cleanliness – and hence hygiene – of a steel belt compared with other materials.

And a textbook example of the importance of this is the meat cutting line.

Over the last year or so, horsemeat and associated beef/pork mislabelling scandals have shaken consumer confidence in the meat industry throughout Europe and beyond. And while the health risks resulting from this saga have actually been negligible, they have once again put food standards under the spotlight.

The meat industry therefore faces the

32 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

conveyor used to carry materials away from trimming or deboning lines.

The major component on a conveyor – the part that comes directly into contact with the meat being processed – is the belt, and in broad terms there are three types to choose from: solid stainless steel, solid plastic and modular plastic.

Stainless steel’s chemical and bacterial neutrality with food means it poses no threat to either human health or to the taste of food.

Durability and corrosion resistance are other important factors; stainless steel systems last for years, even decades.

For meat conveying, the structure of the steel belt is another key advantage. Flat and solid, there are no gaps or textures in which bacteria can hide. Steel belts are installed in what is called ‘endless’ form, meaning the two ends are welded together to form the conveyor loop, then ground to remove any trace of the joint.

Stainless steel conveyors in meat processing can be sanitised in whatever way is most appropriate to the operation: hot water, pressure, brushes, detergents, chemicals or any combination of these.

bacterial build up study

F

innish food laboratory VTT Expert Services Ltd published research showing that the risk of problems caused by bacterial build-up can be reduced, by using a stainless steel conveyor. www.meatpacking.info

F OO D

S A F ET Y

Schröders Fleisch case study

S

chröders Fleisch in Willich, Germany, is a medium-sized family-owned enterprise. The primary activity of this long-established company from the Lower Rhine region is the dismembering of mainly fresh prime-quality beef. The company recently commissioned a conveying line furnished by ITEC and equipped with a Sandvik steel conveyor belt and other Sandvik components. The conveyor serves as connecting link between the dismembering lines and the packaging lines.

“The smooth and hard surface of steel belts offers numerous advantages,” said Michael Steinsträter, General Manager of ITEC GmbH, a medium-sized plant construction company that has designed the new plant for Schröders.

“There are no holes, textures or fibers which could promote the growth of bacteria. A steel belt can be cleaned very easily and effectively – time savings of more than 60 per cent have been experienced – so consumption of water and cleaning agents is lower. Conveying systems equipped with steel belts have a long service life and low maintenance requirements, which translates into significant cost savings.

According to Steinsträter, this combination of high standards of hygiene and significant operational savings makes steel belt lines “the obvious first-choice solution” for meat dismembering facilities. These are the advantages that convinced Michael Schröders, owner of Schröders GmbH, to decide in favour of the steel belt conveying technology for the new line. “When it comes to hygiene in a dismembering operation, steel belts are superior. We are a supplier of high quality products which means excellent hygiene and cleaning performance is of utmost significance,” said Schröders. “The design of the steel belt conveying system has been another important factor. Its compact form and small-size return pulleys meant it could be easily integrated into the existing infrastructure of the operation.”

www.meatpacking.info

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 33

F OO D

S A F ET Y

Figure 1 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000

Microbe count, CFU /cm2

10,000 1,000 100 10 1

Soiled

Cleaned

Soiled

4h Stainless steel

Cleaned 8h

Solid plastic

Soiled

Cleaned 16h

Soiled

Cleaned 24h

Modular plastic

Source: VTT Expert Services

Under this study, three different conveyor belt materials - stainless steel (AISI 301), solid plastic and modular plastic - were tested for their hygienic properties and cleanability after being soiled with microbes.

Each material was tested using both undamaged and damaged surfaces. The material samples were soiled with a mixture of Pseudomonas fragi E98200T, Candida albicans C-85161 and Listeria innocua E-991340 in blood. These microbes can be found in fish and meat processing facilities where cleaning is insufficiently thorough. The microbial mixture was applied at room temperature to the test surfaces for various periods – four, eight, 16, 24, 72, 72/72 and 72/72/72 hours (for the latter two, the belt was cleaned between each 72 h period) - to simulate procedures in different meat factories.

The visual inspection of the material samples showed dirt accumulations in the areas that were damaged with a knife. The dirt was clearly visible on the damaged plastic surfaces. The amount of microbes present on the surfaces was determined using swab samples taken from the surfaces with cotton swab sticks and culturing microbe colonies on Agar plates. The diagram 1 shows the results for the damaged belt surfaces after four hour, eight hour, 16h and 24h, both before and after cleaning. Cleaning was done using foam and a low pressure cleaner. The amount of microbes is expressed as colony-

34 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

forming units (CFU/cm2).

The scale of the y-axis is logarithmic, as the differences in microbe results that are larger than one logarithmic unit are usually considered relevant.

The diagram shows that the microbial load on damaged stainless steel surfaces after cleaning is more than one log unit smaller than that on the two damaged plastic surfaces.

VTT Expert Services’ research scientists concluded that, “Stainless steel is more cleanable than the two different plastic surfaces tested according to the culturing results. The difference is more significant for damaged surfaces.”

The cleanability of stainless steel means conveyor belts can be cleaned and sanitised significantly faster, ensuring high availability – important in multi-shift operations. Short cleaning times also represent best practice in ecological and economical terms, with low water consumption and low use of detergents and other cleaning chemicals

give us your opinion What are your thoughts on the hygiene and cost benefits of stainless steel conveyors against the alternatives in the market? Do you have experience to share from your facility or do you offer an alternative solution?

Write to: rhian@meatpacking.info

www.meatpacking.info

Lower costs higher yields better quality Marel introduces, DeboFlex, a groundbreaking new way of de-boning and handling pork fore-ends.

The DeboFlex system is in-line and uses an overhead conveyor and specially designed carriers to transport fore-ends past operators who carry out individual deskinning, defatting, de-boning and dividing operations.

Increases “knife in meat” time No heavy lifting Focus on specific process tasks Improved food safety; longer shelf life Better factory floor logistics

marel.com

“

The efficiency in the production hall has risen, the transport of products has become simpler and the cutting process has become easier.

”

Production Manager, Menno van der Post at Compaxo Meat Ltd

au t o ma t i o n

At The limits Processors globally are embracing automated production, but limiting factors, including financial and technical, present barriers to uptake. MPJ editor Rhian Owen looks at the current trends and challenges in automated meat production

36 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

au t o ma t i o n

of automation T

he term ‘automation' was coined in the automotive industry in the 1940s to describe the increased use of automatic devices and controls in mechanised production lines. The origin of the word is attributed to DS Harder, an employee at General Motors at the time. However, automation did not come into popular use until the 1950s.

The automotive industry arguably still leads the way in incorporating automated processing.

While the International Federation of Robotics, www.meatpacking.info

a non-profit body by robotic organisations from over 15 countries, recently reported an all-time high for industrial robots in 2013, the food sector is still far behind the automobile sector.

For example, in Great Britain, the UK automotive industry bought 11 times as many robots last year as food and drinks firms. “Since the final product, for example ham, is pretty cheap compared to cars I believe it will be difficult to apply the same automation levels and investments into the meat industry," says Geert May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 37

au t o ma t i o n

Smet, meat industry manager at CSB-System.

The automotive sector has been successful in implementing automated processing. Regular components and a high-value product, as well as relatively low production rates, make automobile production an idea process for automation.

However, despite product and process differences, some business experiences and observations can be transferred into the meat industry. But, in order for meat facilities to

slow to permeate automation. However, many processing facilities globally are now embracing automation production. Increased costs and competition has provided an incentive for processing facilities to consider far greater use of automation and computerised controls in meat processing (Mittal, 1997).

“In the market today, we see bigger groups have digested the cost for regrouping and have funds for automation," says Smet. “It's also

meat processors are not used to expensive equipment, it's a big change Mark Seaton, Scott Technology

implement automation successfully Nollet and Toldra (2006: 47) note that “a longer term, less risk-averse company culture is required, and employees at all levels must be prepared to change".

Where automation implementation has failed is often down to the lack of buy-in throughout the company. Mark Seaton, sales and business development manager, Scott Technology, says: “It's quite a mind shift for meat processors.

They're not used to expensive equipment.

Despite good returns, it's a big change. There has been a lack of awareness of the skills and technical people needed for this change.

Companies see [automation] as a risk."

