TemaNord 2016:551

Nordic Council of Ministers

Ved Stranden 18
DK-1061 Copenhagen K
[Link]

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal
By-products in the Nordic Countries Slaughterhouses and producers
The Nordic Council of Ministers, the BAT-group under of Animal By-products in
the Nordic Countries
Working Group for Sustainable Consumption and
Production, has awarded Danish Meat Research Institute
(DMRI) to deliver a review report on Best Available
Techniques (BAT) for slaughterhouses and producers of
animal by-products in relation to the Nordic industry.
The intention with the report is to use it in the first step
of the upcoming EU revision of a new slaughterhouse
and animal by-products BAT-reference document
(BREF). The project is based on questionnaires in which
slaughterhouses and animal by-products industries from
Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland were asked about
their current production patterns, emissions and resource
accounting, and relation to potentially dubious BATs
(BATs that may be difficult to follow).
Slaughterhouses and producers
of Animal By-products in
the Nordic Countries

Ole Pontoppidan and Mirko Miseljic

TemaNord 2016:551
Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries
Ole Pontoppidan and Mirko Miseljic

ISBN 978-92-893-4744-0 (PRINT)

ISBN 978-92-893-4745-7 (PDF)
ISBN 978-92-893-4746-4 (EPUB)
[Link]

TemaNord 2016:551
ISSN 0908-6692

Standard: PDF/UA-1
ISO 14289-1

© Nordic Council of Ministers 2016

Layout: NMR

Print: Rosendahls-Schultz Grafisk

Printed in Denmark

Although the Nordic Council of Ministers funded this publication, the contents do not necessarily reflect its
views, policies or recommendations.

Nordic co-operation
Nordic co-operation is one of the world’s most extensive forms of regional collaboration, involving Denmark,
Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland.
Nordic co-operation has firm traditions in politics, the economy, and culture. It plays an important role in
European and international collaboration, and aims at creating a strong Nordic community in a strong
Europe.
Nordic co-operation seeks to safeguard Nordic and regional interests and principles in the global community.
Shared Nordic values help the region solidify its position as one of the world’s most innovative and
competitive.
Contents

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5
Preface ..........................................................................................................................7
The consultants that have contributed to the report are ...........................................7
The Nordic BAT-group members are ........................................................................7
List of abbreviations ..................................................................................................... 9
Introduction................................................................................................................. 11
Background ........................................................................................................... 11
Objectives .............................................................................................................12
1. Overview of the Nordic sector – processes and techniques .................................... 13
1.1 Overview of the Nordic sector ..................................................................... 13
1.2 Pig slaughter ...............................................................................................14
1.3 Cattle slaughter........................................................................................... 15
1.4 Sheep slaughter ..........................................................................................16
1.5 Poultry slaughter.........................................................................................16
2. Methodology .........................................................................................................19
2.1 Goal and scope of questionnaire ..................................................................19
2.2 Slaughterhouse questionnaire .................................................................... 20
2.3 By-products industries questionnaire ......................................................... 22
2.4 Environmental permit writers questionnaire ................................................23
3. Results .................................................................................................................. 25
3.1 Answer percentages ................................................................................... 25
3.2 Slaughterhouse questionnaires .................................................................. 26
3.3 By-products installation questionnaires .......................................................36
3.4 Environmental permit writer questionnaires ............................................... 40
3.5 Slaughterhouse processes, impacts and measures ...................................... 42
4. Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 45
References...................................................................................................................47
Summary (in Danish) .................................................................................................. 49
Appendix 1: Slaughterhouse BAT questionnaire results ................................................ 51
Appendix 2: Slaughterhouse questionnaire .................................................................. 53
Appendix 3: By-products installation questionnaire ......................................................63
Appendix 4: Environmental permit writer questionnaire.............................................. 69
Appendix 5: Environmental permit writers answers ...................................................... 73
Summary

The Nordic Council of Ministers, the BAT group under Working Group for
Sustainable Consumption and Production, has requested the Danish Meat
Research Institute (DMRI) for consultancy aid and to deliver a review report on
Best Available Techniques (BAT) for slaughterhouses and producers of animal
by-products in relation to the Nordic industry. The report is based on research
by questionnaires to several companies and a few competent authorities
combined with the background knowledge of DMRI. The questionnaires to
companies were answered by slaughterhouses and animal by-product
installations from Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, that are subject to
the BREF. They were asked about general details in their current production
patterns, emissions and resource accounting, relating to potentially dubious
BATs (BATs that may be difficult to follow – based on own experience), and
stand according proposed ideas for future BATs (DMRI proposed BAT ideas –
based on own experience and expertise). Also, a few Nordic environmental
permit writers/inspectors were asked about the key environmental indicators
that they apply when issuing permits or monitoring slaughterhouses and animal
by-products installations. The results can be used by operators, consultants and
environmental authorities and are intended to be used in relation to the input
from the Nordic countries for the upcoming EU process under the Industrial
Emissions Directive (IED) for preparing the new BREF for Slaughterhouses and
Animal By-product Industries.
The questionnaire answers were gathered from 33 slaughterhouses, 6 by-
product installations and 5 environmental permit writers/inspectors. Among
these, the tendency was that large slaughterhouse operations tend to use
mechanical and automated (use of robot technology) technological approaches
while small operations use mechanical, manual and automated approaches.
Automated approaches need a higher resource consumption (e.g. through
electricity), but the environmental impact considerations in this case must also
include benefits in terms of more product produced.
According to the existing BREF (European Commission 2005), the
environmental issues for slaughterhouses and by-product installations were in
general water consumption, emission of high organic strength liquids to water
(containing fats and blood), energy consumption (mainly due to water heating
for cleaning, refrigeration, drying of by-products), treatment (incl. destruction)
of TSE infected materials and odour. Emission levels were defined as achievable
amounts (if BATs are applied) for wastewater emissions (after on-site or e.g.
municipal wastewater treatment) and for incineration of animal by-products.
Currently, the survey respondents in this study mainly account their utility
consumption, wastewater and detergents in a total manner. However,
allocation of these according to slaughter and by-products processing is
currently not possible, according to the asked slaughterhouses.
In general, the slaughterhouses comply with difficult BATs (ones that may
be dubious to their operation), unless they are irrelevant for their operation. Our
proposal for new BATs (11 for slaughterhouses & 6 for by-products installations),
which are made on the basis of DMRIs own expertise judgement and experience
from the slaughterhouse and animal by-product sector. Among these, a more
holistic environmental thinking was proposed to set the basis for fair
environmental benchmarking in the future. This means that more processing
and improved utilisation of e.g. by-products from a cow (for e.g. human
consumption) could justify a higher energy consumption. This could result in
environmental benefits and perhaps economic gains for the installations.
However, one needs to be aware of potential burden shifting of environmental
impacts across the life cycle and across different media (also addressed in cross
media effects BREF), when accounting or introducing BAT demands. Potential
future introduction of binding emission demands (AELs) need to consider the
needed increased processing when aiming towards a better utilisation of animal
by-products.
According to the contacted Nordic environmental permit writers/inspectors
there is a focus on wastewater quality, combustion gases, energy and water
consumption as well as noise and odour. This is in line with the slaughterhouse
and by-product installations’ approach to account total emissions. In relation,
slaughterhouse processes contributing to environmental impacts and measures
to lower these were described.

6 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

Preface

The Nordic Council of Ministers, the BAT-group under Working Group for
Sustainable Consumption and Production, has awarded Danish Meat Research
Institute (DMRI) for consultancy aid and to deliver a review report on Best
Available Techniques (BAT) for slaughterhouses and producers of animal by-
products in relation to the Nordic industry. The intention with the report is to use
it in the first step of the upcoming EU revision of a new slaughterhouse and
animal by-products BAT-reference document (BREF).
The project is based on questionnaires in which slaughterhouses and animal
by-products industries from Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland were asked
about general details in their current production patterns, emissions and
resource accounting, relation to potentially dubious BATs (BATs that may be
difficult to follow, based on DMRI industry experience), and stand according
DMRI proposed ideas for future BATs (based on DMRI industry experience and
expertise). The results can be used by operators, consultants and environmental
authorities and are intended to be used in relation to the input from the Nordic
countries to the upcoming EU process under the Industrial Emissions Directive
(IED) for preparing the BREF for Slaughterhouses and Animal By-products
industries, which is expected to start in 2017.

Consultants that have contributed to the report

 Mirko Miseljic, DMRI.

 Ole Pontoppidan, DMRI.

Nordic BAT-group members

 Anne Kathrine Arnesen, Norwegian Environment Agency.

 Birgitte Holm Christensen (Project contact person), Danish Environmental
Protection Agency.
 Kaj Forsius, Finnish Environment Institute (Chairman).
 Maria Enroth, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
 Lena Ziskason, Environment Agency of Faroe Islands.
 Susanne Särs, Åland Environmental and Health Protection Authority.
 Halla Einarsdóttir, The Environment Agency of Iceland.

The four first mentioned members supervised the work.

8 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

List of abbreviations

 AEL: Associated Emission Levels.

