part 3 – energy use in dairy processing - for your information
TRANSCRIPT
1
Energy Use in Wisconsin’s Dairy Industry and Options for
Improved Energy Efficiency
By
Adriano Sun
with
Douglas Reindl
Douglas Reinemann
2
Table of Contents
PART 1 – WISCONSIN DAIRYING: BACKGROUND AND TRENDS .................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3
Wisconsin Dairy Farms and Milk Cows ..................................................................................... 4
Number of Dairy Farms by Herd Size ........................................................................................ 7
Milk Production: per Cow and Herd Size ................................................................................. 12
Wisconsin Dairy Manufacturing ............................................................................................... 14
Wisconsin Cheese ..................................................................................................................... 15
Final Remarks ........................................................................................................................... 16
References ................................................................................................................................. 17
PART 2 – DAIRY PROCESSING OVERVIEW ......................................................................... 19
Background ............................................................................................................................... 19
On-Farm Operations ................................................................................................................. 20
Milk Transportation .................................................................................................................. 26
Manufacturing of Dairy Products ............................................................................................. 27
PART 3 – ENERGY USE IN DAIRY PROCESSING ................................................................ 35
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 35
Dairy Market and How It Influences Wisconsin ...................................................................... 36
Energy in Wisconsin ................................................................................................................. 37
On-Farm Operations ................................................................................................................. 40
Milk Transportation .................................................................................................................. 54
Dairy Manufacturing ................................................................................................................. 59
PART 4 - Membrane FILTRATION in Cheese production ......................................................... 72
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 72
On-Farm Concentration ............................................................................................................ 74
Microfiltration of Raw Milk ..................................................................................................... 76
Use of UF Milk in Cheesemaking ............................................................................................ 79
RO in Cheesemaking ................................................................................................................ 81
Energy Requirements ................................................................................................................ 82
References ................................................................................................................................. 84
PART 5 – CASES OF Energy process improvement ................................................................... 85
Understanding the Analysis ...................................................................................................... 85
Case Scenarios .......................................................................................................................... 88
Case “Current” .......................................................................................................................... 88
Case 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 89
Case 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 90
Case 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 91
Case 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 92
3
PART 1 – WISCONSIN DAIRYING: BACKGROUND AND TRENDS
Introduction
Wisconsin holds the title of “America’s Dairyland” as dairy farming and cheesemaking
have been a practice and culture for more than 150 years. The dairy industry is of great
importance generating nearly $20 billion a year for the states’ economy and employing over
128,000 dairy-related jobs, which represents $5.5 billion of the states’ income (Wisconsin Milk
Marketing Board-WMMB, 2006).
These numbers result a total milk production of 22,866 million pounds of milk produced
in more than 17,000 dairy farms, ranking second in 2005 just behind California with 37,564
millions (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Services). Wisconsin is considered the “Cheese
State” leading the rank of cheese production with 2,405,699 thousand pounds of cheese last year.
The state is also the leader in production of specialty cheeses with 15% of Wisconsin’s cheese
production. In addition, Wisconsin ranks first in the number of organic farms and number of
cheese plants in the country (WASS and Wisconsin State Journal).
Despite these achievements, the trend developed over the years has been of concern to
Wisconsin dairy industry. The number of milk cows and dairy farms in Wisconsin has declined
continuously over the last 15 years and milk production has been flat to decreasing since 1988
(Jesse, 2002). On top of that, California achieved two billion pounds of production compared to
2.4 billion pounds of cheese produced in Wisconsin last year, and the Western state is expected
to get ahead of Wisconsin in total cheese production in a near future.
4
The following discussion corresponds to background information and forecasts of the
dairy industry in Wisconsin, based on the current dairy market and trends developed over the
years.
Wisconsin Dairy Farms and Milk Cows
According to Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Services (WASS), there are currently
14,717 dairy herds licensed in the state. Recent studies also show that Wisconsin has
approximately 1,241,000 dairy cows with an average of 84 dairy cows per dairy farm. Total
monthly milk production is estimated to 1.96 billion pounds with 1,580 pounds of milk produced
per cow monthly (WASS, 2006).
The trend on dairy farming in Wisconsin is emphasized in a 2002 report “Rethinking
Dairyland,” developed by the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. About 1.3 million milking cows was reported in February of
2002 and 17,711 dairy farms wide spread within the state, as shown in Figure 1.1. Figure 1.2
illustrates the distribution of number of cows throughout the state in 2000.
Figure 1.1–Wisconsin Dairy Herds by County, 2002. Figure 1.2–Wisconsin Cow Number by County, 2000.
(Source: Jesse, 2002) (Source: WASS and Jesse, 2002)
5
In December of 2004, WASS published results of a dairy producer survey from selected
dairy operators in Wisconsin. Among the results, the survey compares the number of herds and
milk cows from 1999, 2004, and a projection for 2009, which is shown in Table 1.1. Figure 1.3
is a representation of the trend for dairy farms and number of cows per farm until 2002 from
Jesse (2002) “Rethinking Dairyland” report.
Table 1.1 – Wisconsin Dairy Herds, 1999, 2004, and 2009 Projection. (Source: WASS)
Year Number of
Herds Number of Milk Cows
Milk Cows per Herd
1999 22,000 1,370,000 62
2004 15,400 1,240,000 81
2006* 14,717 1,241,000 84
2009 11,300 1,260,000 112
* Current numbers inserted from WI Agricultural Statistics Service
Figure 1.3 – Wisconsin Dairy Farms and Average Herd Size. (Source: Jesse, 2002)
Jesse (2002) shows that despite the number of cows per farm increased over the years, the
number of dairy farms has fallen steadily. The number of WI dairy farms lost each month in
2004 was near 50, where about 100 milking operations were lost each month between 1993 and
2001 (WASS 2004 Dairy Producer Survey). In addition, same trend is indicated in a previous
research conducted in 2001 by the Program on Agricultural Technology Studies (PATS), in
6
which it is characterized an increase in the net loss (7 to 10% per year) of dairy farm numbers,
while there has not been a significant number of farmers entering the sector (Figure 1.4).
Figure 1.4 – Estimated Annual Numbers of Entrants and Exiters in WI Dairy Sector. (Source: PAT, 2001)
It is interesting to point out that the average age of farmers response from the WASS
survey was 52 years old; 68% of dairy producers are in the age range of 40 to 60, 20% are over
60 years old, and only 12% are under 40. From the WASS survey and the study by PATS, it can
be concluded that both herd operations with less than 40 cows and 43% of the late-career farmers
are the most likely to exit the industry.
The reality, however, is that the total number of U.S. farms has also been decreasing for
the past century as shown by census information from USDA and WASS. There are currently
100,000 U.S. dairy farms, in which 18% of them (17,000) are situated in Wisconsin. Thus, it can
be said that the state is one of the few in the U.S. with over 10,000 farms.
To make matter worse, the total number of cows in the state fell by 26% (approximately
one-half million) from 1980 to 2000, where the highest losses were in the Northwest, Southeast,
and Southwest regions of Wisconsin (Jesse, 2002). The concern is more stressed by observing
the fluctuation of milk cows in WI since 1924, and the sharp reduction since 1980’s (Figure 1.5).
7
Yet, it is believed that California and other states in the West gained almost as many cows as
Wisconsin and other Eastern and Midwestern states lost (Figure 1.6).
These trends indicate that as the number of cows is lost by states in both the East and the
Midwest and “taken” by the Western states, 55% of U.S. milk will be produced by the West in a
2015 projection, with 35% to the remaining regions (Jesse et al., 2002).
Figure 1.5–WI Milk Cows from 1924 to 2002. Figure 1.6–Change of Milk Cows from 1985 to 2001.
(Source: Jesse et al., 2002) (Source: Jesse et al., 2002)
Number of Dairy Farms by Herd Size
As the number of dairy farms in Wisconsin tends to decrease in the following years, the
dairy herd size tends to increase. It becomes more difficult to small farmers to compete and
produce at certain level to be economically profitable. Thus, new production strategies of larger-
scale milking parlor/free stall housing systems and farm modernization are taken into
consideration.
Herd size distribution data can be found in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics
Services. As shown in Figure 1.7, herd sizes vary greatly across the state, where the East Central
region has the largest herd size. In addition, Barham et al. (2005) states that the average herd
size in Wisconsin grew at a rate of about 3% a year. From 1990 to 2002, the average herd size
8
jumped from 50 cows to nearly 71 cows (shown in Figure 1.8), indicating that moderate size
dairy farms is the predominant type of dairy operation in Wisconsin. Likewise, 93% of the
state’s dairy farms were under 200 cows and 80% were under 100 cows, in 2002. Note that the
average dairy herd size in California is approximately 860 cows and 46% of all dairies are over
500 heads (California Milk Advisory Board/California Department of Food and Agriculture),
and the average in the U.S. corresponds to 135 cows per farm and 77% of the dairy farms have
less than 100 cows (America’s Dairy Farmers).
Figure 1.7 – Average Dairy Herd Size by Region. (Source: Turnquist et al., 2004)
Figure 1.8 – Average Dairy Herd Size in Wisconsin, 1950-2002. (Source: Barham et al., 2005)
9
In Table 1.2 the number of dairy farms by herd size from 2000 until 2005 in shown,
while Figure 1.9 illustrates this trend. Also, a 2009 herd projection is shown from the 2004
Dairy Producer Survey by USDA-WASS.
Table 1.2 – Wisconsin Dairy Herds by Herd Size. (Source: NASS and WASS)
Milk Cow Herd Size
Year 1-29 30-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500+ Total
2000 3,700 6,200 8,300 2,000 660 140 21,000
2001 3,150 5,300 7,800 2,000 680 170 19,100
2002 2,700 4,700 7,500 2,000 710 190 17,800
2003 2,500 4,500 7,100 1,900 700 200 16,900
2004 2,300 4,100 6,700 1,900 700 200 15,900
2005 2,200 3,900 6,400 1,850 750 200 15,300
2009 1,150 2,300 4,700 1,930 890 330 11,300
Figure 1.9 –
Illustration of
Wisconsin Dairy
Herds by Size.
(Source: NASS
and WASS)
Based on the information shown above, some observations can be taken. The expansion
in dairy herd size in Wisconsin has been noticed in the early years, and historically, farms under
100 cows were responsible for the majority of cows and milk production in the state. However,
special attention has been taken to herds with more than 200 cows as it grew rapidly between
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Nu
mb
er
of
Herd
s
1-29 30-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500+
Milk Cow Herd Size
2001
2003
2005
2009
10
1997 and 2002, and as a result, this farm size accounts for the majority of cow number, not to
mention milk production. Meanwhile, herds with 100 or less cows accounts for 20% of the
farms only.
Barham et al. (2005) indicate trends in dairy farming over the past five years, where
almost 2/3 of the dairy farms remained constant in regards of herd size. Furthermore, farms
under 100 cows were more likely to grow at moderate rate, whereas herds with 100 or more were
quite rapid. Also, it was pointed out that rapid herd expansion took place in already larger dairy
herds.