Indeed, the meat industry has been relatively 38 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

more and more difficult to find highly skilled people and these specialists are becoming more expensive, plus manual tasks are hard work for the operators. In addition, speed is crucial because orders drop in very late and with short delivery times, which calls for highly automated logistics. Therefore, increasingly, companies seek to differentiate themselves by automating and integrating the production processes."

In meat processing, speed trumps. Marel’s I-Cut Profile is a high speed, fully automatic portion cutter of thick or thin steaks or groups.

The I-Cut Profile was introduced in 2012; earlier generations of portioning machines were unable to group the slices, which, therefore, could not be automatically loading into trays or a packing www.meatpacking.info

ALL IMAGES: CSB-SYSTEM

au t o ma t i o n

End-to-end IT solutions

T

machine. The I-Cut Profile can slice up to 1,800 slices per minute.

Another key driver to the increasing implementation of automation solutions is that automation is performing tasks that humans cannot. “Inevitably, this is why we're doing this," says Seaton. “We generally find 'task replacement' just doesn’t stack up well enough to justify the cost of the automation, so we have to find through the automation other processing benefits. We focus on labour cost, health and safety costs, shelf life, and in particular yield."

Smet agrees: “Machinery is becoming smarter every day, in order for these machines to run perfectly and perform at the best they need software that feeds them with parameters and decisions. Parameters and decision that might be gathered somewhere earlier in the process.”

Pork automation

A

s automation solutions can be restricted in what they can do since they often have difficulties in handling non-uniform shapes, the pig meat industry has led the way in introducing automation on the processing line, as the product is generally more uniform.

"The slaughter lines for pigs have been automated a lot since farmers became better and better in breeding 'standard pigs' with standard dimensions," says Smet. "There is a much lower www.meatpacking.info

he purpose of automation is to increase process efficiency, safety, productivity and product quality. This is generally achieved by means of a control system that has been ‘programmed’ with a set of instructions,” notes Mittal (1997).

Marel: Marel attributes the continuously growing focus on automation along the entire meat processing chain to the growing use of IT. For example, Marel’s StreamLine, a deboning and trimming system that can be configured for a variety of tasks, including deboning, trimming, membrane skinning, tying and sawing, works with Innova, the company’s production control software.

With Innova, key product indicators (KPIs) such as yield and throughput are automatically collected.

CSB: Earlier this year, CSB-System International, received an order from Colruyt Group to equip its meat processing plant Vlevico with the CSB-System. A central turnkey IT solution will replace all existing software applications at their site in Halle, Belgium. All processes throughout the chain will be controlled by one system: from purchasing via cutting, batch processing, production including production monitoring and picking up to food labelling, nutritional value management, quality management and traceability. The system also comprises business process management and a document management system. Mobile data entry allows for flexible organisation, whie Colrruyt also uses CSB’s Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) to automate transmission and processing of all external business processes without manual activity.

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 39

au t o ma t i o n

automation rate in beef, for instance, because there is a bigger variation in sizes, ages and fat contents of these animals".

While beef butchery processes are particularly arduous because of the size and weight of the cattle carcasses, and automated solutions could reduce the physical nature of the tasks, beef slaughter automation has received relatively little automation R&D efforts in comparison to lamb and pork (Nollet and Toldra, 2006: 60).

While beef cutting and boning rooms currently contain the least amount of automation, some believe this will improve with future automation likely to be based around transfer of technologies from the pork industry.

Scott Technology, a New Zealand-based manufacturer specialising in automated production, has developed beef processing 40 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

systems that can be installed in the majority of existing boning room operations. Scott’s Beef Boning Unit is used instead of the boner’s meat hook and applies greater force than a person, reducing cutting and improving yield. While the Striploin Saw keeps the workers’ hands away from the bandsaw blade.

lamb automation

N

ew Zealand is the world's largest exporter of lamb, and Australia is the largest exporter of mutton. It is not surprising that Australasia leads the way in sheep processing automation.

However, with meat bosses in New Zealand recently reporting a fall of 4.7 percent in the country’s lamb crop, compared with 2012, there www.meatpacking.info

SCOTT TECHNOLOGY

au t o ma t i o n

are further demands on lamb automation.

Lamb boning in Australasia had no automation until Scott Technology started to develop it; the company is developing a fullyautomated end-to-end lamb boning room, which the company states increases yield and eliminates waste.

Scott Technology offers stand alone machines and fully integrated systems. The automated lamb boning room system includes the primal system, which produces primal cuts from a carcass; an x-ray system that specifies the skeletal structure of a carcass; forequarter system; middle system; and hindquarter system. “10 years ago, very few believed we could automate lamb processing because it is so complicated and every product is different," says Seaton. "We have proved it possible and www.meatpacking.info

the focus has switched to financial viability.

The sheep and lamb markets have always been challenging and our focus is on achieving payback for processors in little more than a year.�

barriers to use

I

n the last decade, many of the technological barriers to automating the meat sector have been removed. However, the industry is traditionally conservative and cash-poor; financial factors are a predominant factor. “It is a conservative industry, run by butchers not bankers," says Smet. "Return on investment is not easy to calculate unless you link the automation investments on specific results, for example yield or quality."

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 41

MAREL

au t o ma t i o n

Another limiting factor is that many processing facilities do not have the in-house skills to support automation systems. It is essential for management and production staff working alongside the automated systems to receive full training. At present, there has also been resistance to their use from employees.

“Machine support is also an issue with traditional plant engineers being skilled for servicing a traditional engineering plant," says Seaton. “They can therefore find it daunting when suddenly faced with x-rays and robots to maintain. Many sites have to bring in new people to service this area."

Variation of the carcass should not be underestimated. One of the greatest challenges

It is a conservative industry, run by butchers not bankers Geert Smet, CSB-System

in automation is the varying size and shape of livestock. Variable products require flexible processing technology.

“We found we needed x-ray to be able to ‘see' everything and provide correct data to the cutting machines," says Seaton. "And some things can really catch you out – like when rib counting. Most had assumed lamb were 13 rib animals, but actually about 15 percent are either 12 or 14 rib animals. Then there are animals with more ribs on one side than the other, or variations brought on at the plant, for example a leg has been removed for a cyst or the like, and the x-ray may then struggle to identify key features."

However, with the introduction of technologies such as x-ray, ultrasound and enhanced vision systems, automation solutions are starting to handle more diverse carcass shapes.

Scott Technology has solved variable lamb carcass problems through mechatronic solutions that adjust the most extreme carcass variations through measuring carcass dimensions with X-ray technology. "Lamb is a young animal and there’s going to be rib variation. You do need to know how many ribs there are but sometimes it’s not clear whether you’d call something – which can be really small – a rib or not. It needs to be done on a case by case basis, and that's a challenge. Through our x-ray technology we have the ability to spot the carcass that is not going to work through the automation, so in the process we can take them off before they get to the cutting machinery, and process them manually."

Another challenge surrounds equipment longevity and manufacturing flexibility.

42 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

When investment is being made in machines, processors are looking to maximise how automation can be used and to ensure their investment is for the long term, capable of handling current requirements but also potential future requirements.

Automation has much to offer meat processing operations. In order for automated systems to be widespread, suppliers will need to work in close partnership with processors.

“A lot of these automation projects are custom built and cannot be copied one to one to other projects,” says Smet. “I believe that the meat industry will have to define and develop with their suppliers’ automation projects. So it is important to choose a reliable and proven automation provider since the relationship will have to last for a long time”

references and further reading Caldwell, D (2012) Robotics and Automation in the Food Industry: Current and Future Technologies, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Devine, C. and Dikeman M. (2004) Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences Series, London: Academic Press Kerry, J. Kerry, J. and David, L. (2002) Meat Processing: Improving Quality, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Mittal, G. (1997) Computerized Control Systems in the Food Industry, New York: Marcel Dekker Nollet, L. and Toldra, F. (2006) Advanced Technologies For Meat Processing, Florida: CRC Press. www.meatpacking.info

C U T~SL IC E~ DIC E

a slice out of costs Cutting, slicing and dicing equipment is a key component in the meat and poultry production line; plants needs to cut accurately and slice speedily to generate savings in yield. MPJ editor Rhian Owen speaks to portioning experts on industry trends, intelligent technology and the importance of keeping blades sharp. MPJ editor explains

44 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

C U T~SL IC E~ D IC E

T

he meat and poultry business remains a volatile market. The cost of meat is rising faster than almost every other food group, and processing facilities globally have closed their doors for good as they struggled to remain profitable. Plants are now looking at manufacturers' innovations to boost profitability.