 BAT: Best Available Techniques.
 BAT Group: A sub-group under Working Group for Sustainable
Consumption and Production.
 BREF document: Best Available Techniques Reference Document:
Slaughterhouses and Animal by-products Industries.
 IED: Industrial Emissions Directive.
 IPPC: Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control.
 SRM: Specified Risk Materials.
 TSE: Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy.
Introduction

Background

In line with the global population growth and the intrinsic human needs there is
an increasing pressure on the environment in which we live. Thus, there is an
industrialised need for processing large amounts of resources. In this relation, in
1996, the European Member States introduced the EU Directive on Industrial
Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). The purpose was to achieve integrated
prevention and control of emissions to air, water and soil, generation of waste,
use of raw materials, energy efficiency, noise, prevention of accidents and
restoration of sites upon closure of facility (Daddi et al. 2012). IPPC is important
for all industrial installations under its scope, as these have to acquire licences
where they oblige to the IPPC environmental regulations (Daddi et al. 2012). As
a function of this, the Best Available Techniques Reference documents (BREFs)
were published to guide industrial sectors regarding which tools to use to meet
the requirements of the IPPC Directive. This included descriptions of the
techniques and processes used for different sectors, current emission and
consumption levels, and techniques of how to determine Best Available
Techniques (BAT) and emerging techniques. In 2011, the Industrial Emissions
Directive (IED) was introduced as a replacement of IPPC. The directive defined
BAT as the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities
and operations, which indicates technique suitability in relation to reduction of
emissions (according to limits) and overall environmental impacts. The BAT
abbreviation means (European Parliament and Council 2010):

 “Best” means the most effective in terms of achieving a high level of

protection of the whole environment.
 “Available” is defined as what is currently accessible, both economic and
technically, for an installation.
 “Techniques” consider technology and also the way the installation is
designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned.

BATs are reference information for the permitting authorities in their approach
to set the permit conditions. These are described in the BAT-Reference
documents (BREF) that in particular describe the applied techniques, present
emissions and consumption levels, techniques considered for the determination
of best available technique, and BAT conclusions. The BAT conclusions describe
the agreed upon BATs, their description, level of applicability, site remediation,
emission levels, and associated monitoring and consumption levels (Salminen et
al. 2014). It’s worth noticing that the BAT-associated emission levels are binding,
meaning that the industries must comply with them, whereas the other types of
BAT conclusions leave a room for interpretation for the competent authority.
The current reference document on BATs in the slaughterhouses and animal
by-products industries is from 2005. Slaughterhouses and by-products
industries that are subject to it have a production capacity of ≥50 tons/day and
≥10 tons/day, respectively. However, due to a quick progress in techniques and
technologies, the current plan is that work on a new reference document on
BATs in the slaughterhouses and animal by-products industries is to start in
2017. It is worth noticing that the general concept of BAT is not only used in
connection with IED but also with industries not covered by IED.

Objectives

The objective of this study is to provide information for operators,

environmental consultants and competent environmental authorities on what is
and could be considered BAT for slaughterhouses and animal by-products
industries. Here, more specifically, the focus will be on the Nordic country
installations investigated through a questionnaire on current production
patterns, potentially problematic BATs and which BATs or key environmental
indicators that can be used as a basis for setting future permit conditions. Based
on the survey, general ideas or guidelines will be presented and can be used
during the upcoming EU revision of a new BAT-Reference document for
slaughterhouses and animal by-products industries.

12 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

1. Overview of the Nordic
sector – processes and
techniques

1.1 Overview of the Nordic sector

In the Nordic countries the slaughterhouse and animal by product sector covered
by IED consists of approximately 65 plants. The amount was derived through
DMRI knowledge, online screening and consultations with national environmental
representatives (contacted through the Nordic BAT-group). The exact list is kept
confidential.

Table 1: Overview of estimated amount and kind of slaughterhouse and animal by-products
IED installations in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland
Country/Industry No. of Processing
installations

Pig & Cattle & Sheep & Poultry By-products

sows calf’s lamb

Denmark
Slaughterhouse 10 X
Slaughterhouse 3 X
Slaughterhouse 3 X
Animal by-products 5 X

Sweden
Slaughterhouse 3 X
Slaughterhouse 2 X X
Slaughterhouse 2 X X X
Slaughterhouse 2 X X
Slaughterhouse 4 X
Animal by-products 6 X

Norway
Slaughterhouse 2 X
Slaughterhouse 1 X
Slaughterhouse 5 X X X
Slaughterhouse 1 X X
Slaughterhouse 1 X X
Slaughterhouse 3 X
Animal by-products 1 X
Country/Industry No. of Processing
installations

Pig & Cattle & Sheep & Poultry By-products

sows calf’s lamb

Finland
Slaughterhouse 2 X
Slaughterhouse 2 X
Slaughterhouse 2 X X
Slaughterhouse 1 X X
Slaughterhouse 3 X
Animal by-products 1 X
Total 65

1.2 Pig slaughter

On a mass basis, pigs represent the main slaughtering activity in the Nordic
countries. The applied slaughterhouse processes and techniques often depend
on the size of the installations. In general, and in the larger installations, trucks
deliver pigs to the lairage of the slaughterhouse where they are kept for up to 2
hours, and from where excrements and urine are sent to anaerobic co-digestion
(biogas & sludge production) (Danish Meat Research Institute 1995). However,
sometimes pigs spend the night in the lairage areas, as it is then possible to have
an early processing start at the following day. From the lairage area, the pigs are
driven to chambers where they are stunned with CO2 (some smaller operations
may apply electricity to stun) (Finnish Environment Institute 2002). Afterwards,
they are hung by their hind legs on an overhead rail and while being moved, they
are stuck in the throat. From there, approx. 4 kg blood per pig is collected and
used in fur animal feed or human consumption products. Subsequently, and
after being removed from the rail, the pig hair is loosened by scalding in approx.
60 °C hot water (scalding tank) or by steam (vertical scalding) (Danish Meat
Research Institute 1995; Finnish Environment Institute 2002). After the hair has
been loosened, approx. 1 kg hair per pig can be removed (goes to rendering) in a
de-hairing machine that applies rotating rubbers and pressurized water jets
(Finnish Environment Institute 2002). After being hung by their hind legs on an
overhead rail, the residual hair and bacteria are removed in the singeing process
(e.g. propane gas burning). The singeing process leaves sooth and creates
discolouration of the skin. To get a light uniform colour, the skin is scraped.
In the cleaner part of the slaughterhouse, the pigs on rails are opened, and the
stomach and bowel set are taken out and cleaned in the casing department.
Hereafter, the pluck sets (i.e. heart, liver and lungs) are taken out and further
processed in the “pluck area” of the slaughterhouse. The pig carcass then weighs

14 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

around 85 kg. Heart, liver, kidneys and washed intestines are commonly sold for
human consumption and pet food (Finnish Environment Institute 2002; Danish
Meat Research Institute 1995). Trimmings, lungs, and washed stomachs and
intestines (contents are taken to biogas & sludge production) are used for human
consumption, fur animal feed, and pet food production (Finnish Environment
Institute 2002). The carcasses are then split into two (snout attachment still
occurs) and chilled from approx. 35 to 7 °C (Danish Meat Research Institute 1995).
The subsequent cutting processes produce trimmings and bones, which are sent
to rendering, fur animal feed and pet food. Approx. 14–16 kg/pig goes to fur animal
feed production or pet food, while ca. 11 kg/pig goes to rendering (Finnish
Environment Institute 2002). The mass that goes to biogas & sludge production is
approx. 8–10 kg/pig, and includes stomach and intestine contents and wastewater
treatment residues (e.g. fat, sludge etc.) (Finnish Environment Institute 2002).

1.3 Cattle slaughter

After arrival by trucks to the slaughterhouse and stay in the lairage area, the
cattle are driven to the stunning area one at a time. Here their body and heads
are fixed, and they are stunned with a penetrating captive bolt device.
Depending on religious rituals and targeted meat markets, the stunning can
also be done with a non-penetrating captive bolt device (so skull fracture is
avoided). After stunning, the cattle is hung by the hind legs on an overhead
rail, and the throat is cut so bleeding can occur. Collected blood (approx. 10–
22 kg/head) is used for fur animal feed and human consumption (Finnish
Environment Institute 2002; Danish Meat Research Institute 1995).
Afterwards, hides are striped from the body, and they are washed and salted
before being sent to tanneries and further processing into leather goods
(Finnish Environment Institute 2002). In the subsequent procedures, the head,
forelegs, tail, udder or testicles are removed.
In the clean part of the slaughterhouse, the chest is cut open and stomach,
intestines, and plucks are removed. Heart, liver and kidneys are used for human
consumption, while udder, lungs and washed stomachs are mainly used for pet
food or animal feed production – but due to latest legislation change for
countries with low BSE risk the utilisation for human consumption could increase
in the Nordic countries (Finnish Environment Institute 2002; Danish Agriculture
& Food Council 2015; Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/728 2015; Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 2009). The removed stomach content (approx.
60–80 kg/head) is sent to composting (Finnish Environment Institute 2002). If
slaughtered cattle is older than 6 months than approx. 40–50 kg/head is
considered specified risk material (SRM) and is incinerated, co-incinerated or

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 15

used for fuel (meat-bone meal is incinerated, while fat is used as fuel) (Finnish
Environment Institute 2002). In the end, the cow carcass weight is approx. 250–
260 kg/head, and the calf carcass weight approximately half of that.