Furthermore, PATS posted the highlights of a poll from about 700 dairy farmers in
Wisconsin. As shown in Figure 1.10, it is observed that the largest percentages (total of 12.4%)
of the farmers who will be unable to continue farming or have already quit fall in the 100 cows
and less herd size category. An interesting observation is that dairy farms with 100 or more
cows have a lower percentage than small farmers regarding expectation to continue farming for
one more year, which is explained by considering that they will be more likely to be in the sector
for longer years (2 to 10 years).
Figure 1.11 stresses tendency of smaller dairy herds to exit farming in the next five years,
compared to larger herds that will focus in expanding their operations. In addition, the survey
shows that herds with more than 100 heads are expected to grow and increase their milking
operation at higher rate than farms with less than 100 milk cows.
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Perc
en
t (%
)
1-24 cows 25-49 cows 50-99 cows 100-199 cows 200+ cows
Dairy Farms by Herd Size
Unable to Continue 1 more year 2 to 3 years 4-10 years Indefinetely
Figure 1.10 – 2003 Dairy Farm Poll: Years Expect to Continue Farming. (Source: PATS, 2004)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Perc
en
t (%
)
1-24 cows 25-49 cows 50-99 cows 100-199 cows 200+ cows
Dairy Farms by Herd Size
Expand by 25% or more Expand by 50% or more Exit in the next 5 years
Figure 1.11 – 2003 Dairy Farm Poll: Expansion/Exit plans for the next 5 years. (Source: PATS, 2004)
12
Milk Production: per Cow and Herd Size
Milk production information by Wisconsin’s county and per cow are currently available
and can be found in the USDA-NASS website. Figure 1.12 gives a representation of milk
production by county and indicates the 5 top counties in 2004 and Figure 1.13 by region. Figure
1.14 illustrates a steady milk production as the number of dairy farms is constantly decreasing.
Figure 1.13- Change in Milk Production, 2000-
2002. (Source: Turnquist et al., 2004)
Figure 1.12 – WI Milk Production by County in 2004.
(Source: Wisconsin 2005 Agricultural Statistics, WASS)
Legend in million lbs: white- 0 to 99; black- 200-399; grey- 400 to 599; and light grey- 600+
Figure 1.14 – WI Milk Production and Number of Dairy Farms Trend. (Source: NASS and WASS)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
*
Nu
mb
er
of
Fa
rms
(in
Th
ou
sa
nd
s)
0
7,000
14,000
21,000
28,000
Milk
Pro
du
ctio
n
(Millio
ns
of lb
s)
Farms
Production
13
In 2005, the state of Wisconsin represented 13% of the milk produced from the total
177.0 billion pounds in the U.S. (WMMB, 2006). Jesse (2002) points out a 4% gain in the state
milk production between 1980 and 2000, where the East Central region contributed with 19%
increase whereas both Northwest and Southeast regions were down about 7% and 6%,
respectively.
In addition, milk production per cow in Wisconsin increased almost 40% (equivalent to 5
thousand lbs) between 1980 and 2000 (Jesse, 2002). Currently, the monthly milk production per
cow is estimated to 1,580 lbs of milk, and the daily production is 52.7 lbs of milk per cow
(WMMB, 2006). As shown in Figure 1.14 (above), even though the number of dairy farms
decreased considerably, not only has the milk production in the state increased over the years but
has also kept steady in the past few years. In fact, dairy producers are able to increase their
production per cow by implementing strategies, such as milking three times a day, breeding cows
that produce more milk and using specific feeds that allow increase of production.
Another strategy lied on implementing large scale milking systems as mentioned earlier,
by increasing the herd sizes. For instance, dairy herds with 100-199 represented 19% of the milk
produced in 2005; herds with 200-499 and 500+ heads represented 18 and 16%, respectively
(USDA-NASS). Thus, greater herd sizes allow farmers to achieve higher milk yields per cow as
compared to smaller farms. Other forms for growth and viability in Wisconsin dairying are
pointed out in “Rethinking Dairyland 2” report.
From the available data by USDA-NASS (shown in Table 1.2 and Figure 1.9), it is shown
that the number of dairy farms with 100-199 herd size has held nearly constant with 19% of milk
produced since 1993 (when data was first available). Thus, as observed by Jesse et al. (2002),
14
the dairy producers that cannot longer compete are the ones in the herd size category below 100
cows.
Furthermore, a projection study indicates that the dairy herds with 100 or more cows will
be responsible for the majority of milk produced in 2010 compared to the actual number from
2001 (Jesse et al., 2002). The following table reproduces a summary of this forecast.
Table 1.3 – WI Milk Production Forecast by Herd Size. (Source: Jesse et al., 2002)
Cow Numbers
Milk per Cow (lbs)
Total Milk (bi. lbs)
Year > 50 50-99 100+ > 50 50-99 100+ > 50 50-99 100+
2001 229,000 491,000 572,000 15,532 16,278 18,617 3.55 7.99 10.66
2010 92,388 344,818 1,082,731 18,809 18,333 21,368 1.74 6.32 23.14
Wisconsin Dairy Manufacturing
According to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
(DATCP), there are 379 dairy-related operating facilities in the state of Wisconsin reported in
last September of 2005. Jesse (2002) reported 364 dairy plants from 2001 DATCP information.
The Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board indicates currently 202 manufacturing plants of dairy
products.
Independently of the exact number of dairy plants in Wisconsin, there are currently 115
cheese plants spread within the state (Figure 1.15). These 115 plants were responsible for
manufacturing 2,405,699 pounds of Wisconsin cheeses in 2005 (USDA-NASS), which
represents about 26.4% of the total U.S. cheese production (WMMB).
In addition, Wisconsin contains 11 buttter factories producing the second highest
production in the U.S., behind only of California. In fact, little milk is actually used directly in
butter-making, where most of the cream is obtained from standardizing milk for cheese-milk or it
15
is imported from other states (DATCP and Jesse, 2002). Moreover, from the 2005 DATCP dairy
plant directory, there are still 29 processed cheese plants, 31 ice cream facilities, 39 of the plants
process whey, and other dairy operation plants.
Figure 1.15 – Wisconsin Dairy Plants in 2001. (Source: Jesse, 2002)
Wisconsin Cheese
Nearly 90% of the 22,866 million pounds of milk produced in the state are used in the
manufacturing of cheese in 2005. Figure 1.16 illustrates the states’ cheese production by variety
for 2000. Today, Cheddar and Mozzarella account for almost 2/3 of the production, with 28.4%
and 33.0% respectively. From 2000 until now, the major change corresponds to the increase in
the production of specialty cheeses from 10% to 15%, which is equivalent to 355 million pounds.
Indeed, 77 of the state’s 115 cheese plants make at least one specialty type of cheese.
16
Figure 1.16 – Wisconsin Cheese Production for 2000. (Source: Jesse, 2002)
Although Wisconsin is the leading state in cheese production, the number of cheese
plants in the state fell more than 60% between 1980 and 2000, and has kept steady since then
(Figure 1.17). The largest fall corresponded to Cheddar cheese plants, whereas the number of
plants of Mozzarella and other Italian cheese varieties remained constant (Jesse, 2002).
Similarly to the dairy farms, where the number fell while milk production remained the same,
average plant scale increased and consequently, the average cheese volume per plant increased as
well.
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
*
Nu
mb
er
of
Ch
ee
se
Pla
nts
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Ch
ee
se
Pro
du
ctio
n
(Millio
ns
of P
ou
nd
s)
Number of Cheese Plants Cheese Production
Figure 1.17 – Wisconsin Cheese Plants and Cheese Production. (Source: WMMB, 2006)
Final Remarks
From the discussion above on the dairy industry in Wisconsin, some remarks can be
summarized as follows:
17
Number of dairy farms has fallen since 1965;
Smaller dairy herd tend to disappear, while it is expected to have more farms with 100 or
more milk cows;
Number of milk cows decrease, but milk production keeps steady due to milking
strategies;
It is difficult to predict an increase on milk production, because number of milk cows is
not going up;
Large herd sizes will be responsible for the majority of milk produced;
Number of cheese plants has decreased over the years and there are 115 plants now in
2006; and
Cheese production has been constant, but California and other Western states will pass
Wisconsin in the coming future.
References
America’s Dairy Farmers. Milk Facts. Available online at: www.dairyfarmingtoday.org
Barhma, B.L., Foltz, J., Aldana, U. 2005. Expansion, Modernization, and Specialization in the
Wisconsin Dairy Industry. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Program
on Agricultural Technology Studies (PATS), University of Wisconsin-Madison.
California Milk Advisory Board/California Department of Food and Agriculture. Milk and
Dairy Farm Facts. Available online at: www.realcaliforniacheese.com.
Jesse, E. 2002. Rethinking Dairyland: Background for Decisions about Wisconsin’s Dairy
Industry. Marketing and Policy Briefing Paper, Department of Agricultural and Applied
Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Jesse, E., Barham, B, and Jones, B. 2002. Rethinking Dairyland Chapter 2: Wisconsin and U.S.
18
Dairy Industry Trends. Marketing and Policy Briefing Paper, Department of Agricultural
and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Leaf, N. 2006. Top Stories: State Signs on to Signature Cheese. Wisconsin State Journal.
Available online at: www.madison.com/wsj/top/
PATS. 2001. Wisconsin Family Farm Facts: Dynamics of Entry and Exit on Wisconsin Dairy
Farms in the 1990s. PATS’ Research Report No. 7, “The Changing Face of Wisconsin
Dairy Farms: A Summary of PATS’ Research on Structural Change in the 1990s.”
PATS. 2004. Highlights from the 2003 Wisconsin Dairy Farm Poll. Program on Agricultural
Technology Studies (PATS), University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Turnquist, A., Foltz, J., Roth, C. 2004. Land Use Fact Sheet No. 1: Wisconsin Dairy Industry.
Program on Agricultural Technology Studies (PATS), University of Wisconsin-Madison,
University of Wisconsin-Cooperative Extension.
USDA-Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Services (WASS)/Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP). 2004 Dairy Producer Survey.
Available online at: www.nass.usda.gov/wi/dairy/dairyproducer%202004.pdf
USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Services. Census information of U.S. dairy farms, milk
production, and cheese production. Available online at: www.nass.usda.gov
USDA-Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Services (WASS). Agricultural Statistics Database.
Available online at: www.nass.usda.gov/wi
Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board (WMMB)/Wisconsin Dairy Producers. Dairy and Cheese
Statistics. Available online at: www.wisdairy.com
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). Statistics
information. Available online at: www.datcp.state.wi.us
19
PART 2 – DAIRY PROCESSING OVERVIEW
Background
Milk production began as early as 6,000 years ago during the “Agricultural Revolution.”