Portioning is often a crucial component in a production line, and the demands on cutting, slicing and dicing equipment and the manufacturers are greater than ever. Improved cutting technology, operator training and monitoring, is king when it comes to optimising yield - and that's the KPI everyone cares about.

“Over time the price of meat has increased, it has become more important to find ways to advance the technology for reclaiming

“In developed markets, there’s a move towards fixed weight packs,” explains Jonathan Fox, area sales manager, Marel. “Processors want to give away as little as possible, if it’s meant to be 100g they don’t want to put 110g in the pack.

Cutting machinery has had to keep up with the market – often using scanners and vision systems for instance – and other high tech ways to get as close to the weight as possible.”

In Europe, processing facilities must manage production according to the TU1/TU2 European rules. With this system, for one production hour or 10,000 packages produced – whichever occurs first - any pack that exceeds the permissible TU1 percentage and those with weights below the lower limit value of TU2 must be rejected. For instance, when producing100g packs of diced chicken the TU1 limit would be 95.5g and the

yield is critical, it's the big thing Wayne Daggett, Bettcher Industries

high value lean meat. Everyone is looking at new ways to improve performance in yield,” said Wayne Daggett of Bettcher Industries, headquartered in Ohio, US. “Yield is critical, it’s the big thing,” says Peter Glensmark, DSI business manager, JBT FoodTech. “You only have to save one or two percent in yield, and you can pay for a very expensive machine, very quickly. A lot of [portioning] methods end up producing trim, and the only place for trim is to go into formed products, which is of lower value.”

Last year, Bettcher Industries introduced the Quantum Trimmer, a system the company says delivers higher meat yields as well as lower long-term cost of operation. The system allows processors to reclaim nearly all of the highvalue meat from bones. “That’s a huge yield improvement,” says Daggett. “The system can go all day, without sharpening, as the motor is turning the blade twice as fast. In the US this is particularly important, as our line speeds tend to be faster. The Quantum Trimmer offers a tremendous yield advantage.”

fixed weight

T

here is also a prominent trend to cut meat to a fixed weight. Supermarket chains are focussing on reduced waste and optimised inventory control, and fixed weight products over variable weight contribute considerably to this. As a result, meat processors must reduce giveaway, look at decreasing cost and optimise production. www.meatpacking.info

TU2 limit would be 91g. Two percent, or 200 packages, between the TU1 and TU2 range would be counted, but every package thereafter that is less than 95.5g would be rejected until 10,000 packages have been weighed, or one full production hour is complete.

Portioning to a fixed weight is also as a result of the growing popularity of convenience food among consumers. This is certainly true in Europe; the continent dominates the world’s ready meals market. Ready meal sales in supermarkets in the UK alone topped £2.3bn (US$3.9bn) in the 2012 –2013 period, according to analyst IRI. “The most attractive offering is to be able to intelligently cut pieces to a size, or to a weight.

The weight is the most important factor,” says Glensmark. “In Europe, and predominately in the UK, our equipment goes into the poultry market for ready meals.”

A couple of years ago, Marel introduced the I-Cut Profile for slicing fixed weight meat portions with low giveaway. The fully automatic I-Cut has an integrated laser scanner that gives precise weight control by making a high resolution 3D scan of every primal. The machine is able to slice ultra-thin fresh meat, up to 1,800 slices per minute. The I-Cut Profile can work independent or part of a processing line that can include the Marel IPL loading robot, which picks the styled batches up and loads them into the pockets of a thermoformer machine.

“If you’ve got pork loin or pork belly, the machine weighs it and takes a 3D scan of the product and cuts it according to what you require,” says Fox. “If you want five slices in a May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 45

JBT FOOFTECH

C U T~SL IC E~ DIC E

JBT Foodtech's DSI waterjet portioning system scans with cameras to locate fat and determine shape, thickness and weight before slicing

100g pack, first of all the machine splits it up into 100g portions and then cuts each of those portions into five slices to the same thickness.

Every slice in the customer’s pack will have the same cooking time.”

course, the consumer doesn’t like the variation either.”

Around the same time as Marel’s I-Cut Profile was introduced, large Japanese manufacturer of meat slicers Nantsune, brought out the Libra

customers have saved 15 percent giveaway on every portion Louis March, Bizerba

Consistent piece size is essential for cooking, says Glensmark. “In the last 10 years or so the quality of ready meals has shot up, and I think a lot of this has to do with the consistent piece sizes. For instance, if you’re dicing chicken, it’s important to achieve consistent piece sizes as you don't want a small piece of a couple of grams and then a large one of 25g. If there’s that variation in weight, then you have to cook the meal to cater for the 25g, due to food safety, and you’ll overcook the small pieces. Of 46 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

165oC – a fixed weight slicer mainly for pork.

The Libra 165oC scans the shape of the meat in 3D before slicing it, with no feed back time.

The machine is able to slice up to 6,000 slices per hour. The company has said that with its previous machine a fixed weight was obtained by feeding back the weight while slicing, but this method was slow, so it developed a slicer to scan the shape of the meat in advance.

Bizerba offers a fully automatic slicer, the A550, which is suitable for a factory www.meatpacking.info

SFK LEBLANC

C U T~SL IC E~ D IC E

environment but is also portable. “The A550 is IP65 wash down so suitable for a factory environment but also on wheels so it’s portable.

The slicer can slice and weigh the products as it slices and actually adjust the thickness of the portion to get a set weight at a slice speed of 200 slices per minute,” says Louis March, retail and food processing sales manager, Bizerba.

“The Bizerba A550 adjusts the thickness of the slices so that giveaway is kept to a minimum.

We have customers who have managed to save 15 percent giveaway on every portion, which equates to cost savings.”

In New Zealand Titan’s latest product the 500 IVS slicer has an electronic adjustment capacity, whereby pack weight is controlled as it is sliced.

Titan says that weighing products as they are sliced removes the need for pricey vision systems.

The machine can slice 1,800 slices a minute.

cutting technology

J

BT FoodTech introduced its DSI 800 Series Portioner to the market last year, part of the company’s waterjet portioning systems profile.

The DSI 800 uses computer-positioned highpressure waterjets to generate shapes to complex criteria, which JBT says is ideal for high-volume portions, high-accuracy intense cuts and fat trimming.

“This machine is incredibly flexible,” says JBT's Glensmark. “Every piece that goes through the DSI machine is scanned with a vision system and the whole geography of that piece is then captured by the computer. The computer works out the best way to cut it and drives water jets.”

SFK Leblanc’s Automatic Belly Trimmer (ABT) also uses waterjet technology. The ABT takes 3D images of each product to determine where to cut the belly. Once the cuts have been determined, four water jets with a pressure of 50,000 psi cut the belly with approximately 90ml of water per belly. “The high pressure waterjet will trim the belly after analysing it, and it can do that at 1,650 bellies per hour,” says Marcel Couture, VP sales and projects, SFK Leblanc.

Successful implementation of waterjet portioning systems has previously been limited by speed, depth of cut and inability to cut bone. Today, it’s often an issue of cost. For many processing facilities waterjet equipment is prohibitively expensive. While many experts agree that waterjet cutters involve a large initial outlay of capital, Couture adds that ROI can be fruitful provided you have the capacity for it.

Waterjet cutting can provide enhanced productivity for a processing facility. In labourintensive processing lines, changing knife blades, www.meatpacking.info

Above and below: SFK Leblanc's automatic belly trimmer uses waterject technology

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 47

BETTCHER

C U T~SL IC E~ DIC E

Above: Bettcher's Whizard Trimmers deliver a solution for trimming meat and poultry. The Whizard Trimmer Series II is a light and balanced trimmer to keep the workforce more comfortable, safer and more productive

48 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

C U T~SL IC E~ D IC E

sharpest tool in the box K

nife sharpening is a delicate process.

Knives and cutting devices must be frequently sharpened in order to deliver maximum yield, productivity and profit.

“If the blade is not sharp then more effort is required by the operator and the machine to slice the product, this can lead to increased energy consumption and wear and tear on the machine,” says Bizerba's March.

“If you slice with a dull blade the quality of slice will be affected as the product is being torn rather than sliced, and you will see that in the product presentation.”

Bettcher's Daggett adds, “We continue to train people that a sharp blade is a safer blade, it takes less effort to perform the operation, and it is a lot more efficient.”

“The operators are then faster and it increases their yield,” he says.