1.4 Sheep slaughter

Sheep and lambs are delivered by trucks to slaughterhouses and led to the
lairage area. Hereafter they are stunned with a penetrating/non-penetrating
captive bolt device or by electricity. Thereafter they are hung and stuck/cut so
bleeding can occur. Approximately 1–2 kg of blood/head is relieved, which
corresponds to 60% of the total blood mass per animal (Danish Meat Research
Institute 1995). Afterwards their hide (for leather goods), stomach, intestines
(for animal feed), and plucks (mainly for human consumption) are removed. The
utilisation of by-products is due to the latest legislative change become easier
for low risk BSE countries – the Nordic countries (Danish Agriculture & Food
Council 2015; Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/728 2015; Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 2009). In the end, the approx. 21 kg/head
slaughtered weight is showered with water to remove blood and fat residues and
sent for cooling (Danish Meat Research Institute 1995). Later they can be sold as
an entire carcass, divided into half’s or smaller parts.

1.5 Poultry slaughter

Chickens are transported to slaughterhouses in crates and cages and are then
manually hung by their feet onto a conveyer. Then they are conveyed to an area
where they are electrically stunned (e.g. by dipping their head in an electrified
water container), and later their neck artery is cut (Danish Meat Research Institute
1995). Alternatively, e.g. in Finland, CO2-stunning is also applied – there chickens
are hung after stunning. The 40 g/chicken of blood is collected and used in animal
feed (Finnish Environment Institute 2002). Then they are scalded in order to ease
feather removal by being dipped for approx. 2–3 minutes in approx. 50–52 °C hot
water (if later sold as fresh) or for ca. 1 minute in approx. 60 °C hot water (if later
sold as frozen) (Danish Meat Research Institute 1995). De-feathering, or plucking
is performed by rotating rubber “fingers” beating/rubbing the scalded carcass and
water flushing off the approx. 180 g/chicken of feathers. These are further
processed, e.g. into animal feed (Finnish Environment Institute 2002).
The next step in the processing is to cut off the head (80 g/chicken) and the
feet (120 g/chicken) (Finnish Environment Institute 2002). The feet can continue
on the conveyer for e.g. animal feed production. The rest of the chicken is moved

16 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

onto a separate conveyer, now held in the legs, where the bowel is pulled out
and gizzard, lever and heart are removed with the aim of being used for human
consumption products (Danish Meat Research Institute 1995). Then the chicken
is showered with water, and the trachea and esophagus are removed, followed
by an inside-out water flushing of the chicken (Danish Meat Research Institute
1995). The chicken, or more precisely broiler, then weighs approx. 1.4 kg and is
chilled to below 4 °C. Further processing produces trimmings and bones of
approx. 150–160 g/broiler (Finnish Environment Institute 2002). These by-
products are used for fur animal feed production (Danish Meat Research
Institute 1995; Finnish Environment Institute 2002).

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 17

2. Methodology

2.1 Goal and scope of questionnaire

In relation to the slaughterhouses and animal by-products industries BAT-

Reference document, and more precisely the BAT conclusions, the aim with
sending out a BAT-questionnaire to slaughterhouses, animal by-products
installations and environmental permit writers (or environmental inspectors) is to
investigate limitations and potential ideas for setting future BATs. The answers to
the questionnaires are subject to confidential treatment and presentation.
The geographical scope of the installations that received the questionnaires is
the Nordic countries, specifically Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. The
reason for only considering these Nordic countries is that the major part of the BAT
relevant production occurs within these countries. The considered installations
were chosen based on consultations with national environmental protection
agencies and the BAT-working group.
Each of the questionnaires addresses certain BAT specific issues, relevant
for installations and environmental authorities:

 Slaughterhouse installations BAT-questionnaire (see Appendix 2):

 Production patterns.
 Accounted and potentially accounted environmental indicators.
 Stand according to potential ideas for future BATs (BAT ideas were
proposed based on DMRI industry experience).
 Applicability of certain dubious BATs (ones that may be difficult to
follow – based on DMRI industry experience).
 Animal by-products industries BAT-questionnaire (see Appendix 3):
 Production patterns.
 Accounted environmental indicators.
 Potential ideas for future BATs.
 Environmental permit writers environmental indicators questionnaire (see
Appendix 4):
 Country specific environmental indicators (when issuing permits and
monitoring environmental impacts for/from slaughterhouses and
animal by-products installations).
2.2 Slaughterhouse questionnaire

The slaughterhouse questionnaire directed towards installations in the Nordic

countries aims at investigating production patterns and accountable
environmental indicators that could be applied in future setting of new BATs.
However, the environmental indicators may also uncover limitations in the future
BAT work. Also, ideas for new BATs and applicability of certain dubious BATs were
raised, and installations were asked to define the level of applicability according to
their line of business.

2.2.1 Production patterns

The installation’s specific production patterns were questioned according to:

 Production capacity (BAT regulation ≥50 tons/day).

 Kinds of animals slaughtered.
 Typical (hot) carcass weight of slaughtered kind of animal.
 Total yearly weight (hot carcass) of slaughtered kind of animal.
 Degree of automation at facility.
 Amount of operational weeks per year.
 Amount of production days per operational week.
 Number of work shifts per operational day.

2.2.2 Accounted and potentially accounted environmental indicators

The parameters that are part of the facility’s ongoing operational control, and
can serve as environmental indicators, are investigated in terms of how these
are accounted. Furthermore, the installations are also enquired if it is possible to
allocate these parameters according to slaughtering and by-products processing
(cleaning of casings, fat rendering, processing of blood etc.).
The environmentally impact related parameters enquired about (both in
terms of how these are accounted, and the opportunities of allocating these
according to different process installations):

 Water consumption (tap water temperature).

 Heated water.
 Electricity, total.
 Electricity for cooling.
 Electricity for compressed air.

20 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

 Fuels (oil, gas etc.).
 District heating.
 Steam.
 TOC (Total Organic Carbon) in wastewater.
 COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) in wastewater.
 BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) in wastewater.
 Total N (Nitrogen) in wastewater.
 Total P (Phosphor) in wastewater.
 FOG (Fat, Oil and Grease) in wastewater.
 SS (Suspended Solids) in wastewater.
 Use of cleaning detergents.
 Use of chlorine containing agents (for disinfection).
 Use of other disinfection agents.

2.2.3 Potential ideas for future BATs

In terms of potential ideas for future BATs, or useful considerations in future BAT
work, 11 ideas were included in the questionnaire, and the installations were asked
to imply if these were suitable, partially suitable or not suitable to be introduced in
the future BAT proposal. Also, each installation also had the possibility to suggest
own BAT related ideas.
These BAT ideas can be seen in Appendix 2, and also in the results section
3.2.4. where they are displayed along with results (level of applicability by the
installations).

2.2.4 Applicability of certain dubious BATs

According to the current Slaughterhouses and Animal By-Products BAT-
Reference document (BREF), 28 dubious BATs were taken out, and the
installations were enquired to which degree they apply these (applied; partially
applied; not applied; not applicable). The selection of these BATs was based on
DMRI’s consultant-related industry experience – and we think that these may be
difficult to follow by the installations.
The BATs chosen for the questionnaire can be seen in Appendix 1 where they
are presented and assessed according to level of application, by the asked
installations.

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 21

2.3 By-products industries questionnaire

The by-products industries questionnaire directed towards installations in the

Nordic countries aims at investigating production patterns and accountable
environmental indicators that can be applied in future setting of BATs, and
suitability of potential ideas for future BATs.

2.3.1 Production patterns

The installation specific production patterns were questioned according to:

 Production capacity (BAT regulation ≥10 tons/day).

 By-products processed from which kind of animal.
 Total yearly weight of animal by-products.
 Use of received by-products.
 Amount of operational weeks per year.
 Number of work shifts per operational day.

2.3.2 Accounted and potentially accounted environmental indicators

For parameters that are part of the by-products installations’ ongoing operational
control, and can serve as environmental indicators, the installations are enquired
about how these are accounted for according to the overall installation operation
(total; total and divided according to departments; not accounted for). The
enquired environmental indicators are shown in section 2.2.2.

2.3.3 Potential ideas for future BATs

The potential new ideas for future BAT work amounts to 6 suggestions, which
are an excerpt from the 11 ideas suggested for slaughterhouses. The ideas were
proposed on the basis of DMRI’s industry experience. The enquired installations
had to imply if each suggestion is suitable, partially suitable or not suitable to be
introduced in the future BAT proposal – as the case was for the slaughterhouse
related suggestions. Each installation also had the possibility of suggesting their
own BAT related ideas.
The BAT ideas can be seen in Appendix 2, and also in the result section 3.2.4
and 3.3.2 where they are displayed along with installation scores.

22 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

2.4 Environmental permit writers questionnaire

The questionnaire for the environmental permit writers, or environmental

inspectors, is aimed towards highlighting which of the environmental indicators
that are used in each of the considered Nordic countries when issuing permits to
– and monitoring environmental impacts from – slaughterhouses and by-
products plants.
Environmental permit writers, or inspectors, were questioned according to
these parameters:

 Slaughterhouses or by-products industries – use of resources?