This was also the period in which ancient man learned to domesticate animals and recognized the
nutritive value of their milk. From the early years until now, milk is a source of both energy and
necessary nutrients for growth, and it is the only food of a young mammal in its first period of
life. Milk also contains antibodies that are responsible to protect the young mammal against
infection and diseases.
Fermented products were discovered accidentally in attempting to preserve and store
milk. Bacteria present in milk would have produced acid during storage, leading to coagulation
of milk proteins (caseins) and entrapment of fat, forming a gel-like structure. Fermented milk,
sour cream and lactic butter were the three fermented products originated from this acid
development, and cultures of lactic acid bacteria are used nowadays to promote acidification.
Cheese was also discovered as a mean of preserving milk and its principal constituents.
By breaking the gel developed through acid coagulation, curds and whey were separated, and the
shelf-life of curds was extended by dehydration and salting. It was also observed that stomach of
slaughtered animals would have been used to preserve milk in the form of curds. It is now
known that milk extract enzymes (chymosin) from the stomach tissue of slaughtered animals
resulting in the coagulation of milk during storage.
The current availability and distribution of milk and milk products are a result of
technological advances, allowing the transition between making fermented products as a mean of
preservation into a commodity. This section of the reports gives a general overview of the three
stages of dairy processing: on-farm operations, transportation, and cheese manufacturing.
20
On-Farm Operations
2.2.1 Milk Production
Milk production takes place during lactation. Milk is secreted into the cow’s udder
shortly before calving, and at parturition, a yellowish colored fluid is secreted from the
mammary gland. This fluid is known as colostrums and contains a high content of serum protein
that provides antibodies to protect the newborn. Milk returns to its fresh composition within 72
hours and it can then be used as a food supply.
The cow continues to give milk for an average of 305 days producing approximately
15,500 pounds of milk. However, milk production decreases throughout the lactation period to
about 15-25% of the peak volume (Figure 2.1). As a result, the highest milk yield corresponds to
the first 2-3 months post-parturition, and at the reduction stage, milking is interrupted to give
cow a non-lactating period of up to 60 days prior to calving again.
Figure 2.1 – Lactation Cycle. (Source: Goff, D.)
2.2.2 Machine Milking
In the late 19th
century, milking machines were introduced to replace conventional hand
milking on medium and large dairy farms. As shown in Figure 2.2, the basic milking
components are: a vacuum pump, a vacuum vessel for milk collecting pail or milk pipeline, teat
21
cups connected by hoses to the vacuum vessel, and a pulsator to alternate vacuum and
atmospheric pressures applied to the teat cups.
Figure 2.2 – Machine Milking and Milking Pipeline System. (Source: Tetra Pak, 1995)
The teat cup unit contains a teat cup liner, which is an inner tube of rubber attached to the
teat cup, so that during milking, the inside of the line is under a constant vacuum of about 0.5
bars when in contact with the teat. The objective of the pulsator is to alternate 0.5 bar vacuum
pressure during suction and atmospheric pressure during the massage stage.
During the massage stage, the teat cup liner is pressed together to stop milk suction. A
period of teat massage takes place again and another one to allow new-milk to come to the teat
cistern. The suction stage is followed next and this alternation continues through milking. The
pulsator alternates between 40 to 60 minutes to avoid accumulation of blood and fluid in the teat,
which can be painful to the cow.
In the past few decades, automatic (or robotic) milking systems were introduced as
potential resource to enhance the quality of life for dairy operators and their cows as well as to
increase both milk production and quality. Helgren and Reinemann (2006) reported that in 2004
there were over 2200 farms using automatic milking systems worldwide, mostly in Europe. In
the U.S., however, these new systems are considered “experimental” only, according to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO).
22
One of the main concerns regarding these automatic milking systems lies on milk quality,
because bacteria count can be higher due to possible contamination opportunities. However,
Hengren and Reinemann (2006) reported no significant difference in somatic cell count (SCC)
nor in total bacterial count (TBC) between milk from conventional systems and automatic
milking systems. In addition, there were recent improvements on washing and pre-cooling of the
milk, resulting in acceptable bacteria counts (Rotz et al., 2002).
Another possible drawback is on lower solid content of the milk, once milk protein and
fat concentration may be lower than normal due to frequent milking. Moreover, the system
requires reliable in-line sensors to assess health of the cow and quality of milk that was
previously done by the dairy producer. A list of publications that further elucidates advantages
and disadvantages of automatic milking systems are available in the literature.
Figure 2.3 – Automatic Milking System. (Source: UW-MRIL)
2.2.3 Milking Center
Milking center is the facility designed to milk cows and handle milk on a dairy farm. The
minimum features of a milking center are (Graves and Reineman): holding area, milking parlor,
milk room, and utility area. Other sections can also be designed in the facility, but the major
component is the milking parlor.
23
The milking parlor corresponds to the area where cows are brought from the feeding and
resting housing area to be milked. A proper designed milking parlor has an organized assembly
line type, milk procedures and systematic work routines, so that cows spend an hour or less in
the parlor.
Basically, the position of how the cow stands in relation to each other and to the milker
categorizes the type of milk parlor. For instance, elevator parlors have cows elevated above the
milker in comparison to flat parlors. Moreover, as shown in Figure 2.4, cows can stand at an
angle to the operator (herringbone), side by side facing to the operator (parallel), or cows can
stand in a rotary platform that moves around while milkers stay in one location. Milk parlors can
also be organized according to how cows enter and leave the milking area. (More information
can be found in Graves and Reinemann.)
Figure 2.4 – Milking Parlors: Herringbone (left), Parallel (center), and Rotary (right).
(Source: Schutz, M.)
2.2.4 Milking Operations
In on-farm operations, cows are brought to the milking center to be milked. The general
operation is to milk twice per day, but it is quite common to milk cows three times per day, and
sometimes four times a day. This operational strategy increases milk production in up to 12%,
24
but it can be labor intensive as cows are milked in three 7-hours shifts with a couple of hours gap
used for washing and cleaning of the milking equipment.
Cooling of the fresh milk is essential for milk quality. Milk itself is an excellent substrate
for bacteria containing a wide range of nutrients. Milk leaves the cow’s udder at a temperature
of about 98.6°F (37°C), which is an optimum temperature for bacteria growth. Therefore, milk
must be chilled to approximately 45°F (7°C) immediately. In fact, the FDA’s Agriculture, Trade
& Consumer Protection (Chapter ATCP 60) along with the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO)
determines that “milk shall be cooled to 45°F (7°C) or less within 2 hours after milking.” It also
points out that if cooled milk is mixed with uncooled milk, the blend temperature should not
exceed 50°F (10°C) at any time.
In dairy farms with milking machine operations, direct expansion tanks are used for
cooling and storage of milk. The item ATCP 60.11 (3) states that a bulk milk tank should be
capable of cooling all milk placed in tank to a temperature of 45°F (7°C) within one hour.
However, in large milking operations, the bulk tank is inadequate and it is only used to maintain
the required storage temperature. Therefore, cooling of milk is carried out by pre-cooler.
The pre-coolers are heat exchangers where water flows in opposite direction of the warm
milk to obtain the greatest reduction in milk temperature. As the water (from wells) and the
warm milk pass each other through the heat exchanger, heat is transferred from the warm milk
(98°F) to the well water (50-55°F in Wisconsin), as shown in Figure 2.5. The cooling rate to be
obtained depends on flow rates, heat transfer area, milk residence time, and well water
temperature. (Other milk cooling units are discussed later in the report in regards of energy use.)
25
Figure 2.5 – Milk Cooling with Well Water Pre-Cooler. (Source: WI Public Service)
Milk in the pipelines is driven by pumps and they control the flow rate of milk through
the pre-cooler, so that cooling efficiency can be regulated. Variable Speed (VS) milk pumps are
being more often used by dairy producers to lower the average milk flow through the pre-cooler
to meet the water: milk ratio and water demand, while obtaining maximum cooling efficiency.
As milk cooling is important to prevent bacteria growth, maintaining milking machines
and other milk equipments in clean and sanitary conditions is vital. Fortunately, most dairy
equipments are provided with circulation cleaning systems (Cleaning-In-Place, CIP) with
application of proper cleaning cycles, with detergents, and sanitizers. The FDA determines that
dairy equipments, including bulk tanks and milk pipelines, to be washed at least once in 24
hours. Most dairy producers schedule their CIP applications around the 7 hours milking
operation to avoid contamination and detriment of milk.
A pre-rinsing cycle is a rule of thumb in CIP systems to flush remaining milk and
residues from pipelines and equipments. Water temperature during pre-rinsing is usually warm,
but not higher than 131°F (55°C) to avoid coagulation of protein. A detergent cycle is next
followed by sanitizer flush. It is usually recommended to heat the water to temperatures of
161°F (70°C) for cleaning with acid detergents and at the same temperature of the milk when
26
washing with alkaline detergents. While heating the water for washing is necessary to guarantee
safe and asceptic operations, energy costs to heat water is a concern. (Methods and systems for
water heating will be further discussed in the following sections.)
Milk Transportation
Milk haulers collect milk from dairy farms to a collecting centre or to dairy processing
plants. Bulk milk tankers, according to Chapter ATCP 82, can transport not only fluid milk, but
also whey or whey cream in bulk from a dairy farm, and fluid milk products.
Licensed milk haulers are as cautious as the dairy farmers in regards of milk quality and
contamination. Thus, milk is unloaded or transferred from/to a bulk milk tank in a manner to
avoid contamination of milk. For instance, air entering a bulk milk tanker is filtered to prevent
addition of contaminants or microorganisms.
Milk tankers can usually hold 48 to 55 thousand gallons of milk per load in stainless steel
tankers, which allow milk temperature to be kept at proper levels during transportation. In
addition, some tankers contain vacuum pumps instead of electric pumps, and as a result, milk can
be pumped faster from the dairy’s bulk tank. This way, a gallon of milk takes approximately 20
minutes rather than an hour half when using electric pumps.
Collection from the dairy farms on alternate days is a common practice, but it varies
widely depending on the amount of milk available by the dairy producer and the demand by the
dairy plant. Consequently, a tanker can collect milk from several dairy farms to be delivered for
dairy processing.
27
Manufacturing of Dairy Products
2.4.1 Cheese
Manufacturing of cheese started out as an accidental curdling of milk for storage stability
and it now represents one of the most popular manufactured food products due to the refining of
cheesemaking practices. It is estimated that there are over 2000 varieties of cheese and the list
continues to grow.
Cheese can be classified based on several attributes, e.g., according to milk source,
firmness, moisture, ripening, and many others. Due to the difficulty in classifying cheeses, the
United States Coded of Federal Regulations (CFR, 1998) determines standards of identity for
cheeses so that cheeses can be classified according to their consistency: hard, semi-soft, or soft.