One of Bettcher’s sharpening solutions is AutoEdge, an automated sharpening solution that allows the operator to load a blade, position the grinding motor and steeling device and press one button. “It’s computer run and will restore a blade to factory sharpness automatically,” adds Daggett.

“We’ve found customers can get day long sharpness, whereas before they might sharpen the blade throughout the day. It’s done via a computer monitor so they’re not over sharpening it.”

For medium-sized processing plants, Illinois-headquartered company Primedge

offers its Twins Sharpening System, while for larger operations, its centralised knife sharpening system can sharpen blades up to 16in long. The company has a strong focus on sharpening safety and offers hands-on knife sharpening seminars that take place in a customer’s plant. The seminars cover knife sharpening techniques, knife edge maintenance and Primedge sharpening machine inspection and maintenance.

Daggett notes that training on sharpening correctly is essential. “There’s an art to it. We find people get into bad habits.

We reinforce best practice and offer in-plant training. We will often train all shifts.”

Another issue is in relation to hygiene.

In many processing facilities, knives and cutting devices are replaced and sharpened daily. A blade that remains in the area when a worker finishes their shift, and is then reused, could contaminate the meat and destruct an entire day’s work.

German manufacturer Friedr Dick recently developed a solution known as Knifeinspector, which includes RFID tags built into the handles of its knives, as well as in the staff ID badges. Readers can be installed at entrances and exits, or other locations in order to track and trace those tools at a facility. While the use of Knifeinspector supports safe and hygienic foodstuffs processing, the company notes that it minimises the cost of mislaid tools.

replacing blades and sharpening blades can be laborious and can also reduce profit margins dramatically when that time is taken from production.

However, waterjet technology is not the only innovative way of portioning meat products.

Manufacturers of equipment using involute and orbital blades, for example, are continuously developing blades to help meet high output demands. In addition, time is often saved as the speed of portioning with these blades tends to be quicker than waterjet cutting.

“The I-Cut Profile will slice up to 1,800 slicers per minute with an involute blade, of course, the thinner the slice the faster it can run,” explains Fox. “You couldn’t cut with these speeds with a waterjet. While one of the problems you have with other slicers is that the reload time is eight to 10 seconds; obviously that’s time when you’re

not producing. There’s a lot of effort to reduce the reload time. This machine is four seconds or less, so it’s one of the quickest on the market. It means that the line is producing more consistently.”

With Weber’s 405 circular saw throughput is enhanced by a circular blade speed of 600 revolutions per minute (RPM). Used in mid-size processing facilities, the 405 is now operating with an Interleaver CCI for processors requiring ultra-thin slices of meat separated by paper.

“Weber is in pushing the boundaries of blade design to increase performance in terms of speed, accuracy and product quality,” says Jan Oertel, sales director, Weber. “The importance attributed to blade technology is illustrated by the major investment made by Weber in an inhouse bespoke blade manufacturing facility to completely control the development and quality

www.meatpacking.info

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 49

C U T~SL IC E~ DIC E

of Weber blades and cutting systems.”

Grote’s parented AccuBand is a good example of a band saw blade system. Used with every Grote slicer, the Accuband cuts with a 5in wide band blade running between two pulleys. It pulls a minimum of 30ft (9m) of blade per second through each slice of product, while three disposable blades eliminate the need for resharpening, providing speedy production.

hygiene focus

E

and PTFE (polytetrafluorethyle), makes the company’s slicing machines more resilient and resistant to corrosion. “Ceraclean has an easy to clean effect, and machines can be cleaned in half the time,” says March. “We have also designed our machines to be quick and easy to clean with very few or no food traps to minimise food contamination.”

Marel’s R&D focus also centres around hygiene: “I can’t tell you much, but companies want more hygienic machines. The University of Lincoln did some research on robots and found that they are more hygienic than operators,” says Marel's Fox.

energy efficiency

P

rocessing facilities are always looking for ways to lower their operational costs.

Energy saving equipment linked to reducing

marel

quipment manufacturers are developing ultra-hygienic machines throughout the processing line, driven by increasingly stringent framework for meat hygiene programmes through laws and regulations. In particular, the industry is looking at how to eliminate potential contamination.

“The number one thing everyone is looking at is hygiene, in particular cross contamination,” says Daggett. “The supply chain is truly amazing.

There are US plants that process 16,000 pork per day and they do it so efficiently, so hygienically.

A high quality product at such a low cost.”

The 906 is Weber's latest addition to its range of high performance slicing lines, developed with a new hygienic construction. Weber states that its ‘open design’ sets new standards in hygienic design, allowing easy access for operation and cleaning. It also requires less disassembly and reassembly than previous comparable models.

“One of the main reasons [for developing the 906] was to improve the hygienic design as well as ease of operation. This was mainly driven by the US market; the requirements in terms of cleaning are one of the most stringent in the world. Weber started from scratch and the main rule for the R&D department was to create an open frame design that gives the customer the opportunity to clean the machine better,” says Weber's Oertel.

While the new Ceraclean surface finish was introduced to Bizerba slicers in 2010. Ceraclean’s surface finishing, which consists of synthetic resin combined with ceramic components

50 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

weber

C U T~SL IC E~ D IC E

expenditures is aiding sales of portioning kit.

In an energy intensive industry, March explains that energy efficiency is an important aspect to Bizerba when designing new machines and devices: “Our slicing machines can use anything from 20 percent to 50 percent less than our competitors, even with some of our older models.”

March explains that the company has a number of developments to reduce electricity consumption of its devices. For example, Bizerba uses ‘Emotion’ drive technology, which ensures energy consumption of the slicer automatically adjusts to the product and the actual load situation. This reduces energy and the machine

barely radiates heat to the environment.

While European processing facilities are looking at cutting their energy consumption, Couture explains that the US and Canada is following suit. “The North American meat industry is taking a closer look at its carbon footprint. We have to be prepared. I know in Europe they’re more clued into energy issues, but it coming to North America. We’re working on that”

Above: Marel's Portionline Meat with I-Cut Profile portion cutter produces the high percentages of on-weights that enable processors to achieve high levels of automation Above, top: Weber’s 804 Slicing System packs features and sanitation ease from larger machines into a compact solution.

It has the ability to load products up to 1700mm and has a blade speed of 1,500 RPM.

www.meatpacking.info

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 51

cu t ~ s lic e ~ dic e

cutting safety 52 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

cu t ~ s lci e ~ dic e

The processing floor can be a dangerous place; cuting, slicing and dicing equipment is the cause of serious accidents. Rhian Owen looks at how facilities are working together with manufacturers to ensure better safety

www.meatpacking.info

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 53

cu t ~ s lic e ~ dic e

U

pton Sinclair’s The Jungle - a harrowing portrait of an immigrant’s oppressive life in meatpacking – was published in the US in 1906. The book not only sparked a public outcry around safety issues in the industry, it angered President Theodore Roosevelt and inspired landmark health and safety regulations.

Today, the meat industry is still a dangerous place. While new reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that workplace safety in the industry in North America is improving, the sector has consistently operated with one of the highest injury rates in the country.

Elsewhere in the world, the story is similar.

The British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) in the UK, released a report in early 2014 that in a typical year, the meat industry reports over 200 major injuries and over 1,000 other injuries to employees, making it one of the most dangerous segments in the UK food and drink sector.

BMPA further notes that an employee in the slaughtering sector is three times more likely to be injured than the average person at work.

Cutting, slicing and dicing equipment can be the cause of serious accidents. BMPA reports that bandsaws, circular knife slicers and machine with circular saw blades are the cause of a disproportionately high number of machine accidents, frequently resulting in serious injury; ‘knife injuries have long dominated the statistics’, the guidance notes state.

Waterjet portioning uses high-pressure waterjets to cut meat products. Relatively new to the industry, (modern waterjet cutting has only been around since the 1980s) waterjet cutting also presents safety issues. “Waterjet is inherently, and potentially, quite dangerous,” says Peter Glensmark, DSI business manager, JBT FoodTech. “You wouldn’t want to put your hand anywhere near a water jet.

“With our DSI portioner you physically can’t; there are interlock doors all around it, and as soon as you open it, the water stops. Whereas, with other machinery or hand cutting, you’re handling a knife, so there is potential danger.

You do have to handle the knife sometimes - to sharpen it. But with the water jet, you don’t go anywhere near the cutting device at all.”

The dangers that cutting, slicing and dicing equipment can pose are perhaps exacerbated by the increasingly rapid speeds at which workers are expected to work. “When talking about the development of processing equipment, efficiency and capability play an important role.