 (e.g. drinking water, electricity, heating etc.).
 Slaughterhouses or by-products industries – emissions to air?
 (e.g. CO2, CO, NOx, odour, noise etc.).
 Slaughterhouses or by-products industries – emissions to water?
 (e.g. amount of wastewater, TOC, COD, BOD, N, P, BI5, SS, fat, pH,
temperature etc.).
 Slaughterhouses or by-products industries – emissions to soil?
 (e.g. metals, waste etc.).

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 23

3. Results

3.1 Answer percentages

The questionnaires were sent to 52 slaughterhouses and 13 by-products industries

installations that were identified as relevant for the slaughterhouse and animal by-
products industries BAT-Reference document (we think there is at least that many
IED installation, as seen in section 1.1) – also 5 environmental permit
writers/inspectors were enquired about which environmental indicators were
considered when issuing permits or monitoring. All permit writers/inspectors
answered (see Figure 1). Out of 65 slaughterhouses and animal by-products
installations that were contacted, 39 (60%) answered the questionnaires (see
Figure 1). However, some returned questionnaires did not consider all questions.
The ones that did not answer were mainly smaller installations and to some extent
also related to poultry or by-products processing.

Figure 1: Percentages of questionnaires answered, along with amount of answered

questionnaires according to the amount of installations contacted per questionnaire and per
considered Nordic country
100
10/10
1/1

2/2

1/1

1/1

1/1

1/1
80
12/16

60
3/5
%

40
6/13

5/13

20
1/6

0
Slaughterhouses

Env. permit writ.

Slaughterhouses

Env. permit writ.

Slaughterhouses

Env. permit writ.

Slaughterhouses

Env. permit writ.

By-products ind.

By-products ind.

By-products ind.

By-products ind.

Denmark Sweden Norway Finland

3.2 Slaughterhouse questionnaires

3.2.1 Degree of automation and annual production

There is quite a variation in the size and operation of the considered
slaughterhouses (see Figure 2). In Figure 2, alongside the actual annual carcass
weight per year, production ranges are denoted, and according to these, an
almost uniform for 5 days a week (mainly 1 shift, some have 2) and for 50–52
weeks a year operational pattern was observed for all slaughterhouses. The kind
of animals slaughtered and typical (hot) carcass weight can be seen in Appendix
1. All of the considered slaughterhouses have a total yearly production that is
≥50 tons/day (BREF considered production capacity), but their operation pr.
animal kind can be below this (as seen in Figure 2).

26 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

Figure 2: Slaughterhouse operations (DK, SE, NO and FIN) per kind of animal and according to intervals (custom defined scale terminology) of the actual annual production (carcass weight). One slaughterhouse
can be counted as two facility operations, e.g. by slaughtering pigs and cattle. Names of slaughterhouses are not disclosed due to confidentiality reasons

Manual Mechanical Mechanical & automated (use of robot technology)

5
Slaughterhouses (facility operations)

0
Chickens

Chickens

Chickens

Chickens

Chickens

Chickens

Chickens

Chickens
Hens

Chickens
Hens

Hens

Hens

Hens

Hens

Hens

Hens

Hens
Pigs

Calfs
Sheep & lamb

Turkey
Pigs

Calfs
Sheep & lamb

Turkey
Pigs

Calfs
Sheep & lamb

Turkey
Pigs

Calfs
Sheep & lamb

Turkey
Pigs

Calfs
Sheep & lamb

Turkey
Pigs

Calfs
Sheep & lamb

Turkey
Pigs

Calfs
Sheep & lamb

Turkey
Pigs

Calfs
Sheep & lamb
Cattle

Turkey
Pigs

Calfs
Sheep & lamb
Cattle

Turkey
Sows

Cattle
Sows

Cattle
Sows

Cattle
Sows

Cattle
Sows

Cattle
Sows

Cattle
Sows

Cattle
Sows

Sows
<1000 t/year 1000-5000 t/year 5000-15000 t/year 15000-30000 t/year 30000-50000 t/year 50000-75000 t/year 75000-150000 t/year 150000-300000 t/year 300000-500000 t/year
Very small-scale Small-scale Medium-scale Large-scale Extra large-scale

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 27

Different slaughterhouse operational patterns are seen in Figure 2, but as
expected, the larger operations tend to use mechanical and automated (use of
robot technology) technological approaches. Smaller operations that are
subject to BREF use more mechanical and manual approaches, even though they
also have introduced automated approaches. This is due to the savings in labour
costs and a faster and uniform processing. Initially, from an environmental point
of view, the automated approach can be worse due to a higher resource
consumption (e.g. through electricity). However, the environmental impact
consideration in this case also needs to consider the benefits in terms of more
product produced and perhaps the minimised labour related impacts. For
smaller operations, the crucial factors in potentially moving from manual to
automated approaches are economical possibilities (return of investment) and
the potential (seasonal) variation in production.
When considering benefits of e.g. manual vs. automated processing, the
possibility of accounting environmental impacts is important, with the aim of
developing environmentally friendlier slaughterhouses and related products. In
this context, the coming BREF has to promote realistic and obtainable aims,
according to slaughterhouse opportunities.

3.2.2 Ongoing control and accounting of environmental parameters

According to the existing BREF, the current key environmental issues for
slaughterhouses are in general the water consumption, emission of high organic
strength liquids to water (containing fats and blood), energy consumption
(mainly due to water heating (e.g. for cleaning), refrigeration) (European
Commission 2005). The related emission levels are defined as achievable
amounts if applying BAT defined technology. These are only defined for
wastewater emissions from slaughterhouses and animal by-product
installations (after on-site or e.g. municipal wastewater treatment) and for
incineration of animal by-products. The BAT achieved wastewater indicative
emission levels are: COD (25–125 mg/l), BOD5 (10–40 mg/l), SS (5–60 mg/l),
Total N (15–40 mg/l), Total P (2–5 mg/l), and FOG (2.6–15 mg/l) (European
Commission 2005). The BAT achieved air emission levels for incineration of
animal by-products are defined through SO2, HCl, HF, NOx, CO, VOCs, dust,
dioxins and furans, heavy metals, and NH3 – see European Commission (2005)
for specific levels. In relation to these, the upcoming Slaughterhouse and Animal
By-Products BREF may contain new binding emission demands. For
slaughterhouses, Figure 3 shows to which extent specific environmental
parameters are controlled and accounted at slaughterhouses – based on
slaughterhouse answers.

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 28

Figure 3: Current ongoing control and accounting at the Nordic slaughterhouses that answered the questionnaire (DK n=12; SE=6; NO n=5; FIN n=10) – some returned questionnaires were not fully answered. The
slaughterhouse scale-size intervals (processed carcass weight) are defined in Figure 2. Names of slaughterhouses are not disclosed due to confidentiality reasons

Very small-scale Small-scale Medium-scale Large-scale Extra large-scale

35

30

25
Slaughterhouses

20

15

10

0
Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted
Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided
Water Heated Electricity, Electricity forElectricity for Fuels (oil, District Steam TOC (Total COD BOD Total N Total P FOG (Fat, Oil SS Use of Use of Use of other
consumption water total cooling compressed gas etc.) heating Organic (Chemical (Biological (Nitrogen) (Phosphor) and Grease) (Suspended cleaning chlorine disinfection
(tap water air Carbon) Oxygen Oxygen Solids) agents containing agents
temp.) Demand) Demand) agents (for
disinfection)
Utilities Wastewater Cleaning

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 29

According to Figure 3, most of the environmental related parameters can be
accounted for, but mainly in total numbers for whole slaughterhouses – as seen
in Danish Meat Research Institute (2015). Especially, as seen for wastewater and
cleaning agents indicators. In terms of utilities, the water related consumptions,
and to a minor extent the electricity related consumptions, can in approx. half of
the asked slaughterhouses be accounted in a more detailed fashion. In most
cases, this means that some larger slaughterhouse areas are accounted
separately. Indicators such as electricity for cooling, electricity for compressed
air, district heating, steam, TOC are in approx. half of the installations not
accounted. This can be due to that these are not considered relevant in the
installations, or are accounted in an indirect fashion (e.g. through total
electricity). However, e.g. compressed air is commonly not possible to be
accounted in a divided fashion, as it would require measuring the amount of
distributed air to each factory section.
An important aim, beside monitoring several environmental indicators,
should be to consider burden shifting of environmental impacts across life cycle
stages (also addressed in cross media effects BREF), e.g. lower amount of water
consumption can be achieved by using a larger amount of detergents – water
related impacts will be lower and detergent related impacts higher. This opens
up for the use of life cycle thinking, which merely means that one should
consider burden shifting (not perform actual LCAs).

3.2.3 Possibility to allocate consumptions and environmental

parameters for slaughter and by-products processing

A relevant aspect is the ability to distribute the consumptions and

environmental implications according to products produced, separately for
slaughter and by-products processing (cleaning of casings, fat rendering,
processing of blood etc.). The reasoning behind this is that slaughterhouse
products have different value/function and that the environmental impacts need
be related to them – like a functional unit in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The
slaughterhouses were asked about the potential for allocation of selected
consumptions and environmental implications – see Figure 4.