The manufacturing processes of most cheeses follow several common steps. As shown in
Figure 2.6, the essential steps in cheesemaking are illustrated and description of each step is
provided below. Figure 2.7 shows a detailed flow diagram for the manufacture of Cheddar
cheese.
a.) Milk Receiving – The raw milk received from the dairy farms must be at or below
45°F (7°C). At the dairy plant, the raw milk is tested for antibiotics, milk composition,
temperature, and bacterial count before being unloaded. Once the federal regulations are met,
the raw milk in unloaded into sanitized storage silos, where it would be kept at cooled
temperatures until use. It is very common for the dairy plants to use the stored raw milk within
less than 2 days.
b.) Standardization – From the milk composition test, the raw milk may be added with
cream, skim milk, or skim milk powder (non-fat dry milk) to achieve a specific fat-to-protein
ratio and fat content for certain cheeses.
28
Figure 2.5 – Major Steps in Cheesemaking. (Source: Gunasekaran and Ak, 2003)
29
Figure 2.6 – Flow Diagram for the Manufacture of Cheddar Cheese. (Source: Fox et al., 2004)
30
c.) Heat Treatment – In most dairy operations, the raw milk is pasteurized with HTST
(high temperature short time) at 161°F (72°C) for at least 15 seconds, and then cooled to 88°F
(31°C) to reduce protein damage. The pasteurization temperatures are designed to kill
pathogens, including the most resistant pathogen oxiella burnetti, and to inactive many enzymes.
Instead of pasteurization, some cheese-milk are only heat treated at 150°F (65°C) for texture and
flavor improvement, but these cheeses are required to be hold in storage for a minimum of 30
days.
d.) “Make Vats” – After being pasteurized, the milk is pumped into large vats (known as
“Double O”), where color, starter bacteria, and later rennet are added. After that, the mixture is
heated to 101°F (43°C) and held until coagulation takes place and a gel-like structure is formed.
The cheesemaker determines whether or not is “ready to cut.” Cutting is done by knives already
built into the vats as the blades cut the gel structure into cubes of curd while agitates it. Further
cooking, mixing and cutting induce syneresis, a phenomena where whey is expelled from the gel
coagulum.
e.) “Cheddaring” – After a period of agitation and whey expulsion, the mixture is pumped
into a continuous cheddaring machine equipped with three or four conveyors. Curds are knitted
together, matted, and milled while whey is drained. Salting occurs in the last conveyor and after
a determined pH (~ 5.4) has been achieved from acidification by the starter bacteria.
f.) Packaging – The salted and stirred curds are fed into an auger hopper from where are
placed in vacuum towers “block former.” Curds are then knitted together and additional whey is
pulled off, resulting in well-formed uniform 40 pounds blocks of cheese. These blocks of
cheeses are sealed in moisture proof bags, enclosed in cardboard boxes, and then placed on
pallets.
31
g.) Ripening and Storage – The cheese blocks, originally at 89-100°F (32-38°C) are
placed in storage for curing and aging at 40-54°F (4-12°C). In some cheese plants, the cheese
blocks are cooled for seven days and then maintained at 38°F (4°C), while in others, blocks are
cooled for 24 hours at 38°F (3°C) and then aged at 40 to 42°F (4 to 6°C).
2.4.2 Whey
Whey is the by-product in the manufacturing of natural cheeses. It consists of 80 to 90%
of the total volume of milk and contains about 50% of the nutrients of the original milk. Caseins
are essentially the only milk protein used in cheesemaking, whereas only a few percentages of
whey proteins are actually incorporated into the cheese and the rest is discarded into whey.
The composition of whey products varies according to the milk, type of cheese, and
manufacturing process. Whey extracted from the manufacture of enzyme-produced cheese, such
as Cheddar, is called sweet whey. In recent years, whey became a valuable by-product of cheese
as separation technologies evolved allowing the fractionation of both nutrients and high quality
protein from whey, which includes α-lactalbumin, β-lactoglobulin, and glycomacropeptide.
In large cheese operations, whey is stored in cold silos and concentrated using a series of
operations to obtain high-quality whey powders, whey protein concentrate (WPC), whey protein
isolates (WPI), reduced-lactose whey, or demineralized whey. Figure 2.7 illustrates alternative
processes for whey treatment. In addition, the following describes common operations and
concentration processes of whey.
a.) Whey Storage – Liquid whey collected from drainage of cheese curd during
cheddaring is stored in cooled storage silos. Whey is processed as soon as possible because the
starter culture bacteria continue to grow.
32
b.) Cheese Fines and Whey Cream Separation – Whey is centrifuged with bowl
separators (two) to remove cheese fines and whey cream. The cheese fines can be utilized again
and incorporated into the cheese, but it is often discarded because of contamination problems.
Whey cream is pasteurized before use or shipping, and it can be used in ice cream and butter
making.
d.) Concentration – Whey can be concentrated through membrane filtration (reverses
osmosis-RO and/or ultrafiltration-UF) or evaporation (falling film evaporators).
c.) Heat Treatment – Skim whey is then pasteurized (HTST) in order to inactivate both
enzymes and the starter culture to continue to grow. Further concentration can be done after
being heat treated, but it depends on the type of final product to be obtained.
e.) Drying: Drying of the concentrated skim whey is carried out by spray dryers and/or
fluidized bed dryers.
33
Figure 2.7 – Whey Processing Alternatives. (Source: Tetra Pak, 1995)
34
2.1 References
alfa Laval/Tetra Pak. 1995. Dairy Processing Handbook. Tetra Pak Processing Systems: Lund,
Sweden.
Gunasekaran, S. and Ak, M.M. 2002. Cheese Rheology and Texture. CRC Press:
Boca Raton, FL.
Fox, P.F., McSweeney, P.L.H, Cogan, T.M., Guinee, T.P. 2004. Cheese: Chemistry, Physics,
and Microbiology, Vol. 1, General Aspects. 3rd
Edition. Elsevier Academic Press.
Goff, D. Introduction to Dairy Science, Milk Production and Biosynthesis. Dairy Science and
Technology Education Series, University of Guelph. Available online at:
http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/home.html
Graves, R.E. and Reinemann, D.J. Layout and Components for Modern Milking Center.
Available online at: http://www.uwex.edu/uwmril/index.html
Helgren, J.M. and Reinemann, D.J. 2006. Survey of Milk Quality on U.S. Dairy Farms
Utilizing Automatic Milking Systems. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 49: 551-556.
Roltz, C.A., Coiner, C.U., Soder, K.J. 2002. Economic Impact of Automatic Milking Systems
on Dairy Farms. 2002 ASAE Annual International Meeting.
University of Wisconsin Milking Research and Instruction Laboratory. General Information.
Online web site: http://www.uwex.edu/uwmril/index.html
Schutz, M. Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University. Milking Parlors.
Available online at: http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/~epados/ag101/src/dairy.htm
Zehr, S. 1997. Process Energy Efficiency Improvement in Wisconsin Cheese Plants. Master of
Science Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
35
PART 3 – ENERGY USE IN DAIRY PROCESSING
Introduction
In the past few decades, the U.S. government has taken increasing effort in advising the
population to use energy more efficiently. The reason for this growing concern lies on the recent
spikes on energy costs, mainly due to the heavily dependency on imported oil over the years.
Rising of energy prices has affected all economy’s sector, including the industry who accounts
for the largest consumption.
The food industry is not only one of the largest industries in the U.S., but it is also one of
the largest groups in use of energy. The food group can be identified as code 20 by OSHA’s
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) or 311 by North America Industry Classification System
(NAICS); and dairy products/manufacturing corresponds to code 202 and 3115, respectively.
On-farm production and processing shared, respectively, 18% and 29% of energy used in the
U.S. food system, according to Singh (1986). The remaining of the share corresponds to
distribution (10%), in-home preparation (26%), and out-of-home preparation (17%).
In dairy processing, specifically, energy consumption for cooling and heating consists of
nearly 1/3 of all energy used. Both unit operations are essential to quality of raw milk and milk
products throughout the stages of processing. Cooling preserves the quality of milk by reducing
microbial growth, while thermal processing can be used to kill pathogens and inactivate enzymes
(pasteurization) or to concentrate milk (evaporation). Storage and distribution, though not
directly, also influence the overall energy used in dairy and food processing.
36
The goal of this section is to describe energy consumption in dairy processing and
provide information of energy flows and efficiency improvement in regards of on-farm
operations, transportation, and manufacturing.
Dairy Market and How It Influences Wisconsin
The dairy processing industry in Wisconsin is undergoing major changes in the last 20
years. One of the major changes has been on the increasing competition from the Western states,
especially in milk production and the cheese market. Wisconsin is the leading cheese production
state in the U.S. justifying the long tradition of being the “Cheese State” and maintaining its
reputation of producing high quality cheeses.
Cheese demand in the U.S. continues to increase and most of the cheeses are currently
used as commodities (i.e. Cheddar and Mozzarella) in foodservice or in food processing (Cropp
and Jesse, 2003). Customers tend to demand competitive prices and Wisconsin has a reputation
of being a reliable supplier. Nevertheless, milk production has been flat to decreasing over the
last 15 years (Jesse, 2002) making difficult for cheese plants to acquire cheese-milk due to a high
demand. Conversely, milk prices in Wisconsin tends to be higher than in other states, including
the Western states, where prices are lower, milk production is increasing, and cheese are
produced in high-volume.
Competitive threats on cheese combined to increased energy costs are forcing cheese
plants in Wisconsin to reduce operational costs at any means. Yet, recent spikes in energy cost
have affected the variability of cheesemakers’ gross margins, once prices for cheese-milk (Class
III) accounts for a fixed make allowances that include production costs (Jesse and Gould, 2005).
As a result, prices of Wisconsin’s cheese tend to increase, which reinforce the threatening
competition from the Western states on the cheese market.
37
Energy in Wisconsin
Increasing of energy prices has affected all economy’s sector: industrial, commercial,
residential, agricultural, electrical utility, and transportation. As shown in Figure 3.1, industries,
such as of papermaking, printing, and food processing, consumed 31% of all energy used in
Wisconsin in 2004. The industry sector is primarily dependent on natural gas (39.4%) and
electricity (23.1%), as observed in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.1 – 2004 Resource Energy Use by Sector in Wisconsin (in trillion of Btu and Percent total).
(Source: Wisconsin Energy Statistics, 2005)
According to the 2005 Energy Statistics published by the State of Wisconsin –
Department of Administration, the end use consumption by the agriculture sector has kept nearly
constant (2%) over the years (Figure 3.3), though it decreased 1.1% from 2003 to 2004.
38
Electricity is the main type of energy used in agriculture with 32% of electricity’s share (Figure
3.4).
Also shown in Figure 3.2, the overall energy used by transportation increased 1.9%
accounting for 34.5% of the state’s total end use energy, where 83.1% corresponds to petroleum
use and 12.4% for renewable energy end use, such as ethanol (Figure 3.5). Diesel fuel, which is
the primarily fuel for trucking and freight, was at the highest due to increase of distribution and
shipments through the State.
Figure 3.2 – 2004 End Use Energy by Sector in Wisconsin (in trillion of Btu vs. year).