Nevertheless, there is nothing as important

54 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

jbt foodtech

cu t ~ s lci e ~ dic e

Above: Guards and automatic cut offs and no blade changes makes waterjet cutting a safe method

www.meatpacking.info

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 55

cu t ~ s lic e ~ dic e

as safety,” says says Jan Oertel, sales director, Weber. “Our slicing systems are stringently built according to safety regulations and official standards. We also go the extra mile to further develop additional improvements worldwide, based on individual safety requirements.”

training

M

eat processing as an industry has a very high turnover rate. For example, in the US, while there are an unknown percentage of workers undocumented, the turnover rate reaches 400 percent in some plants. “It’s harder and harder to find people to work in the cutting and deboning environment because it’s a dangerous area,” says Marcel Couture, VP sales and projects, SFK Leblanc.

Training new employees is a huge cost to a business; it takes time and resources, and the new employee will be less productive than an experienced worker. However, processors must ensure all employees receive basic induction training and ensure staff are trained to use specific equipment, especially when they buy new machinery.

“We offer ongoing training and ‘optimisation’ programmes to ensure optimum efficiencies are achieved with our slicing lines,” says Oertel.

“This can include fully detailed line studies to highlight areas where improvements can be made, optimisation of the machines to the product and training of customers’ employees to maximise performance, yield recovery and, ultimately, achieve significant cost savings.”

Glensmark adds: “We would not sell a machine without training. It’s always included in the price, never shown as an option. We do training on site or we do training at our own facility. We normally prefer our customers come to us so we can do a full course, a full week of training, where they are away from their own environment and distractions. But not all companies can afford to send three or four key personnel out of their business to the US for a week, so we do it on site as well. We can’t sell the machine without training, it’s not on. We can recap and do extra training as well.”

Louis March, retail and food processing sales manager, Bizerba, notes: “We have designed our slicers to work in a specific way that ensures safe working procedures such as forcing the operator to close the slicer blade to turn the machine off and on, and auto shut off when the blade is left for set periods.”

In an increasingly regulated and safety conscious market, the meat processing industry has to meet ever more stringent standards. Meat processors are more focussed than ever on the

56 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

importance of safety. “We’ve noticed that our customers are more aware of the importance of training programmes,” says Wayne Daggett, content marketing manager, Bettcher Industries.

“More mid-size and large companies have asked us to come in and provide training so they can document each person who has received training that they’ve reached a level of proficiency. That way if they get audited they can take a look at what operators have had what training, and we can verify that.”

However, Jonathan Fox, area sales manager at Marel – which gives trained operators a certificate of competence – says that increased safety awareness is not something seen on a global scale. “It depends on what part of the world you’re in [as to how safety conscious plants are], says Fox. “In Europe processors have to be more safety conscious, and we build everything to the European standards. In practice you find that a lot of countries outside of Europe do override some safety features, which is not the wisest thing in the world. I can’t do much about that, we supply it, deliver it and install it and when we do these safety features are intact.”

Glensmark agrees: “The UK is very safety conscious, but this isn’t the case everywhere else in the world. There are very different attitudes towards safety, and you know how safety conscious companies are by going into their factories. It’s a small world, and if something happens your business cannot afford it.”

Couture explains that hygiene regulations often present a barrier to good safety practice.

“Safety and sanitation are two huge issues, and to be honest the two of them don’t work very well together. For example, you can make a machine with very high safety guarding, but then it’s impossible to wash, so there’s a lot of engineering work in trying to match the both of them. If you don’t get it right, plants could just remove it, which you don’t want. So we want the machine safe for the worker but at the same time we need to be looking at food safety, and it needs to be easy to wash.”

ergonomics

E

rgonomics is an effective approach to reducing the number of work-related injuries.

It is the practice to designing equipment and work environments to create a better work place and prevent injuries to staff.

Employees often work in close quarters, creating additional dangers for themselves and coworkers. Workspaces may need to be redesigned to better accommodate the area to the worker. www.meatpacking.info

bettcher

weber

cu t ~ s lci e ~ dic e

“We’ve been in the business a long time and there are many plants now that we worked with in the past and have to go back and do some modifications and install new equipment in the lines,” says Couture. “New equipment with new safety devices may not fit, so the line needs redesigning more than the client’s equipment.”

Meat processors are also looking at manufacturers’ innovations to improve safety.

Generally, manufacturers have been successful in improving safety on their machines. For example, Bettcher Industries, announced that it responded to cumulative trauma disorder (CTDs) and musculo-skeletal disorders (MSDs) pertaining to hand and forearm stress, by developing AirShirz air-powered scissors. “There is a 90 percent reduction in the amount of effort www.meatpacking.info

Above, top: Machine slicing with the Weber 804 slicer Above, bottom: Powered cleaning of a pork neckbone, the equipment helps reduce worker fatigue

it takes to cut,” says Daggett. “People get sore hands when using manual scissors, this is a great product for release.”

Maybe it’s because of higher standards that there has been a dramatic decline in accidents in the past 10 years. In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive revealed that each year continues to see fewer injuries reported. Safety is not an area for complacency, but most processors and manufacturers seem to be on the same page - safe workspaces, equipment maintenance and training is key to avoiding costly injuries May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 57

C at t l e

organic opportunity

As the US market moves towards locally supplied, premium beef products, a greater demand for small-scale high-end slaughterhouses presents a key growth opportunity for suppliers at a time of overall reduction in per capita red meat consumption. Alex Conacher speaks to Gus Politis, president and chief executive officer for the Americas at Banss America for an insight into the new market developments, trends, and what brought the German manufacturer into the market

58 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

ca t t l e

BANSS

F

OR MAJOR slaughterhouses in the United States, automation is generally seen as a means to increase productivity levels, and not so much for the cost savings craved by the operators, for example, of Danish slaughterhouses (see MPJ, 01/01, 2014, pp. 42-51).

On the smaller side, it is the grass-fed, organic revolution that is driving much of the need for many of the new slaughter facilities according to Gus Politis, president and chief executive officer for the Americas at Banss America. “But these are local, relatively small operations, maybe 20www.meatpacking.info

30 head of cattle per hour. Then when they are successful, the capital can be upgraded and step up to maybe a 60-80 per hour facility."

“The big players (Tyson, Smithfield, JBS) in the North American market aren’t so interested in the smaller, organic side of things. They process a vast quantity of animals, in terms of cattle its 150 to even 250 head per hour, and they supply a greater area. Banss doesn’t target this sector as much, the 30-100 cattle per hour range is our sweet spot.”

Consumer education is spreading this demand for organic, Grass-fed, minimal hormoneMay~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 59

marel

C at t l e

60 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

ca t t l e

use supply chains and with the larger clients avoiding it, the small to mid-size companies fill the gap.

Speaking to MPJ, Per Laursen of Danish Crown pointed to the tendency of large US operators to be more labour-intensive and largescale. Politis agrees, adding: “To see a major slaughterhouse producing less than 100 head of cattle per hour is ‘a European tendency’. Being only three years old, our focus on the North American Market is so new, while we are more established in Europe and Asia. This means we still have quite a European culture as a business.”

High level automation in a plant, then, is typical of this portion of the market. But also, the large, established groups have old, huge facilities at their disposal already. Expansion without expenditure on bricks and mortar, through robotics, is a maturing factor in the current state of the market.

golden ticket entering the us market

W

ith experienced operators, the skills are there to cherry pick manufacturers’ offerings to have a patchwork processing line, tailored to the specific requirements of the facility. An inexperienced operator is more likely to go for one supplier, where possible, and order all line equipment from one name.

“We entered the US market late in 2011,” says Politis. “Before this we had an agent in Chicago serving North America. That works to a point, but is not as useful for a higher order volume.

The North American beef processing market is also a particularly demanding one. Customers require assistance yesterday, and they expect a supplier to be easy to reach at any time. Being in the same time zone is also very useful. Of course all markets require good service, but I think here it is particularly apparent. As well as this, there can also be quite large differences in terminology throughout the global industry, it’s good to speak your customer’s language.

Politis explains that Banss' expansion into the US was led not only by growth, but a particular opportunity. “A new range of East Coast dryaged steak restaurants is in the process of being set up by an entrepreneur. This individual is looking for a birth to table operation [vertical integrated business chain]. He has his own circa 70 acre farm for grass-fed cattle, and in addition to the customer-facing restaurants and butcher shops, he wants to set up his own slaughter and processing facility.