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 30

Figure 4: Possibility of allocating consumptions and environmental parameters for slaughter and by-products processing at the Nordic slaughterhouses that answered the questionnaire (DK n=12; SE n=6; NO n=5;
FIN n=10) – some returned questionnaires were not fully answered. The slaughterhouse scale-size intervals (processed carcass weight) are defined in Figure 2. Names of slaughterhouses are not disclosed due to
confidentiality reasons

Very small-scale Small-scale Medium-scale Large-scale Extra large-scale

35

30

25
Slaughterhouses

20

15

10

0
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Water Heated water Electricity, Electricity for Electricity for Heating (oil, Steam COD (Chemical BOD Total N Total P FOG (Fat, Oil SS (Suspended Use of Use of Use of other
consumption total cooling compressed gas) Oxygen (Biological (Nitrogen) (Phosphor) and Grease) Solids) cleaning chlorine disinfection
(tap water air Demand) Oxygen agents containing agents
temp.) Demand) agents (for
disinfection)
Utilities Wastewater Cleaning

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 31

To justify a higher energy consumption, e.g. with an improved utilisation, there is
a need to allocate consumptions and environmental implications. However,
according to the slaughterhouses asked, this is in most cases currently not possible
in terms of slaughter and by-products processing (see Figure 4). According to
them, this is only possible for water for half of the slaughterhouses asked. This
needs to be changed if an improved by-products utilisation is aimed for – as
today’s carcass weight relation will not justify a further resource demanding
processing of by-products (to e.g. human consumption). This underlines the
difficulty to include binding emission demands in the future, as it could limit
further processing and improved utilisation of animal by-products. Also, yield
performance needs to be included in order to perform a fair comparison of e.g. a
developed automated slaughterhouse and an undeveloped manual
slaughterhouse.

3.2.4 New or partially new suggested BATs – or useful considerations in

the future

Based on current slaughterhouse BATs (European Commission 2005), a list of new

BATs or ideas leading to ones is proposed. These were suggested on the basis of
needs we identified through DMRI expertise judgement and experience from the
slaughterhouse sector, although slaughterhouses also had the opportunity to
suggest ideas for new BATs. The slaughterhouses did not make suggestions. Their
approach may reflect a competitive mind-set where they are cautious with
suggesting or approving ideas that could lead to demands. However, the
slaughterhouses shared their opinion of our BAT ideas and whether these are
suitable for their installation (or the sector as a whole) – as seen in Figure 5.

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 32

Figure 5: New or partially new BATs – or useful considerations in the future – assessed according to suitability to be implemented by Nordic slaughterhouses that answered the questionnaire (DK n=12; SE=6; NO
n=5; FIN n=10) – some returned questionnaires were not fully answered. The slaughterhouse scale-size intervals (processed carcass weight) are defined in Figure 2. Names of slaughterhouses are not disclosed due
to confidentiality reasons

Very small-scale Small-scale Medium-scale Large-scale Extra large-scale

20

15
Slaughterhouses

10

0
Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Not suitable
Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially

Partially
1. Include life 2. Investigate -from category -from category -from category -from category -from category 3. When by- 4. When total 5. When 6. Treat -utilise -reduce -reduce the 7. Adapt the 8. Apply heat- 9. Reuse 10. Choose 11. Make
cycle thinking, possibilities for, 1 to 2 through 2 to 3 through 2 to fur animal 3 to fur animal 3 to human products are consumption upcycling by- process-water product- pollution from need for clean collection- reflecting process-water working-shift optimal use of
when and the improved improved feed and pet feed and pet consumption aimed up- and emissions products for by-product residues for the process. water. frequency for surfaces and for cleaning of pattern, the slaughter
considering economy separation separation. food through food through through cycled are to be include water- processing biogas and/or by-products for well-ventilated wastewater mechanical- capacity. Avoid
sustainability of involved, (cattle improved improved improved processing and quantified, saving and within the animal feed. rendering cladding on by- screens, if and stopping
methods, upcycling of slaughter only). separation separation separation and conservation possibilities for pollution- process, in according to product silo appropriate automation- slaughter
processes and byproducts: and/or and/or /or processing. approach future up- mitigation order to: the yearly exterior, if sun- water quality is degree on the before planned
product processing. processing. should be cycling of by- technologies. seasons. More exposed. available. basis of due to lack of
utilisation - chosen in products frequent production size, animals. Design
thus also collaboration should be taken collections in season related the lairage to
environmental with upstream into the warmer production hold the
burden shifting activities. E.g. consideration. periods will variations and needed amount
is minimised. consider limit bio- local of animals and
conservation by degradation of economical establish
heating instead products and considerations. facilities for
of cooling, if malodour. keeping
heating is animals in the
already lairage for the
included in next day.
following
processing
steps.

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 33

A general BAT suggestion (No. 1 in Figure 5 – low cost change) is to include life cycle
thinking when considering sustainability of methods, processes and products. As
previously stated, commonly there is a lack of holistic thinking when dealing with
impacts, and with life cycle thinking, burden shifting of environmental impacts
could be avoided. This means that a lowering of e.g. water use for cleaning by
using new detergents also needs to consider the environmental impacts from
detergents (burden shifting, which is also part of cross media effects BREF). Within
these lines, the wider shifting of impacts needs to be thought of and not only up-
and down-stream in production. Half of the asked slaughterhouses find the idea
partially suitable (should be implemented with modifications), and the other half
does not think it should be introduced (see Figure 5).
To lower consumer related environmental impacts from an animal a
suggestion is to investigate possibilities for “upcycling” (upgrade in risk category
– towards human consumption) by-products (incl. economy involved) (No. 2 in
Figure 5 – high cost change). This includes a larger focus on upcycling from
material risk category 1 to 2 (cattle slaughter) and 2 to 3 through improved
separation (See more about risk categories through European Commission
(2005)). Also, it includes improved separation/processing of category 2 and 3 by-
products to fur animal feed, pet food, and even human consumption (cat. 3). This
requires separation and processing effort and even regulatory alterations in
some cases, but also financial incitement for the slaughterhouses.
Slaughterhouses find the general idea suitable, but not the specific upcycling paths.
Only the path from category 3 and 2 to fur animal feed and pet food is to a certain
extent found suitable – mainly by the smaller installations (see Figure 5).
When aiming at upcycling by-products, the up-stream activities should be
considered in order to align activities and thereby save resources and lower
environmental impacts (No. 3 in Figure 5 – medium to high cost change). This can
be done by e.g. considering heat- instead of cooling conservation – if heating is
included in the adherent processing steps. Most slaughterhouses asked do not
find this idea suitable, except for some smaller installations (see Figure 5).
When quantifying total consumptions and emissions, the slaughterhouse
operation needs to consider possibilities of how this can be altered if or when
future up-cycling of by-products occurs (No. 4 in Figure 5 – low cost change).
Hereby the upcycled by-products increase in value and can potentially replace
other animal products – this thought needs to be included when accounting total
consumptions and emissions. Majority does not find this suitable, but approx. 1/3
of the slaughterhouses do (mainly smaller installations) (see Figure 5).
Include water saving and pollution-mitigation technologies when upcycling
by-products – and consider emerging technologies (No. 5 in Figure 5 – high cost
change). Also, if possible, treat process water from by-product processing within
the same process (No. 6 in Figure 5 – high cost change). With this approach, the

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 34

product residues can be used for biogas and/or animal feed, and the overall
process pollution and input of tap water (clean water) can be reduced. This
requires the introduction of emerging technologies and the acceptance of these
from needed authorities (also in relation to hygiene demands of foreign
markets). Little more than half of the slaughterhouses find No. 5 and 6 suitable.
The collection frequencies of by-products from slaughterhouses need to be
adapted according to yearly seasons, e.g. frequent collections in warmer periods
will limit bio-degradation and malodour (No. 7 in Figure 5 – low to medium cost
change). Furthermore, in order to avoid e.g. bio-degradation, heat reflecting
surfaces and well-ventilated cladding at by product silo exterior can be applied
(No. 8 in Figure 5 – low to medium cost change). Little more than half of the asked
slaughterhouses find No. 7 not suitable, the rest thinks it is suitable. In general, No.
8 is not found suitable.
In order to minimise water consumption, the process water for cleaning
wastewater screens can be reused, if a suitable water quality is present (No. 9 in
Figure 5 – low to medium cost change). As discussed previously, the working shift
pattern and mechanical and automation degree needs to be chosen based on
production size, season related production, and local economical considerations
(No. 10 in Figure 5 – low cost change) – In order to support smaller businesses and
their environmental efforts. About 2/3 of the asked slaughterhouses find No. 9
suitable and the rest find it not suitable. In contrast, little less than 2/3 find No. 10
not suitable.
Slaughtering capacity needs to be optimal, so slaughter is not stopped
before planned due a lack of animals (No. 11 in Figure 5 – low to medium cost
change). This will contribute to having lower environmental impacts per.
processed animal. Among others this requires that the lairage area holds the
needed amount of animals, also for the next day in order to achieve an early
start. Half of the asked find it suitable, while others do not.