(Source: Wisconsin Energy Statistics, 2005)
Energy use is indicated by either resource energy or end use energy. The difference lies
on that resource includes all energy content to generate electricity, whereas the latter refers to
energy content of electricity and other fuels at the point of use. The resource energy
consumption will be higher than the end use, because about 70% of energy is lost during
generation and distribution of electricity.
Taking energy source into consideration, five sources in Wisconsin can be pointed out.
Coal is the most relied fuel since 1966 and over 86% are used by electric utilities. Transportation
consumes approximately 83% of all petroleum, followed by residential sector (7%), industrial
(4%), and agriculture (3%). Petroleum is the energy source of most dependency from other
39
countries, such as OPEC, once over 62% of petroleum was imported in 2004. Meanwhile, the
major markets for natural gas are space heating in residents and industrial process, with 36% and
37% total energy, respectively. The industrial sector has the largest share on electricity usage in
the state. Lastly, nuclear power contributes with 19.7% of energy to produce electricity. Table
3.1 summarizes these facts.
Figure 3.3 – Industrial Energy Use, 2004
(in trillion of Btu and Percent of total).
(Source: Wisconsin Energy Statistics –
Highlights, 2005)
Figure 3.4 – Agriculture Energy Use, 2004
(in trillion of Btu and Percent of total).
(Source: Wisconsin Energy Statistics –
Highlights, 2005)
40
Figure 3.5 – Transportation Energy Use, 2004 (in trillion of Btu and Percent of total).
(Source: Wisconsin Energy Statistics – Highlights, 2005)
Table 3.1 – Energy Sources and Usage by Economic Sectors (in %).
(Source: Wisconsin Energy Statistics – Highlights, 2005)
Energy Source
Industrial
Residential
Commercial
Agriculture
Transportation
Electric Utilities
Coal 14.4 0.1 0.2 --- --- 85.3
Petroleum 4 7 2 3 83 1
Natural Gas 37 36 21 --- --- 6
Electricity 36 28 33 3 --- ---
Nuclear --- --- --- --- --- 19.7
On-Farm Operations
3.4.1 Overview of Energy Use
The agriculture sector is a major part of the U.S. economy with 1.8% of the national
gross domestic product (GDP) (Brown and Elliott, 2005a). This trend is not different for
Wisconsin, where dairy farming is the major contributor to the State’s economy, followed by
oilseed and grain farming. Energy usage in agriculture accounts for about only 3% of the total
energy consumed in the U.S. (Edens et al., 2003), but up to 6% of farm production costs are
related to energy costs (Brown and Elliott, 2005a).
The constant increasing in energy prices over the last decades has drawn much interest in
monitoring and promoting efficiently energy use on farms. Dairy farms are able to operate with
lower production cost and obtain higher profit margins, once unnecessary energy use has been
eliminated.
41
Brown and Elliott (2005a) states that gasoline an diesel are the largest fuel energy type in
the agriculture sector for the U.S. and to Wisconsin as well, shown in Figure 3.4 above. In
addition, the authors report that the end-uses of these fuels in on-farm operations are machinery,
transport, and motors. Table 3.2 reproduces the end-use of energy in dairy farming in Wisconsin
from Brown and Elliott (2005a). The authors mention that some of the unavailable data was
filled with data from Canada due to similar farming practices and climate.
Table 3.2 – End-Use Energy in Wisconsin (in million Btus).
(Reproduced from Brown and Elliott, 2005a)
Fuel Type Total
Motors Total
Lighting Onsite
Transportation Machinery Others Total
Gasoline 1,508,363 --- 88,941 133,411 3,035 1,733,750
Diesel 120,227 --- --- 2,164,619 3,726,502 6,011,348
Natural Gas 3,654 --- --- --- 22,893 224,547
Other 158,214 --- --- --- 1,819,464 1,977,679
Electricity 645,215 65,128 --- --- 3,334,891 4,045,235
Total Petroleum 1,790,458 --- 88,941 2,298,31 5,769,894 9,947,324
Total Energy 2,435,673 65,128 88,941 2,298,31 9,104,785 13,992,558
Following diesel fuel, electricity itself accounts for 2 to 5% of a dairy farm’s production
costs in Wisconsin, which is equivalent to 700-900 kWh per cow or 3.5-4.5 kWh per
hundredweight (cwt) of milk produced, annually (Farm Energy Management Handbook,
DATCP). In other words, dairy farmers spend an average of $62 to $96 per cow on energy that
includes electricity, natural gas, LP gas, and heating oil. Table 3.3 reproduces utility costs paid
in 2003 by dairy producers in the State.
Table 3.3 – Utility Costs vs. Farm Size.
(Reproduced from 2003 study by Jenny Vanderlin)
Herd Size Avg Cost/Cow Max / Min
50 or less $ 96 $191.73 / 10.78
51 to 75 $ 95 $185.25 /19.03
76 to 100 $ 94 $129.74 / 27.24
101 to 150 $ 84 $105.86 / 23.77
42
151 to 250 $ 71 $106.86 / 32.13
251 or more $ 62 $100.48 / 10.33
In regards of electric use, it is recognized that milk cooling and water heating along with
vacuum pumps for milking are the major consumers of electrical energy in a milking center.
Milk cooling and water heating together can account for 40 to 60% of the total dairy farm
electric use, and it is estimated that milking (through vacuum pumps) can take up to 15% of the
electric load in the State (Peebles and Reinemann, 1994; Edens et al., 2003). Figure 3.6 shows
the distribution of energy use on Wisconsin dairy farms.
Figure 3.6 – Energy Use by Equipment on Wisconsin Dairy Farms.
(Source: Dairy Farm Energy Management Handbook, DATCP)
Based one estimates by Singh (1986), Peebles et al. (1994), and Edens et al. (2003)
energy consumption of milk coolers, water heaters, and vacuum pumps for milking are:
Milk Cooling: 0.8 to 1.1 kWh/cwt of milk or approximately 140 kWh/cow/yr;
Water Heating: 131 kWh/cow/yr with heat recovery or
203 kWh/cow/yr without heat recovery; and
Vacuum Pumps: 0.4 to 1.19 kWh/cwt of milk or 49 to 190 kWh/cow/yr.
43
The amount of energy consumed by these three units varies with farm size, once milking
procedures and equipments differs accordingly. Similarly, selection of equipment also varies
with farm size, once a key factor is whether the capital investment outweighs future energy
savings. Commonly in Wisconsin, smaller dairy farms (100 milk cows or less) operate only with
heat recovery for energy savings. Meanwhile, heat recovery tends to be a better option for
medium herds (100 to 150 heads), and a combination of heat recovery and pre-cooling tends to
be more energy efficiently for larger dairy herds (200 and more) (Sanford, 2003; and Peebles and
Reinemann, 1994).
3.4.2 Technologies for Energy Conservation
a.) Pre-Cooler
One of the ultimate goals of a dairy producer is to be able to cool milk for quality
assurance purposes, while saving energy by reducing the demand on the bulk tank compressor.
Pre-coolers are installed in the milk discharge line between the receiver and the bulk tank, so that
well water cools the milk before it reaches the bulk tank. A well designed pre-cooler can reduce
milk temperature originally from 95-98°F (35-37°C) at milking to up to 40°F (4.5°C), which
represents approximately 56 Btu/lbs of milk of energy removal before storage. As a result, pre-
coolers can reduce refrigeration energy by about 60% not to mention lower the overall farm
electrical energy requirement to 15% (Sanford, 2003a).
A pre-cooling system (Figure 3.7) is designed as a heat exchanger with well water as the
coolant. The water flows in opposite directions of the milk (counter-flow) though the plate heat
exchanger, transferring heat from the milk to the well water. Concentric heat exchanger is also
44
used as a pre-cooler, but the plate type tends to be more popular as it is able to expand by adding
more plates depending on the flow requirements.
In addition, the pre-coolers may be designed as a single pass (Figure 3.8) or multiple
circuits (Figure 3.9), where the latter is more often used on larger farm operations once milking
is longer. In this configuration, well water serve as the primary coolant, while chilled water or
glycol solution as the secondary coolant.
Figure 3.7 – Plate-type Pre-cooler (single circuit). (Source: Sanford, 2003a)
Figure 3.8 – Single Circuit Plate Heat Exchanger. (Source: Sanford, 2003a)
45
Figure 3.9 – Multi-Circuit Plate Heat Exchanger: 2 coolants. (Source: Sanford, 2003a)
After heat from milk has been transferred to the coolant, the “used and warm” cooling
water can be stored and re-used for watering cows and/or for cleaning. Sanford (2003a) points
out that on farms with more than 500 cows, water storage tank can be avoided by having well
water flowing through the pre-cooler and then directly to cow waterers. However, a variable
speed milk pump is needed in order to regulate the milk flow rate to maintain a sufficient water-
to-milk ratio. A 1:1 1 ratio is able to achieve considerable amount of cooling, but ½:1 are very
common in practice, though manufactures recommend ratios up to 3:1. The average daily water
flow rate is estimated to be 1.9 gpm per 100 milking cows (Sanford, 2003a).
Addition of a variable speed (VS) milk pump allows a water-to-milk ratio to 1.0 to 1.5:1
or even higher, as compared to 0.5:1 ratio without it. The VS milk pumps increase energy
efficiency by slowing the milk flow rate through the pre-cooler, resulting in higher water-to-milk
ratios and therefore cooling. It is recommended the use of VS pumps on farms with limited
water system flow rates (Sanford, 2003d). Moreover, many VS controllers contain“Milk” and
“Wash” modes, so that milk pumps can operate at the lowest speed or full speed, respectively. In
general, variable speed milk pumps are able to cool milk to an addition 15°F.
b.) Refrigeration Heat Recovery (RHR)
46
The basic purpose to heat water is for washing and cleaning. Refrigeration heat recovery
(RHR) units remove heat from the refrigerant that would be lost into the air, and uses this
captured heat to pre-heat water before it enters the water heater. RHR, shown in Figure 3.10, is
able to reduce water heating energy requirements, once up to 50% of the energy require to heat
water is captured from the refrigerant.
As shown in Figure 3.11, a RHR unit contains a storage tank and a heat exchanger. In a
common refrigeration system, a compressor pressurized the “hot” refrigerant into high pressure
steam, so that a condenser cools and condense it to a high pressure liquid. However, with the
RHR, the “hot” refrigerant gas is piped through the heat exchanger in the RHR and cooled, and
heat is transferred to the water. The temperature of the “hot” refrigerant gas can reach 200°F
(94°C) when entering the RHR and 75-85°F (24-30°C) exiting after heat has been transferred to
the water (Sanford, 2003b). Moreover, an air-cooled or water cooled condenser unit is placed in
series with the RHR heat exchanger to remove remaining heat from the refrigerant before it
passes through the evaporator of the refrigeration system.