In light of this, he approached our German company directly for a complete processing range, from stunning to packaging solutions. www.meatpacking.info

Certification advice

1

Application: The NOP requires that a processing facility be certified by a USDA-accredited certification agency.

Each certifying agency has its own application package and sets its own fees. Applications are generally about 10 pages long. They ask the processor to provide a detailed organic handling system plan and require documents such as floor plans, flow diagrams, and sample labels. Section 205.201 of the NOP lists a plan’s necessary components: A description of practices and procedures to be performed and maintained; A list of all substances used in production or handling; A description of monitoring practices and procedures; A description of the record keeping system; A description of management practices and physical barriers established to prevent commingling or contamination; Any additional information required by the certifier. The certifying agency reviews the application and works with the processor to make any necessary changes.

Inspection: The agency assigns an inspector who reviews the application materials and facility records, then visits the plant for an on-site inspection, which generally takes three to five hours. Complete access to the production or handling operation, including any non-certified production and handling areas, is required. The inspector then completes an inspection report. The complete report usually consists of a document completed onsite and co-signed by the operator and the inspector, and another report completed by the inspector off-site.

Review and Decision: The certifying agency reviews the inspection report. If the agency determines that the facility meets NOP requirements and is following its own organic handling plan (created in Step 1), certification is granted. Certification allows the use of the term ‘organic' and use of the USDA Organic seal. Continuation of certification requires udating records on file with the certifier, an annual on-site inspection, and renewal fees. The whole inspection process, from application to certification, generally takes at least eight weeks depending on the availability of inspectors and the certifier’s workload. Records related to certification must be maintained for not less than five years.

SOURCE: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

2

3

applications as a sign of good practice

T

he USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) also offers, for a fee, an equipment review and certification programme for the meat processing industry: the Meat and Poultry Equipment review Program. The voluntary services are offered upon request, and involve inspections of the equipment designs, and actual equipment in operation, enabling the USDA to certify the sanitary design and fabrication of the processing line, and allow the processor to display official identification and/or grade labels to that effect.

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 61

C at t l e

“The setup will involve RFID tracking, is highly automated, and has natural-roaming walkways, with curves ergonomic for the cattle.

It is also visitor friendly, with large windows and viewing areas. It really is a quality and practice benchmark, not just for North America but for the entire industry. It was this order that made the decision to move into the American market in such a way easier.”

Politis says that coming into a new market like this has not been the easiest task, “Getting your name to the right people is obviously the challenge. We have proposals out to 50 customers, and think we now have a wellestablished position.

“The industry is not dominated by one big player, which is possibly due to the fact that, largely, slaughtering isn’t the sexiest industry.

There are lots of little suppliers of chute, or conveyor companies for example. Our belief is that, as we can provide equipment across the full line, we can become a big turnkey supplier in North America.”

a mile in their shoes

A

new focus on movement into this corner of the industry is clearly appealing to at least one major supplier. And with a demand to fill, represented by organic consumer sales increasing by as much as 20 per cent year on year in some states, others will follow. But there can be some confusion over terminology. Confusion over when this product is truly organic; part of a ‘natural’ product range; or even USDA-certified organic, but under temporary regulatory variance approvals/allowances.

Most of the legislation, and much of the thinking, focuses on life and not death: the agricultural rather than the processing portion of the supply chain. The recent declaration of drought natural disaster zones in 53 of 58 Californian counties has led the USDA to allow temporary variance (as of January 14, and relating to the 2014 grazing season) from §§205.237(c), 205.240(b) and (c)(2) of the USDA organic regulations relating to organic ruminant livestock operations in affected counties.

The practical result of this is that the organic (local grass) feed requirements have been waived, or at least significantly reduced without the loss of organic certification. The National Organic Program (NOP) has said it will continually assess the situation this year to see if further action is needed.

But the processing industry should be made aware of a number of factors.

Animals accepted by a slaughterhouse must be certified as organic, and also be traceable.

62 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

ca t t l e

keeping clean

M

eeting the requirements for organic beef does not stop when the animal arrives at the slaughterhouse. Every phase of the cattles life, death and processing must minimise the use of chemicals and additives. The impact on plant hygiene is not too severe but operators do have to make certain considerations. Dr Elis Owens, senior chemist and microbiologist at Birko says; “Typically there are no additional requirements we would be asked to fulfil for such a site. Regular cleaners are used, and then thoroughly rinsed away before a sanitiser suitable for organic is applied.

There are a limited number of no rinse sanitisers approved for organic production.

We normally recommend peroxyacetic acid.”

On the idea of development towards greater environmentally ethical chemicals, Owens adds, “While sustainability is important, at this time efficacy and cost remain the primary factors that influence our customers’ purchasing decisions in regard to sanitation products. They want products that are effective for cleaning and sanitising the processing environment, and they want to do this in the most cost effective manner possible.

“Where sustainable or environmental issues do play a role is as the result of outside influences such as regulatory issues related to waste water. To me a green or environmentally friendly cleaning or sanitation product is a product that breaks down readily during the waste water treatment process environment to leave no toxic residues, yet is still an effective cleaner or sanitiser, that is also cost effective to use.

“In recent years we have reformulated our entire product line up to eliminate di ethanolamine and nonylphenol ethoxylate surfactants due changes in the regulatory landscape. In the near future we anticipate a similar need to eliminate Triclosan.

Eliminating sodium and chlorine are also expected to become increasingly important.”

BANSS

www.meatpacking.info

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 63

C at t l e

All documentation must be kept by processing companies to pass along the supply chain.

Provision of organic feed on site, if capacities are likely to result in animals kept on the facilities for any length of time. Particularly important in mixed organic/non-organic sites.

Appropriate clean-outs to be undertaken prior to an organic production run in such mixed facilities. The NOP provides a ‘National List of Prohibited and Allowed Substances’ for this.

Plants must implement pest management that focuses on prevention, exclusion, sanitation, removal of pest habitat, management of environmental factors, and use of lures and repellents. All of which must be approved by the National List.

Packaging must be free from synthetic fungicides, preservatives and fumigants, with labelling approved by the certifying body.

Finished products cannot come into contact with non-organic produce, and any line management systems should include a storage area dedicated to organic products.

face the future

A

ccording to Politis there’s a lot of cold side development going on, more automation requests, vision and scanning systems. Anything that makes operator skill less critical is of course beneficial to reliability in terms of quality.

Although North American processing facilities are large (up to four times) compared to, say, European sites, US per capita red meat consumption is actually decreasing. However, campaigns to support local slaughterhouses in the media could result in a move away from the famous super factories of the continent.

Premium fast food outlets such as Chipotle, and grocery stores such as Whole Foods are looking to keep their supply chains closer to home, in the Chipotle case adopting a 300 mile (482km) radial exclusion limit around the restaurant. This, and other expanding specialist requirements such as Halal slaughter, forms another potential growth area for the small to medium slaughterhouses.

On the larger scale, export may become more important as per capita consumption falls, and an eye must be kept on methods to comply with the highest standards worldwide

BANSS

64 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

www.meatpacking.info

VIV Europe 2014 World Expo for Animal Husbandry & Processing May 20-22, 2014 | Utrecht, the Netherlands

REGISTER NOW Special themes

for FREE entrance at www.viv.net

Come to Utrecht in 2014 and connect to all players in today’s complete animal protein production chain.

V I V

EU RO P E

LIVE VIV EUROPE C

ONSUMER ATTITUDE and behaviour towards food is rapidly changing on a worldwide scale. There is a strong focus on health issues including healthier food. The demand for convenience food products, in smaller ready-to-eat portions, is on the rise. Consequently, the importance of delivering fresh and safe meat products with an extended shelf life is increasing. Packaging is becoming more important in the selling process; fresh foods should be conveniently packaged and easy to store.

Animal production and processing is facing a difficult time. After mad cow, classical swine and avian influenza, consumers are sceptical and want guarantees about the meats they eat. Meat safety can only be guaranteed if every step in the production chain is carefully monitored and controlled.

To stay current with these developments, today’s meat business is about improving: yield, quality, hygiene, traceability, portioning, performance, profitability, efficiency and transparency.

Meat producing and (further) processing companies adapt and improve their production processes to meet the demands. International food quality institutions developed standards for quality assurance and secured traceability. The trend is towards systems that cover the entire food chain from primary production to finished products: from feed to meat. And that’s where VIV comes in.