3.2.5 Applicability of current BATs – the challenging ones

The extent to which slaughterhouses are applying the current BATs is
interesting, but mainly in terms of the more challenging BATs (dubious ones). In
the questionnaire DMRI included the ones weighted as a potential challenge for
the installations and related them to the actual size of facilities (carcass weight
of slaughtered animals).The results are shown in Appendix 1, showing
slaughterhouse level of applicability according to the BATs.
The questionnaire results (see Appendix 1) show that the slaughterhouses
follow the BATs to the extent that they are relevant for each installation. Also,
facilities can have solutions that are not exactly as proposed, but reach
appropriate environmental aims. Certain slaughterhouses also express that they

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 35

are not applying some BATs. An example is the “stop feeding pigs 12 hours prior
to slaughter and minimise their slaughterhouse-lairage time” and “vertical
steam scalding”. The prior to slaughterhouses arrival feeding time is difficult to
control, as farmers feed their entire stock and afterwards based on appropriate
slaughter weight judgement choose the ones that should be sent for slaughter.
Also, smaller facilities may not have the means to update their facilities to e.g.
vertical scalding. This indicates that some smaller operations are not suited for
the BATs.

3.3 By-products installation questionnaires

3.3.1 Ongoing control and accounting of environmental parameters

According to the existing BREF (European Commission 2005), the key

environmental issues for by-products installations are in general the emission of
high organic strength liquids to water, energy consumption (mainly due to
drying by-products), treatment (incl. destruction) of TSE (Transmissible
Spongiform Encephalopathies) infected material and control of odour. In
relation to these, the animal by-products installations described their ongoing
control and accounting of certain environmental parameters in Figure 6.

36 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

Figure 6: Current ongoing control and accounting at Nordic animal by-products installations that answered the questionnaire (DK n=3; SE=1; NO n=1; FIN=1). Names of slaughterhouses are not disclosed due to
confidentiality reasons

Facility #1 (22,000 t/y) Facility #2 (43,000 t/y) Facility #3 (57,000 t/y) Facility #4 (83,488 t/y) Facility #5 (145,000 t/y) Facility #6 (250,000 t/y)

5
By-product industry installations

0
Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted

Not accounted
Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided

Total, only
Total and divided
Water Heated Electricity, Electricity for Electricity for Fuels (oil, gas District Steam TOC (Total COD BOD Total N Total P FOG (Fat, Oil SS Use of Use of Use of other
consumption water total cooling compressed etc.) heating Organic (Chemical (Biological (Nitrogen) (Phosphor) and Grease) (Suspended cleaning chlorine disinfection
(tap water air Carbon) Oxygen Oxygen Solids) agents containing agents
temp.) Demand) Demand) agents (for
disinfection)
Utilities Wastewater Cleaning

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 37

In Figure 6 it can be seen that wastewater and cleaning parameters are mainly
accounted in total. This is common as wastewater usually is measured as an
output from and to wastewater treatment, and the use of cleaning detergents is
accounted for as mass input to the installation. Water and electricity use flows
are measured for certain parts of the installation, but also in total. The need to
use and account heated water and electricity for cooling/compressed air
depends on installation operations. However, the need to allocate different
environmental indicators may to a lesser extent be needed as by-products
installations tend to have a smaller product assortment. If looking at the sizes of
the facilities, there is no evidential pattern of sizes and procedures – however,
the amount of installations that answered is also limited.

3.3.2 New or partially new suggested BATs – or useful considerations in

the future

The Slaughterhouse and Animal by-products Industries BREF (European

Commission 2005) needs updating, and in order to do so we suggested new
BATs (or ideas for further work) – as seen in Figure 7. These, among others, were
also proposed for slaughterhouses and are based on DMRI expertise judgement
and experience from the slaughterhouse and animal by-product sector. As for
slaughterhouses, the by-products installations had the opportunity to propose
new BATs, but due to their presumably cautious approach they did not.
Suitability of the own proposed BATs was assessed by the few animal by-
products installations (see Figure 7).

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 38

Figure 7: New or partially new animal by-products industries BATs – or useful considerations – assessed according to suitability of implementation by Nordic animal by-products installations that answered the
questionnaire (DK n=3; SE=1; NO n=1; FIN=1). Names of by-products installations are not disclosed due to confidentiality reasons (processed by-products mass is)

Facility #1 (22,000 t/y) Facility #2 (43,000 t/y) Facility #3 (57,000 t/y) Facility #4 (83,488 t/y) Facility #5 (145,000 t/y) Facility #6 (250,000 t/y)

5
By-product industry installations

0
Suitable Partially Not suitable Suitable Partially Not suitable Suitable Partially Not suitable Suitable Partially Not suitable Suitable Partially Not suitable
1. Include life cycle thinking, when considering 2. Adapt the collection-frequency for by- 3. Apply heat-reflecting surfaces and well- 4. Choose working-shift pattern, mechanical- 5. Collaborate with upstream activities
sustainability of methods, processes and products according to the yearly seasons. More ventilated coatings on by-product silo exterior. and automation-degree on the basis of regarding collection frequency of raw materials
product utilisation - thus also environmental frequent collections in the warmer periods will production size, season related production and, if needed, preservation of by-products. The
burden shifting is minimised. limit bio-degradation of products and malodour. variations and local economical considerations. aim should be to optimise product yields and
Also, avoid that material is left for next day quality and reduce environmental impacts from
emptying. by-product processing.

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 39

As for slaughterhouses, the proposed idea to include life cycle thinking so a more
environmentally holistic approach is taken when assessing methods, processes and
product utilisation was not considered suitable by the installations (No. 1 in Figure 7 – low
cost change). However, in the more developed countries this could be beneficial as a
more fair environmental assessment would be made – as it will consider benefits and
not only the down side that automated processes require more electricity compared to
manual labour. Benefits can be that e.g. a higher process yield is achieved.
The adaption of collection frequency for by-products, e.g. depending on yearly
seasons, is highly relevant for the installation in order to avoid neighbour complaints
(smell) and also to limit product quality decay (No. 2 in Figure 7 – low to medium cost
change). This idea is based on that collection frequency should be higher in summer-
and lower in the winter-half of the year. This idea is considered suitable by the
installations.
Further, the BAT idea to apply heat reflecting surfaces and well-ventilated coatings
on by-products silo exterior (to limit bio-degradation and smell) depends on the facility
and their needs and local economical capabilities (No. 3 in Figure 7 – low to medium cost
change). One of the two alterations to the silo may only be feasible for the installations,
so this could be the reason that installations mainly find this idea partially suitable.
The choice of working shift patterns and degree of automation (mechanical and
automated) should be based on production, season variation and local economic
considerations (No. 4 in Figure 7 – low cost change). This will set a better operational
basis for smaller businesses and their environmental efforts. This idea is considered
suitable as it especially refers to the smaller facilities and their operational possibilities (e.g.
small fur animal feed installations in Sweden).
The idea is inspired by the already initiated up- and down-stream considerations in
current BREF. However, it tries to focus on specific aspects as improved collection
frequency, preservation, utilisation and quality and consideration of environmental
impacts through upstream-collaboration with slaughterhouses (No. 5 in Figure 7 – low cost
change). It is leaning towards life cycle thinking, but is more restricted in its approach and
probably thereby considered suitable by most of the installations.

3.4 Environmental permit writer questionnaires

In relation to the slaughterhouse and by-product installation accounted consumptions

and environmental indicators, the considered national Nordic countries authorities
focus on a range of environmental indicators (difference between countries occurs).
This is done in order to issue necessary operational permits and due to monitoring

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 40

purposes. The key selected environmental indicators presented in Table 2 need to be
treated with caution as these are based on few environmental permit writers/inspectors
answers – the full answers from each of the 5 environmental permit writers/inspectors
can be seen in Appendix 5.

Table 2: Overview of key indicators that according to questioned environmental permit writers or
environmental inspectors are used in selected Nordic countries when issuing permits to and monitoring
environmental impacts from slaughterhouses and by-products installations. Full answers and all stated
environmental indicators can be seen in Appendix 5

Emission to / impacts Environmental indicator Sectors

Slaughterhouses By-products
installations

Water
Temp. X X
pH X X
Total P X X
Total N X X
BOD X X
COD X X
SS X X
Fat X X

Air
CO X X
NOx X X
SO2 X X
Sum of Ni, V, Cr, Cu, Pb X X
Dust (<10 µm) X X

Soil
Spill of chemicals & products (e.g. oil, salt) X X

Nuisances
Noise X X
Odour X X

Resources use
Drinking water X X
Electricity X X
Heating X X
Chemicals X X

Waste management
Waste X X

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 41

As seen in Table 2, there is mainly a focus on wastewater quality, combustion gases,
energy and water use, and noise and odour. This goes in line with what slaughterhouses
and by-product installations currently account (see Figures 3 & 6). However, these refer
mainly to the measurement of total consumptions or emissions, which does not give a
picture of how the actual contributions vary from inside the slaughterhouse and by-
product installation. The actual slaughterhouse processes responsible for the
environmental impacts (emissions to) are further explained in Table 3 (Section 3.5),
along with suggested mitigation measures. To allocate environmental impacts
according to processes is very difficult (as indicated in Figure 4), and requires substantial
investments and increased effort from both the slaughterhouses and by-products
installations and the authorities.

