The Implementation and Food Safety Issues Associated With Poultry Processing Reuse Water for Conventional Poultry Production Systems in the United States

Andrew C Micciche,Carl J Knueven,Peter M Rubinelli,Steven C Ricke,Jennifer A Wages,Kristinia M Feye

doi:10.3389/fsufs.2018.00070

Andrew C Micciche, Carl J Knueven + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00070

Copy DOI

Abstract

As human populations increase in numbers, access to clean, fresh water is becoming increasingly difficult to balance between agricultural and municipal demands. Water scarcity is a limiting factor of food production in many countries, whether they are emerging or established economies. In conventional poultry processing systems, access to water is particularly critical for the maintenance and disinfection of processing areas, as well as in processing operations such as scalding, chilling, and carcass washing. Therefore, poultry processing plants use an excessive amount of water, limiting where facilities can operate, increasing overhead costs, and ultimately resulting in potential environmental concerns. The need for sustainable alternatives to single-use water supplies is becoming increasingly more urgent. As a result, the implementation of water reuse in poultry-processing plants has emerged as an attractive alternative means to meet water requirements during processing. Because the water is reused, it is essential to de-contaminate the water with chemicals, such as peracetic acid and chlorine, and improve water filtration strategies to kill and remove potential pathogens and contaminants. However, questions remain as to the efficacy of commonly used disinfectants to achieve that goal. Thus, novel strategies must be developed to improve the capabilities of poultry processing plants to counter water insecurity worldwide. These new stratagems must be economical and enable poultry processing plants to reduce their environmental footprint while meeting new food safety challenges. The current review will focus exclusively on water reuse in conventional poultry processing in the United States. The specific objectives of this review are to discuss the approaches for treating processing water in poultry processing systems, including reuse water systems, as well as investigate possible substitutes for maintaining food safety.

Highlights

Water scarcity, while a constant concern for developing countries, is rapidly emerging as a global concern (Beekman, 1998; Casani et al, 2005). Alcamo et al (1997, 2000) estimates that by 2025, half the world’ s population will be living in countries facing considerable water stress or scarcity issues (Rijsberman, 2006)
The reuse of water has been approved in poultry production systems provided that critical control points are identified, and the water be equivalent to potable, or drinkable, water from a safety standpoint (Codex Alimentarius, 2007; United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012; Sanitation Performance Standards Compliance Guide, 2016)
Reuse water systems have been demonstrated to be effective in traditional processing plants (Andelman and Clise, 1977; Casani et al, 2005)

Summary

INTRODUCTION

While a constant concern for developing countries, is rapidly emerging as a global concern (Beekman, 1998; Casani et al, 2005). Alcamo et al (1997, 2000) estimates that by 2025, half the world’ s population will be living in countries facing considerable water stress or scarcity issues (Rijsberman, 2006). Often the last line of poultry processing before cut-up, packaging, and distribution, chillers are filled with cold water, ice, and typically a sanitizer such as peracetic acid or chlorine (Keener et al, 2004) While their purpose is to rapidly cool the bird and prevent bacterial growth (United States Department of Agriculture, 2003a), they serve as a final step to sanitize the carcass, and up to 50 ppm of chlorine can be added to these waters (Keener et al, 2004). The reuse of water has been approved in poultry production systems provided that critical control points are identified, and the water be equivalent to potable, or drinkable, water from a safety standpoint (Codex Alimentarius, 2007; United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012; Sanitation Performance Standards Compliance Guide, 2016). Light transmission, which is indicative of physical contamination, must be at least 60% of potable water used in the same process (Sheldon and Brown, 1986; Saravia et al, 2005)

40 CFR 503

Findings

CONCLUSIONS