MEAT SAFETY

O

ver thirty years ago VIV started as a concept for animal production in poultry and pigs and became an innovator on the subject. Recently, VIV stretched its profile and shaped it to today’s requirements on meat safety. The concept is called Feed to Meat and involves all sectors in the meat production chain.

Animal feed production and further meat processing will be added to the exhibition profile. As a result VIV Europe will become a platform where all participants in meat production can work together to provide the guarantees consumers are demanding 66 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

The established animal feed and breed show has expanded its reach to include meat production and processing and is becoming a key event in the meat industry diary

WHEN AND WHERE

VIV Europe is held from May 20 - 22, 2014 May 20 - 10am – 6pm May 21 - 10am – 6pm May 22 - 10am – 6pm The show will be held at the Jaarbeurs Utrecht complex in the Netherlands. Utrecht is centrally located and only a 30-minute train ride away from Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.

EXHIBITORS

VIV Europe 2014 attracts some 600 exhibitors from around the world. They serve a range of sectors: Industrial feed processing equipment, supplies and raw materials Feed ingredients and additives Feed Animal health Animal breeding Farm equipment Slaughter equipment Meat ingredients Meat processing Packaging Meat handling Refrigeration Egg processing Dairy processing Meat-, dairy-, egg-products

www.meatpacking.info

V I V

www.meatpacking.info

EURO P E

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 67

w o rld

me at

c o n gr e s s

World Meat

Congress China The World Meat Congress is going to Beijing for 2014, the focus of the conference is 'Balance Development of Global Meat Production and Trade'. MPJ looks at what's in store

WHEN AND WHERE

The World Meat Congress is held from June 14 - 16, 2014 at the Beijing International Convention Center.

ORGANISERS

T

he world meat congress is a biennial event hosted by the International Meat Secretariat. It is a global platform for the delegates of livestock and meat sectors to discuss the hot topics concerning meat industry development, such as meat production, quality, distribution and trade, sustainable economic growth and employment, disease control, animal welfare, food and nutrition.

Delegates from meat organizations, government departments, major meat companies and research groups gather on the Congress to share their opinions and experience, which organisers hope will make a great contribution to the global meat industry development.

The 20th World Meat Congress (WMC 2014) will be hosted by International Meat Secretariat and China Meat Association in Beijing, China.

It will be the second time for China to hold this big event. The theme of WMC 2014 is “Balanced Development of Global Meat Production and Trade”

68 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

The International Meat Secretariat (IMS) is a worldwide non-profit association. Since 1974, it has brought together individual firms, national trade associations and other organizations involved in the meat and livestock industries.

The IMS was formed in response to the need for an international organization to focus – from an industry viewpoint – on issues relating to meat and livestock, and to help the industry deal with them. The IMS exerts its influence on global discussions regarding the contribution of livestock to society, particularly with respect to the debate on sustainability. The IMS participates in relevant forums, whether in FAO, OIE, etc., where the meat industry's interests are being debated.

China Meat Association (CMA) is approved and registered by the Ministry of Civil Administration of People's Republic of China. It is a nationwide social organization. The headquarters is in Beijing. CMA membership is made up of enterprises including meat production, slaughtering, processing, cold storage, wholesales, and machinery, scientific research institutes, designing companies, news agencies, colleges, local social organisations.

www.meatpacking.info

w o rld

8:30-8:45 8:45-8:50 8:50-8:55

c o n gr e s s

DAY ONE - 15 JUNE Registration

7 30-8 30 8:30-9:00

me at

Opening Ceremony Chair: CMA to Oesignate Chinese Government (Senior Government Officials} Arturo Llavallot, President, International Meat Secretariat (IMS) Li Shuilong, President, China Meat Association (CMA)

11:50-12:10 12:10-12:20

China, Jiangsu Yurun Meat Industry Group Co., Ltd. Questions and Discussion

12:20-13:30

Lunch

13:30-15:00

Session II. Food and Meat Security.

Chair: Jeremiah O'Callaghan, JBS I Executive Council Member of IMS "There is no food security without livestock" - -FAO Yes Senior Staff (tbc) "Better lives through livestock"--ILRI's, Dr. Steve STAAL, Regional Representative for East and SEAsia "Perfect synergy between developed and developing country meat professionals" --Sudan, Elnefeldl Group, Ahmed Elnefeidi and Luigi Soordamaglia China, Mongolian Sheep Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd. Questions and Discussion

8:55-9:00

Congress Supporter Representative

13:30-13:50

9:00-9:50

13:50-14:10

9:00-9:10

Keynote Presentations Chair: Guillaume Rou6, Vice President, IMS I Chairman, INAPORC China Minister of Agriculture

9:10-9:20

China, Director General of AQSIQ

14:30-14:50

9:20-9:30

US Department of Agriculture

14:50-15:00

9:30-9:40 9:40-9:50

EU Commission, tbc Canada, Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz

15:00-15:30 15:30-17:20

9:50-10:20

Coffee Break

14:10-14:30

15:30-15:50

Coffee Break Session II. Food and Meat Security • Continued. "Meat and the Consumer • New or Emerging Pressures" Chair: Jeremiah O'Callaghan, JBS I Executive Council Member of IMS Keeping Meat on the Table - the Food Skills Opportunity Joyce Parlow, Canada Beef, IMS Nutrition and Health Committee China, Linyi Xincheng Jlnluo Meat Industry Group Co., Ltd.

10.20-12:20 Session I. China and Its Neighbours: Issues and Innovation in Asian Meat Markets Chair: Chen Wei, Executive Vice President and Secretary General, China Meat Association (CMA)

15:50-16:10

10:20-10:35

Global Economic Trends - Jeroen Leffelaar Global Co-Head Animal Protein Rabobank

16:10-16:30

Bord Bia, Aldan COTIER, CEO

10:35-10:50

Global Economic Trends - Richard Brown, GIRA

16:30-16:50

10:50-11:10

Overview of Chinese Meat Market, China 16:50-17:10 Meat Association Emergence of India as a Global Leader in 17:10-17:20 Bovine Meat International Trade, with Efforts in Sustainable Oevelopment - Rashid Kadimi, President of AIM LEA and ALLANA Pork markets in Russia - Musheg Manikon18:30-20:30 yan, Chairman of Russian Meat Union

"Improving Lamb Meat Colour through Genetic Selection and Management Tools" - IMS Prize, Ms. Honor CALNAN, Murdoch University Australia Acrimat. Mallo Grosso Cattle Raising Association, Mr. Luciano Vacari Questions and Discussion

11:10-11:30

11:30-11:50

www.meatpacking.info

Buffet Dinner (Chinese Specialties)

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 69

w o rld

me at

c o n gr e s s

DAY TWO - 16 JUNE Registration

7 30-8 30 8:30-10:00

13:50-14:10

Industry, Beef Roundtable, Eduardo BAST OS, President GTPS

8:30-8:50

Session Ill. Ensuring Food and Meat Safety Chair: Philip M. Seng, VIce President, IMS I President and CEO, USMEF OlE yes Senior Staff

14:10-14:30

8:00-9:10

China, Shandong NewHope LluHe Co., ltd.

14:30-14:50

9:10-9:30

INAC, Luis Alfredo Fratti

14:50-15:10

9:30-9:50 9:50-10.00 10:00-10:10

China, Shandong Delisi Food Co., ltd.

Six Second Project, Jody Carman Questions and Discussion

15:10-15:20 15:20-15:50 15:50-17:10

"The Role of Trade and Productivity Improvements in Sustainably Feeding 9 Billion" - Industry (IMS member, lamb producing country) Peter Barnard NGO, Lesley Lambert, Word Society Protection of Animals "The Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock'' - FAO, Neil FRASER, Global Agenda for Sustainable Lives lock Questions and Discussion Coffee Break Leadership Colloquium Chair: Mick Sloyan,CEO, BPEX I Executive Council Member of IMS Global meat industry leaders discuss approaches toward food security, food safety and sustainability and how these three will drive meat production and consumption trends in the future.