47
Figure 3.10 – Refrigeration Heat Recovery (RHR) and Water Heater. (Source: Sanford, 2003b)
Figure 3.11 – Description of RHR Unit. (Source: Sanford, 2003b)
c.) Vacuum Pumps
During milking, an air pump removes air from the milking system to reduce pressure to
42-51 kPa vacuum. In conventional vacuum systems, motors run at constant speed and admit air
to regulate the vacuum systems. On the other hand, variable speed (VS) vacuum pump is
capable of adjusting the motor speed instead of admitting air. This change in speed uses less
electricity, and therefore, VS vacuum pump can reduce consumption by 50%.
d.) Effects on Farm Size
48
As mentioned earlier, energy distribution between milk cooling and water heating
changes with farm size. In general, the contribution by milk cooling is greater as farm size
increases, whereas it is smaller by water heating (Peebles et al., 1994; Peebles and Reinemann,
1994; and Sanford, 2003a). This is due to the fact that cooling requirements are proportional to
the amount of milk to be cooled and hot water relates to washing and cleaning only.
Consequently, water heating becomes less of an issue regarding total energy use on larger
farms, once higher milk production requires more cooling, and thus more heating is available for
heating water. Hence, heat recovery units (i.e. RHR) without pre-cooling units tend to be more
advantageous and preferred on dairy farms of 150 or less cows.
Meanwhile, combination of pre-cooling and heat recovery is recommended for larger
dairy farms. Pre-cooling has less effect on heat recovery as the ratio of milk production to hot
water use increases. Peebles et al. (1994) indicates that pre-cooling in fact reduces the quantity
of heat covered for water heating by about 40% in farms with less than 100 milk cows, 15% on
the 200 cow farm, and 10% on the 400 cow farm.
3.4.2 Energy Flow
Table 3.4 shows estimates of electrical energy use on Wisconsin dairy farms. The energy
model developed by Peebles and Reinemann (1994) indicates the energy end-use in 1994 and a
10-year projection, thus 2004, taking into consideration energy conserving technologies.
Figure 3.12 illustrate a schematic of energy flow during milk cooling for small dairy
farms operations (150 or less milk cows) using the refrigeration heat recovery unit. Figure 3.13
shows the flow for larger operations (200 and more milk cows) with pre-coolers and RHR unit
together.
49
Table 3.4 – Energy Use by Farm Size (in MWh).
(Reproduced from Peebles and Reinemann, 1994)
Farm Size
Water Heating Milk Cooling Lighting Fans Vacuum Pumps Total Use
1994 2004* 1994 2004* 1994 2004* 1994 2004* 1994 2004* 1994 2004*
1 - 49 221,461 96,359 85,791 39,093 101,119 46,078 281,238 128,155 70,754 32,241 750,363 341,928
50 -100 137,904 117,483 81,800 69,687 113,437 96,638 222,123 189,230 58,218 49,597 613,482 522,635
100 + 22,831 43,324 34,731 64,907 64,297 139,950 5,021 7,933 25,058 38,312 151,937 294,426
* 10-year projection
50
Milk
Refrigerant
Water
Milking
(milk at 98° F)
Bulk Storage Tank
(milk at 38° F)
VS Milk Pump
Compressor
Evaporator Exp. Valve Air Cooled Condenser
RHR
Water Heater
CIP Water Rinse: 100-131°F
Chemical Wash: 109-170°F
Acid/Sanitizer Rinse: cold or warm
Heated Air
56 Btu/lbs
of milk to
be removed
Electricity
Hot Water,
100-110°F
Tempered
Water, 55°F
Energy:
- electricity
- propane
- heating oil
- natural gas
Super heated refrigerant
De-super heated
refrigerant
200°F
75-85F
Remove
remaining
heat
Potable
Water Cold refrigerant
Figure 3.12 – Energy Flow for Small Dairy Farms.
51
Milking
(milk at 98° F)
VS Milk Pump
Precooler
Bulk Storage Tank
(milk at 38° F)
RHR
Air Cooled
Condenser
Evaporator
Exp. Valve
Compressor Water Heater
Hot
Water
Heated Air
Milk
Refrigerant
Water
Cold refrigerant Super heated
refrigerant
200°F
De-super heated
refrigerant
Tempered
Water, 55°F
Potable
Water
Remove
remaining heat
75-86°F
Electricity
Energy:
- electricity
- propane
- heating oil
- natural gas
Figure 3.13 – Energy Flow for Large Dairy Farms.
CIP Water Rinse: 100-131°F
Chemical Wash: 109-170°F
Acid/Sanitizer Rinse: cold or warm
Hot Water,
100-110°F
52
Predicting the average farm size in the state of Wisconsin will be over 1,000 dairy herds
in the future, while the number of dairy farms will drop drastically, both milk production and
energy flow are estimated. It is assumed that average milk production per cow is about 75 lbs of
milk, though recent USDA reports indicated that in 2005, production was about 49.5 lbs of milk
per cow. Moreover, farm design and operation are scaled up to meet milk production of a
Wisconsin’s dairy farm of 1,200 milk cows, shown in Table 3.5.
Table 3.6 summarizes the energy consumption at the considered dairy farm (referred to as
baseline) for milk cooling, vacuum pump, and water are analyzed, once they together represent
about 60% of total energy use. The table also shows energy values obtained from Peebles et al.
(1994), maximum and minimum values cited from Edens et al. (2003). Shown below are the
equations and calculations to determine on-farm energy use. Figure 3.14 illustrates the energy
flow.
Average milk flow rate through preccoler = (2.0) x (total milk produced per day/ total milking time per day)
(1)
Precooler(thermal energy) = (lbs of milk/day) x (0.93 Btu/lbs F) x (98F-78F) x (1kWh/3413Btu) x (365days)
(2)
Bulk tank(thermal energy) = (lbs of milk/day) x (0.93 Btu/lbs F) x (78F-38F) x (1kWh/3413Btu) x (365days)
(3)
Electrical energy (cooling) = (Thermal energy) / (COP)
(4)
Vacuum pump = (20 hp) x (0.746 kWh/hp) x (0.95 motor load factor) x (hours of operation/day) x
(1/motor efficiency) x (365 days)
(5)
Water heating (at 110F) = (3 washing/day) x (2 cycles/washing) x (85 gal/cycle) x (8.34 lbs/gal) x
(1Btu/lbs F) x (110F-65.6F) x (1 kWh/3413 Btu) x (1/efficiency) x (365 days)
(6)
Water heating (at 160F) = (3 washing/day) x (1 cycles/washing) x (85 gal/cycle) x (8.34 lbs/gal) x
(1Btu/lbs F) x (160F-65.6F) x (1 kWh/3413 Btu) x (1/efficiency) x (365 days)
(7)
53
Table 3.5 – On-Farm Operation.
Design and Operations Farm Size: 1,200 cows
Milk production per cow per day: 75 lbs of milk/cow/day
Milking per day: 3
Hours per milking: 7
Parlor design: Double 24 (48 milking units)
Milk production per day: 90,000 lbs of milk/day
Milk production per hour: 4,284 lbs of milk/hour
Milk Cooling Precooler:
Average milk flow rate: 8,571.4 lbs/hour or 62.93 L/min
Number of plates: 35 (De Laval model BH PR-35)
Water to milk ratio: 2 to 1
Milk temperatures:
Initial (at milking): 98F
Intermediate (after precooler): 78F
Final (storage): 38F
Well water temperatures:
Initial: 55F
Final (after heat transfer): 65.6
COP: 3.50 (estimated)
Vacuum Pump Size: 180 cfm
Pipeline size: 3 in (diameter)
Motor power: 20 hp
Motor efficiency: 85% (estimated)
Milking time: 21 hours of operation
Washing time: 1.5 hours per day
Water Heating Washing and CIP: 3 cyles
2 cycles at 110F
1 cycle at 160F
Temperature of washing water (well water): 65.6F
Total water use after 3 cycles: 255 gal/washing
Total water use per day: 765 gal/day
Water heater efficiency:
Gas: 80%
Electric: 100%
54
Table 3.6 – Energy Use in On-Farm Operation.
Milk Cooling Vacuum Pump Water Heating
Thermal Electric Electric Electric Gas
Baseline 537,208 153,488 145,505 41,667 52,083
Peebles et al. 128,115 46,072
Edens et al. (min) 262,800 131,400 312,075
Edens et al. (max) 361,350 390,915
Figure 3.14 – On-Farm Operations Energy Flow.
Milk Transportation
3.5.1 Overview: Costs and Statistics
Almost all milk produced in Wisconsin’s dairy farms are marketed and processed within
the State. According to Katie Neuser from Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board (WMMB), it is
unlikely that milk is shipped far beyond Wisconsin’s border once demand for milk is very high
Storage Milking Precooler Bulk Storage Tank
98F 78F 38F
Vacuum Pump
Q(c) = 51,162 kWh Q(c) = 102,325 kWh
Q(vp) = 145,504 kWh
Drinking Water to Cows
Well Water
55F
65.6F
Water Heater
Q(h,gas) = 52,083 kWh Q(h,elec) = 41,666 kWh
Washing / CIP 110F & 160F
55
nowadays, especially for cheese-milk. Many of the Wisconsin’s dairy plants employ contract
haulers to pick up milk at dairy farms, whereas only a few maintain their own milk trucks and
hired drivers.
Dairy producers in Wisconsin and some other states pay a subsidized rate, which are less
than the actual costs to haul their milk. The remaining of the costs is normally paid by the dairy
plants, who buy the milk and negotiate rates with haulers and pay them directly. The subsidized
rates are often related to patron volume, where larger patrons are charged less for milk hauling,
and they may be paid a volume premium to cover lower costs for hauling.
In theory, the actual expenses in milk hauling involve costs that are fixed regardless of
volume hauled per patron, and some that vary with volume (Jesse, 1985). The first one refers to
fixed time-related costs that are the same independently on the amount of milk picked up, such
as time to drive to the farm, sample, record weights, deliver supplies, clean the tank, and drive to
the next farm. On the other hand, variable costs consist of pumping time, fuel, and driver time
associated with volume.
However, due to the difficulty in assessing and separating fixed and variable costs, the
majority of handlers in the Upper Midwest Order charge dairy producers a flat hauling charge
per hundredweight (cwt), regardless of the volume of milk (Jesse, 1985; Freije, 2005; and
Natzke, 2006). According to the USDA Federal Milk Market Administrator’s Office for the
Upper Midwest Order, the average hauling charge portion paid by dairy producers in 2004 in
Wisconsin was 15.15 cents/cwt, compared to 25.65 and 63.19 cents/cwt in Minnesota and North
Dakota, respectively (Freije, 2005).
Variations of charges are highly influenced by both milk volume and dairy farm
operations. In general, the lower the volume, the higher costs on a per hundredweight (cwt)
56
basis, and having large dairy farms in the area usually helps decreased the local hauling rate as
well. Hauling distances to dairy plants also tend to be a factor, along with competition among
handlers (Freije, 2005). For instance, North Dakota had the highest average charge in 2004, as
producers are spread over 35 counties, and are located by long distances to the core of dairy
manufacturing sites. Overall, Freije (2005) reported that hauling rates tended to increase farther
north and west from Chicago, and thus, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan had the lowest hauling
charges in addition to Illinois itself.