3.5 Slaughterhouse processes, impacts and measures

Slaughterhouse processes, environmental impacts and authority driven environmental

indicators are related. The relation, based on the questioned Nordic slaughterhouses,
is explained in Table 3. Further, technique based measures can be introduced and the
relative environmental footprint can be reduced – also described in Table 3.

Table 3: Overview of slaughterhouse processes/techniques, their environmental impacts/emission to

compartments, and related measures to minimise environmental impacts. Content is based on DMRI industry
experience and expertise

Process/ Environmental impacts Measures to reduce environmental impacts

department Pigs1, Cattle2, Sheep3, Poultry4

Consumption Direct emission/pollution

Water Energy WW Air Odour Noise

Reception X - X - X - Dry scrape before washing vehicles1–3.

Use high pressure low volume washing equipment1–4
Negative pressure in the building1–4.
Extract air from ventilation system through
chimney/stack1–4

Lairage - - X - X - Improved dry collection of manure1–3.

Shorter lairage holding times1–3
Extract air through a taller chimney/s++tack1–4.
Treat emitted air, e.g. with filters1–3

Stunning and de- - - X - X - Improve blood collection1–3.

bleeding Extract air through a taller chimney/stack1–4
Treat emitted air, e.g. with filters1–4

42 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

Process/ Environmental impacts Measures to reduce environmental impacts
department Pigs1, Cattle2, Sheep3, Poultry4

Consumption Direct emission/pollution

Water Energy WW Air Odour Noise

Unclean slaughter X X X X X - Collect products and by-products before they end up

in WW stream1–3.
Perform water and energy efficiency cleaning1–4
Recycle water from cleaner to more dirty processes1–4
Apply more energy and water efficient technologies
(e.g. steam scalding, singeing (exhaust) energy
recovery)1–4
Extract air through a taller chimney/stack1–4.
Treat emitted air, e.g. with filters1–3

Clean slaughter X X X - - - Collect products and by-products before they end up

in WW stream1–3.
Recycle water from cleaner to more dirty processes1–4
Apply more energy and water efficient slaughter
technologies (e.g. spray knife sterilisers)1–4

Chilling - X - - - - Apply a more energy efficient chilling technology1–4

Cutting - - - - - - -

Dispatch - - - - - - -

Cleaning of casing X - X - X - Recycle water from cleaner to more dirty processes1–3.

Collect residues before they end up in WW stream1–3
Utilise paunch manure as a medium for composting or
vermiculture2.
Extract air through a taller chimney/stack1–3
Treat emitted air, e.g. with filters1–3

Pluck, cutting and - X - - - - Apply a more energy efficient technology1–4

chilling

Hygienic blood X X X - - - Apply a more energy efficient blood collection

collection technology1–3.
Collect blood spillage (e.g. via trays)1–3

Fat rendering - X X - X - Collect residues before they end up in WW stream1–3.

Extract air through a taller chimney/stack1–3
Treat emitted air, e.g. with filters1–3

By-products for - - X - X - Collect by-products before they end up in WW

rendering stream1–3.
Extract air through a taller chimney/stack1–3
Treat emitted air, e.g. with filters1–3

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 43

Process/ Environmental impacts Measures to reduce environmental impacts
department Pigs1, Cattle2, Sheep3, Poultry4

Consumption Direct emission/pollution

Water Energy WW Air Odour Noise

Refrigeration X X - - - X Apply a more energy and water efficient refrigeration

system technology1–4
Apply noise insulation1–4.
Use water efficient cleaning procedures1–4

Production of heat - X X X - X Improve surveillance of water flows1–4

and hot water and Introduce more energy efficient heating and heated
technical water production1–4
installations

Wastewater X - - - X - Use screens and/or sedimentation traps to minimise

treatment products and by-products in WW1–4
Use equalisation/balancing tank with hydraulic
retention time of 6–12 hours to reduce use of reagents
and overall size of plant1–4
If legally possible, further cleaning of wastewater and
reuse in own or neighbouring factory1–4

Transport to and - - - - X X Optimise routes (e.g. minimise passing and waiting

from facility close to neighbours)1–4.
Raise noise dampening walls1–4

The environmental impact contribution from slaughterhouse processes/techniques is

based on releases to water, air and soil. These can be in various forms, ranging from
different chemicals to noise and affecting throughout different compartments. The
presented measures to minimise environmental impacts in Table 3 are to some extent
considered BATs, but also new aspects are included and can serve as an addition to the
already proposed BAT ideas in Section 3.2.4. Installations can pursue these measures
and promote environmentally friendly techniques. Further, these can also help in order
to abide the authority set key environmental indicators, as presented in Section 3.4.

44 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

4. Discussion and conclusions

This study included smaller (manual) to larger (automated) Nordic slaughterhouses and
by-product installations that are subject to BREF. The study was based on
questionnaires combined with general experiences from DMRI (until 2009,
Slagteriernes Forskningsinstitut) who has worked with research and consultancy in the
sector for more than 60 years.
The study gives an insight to the Nordic sector, where a total of approximately 65
installations are covered by BREF. Out of these, 33 installations from Denmark,
Sweden, Norway and Finland answered the questionnaires.
Regarding ongoing control and accounting of environmental parameters. The
respondents of the questionnaires indicated that they currently mainly account their
utility consumptions, wastewater and detergents in a total manner. However, water
and to some extent electricity flows are also accounted in a more divided fashion.
Slaughterhouses have stressed that division of accounted environmental indicators is
not possible according to slaughter and by-products activities, except for water.
Allocation of environmental impacts according to processes is very difficult and
requires substantial investments and increased effort from both the slaughterhouses
and by-products installations and the authorities. However, these key indicators also
depend on the local environmental conditions (e.g. noise, smell, wastewater
treatment). This could set the basis that certain environmental implications are easier
and better regulated on a local level, instead of through BREF.
The differentiation in answers between smaller and larger slaughterhouses is not
evident, but in our opinion there is a difference and it is mainly represented in the local
possibilities (e.g. economy & return of investment). The reason behind the not so
evident differences in results of different sizes of installations can be explained by the
difficulty to include smaller installations. Perhaps their limited availability of
resources/manpower is the reason. Thus, smaller operations may not be suited for the
BATs, and there can be a need to further adjust and consider the BATs according to
small installations – if the aim is to promote environmentally friendlier solutions
through inclusion.
In order to promote sustainable solutions up-stream and limit accounting
difficulties at slaughterhouses, DMRI suggests that equipment manufacturers should
consider BAT in their work, as this currently is almost non-existing.
 Considering the 11 slaughterhouse and 6 animal by-products installation proposed
BATs, a cautious acceptance approach was met. This could be due to the competition
that the slaughterhouses are experiencing, and do not want to impose limitations on
themselves that result in higher expenses and potential restrictions. This meant that
slaughterhouses mainly rejected the proposed BAT ideas, while by-products
installations did mainly like the ones proposed for their sector. However, the current
potentially questionable slaughterhouse BATs are followed by the installations, unless
they are irrelevant to their operation.
Some of the proposed BATs point towards a more holistic environmental thinking,
where fair environmental benchmarking is performed. This means that more
processing and improved utilisation, of e.g. by-products from a cow (to e.g. human
consumption), could justify a higher energy consumption. This could mean
environmental benefits, and perhaps economic gain for the installations. However, one
needs to be aware of potential burden shifting of environmental impacts, when
accounting or introducing BAT demands. Potential introduction of emission demands
(AELs) needs to consider the needed additional processing in order to achieve a better
utilisation of animal by-products.
The key environmental indicators, regulated by the environmental permit issuing
authorities, are in general focussing on wastewater quality, combustion gases, energy
and water use, and noise and odour. The slaughterhouse processes contributing to
these were also explained, along with suggestions to which measures slaughterhouse
installations can take to lower their environmental impacts and abide the authority set
key environmental indicators.
An overall conclusion is that the study gives an overview of the sector, the used
BATs and proposes new BATs. Furthermore, the study indicates what the key
environmental issues are from the sectors point of view and from a selected number of
permit writers point of view.