Wan Long, Chairman and CEO, Shuanghui Group, China

10:10-10:40

Coffee Break

10:40-12:05 Session Ill. Ensuring Food and Meat Safety - continued "Meat Production and Retailing -Best Practices" Chair: Philip M. Seng, Vice President, IMS I President and CEO, USMEF

15:50-16:00

10:40-11 :00 Zhengzhou Xinnian Food Sales Limited Company 11:00-11:20 Sealed Air (Packaging) Company, Packaging and Food Safety 11:20-11:40 CSB-System International, Traceability and Food Safety 11:40-12.00 International Retailer, tbc 12:00-12:10 Questions and Discussion

16:00-16:10

12:10-13:30

Lunch

16:20-16:30

Chen Xibin, Chairman, Heilongjiang Grand Farm Industrial Co., Ltd., China Wesley Batista, Global CEO and President, JBS SA Kjeld Johannesen, CEO, Danish Crown AJS

16:30-16:40 16:40-17:10

Tyson Foods, speakers to be announced Questions and Discussion

17:10-17:20

21th IMS World Meat Congress 2016 by INAC, Uruguay Concluding Remarks

16:10-16:20

13:30-15:20 Session IV. Balancing Global Supply and 17:20-17:35 Demand: Developments in Sustainable Meat Production Chair: Patrick Moore, Chairman, IMS Sustainable Meat Committee I Executive Council Member of IMS

13:30-13:50

Industry Partner, Jeffrey Simmons, President of Elanco

70 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

18:30-20:30

IMS 40" Anniversary Celebration Dinner I Gala Dinner

www.meatpacking.info

J

O

U

May~Jun e 2014

MEAT PACKING R

N THEAINTERLNATIONAL MAGAZ INE FOR THE M THE RIS P.58 SMALL EPROOCFESSTHE FOOD S EAT AND POULTRY INDUSTRY AFETY OR P.1

MEAT PACKING 2

PRACTICE

BEST REVIEWE D

P.28

THE CASE FOR STEE L CONVEYO R BELTS

J O U R N A L

l

ing Journa

Meat Pack

CUT SLICE DICE

EXAMININ G CUTTING EQUIPMEN T TRENDS AN D IMPROVEM ENTS IN SAFETY

GETTING H ORMON

AL A LOOK AT THE A R G UMENTS SURROUN DING HO RMONE U SE

THE LIMITS OF AUTOMATI ON MPJ EXPLO R

ES THE BAR RIERS TO DEVELO PMENT AN D USE OF AUTOM ATED PROC ESSING

lume 1

Issue 2 | Vo

MAY~JUN E 2014 VOLUME 1 | ISSUE 2

Sign up for a FREE SUBSCRIPTION

ISSN 2054

-4677

MEAT PACKING J O U R N A L

Sign up to a one year FREE SUBSCRIPTION of MPJ delivered directly to your door and desktop Name: Company name:

Address: Post/Zip code: Email: Telephone: Sector:

Husbandry

Slaughter

Processing

Distribution

Retail

Industry supply

Research Subscription:

Other

Please email me alerts and a digital version of MPJ Please 'snail' mail me a free promotional subscription to MPJ Please do not share my detail with third parties

In signing this subscription form you agree to our Terms and Conditions, which can be found in full at www. meatpacking.info. You give Reby Media permission to share your information internally in order to deliver services to which you have subscribed. To unsubscribe email your details to unsubscribe@rebymedia.com or write to Reby Media, 42 Crouchfield, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP1 1PA

2014 20 - 22 May VIV Europe Utrecht, Netherlands www.viveurope.nl 4 - 6 June World Pork Expo Iowa, US www.worldpork.org 10 - 12 June AVI Africa Johannesburg, South Africa www.sapoultry.co.za 15 - 16 June World Meat Congress Beijing, China www.worldmeatcongress2014.com 22 - 25 June FoodPro Melbourne, Australia www.foodproexh.com 12 - 14 November International Meat, Meat Products & Equipment Exhibition Shanghai, China http://www.chinaexhibition.com

2015 27 - 29 January International Production & Processing Expo Atlanta, US www.ippexpo.com 19 - 23 May Meat-Tech Milan, Italy www.meat-tech.it 15 - 18 September Process Expo Chicago, US www.myprocessexpo.com

www.meatpacking.info

May~June 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 73

reby media Reby House

Rhian Owen

James Chappelow

Alex Conacher

Editorial

Sales

Rhian Owen

Jim Robertson

Editor +44 7903 283 999 rhian@meatpacking.info

James Chappelow

Technical Editor +44 7903 283 999 james@meatpacking.info

Alex Conacher

Reporter +44 7903 283 999 Alex@meatpacking.info

Jack Young

Publisher +44 7817 756 347 jack@meatpacking.info

Ruth Tomlin

Group Head of Sales +44 7817 756 347 sales@meatpacking.info

Tom Williams

Business Development +44 7817 756 347 sales@meatpacking.info

Josh Henderson

Accounts Manager +44 7534 470 896 josh@meatpacking.info

Ruth Tomlin

Subscription Sales +44 7817 756 347 ruth@meatpacking.info

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without the express prior written consent of the publisher.

Meat Packing Journal ISSN 2054-4677 is published bimonthly by Reby Media, 42 Crouchfield, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, HP1 1PA. Subscription records are maintained at Reby Media, 42 Crouchfield, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, HP1 1PA. Meat Packing Journal and its Editorial Board accept no responsibility for the accuracy of statements or opinion given within the Journal that is not the expressly designated opinion of the Journal or its Editorial Board. Those opinions expressed in areas other than editorial comment may not be taken as being the opinion of the Journal or its staff, and the aforementioned accept no responsibility or liability for actions that arise therefrom.

74 | Meat Packing Journal | May~June 2014

Josh Henderson

42 Crouchfield Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire HP1 1PA Great Britain info@rebymedia.com

SUBscriptions Meat Packing Journal is a bimonthly magazine mailed every January, March, May, July, September and November. Subscriptions can be purchased for six or 12 issues. Prices for single issue subscriptions or back issues can be obtained by emailing: subscriptions@meatpacking.info

Europe One year: â‚Ź119, two year: â‚Ź199 North America One year: $169, two year: $279 Rest of the world One year: $199, two year: $299 The content of Meat Packing Journal is subject to copyright. However, if you would like to obtain copies of an article for marketing purposes high-quality reprints can be supplied to your specification. Please contact the advertising team for full details of this service. Meat Packing Journal is printed at Buxton Press Ltd, Derbyshire, UK.

Editorial advisory board Meat Packing Journal is advised and guided by an editorial advisory board formed of leading professionals and researchers

Jorge Ruiz Carrascal University of Copenhagen Fred W. Pohlman University of Arkansas Ian Richardson University of Bristol Graeme Rolinson Marel

www.meatpacking.info

AUTOMATION | ROBOTICS SOLUTIONS

AUTOMATION | ROBOTICS SOLUTIONS STUNNING | BLEEDING SYSTEMS

STUNNING | BLEEDING SYSTEMS DEHIDING | DEHAIRING SYSTEMS SPLITTING | QUARTERING | DEBONING

DEHIDING | DEHAIRING SYSTEMS

CONVEYANCE | COOLING SYSTEMS

SPLITTING | QUARTERING | DEBONING CUTTING ACCESSORIES

For Your Next Project Contact Us at:

BANSS America Corporation 425 Quadrangle Drive, Suite 130 Bolingbrook, IL 60440-3451 Tel: (630) 312-8230 | Fax: (630) 312-8708 Email: info@banss.de | BanssAmerica.com

MATERIAL HANDLING

CONVEYANCEHYGIENE | COOLING SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT

Banss America Corp is a wholly-owned subisdiary of Banss Germany GmbH

German precision

ingenuity engineering CUTTING ACCESSORIES Developing, designing and manufacturing www.BanssAmerica.com customer-specific harvest and meat processing systems AUTOMATION | ROBOTICS SOLUTIONS STUNNING | BLEEDING SYSTEMS

More than 140 Years of Harvest Technology

DEHIDING | DEHAIRING SYSTEMS

HYGIENE EQUIPMENT

SPLITTING | QUARTERING | DEBONING

With local sales, service and engineering

CONVEYANCE | COOLING SYSTEMS CUTTING ACCESSORIES

support

NOW with an office in

HYGIENE EQUIPMENT

www.BanssAmerica.com

www.BanssAmerica.com For Your Next Project Contact Us at:

BANSS America Corporation 425 Quadrangle Drive, Suite 130 Bolingbrook, IL 60440-3451 Tel: (630) 312-8230 | Fax: (630) 312-8708 Email: info@banss.de | BanssAmerica.com

MATERIAL HANDLING Banss America Corp is a wholly-owned subisdiary of Banss Germany GmbH