In addition, hauling charges may vary within counties as well, according to Freije (2005).
The range is considerably wide, charges range from 3 to 39 cents/wt in Wisconsin. For instance,
it was shown that five counties in the State, though presented similar features regarding number
of dairy producers, milk volume marketed, and location near manufacturing sites, hauling
charges differed due to county’s dairy farm size of operation and subsidies, such as premiums
(Freije, 2005).
As dairy farmers in the Wisconsin are charged a flat rate, dairy plants pay by zone rates,
which tend to be a better representative of the costs to haul milk in comparison to flat rates
(Jesse, 1986). According to Roger Nordtvedt, a representative from Northwest Food Product
Transportation, zone rates are calculated in relation to total expenses involved during milk
hauling. Costs include labor (estimated pay rate of $22/hour plus benefits), maintenance and
insurance of hauling trucks, fuel consumption (30-35% of total costs), which relates to milk
density and geographic locations, and producer’s size.
Part of Land O’ Lakes Inc., the Northwest Food Products Transportation services in the
Upper Midwest and other states around the U.S., and it currently works with some dairy
industries in Wisconsin, such as Foremost Farms USA and Trega Foods. Their zone rates ranges
57
from 30 to 42 cents/cwt as said by Nordtvedt (2006). A stop charge is applied (about $20
minimum) in order to avoid inefficiency or discrimination between small and large producers,
once number of pick ups may vary. For example, Nordtvedt mentioned that in East of
Wisconsin, there are usually 4 stops for one load while in Greenwood, IL, there are 9 up to 12
stops per load, which represents a difference of three hours spent for milk pick up.
Moreover, shown below are some estimates by Nordtvedt (2006) on distance traveled per
load (equivalent to 6-6.5 thousand gallons or 51-56 thousand lbs of milk) to pick milk at the
dairy farms, and bring it to the dairy plants:
North and South Dakota: 200 to 400 miles/load
Central and South Minnesota: 75 miles/load
Southwest and East Wisconsin: 35 to 40 miles/load
Central Wisconsin: 75 miles/load
Alternatively, Jesse (1985) previously examined costs of milk hauling and milk volume
from six dairy cooperatives in Wisconsin. It was found that actual hauling costs per cwt varied
from 26 to 74 cents, with average falling between 32 and 42 cents, which seems to be similar to
what is charged nowadays. Also, volume of milk picked up per stop ranged from 6 to 68 cwt,
but most observation fell between 24 and 34 cwt per stop, and distance between stops were from
6 to 17 miles round trip per stop, which represents a route density of 0.06 to 0.16 stops per mile.
3.5.2 Energy
The energy aspect on milk hauling can be accounted by the amount fuel consumption
during milk pick ups. As discussed earlier, dairy farmers often pay a flat hauling charge of 15.15
58
cents/cwt thus far in 2004 (Freije, 2005), while dairy plants cover the remaining of the costs paid
to contractor haulers by zone rates of 30 to 42 cents/cwt of milk (Nordtvedt, 2006).
Consequently, it can be determined that the actual and total milk hauling costs in the state
of Wisconsin ranges from 45.15 to 57.15 cents/cwt of milk, which is with accordance to 57.18
cents/cwt paid in Minnesota from a survey on total milk hauling costs in the State (Ye, 2003).
Furthermore, taking into consideration that the average distance traveled from dairy farms to
milk plants fall in the range of 35 to 40 miles per load in both Southwest and Eastern, and 75
miles in Central region of the State, volume of fuel consumed for milk pick up is estimated for
these regions, as well as the corresponding energies (Table 3.7). The equations used to calculate
the energy values shown in Table 3.7 are illustrated below.
Volume of fuel use = (distance) / (truck fuel efficiency, mpg) (8)
Energy/load = (mass energy density of diesel) x (1 Btu/1055.6 J) x (fuel eff.) x (1 kWh/3413 Btu) x (fuel
used) (9)
Energy/lbs of milk = (energy/load) x (1 load/53,750 lbs of milk) (10)
Energy for yearly production = (energy/lbs of milk) x (90,000 lbs of milk/day) x (365 days) (11)
Transportation costs are also shown in Table 3.7. The equations used are described
below, and in the calculations, it was assumed that price of diesel is $3/gal and one load
corresponds to 53,750 lbs of milk.
Costs per Load = (volume per load, gal) x (diesel price per gal) (12)
Costs per lbs of milk = (costs / load) x (1 load / 53,750 lbs of milk) (13)
Cost per year = ($ / lbs of milk) x (90,000 lbs of milk/day) x (365 days) (14)
59
Table 3.7 – Milk Transportation: Energy and Costs.
Location: Southwest East Central
Distances (miles): 35 45 75
Fuel volume (gal): 5.83 6.67 12.50
Energy/Load (kWh/load): 66.30 75.77 142.08
Energy/lbs of milk (kWh/lbs of milk): 0.001234 0.001410 0.002643
Energy for 1 year of production (kWh): 40,521.80 46,310.63 86,832.42
Cost/Load ($): 17.50 20.00 37.50
Cost/lbs of milk ($): 0.0003256 0.0003721 0.0006977
Cost per year ($): 10,695.35 12,223.26 22,918.60
Assumptions:
o Truck fuel efficiency: 6 MPG
o Mass energy density of diesel: 38.6 MJ/L
o Fuel efficiency: 0.28
o 1 load: 53,750 lbs of milk
o 1 day of milk production (1,200 cows): 90,000 lbs of milk
o Price of diesel: $3/gallon
Dairy Manufacturing
3.6.1 Energy Use in the Food Industry
Energy use in food industry has increased rapidly in the last 50 years, accounting to
nearly 1/3 or more of total energy consumed by all industries nowadays (Singh, 1986; and
Wilhem et al., 2004). The recent increase in energy costs has affected all food industries,
including the dairy industries and cheese manufacturing plants, as utility costs jumped to as high
as 11-15% of total production costs (Zehr, 1997; Jesse and Gould, 2005).
60
The food industry, in general, requires energy to operate a variety of equipments, such as
electrical motors, steam boilers, and refrigeration equipments. Typical utility for operations in
dairy plants consist of thermal energy, electrical energy, and water. Jesse and Gould (2005)
estimated that both electricity and natural gas represent, respectively, 40 and 32% of total utility
costs.
Thermal energy is supplied in the form of natural gas, which is the dominant source of
energy is food processing. Natural gas and distillate fuel are both mostly consumed as boiler
fuel to generate steam for thermal processing and dehydration, and together can reach
approximately 29% of total energy in the food industry, with about 62% and 42% share,
respectively (Okos et al., 1998). Distillate fuel is also used for transportation.
Moreover, electricity is consumed intensively by the food industry, whereby about 94%
is purchased and the remaining is produced through co-generation (Okos et al., 1998). Over 80%
of the electricity is used in processing, such as in mechanical power, refrigeration, and cooling,
whereas the remaining accounts for lighting, ventilation, and air conditioning. Table 3.8
reproduces the data of purchased fuels and electric energy used by the dairy industry. In fact, the
dairy industry uses about 12% of purchased electric energy of the entire food manufacturing
group.
Lastly, approximately 60% of water is used for energy-related operations, especially for
cooling water or steam generation. The typical utilities and service demands in dairy processing
is shown in Table 3.9, which was reproduced from the National Dairy Council of Canada.
61
Table 3.8 – Purchased Fuels and Electric Energy for Heat and Power by Industry Groups and Industries.
(Source: Annual Survey of Manufacturers, 2004).
Cost of Electric Energy Purchased
purchased
NAICS Industry Group fuels and Cost of
Code electric purchased
energy fuels Quantity Cost
($1,000) ($1,000) (1,000 kWh) ($1,000)
3115 Dairy product manufacturing 892,409 393,718 9,141,046 498,691
31151 Dairy product manufacturing (except frozen) 800,255 378,503 7,672,728 421,752
311513 - Cheese manufacturing 285,208 148,877 2,604,610 136,331
311514
- Dry, condensed, and evaporated dairy product manufacturing 162,481 94,499 1,225,453 67,981
31151N
- Fluid milk and butter manufacturing 352,566 135,127 3,842,665 217,439
31152
Ice cream and frozen dessert manufacturing 92,154 15,215 1,468,318 76,939
311520
- Ice cream and frozen dessert manufacturing 92,154 15,215 1,468,318 76,939
62
Table 3.9 – Typical Utility and Service Requirements for Dairy Processing.
(Source: National Dairy Council of Canada, 1997).
Utility Type
Demand Requirements
Cold Water
(1-7C / 34-45F) Rinsing, Washing, Recirculation, and Cooling.
Hot Water
(90C / 194F) Pasteurizer Heating Medium
(70C / 158F) Mould Release (for Ice Cream Processes)
(50C+ / 122F+) Washup/CIP
Steam
(790 kPa abs / 16,500 lbs/sqft) Pasteurizer Heating (via Hot Water)
Dryer Air Heating
Evaporation
(Lower 790 kPa abs / 16.500 lbs/sqft) Water Heating
Thermal
Furnace Space Heating
Boiler Hot Water/Space Heating
Heater Dryer Air Heating
Refrigeration
(-40C / -40F) Mould Brine (for Ice Cream Processes)
(-30C / -22F) Freezer/Storage
(-9C / 15F) Ice Cream Maker
(-6C / 21F) Glycol for HTST Chilling
(1C / 34F) Product Holding Cooler
(4C / 39F)
Milk/Product Cooling
Compressed Air Valve Actuation, Air Blows, and Conveying
Electrical (Direct Uses)
Conveyor, Centrifuge, Homogenizer, Packaging, Unit Drives, Lights, and Refrigeration.
63
3.6.2 Energy Analysis in a Cheddar Cheese Plant
The manufacture practices of the Cheddar cheese plant analyzed here were considered
following common operations in a cheese plant. It was assumed that the plant processes about
1,551,500 lbs of milk daily, making 29 cheese vats per day, where each vat holds 53,500 lbs of
milk. The by-product of cheese, whey, is processed in the plant. Nearly 85% of the total volume
of cheese-milk is assumed to result in whey. Cheese fines and whey cream (0.05%) are
separated, and skim whey is concentrated with both reverse osmosis (RO) and evaporator to
reach approximately 21.5% and 52% of solids content, respectively. The remaining is made into
dry whey by a spray dryer. Full description of process operation can be found in Part 2 of this
report. The process flow is shown in Figure 3.15, and energy flow of each stage is shown in
Table 3.10.
Energy analysis at the stage of HTST milk pasteurization was conducted by assuming a
60% heat recovery between “incoming cold raw milk” and “hot pasteurized milk,” so that milk
originally at 38F is pre-heated to about 112F. Consequently, the heating section in the plate heat
exchanger is responsible for the remaining 40% to pasteurize milk at 161F, while the
regeneration also cools the milk to approximately 88F.