46 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

References

Danish Meat Research Institute (1995). Rentek Database – Kødbranchen. Slagteriernes

Forskiningsinstitut (Danish Meat Research Institute). Denmark.
Danish Meat Research Institute (2015). Opdatering af materiale om slagteriers miljøforhold.
Karen Sørensen & Ole Pontoppidan (DMRI). Notat udarbejdet for Miljøstyrelsen. Denmark.
Daddi, T., M.R. De Giacomo, G. Rodríguez Lepe, L. Vazquez Calvo, E. Dils & L. Goovaerts
(2012). A method to implement best available techniques in South Mediterranean countries:
the experience of BAT4MED project. Environ. Econ. 3 (4), 65–74.
Danish Agriculture & Food Council (2015). Oversigt over SRM før og efter de forventede
lovgivningsændringer i 2015. Kødbranchens Fællesråd. MBS 3/15.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 (2009) of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and
derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC)
No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation). European Union.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/728 (2015) Amending the definition of specified risk material
set out in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the
Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies. European Union.
European Commission (2005). Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the
Slaughterhouses and Animal By-Products Industries. European IPPC Bureau at the Institute
for Prospective Technological Studies. Seville. Spain.
European Parliament and Council (2010). Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention
and control). Official Journal of the European Union.
Finnish Environment Institute (2002). Finnish expert report on best available techniques in
slaughterhouses and installations for the disposal or recycling of animal carcasses and animal
waste. Report 539. Finnish Environment Institute. Helsinki, Finland.
Salminen, E., R. Valo, M. Korhonen & R. Jernlås (2014). Wood Preservation With Chemicals – Best
Available Techniques (BAT). Nordic Council of Ministers.
Summary (in Danish)

Nordisk Ministerråd, BAT-gruppen under arbejdsgruppen for Holdbar Konsumtion og

Produktion (HKP), har udvalgt Danish Meat Research Institute (DMRI) til at udføre en
konsulentopgave med det formål at udarbejde en rapport om ”bedst tilgængelige
teknikker” (BAT, Best Available Techniques) for slagterier og virksomheder, der
forarbejder animalske biprodukter i Norden. Studiet er hovedsageligt baseret på en
spørgeskemaundersøgelse af BREF-underlagte slagterier og virksomheder, der
forarbejder animalske biprodukter i Danmark, Sverige, Norge og Finland, og undersøger
de nuværende produktionsmønstre, ressourceforbrug og emissioner i forhold til de
omdiskuterede BATs (BATs, der kan være vanskelige at følge for installationerne –
baseret på egen brancheerfaring) og mening omkring udvalgte nye BAT-ideer (foreslået
på basis af egen brancheerfaring). Desuden blev personer fra miljømyndighederne også
spurgt om de vigtigste miljøparametre, de anvender i forbindelse med udstedelse af
miljøgodkendelser og miljøtilsyn af slagterier og virksomheder, der forarbejder
animalske biprodukter. Resultaterne fra undersøgelsen kan benyttes af operatører,
konsulenter og miljømyndigheder til input i den kommende EU-proces, der har til formål
at udarbejde en ny BREF for slagterier og virksomheder, der forarbejder animalske
biprodukter.
I forbindelse med spørgeundersøgelsen blev der indsamlet 33 svar fra slagterier, 6
fra virksomheder, der forarbejder biprodukter, og 5 fra miljømyndighederne. De større
slagterier benytter sig i højere grad af mekaniske og automatiserede procestilgange
(robotteknologi), mens de mindre slagterier benytter sig af en blanding af manuelle,
mekaniske og automatiserede tilgange. Automatiseret produktion kræver mere energi
([Link]. elektricitet), men miljøpåvirkningerne fra disse bør også inkludere fordelene ved
en effektiviseret produktion.
I henhold til BREF’en stammer de generelle miljøpåvirkninger fra slagterier og
virksomheder, der forarbejder biprodukter, fra vandforbrug, udledning af organiske
stoffer til vand (indeholdende fedt og blod), energiforbrug (primært ifm. opvarmning af
vand til rengøring, køling og tørring af biprodukter), behandling (inkl. forbrænding) af
TSE-inficerede materialer og lugt. Grænseværdierne for emissioner er defineret som
opnåelige værdier (hvis BATs er anvendt) for spildevandsudledning fra slagterier og
virksomheder, der forarbejder biprodukter (efter spildevandsbehandling), og for
forbrænding af animalske biprodukter. På nuværende tidspunkt opgør de adspurgte
installationer deres vand-, energi- og ressourceforbrug, spildevand og detergenter
primært i totale mængder. For slagterierne er det i de fleste tilfælde ikke muligt at
opdele disse, [Link]. i forbindelse med slagtning og biproduktprocessering.
Slagterierne overholder de omdiskuterede BATs, hvis de ikke er irrelevante for
deres operation. Igennem vores forslag til nye BATs (11 for slagterier & 6 for
virksomheder, der forarbejder animalske biprodukter), som er udarbejdet på baggrund
af vores brancheerfaring, så er der bl.a. foreslået en mere holistisk miljøtænkning, der
kan danne bedre grundlag for miljøvenligere løsninger. Dette betyder, at yderligere
processering og forbedret udnyttelse af [Link]. biprodukter fra en ko (der i sin levetid har
en væsentlig miljøpåvirkning) kan retfærdiggøres i henhold til miljøet. Dette kan
resultere i mindskede miljøpåvirkninger og øget økonomisk interesse fra
installationerne. Yderligere er det vigtigt at være opmærksom på mulige byrdeskift af
miljøpåvirkninger fra en del af livscyklus til en anden, når nye BATs introduceres. Mulig
forestående introduktion af bindende udledningskrav (AELs) bliver nødt til at tage hånd
om den yderligere forarbejdning af biprodukter, mod en forbedret udnyttelse af
animalske biprodukter.
De adspurgte personer, der fører miljøtilsyn og udsteder miljøtilladelser, havde
primært fokus på miljøparametre, der omhandlede spildevandskvalitet,
forbrændingsgasser, energi- og vandforbrug samt støj- og lugtgener. Dette er i
overensstemmelse med, hvad slagterier og virksomheder, der forarbejder animalske
biprodukter, på nuværende tidspunkt opgør i totale mængder. Årsagerne til
slagteriernes proces-miljøpåvirkninger er blevet forklaret og sat i forbindelse med
mulige tiltag til at mindske disse.

50 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

Appendix 1: Slaughterhouse BAT
questionnaire results

Attachment to be found here:

[Link]
Appendix 2: Slaughterhouse
questionnaire
54 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries
Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 55
56 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries
Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 57
58 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries
Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 59
60 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries
Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 61
62 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries
Appendix 3: By-products installation
questionnaire
64 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries
Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 65
66 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries
Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 67
68 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries
Appendix 4: Environmental permit
writer questionnaire
70 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries
Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries 71
Appendix 5: Environmental permit
writers answers

Appendix table 2: Full answers and all stated environmental indicators that according to questioned
environmental permit writers or environmental inspectors are used in selected Nordic countries when issuing
permits to - and monitoring environmental impacts from slaughterhouses and by-products installations

Emission Environmental Sectors / authorities

to /use of indicator
materials

Slaughterhouses By-products installations

Answer #1 #2&3 #4 #5 Answer #1 #2&3 #4 #5

DK SE NO FIN DK SE NO FIN

EPW*/** EI** EPW EPW EPW EI EPW EPW

Water

Temp. X - X X X - X X
pH X - X X X - X X
Total P X X X X X X - X
Total N X X - X X X - X
BOD X X X X X X X X
COD X - X X X - - X
SS X - X X X - X X
Fat - - X X X - X X
Blood - - X - - - X -
Metals - X - - - X - -
Disinfectants & - - - - - - X -
detergents

Air

CO X - X - X - X -
NOx X X X X X - X X
NH3 - - - X X - - X
SO2 X - X X X - X X
H2S - - - X X - - X
TOC - - - - X - - -
HCl - - - - X - - -
Emission Environmental Sectors / authorities
to /use of indicator
materials

Slaughterhouses By-products installations

Answer #2&3 #4 #5 Answer #2&3 #4 #5

#1 #1

DK SE NO FIN DK SE NO FIN

EPW*/** EI** EPW EPW EPW EI EPW EPW

Hg X - - - X - - -
Sum of Ni, V, Cr, Cu, Pb X - X - X - X -
Dioxin/furan X - - - X - - -
Dust (<10 µm) X - X - X - X -
Zn - - - - X - - -
Cd - - - - X - - -

Soil

Spill of chemicals & X - X - X - X -

products (e.g. oil, salt)
Heating X X X X - X X X
Chemicals X X X - X X X X

Nuisances

Noise X X X X X X X X
Odour X X X X X X X X

Resources use

Drinking water X X X X - X X X
Electricity X X X X - X X X
Heating X X X X - X X X
Chemicals X X X - X X X X

Waste
management

Waste X X X X X X X X

Note: * Only direct water emission is considered, as the indirect emissions are handled by local authorities.
** EPW=Environmental Permit Writers, EI=Environmental Inspectors

74 Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

 TemaNord 2016:551
Nordic Council of Ministers
Ved Stranden 18
DK-1061 Copenhagen K
[Link]

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal By-products in the Nordic Countries

Slaughterhouses and producers of Animal
By-products in the Nordic Countries Slaughterhouses and producers
The Nordic Council of Ministers, the BAT-group under of Animal By-products in
the Nordic Countries
Working Group for Sustainable Consumption and
Production, has awarded Danish Meat Research Institute
(DMRI) to deliver a review report on Best Available
Techniques (BAT) for slaughterhouses and producers of
animal by-products in relation to the Nordic industry.
The intention with the report is to use it in the first step
of the upcoming EU revision of a new slaughterhouse
and animal by-products BAT-reference document
(BREF). The project is based on questionnaires in which
slaughterhouses and animal by-products industries from
Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland were asked about
their current production patterns, emissions and resource
accounting, and relation to potentially dubious BATs
(BATs that may be difficult to follow).