After pasteurization, cheese-milk fills the make vats, where after steps of coagulation and
cutting, cooking and stirring takes place. The temperature is raised from 88F to 101F, by steam
injection. During the rest of the process until packaging, temperature drops to 75F, when 40 lbs
block of Cheddar cheese are sealed and boxed, and it is assumed that neither heating nor cooling
64
are applied. During storage, refrigeration is essential to cool cheese block to 42F, at which it
remains during aging and ripening.
65
Receiving
HTST
Make Vats
Cheddaring
Packaging
Storage
38F 161F 88-101F 84-95F 75-82F 42F
Sweet Whey
Silo
Separators
HTST
RO
Evaporators
Spray Dryer
6.4% T.S. Skim whey Concentrated skim whey 21.5% T.S. 52% T.S. Dry whey
Cheese Production:
- 29 vats per day - 1,551,500 lbs of cheese-milk/day
Whey Processing:
- 1,318,775 lbs of sweet whey/day Cheese fines and Whey cream (660 lbs) C.F. = 3.45 Permeate water (936,053 lbs) Water vapor (~237,664 lbs)
Figure 3.15 – Process Flow
66
Table 3.10 – Energy Flow of Each Operation in Cheesemaking.
Location Temperatures Thermal Energy Energy
(electric/gas)
(F) (kWh) (kWh)
Receiving Storage 38
11,546,337
at Regeneration 111.800
(heat transfer) 7,697,558 9,055,950
HTST at Pasteurization 161
(heating)
11,546,337
at Regeneration 87.20
(cooling)
125,164
at Filling/Setting 88
Make Vats 2,033,908 2,392,832
at Cooking/Stirring 101
at "Pump Over" 95
422,259
at Cheddaring 90
Cheddaring 337,807
at Milling 86
168,903
at Salting 84
168,903
at Hopper 82
253,355
Packaging at Block Former 79
337,807
Sealed and Boxed 75
2,786,908 796,259
Fast Cooling
Storage Curing 42
Aging
67
Table 3.11– Energy Flow of Each Operation in Whey Processing.
Location Temperatures Thermal Energy Energy
(electric/gas)
(F) (kWh) (kWh)
Separators (removal of 95.0
682.125 lbs of
whey cream)
at Regeneration 138.2
(heat transfer) 4,505,887 5,301,044
HTST at Pasteurization 167.0
(heating)
6,758,831
at Regeneration 123.8
(cooling)
RO Electricity consumption: 1,504,842
10 kWh/1000L of water removed
Energy use:
9.6 kWh (6-20% solids)
Evaporator Stage 4 125 13,185,326 15,512,148
Stage 5 104 9,933,798
Spray Dryer 104 425,935,791 501,100,931
68
In the whey processing part, skim whey is pasteurized at 167F to inactivate both starter
culture and enzymes, after cheese fines and whey cream have been separated. The thermal
energy taken by pasteurization is estimated similarly to milk HTST pasteurization. The
temperature of whey is assumed to be 95F, which is about the temperature at the “pump over”
stage in cheddaring. Skim whey is pre-heated to 138.2F, and cooled to 123.8F.
Following heat treatment, whey is pre-concentrated. In this analysis, whey consideration
is carried out by reverse osmosis, once membrane separations are a common practice in large
cheese operations. The concentration factor (C.F.) of whey by RO is 3.45, which removes about
70% of the water from skim whey, and the goal is to concentrate to approximately 21.5% total
solids. The temperature of skim whey going through the RO was assumed to be 123.8F, though
it might be much smaller in real conditions.
Whey is then further concentrated with evaporators. In this analysis, information of
temperatures and flow rates of product, vapor, and condensate were taken from Zehr (1997), who
analyzed energy efficiency in the cheese plant at Marshfield, WI. The process operation
described by Zehr is similar to the one estimated here, such that Marshfield processed about 1.6
million lbs of milk per day and 81,000 lbs/hr of whey. The evaporator consisted of 5 stages
falling film. Moreover, at the end of stage 3, the solid content of whey was reported to be near
22%, which is close to the total solids content obtained with RO. Finally, the spray drying
calculations were also based on Zehr (1997) from the cheese plant at Blair, WI.
The calculated thermal energies for each stage of the process were calculated based on
the following equations:
Milk HTST Pasteurization
Q = (lbs of cheesemilk/day) x (0.93 Btu/lbs F) x (161F – 111.8F) x (1kWh/3413Btu) x (365days) (15)
69
Cooking in Make Vats
Q = (lbs of cheesemilk/day) x (0.93 Btu/lbs F) x (101F – 88F) x (1kWh/3413Btu) x (365days) (16)
Cooling of Packaged Cheese
Q = (lbs of cheese/day) x (0.502 Btu/lbs F) x (75F – 42F) x (1kWh/3413Btu) x (365days) (17)
Whey HTST Pasteurization
Q = (lbs of skim whey/day) x (0.936 Btu/lbs F) x (1671F – 138.2F) x (1kWh/3413Btu) x (365days) (18)
Evaporator
Q = [ (lbs of conc. whey/day) x (0.936 Btu/lbs F) x (ΔF) x (1kWh/3413Btu) x (365days) ] +
[ (lbs of vapor/day) x (2,357,000J/kg) x (1kg/2.204lbs) x (1Btu/1055.6J) x (1kWh/3413Btu) x (365days) ] (19)
Spray Drying
Q = [ (lbs of conc. whey/day) x (0.936 Btu/lbs F) x (ΔF) x (1kWh/3413Btu) x (365days) ] +
[ (lbs of vapor/day) x (2,357,000J/kg) x (1kg/2.204lbs) x (1Btu/1055.6J) x (1kWh/3413Btu) x (365days) ] (20)
The calculated thermal energies above can be converted into electric (cooling) and gas
(heating) energies. Also, energy use by RO was accounted as electric energy following Fellows
(2003).
Cooling
Electric = (thermal energy, kWh) / (COP) (21)
Heating
Gas = (thermal energy, kWh) / (0.85) (22)
Whey concentration with RO
Electricity = (10 kWh/1,000L) x (1L/0.264 gal) x (1 gal/8.6 lbs) x (volume of H20 removed,lbs) (22)
70
3.7 References
Brown, E. and R.N. Elliott. 2005a. On-Farm Energy Use Characterizations. Washington, D.C.:
America Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Brown, E. and R.N. Elliott. 2005b. Potential Energy Efficiency Savings in the Agricultural
Sector. Washington, D.C.: America Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Cropp, B. and Jesse, E. 2003. Rethinking Dairyland – Farm Level Milk Prices: Is Wisconsin
Competitive? Marketing and Policy Briefing Paper, Department of Agricultural and
Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Farm Energy Management Handbook, Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection. Available online at: www.datcp.state.wi.us
Edens, W.C., L.O. Pordesimo, L.R. Wilhelm, and R.T Burns. 2003. Energy Use Analysis of
Major Milking Center Components at a Dairy Experiment Stattion. ASABE 19(6): 711-
716.
Freije, C. 2005. Milk Hauling Charges in the Upper Midwest Marketing Area May 2002-2004.
USDA Federal Milk Market Administrator’s Office, Staff Paper No. 05-01. Available
online at: www.fmma30.com/StaffPappers
Jesse, E.V. 1986. Analysis of Milk Hauling Costs as Related to Volume and Distance.
Department of Agriculture Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Agricultural
Economics Staff Paper Series No. 245.
Jesse, E. 2002. Rethinking Dairyland: Background for Decisions about Wisconsin’s Dairy
Industry. Marketing and Policy Briefing Paper, Department of Agricultural and Applied
Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Jesse, E. and Gould, B.W. 2005. Federal Order Product Price Formulas and Cheesemaker
Margins: A Closer Look. Marketing and Policy Briefing Paper, Department of
Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Peebles, R.W., D.J. Reinemann, and R.J. Straub. 1994. Analysis of Milking Center Energy Use.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture. ASAE Paper No. 93-3534. Available online at:
www.uwex.edu.
Peebles, R.W., and D.J. Reinemann. 1994. Demand-Side Management/Energy Conservation
Potential for Wisconsin Dairy Farms. ASAE Meeting Paper Presentation No. 943563.
Available online at: www.uewx.edu
71
Sanford, S. 2003a. Energy Conservation on the Farm: Well Water Precoolers. Wisconsin Focus
on Energy Program. University of Wisconsin-Extension.
Sanford, S. 2003b. Energy Conservation on the Farm: Refrigeration Systems. Wisconsin Focus
on Energy Program. University of Wisconsin-Extension.
Sanford, S. 2003c. Energy Conservation on the Farm: Vacuum Systems. Wisconsin Focus
on Energy Program. University of Wisconsin-Extension.
Sanford, S. 2003d. Energy Conservation on the Farm: Vacuum Systems. Wisconsin Focus
on Energy Program. University of Wisconsin-Extension.
Singh, R.P. 1986. Energy in Food Processing, in Energy in World Agriculture. Vol. 1. Elsevier
Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Vanderlin, J. 2003. Milk Production Costs on Selected Wisconsin Dairy Farms. Center for
Dairy Profitability, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Zehr, S. 1997. Process Energy Efficiency Improvement in Wisconsin Cheese Plants. Master of
Science Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Wilhelm, L.R., Suter, D.A. and Brusewitz, G.H. 2004. Energy Use in Food Processing. Chapter
11 in Food & Process Engineering Technology, 285-291. St. Joseph, Michigan: ASAE.
Wisconsin Energy Statistics. 2005. Wisconsin Department of Administration, Division of
Energy. Available online at: http://www.doa.state.wi.us/
Wisconsin Energy Statistics – Highlights. 2005. Wisconsin Department of Administration,
Division of Energy. Available online at: http://www.doa.state.wi.us/
Ye, S. 2003. Milk Hauling Cost in Minnesota. Agricultural Marketing Services Division,
Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Available online at:
www.mda.state.mn/mktresearch/03milkhaulcost.pdf
72
PART 4 - Membrane FILTRATION in Cheese production
Introduction
Membrane filtration is a rate-based separation that uses an energy separating agent to
generate miscible products of the same phase. A fluid stream, such as milk, is forced by
hydraulic pressure to pass through a series of semi-permeable membranes that are typically made
of a thin film of porous polymer. The membranes act as the filter media, and separates the
dissolved solids, which is referred as to retentate, from the fluid that passes through the
membranes, the permeate.
Differently from conventional filtration, where flow is perpendicular to the filter,
membrane separation is considered a crossflow system, once fluid flows under pressure and at
high velocity (Dairy Management Inc., 2000). In addition, the extent of separation and
fractionation is determined based on pore size of the membranes, allowing components to be
selectively separated. Figure 4.1 (below) illustrates the spectrum of filtration for milk, and Table
4.1 provides more detail about the four types of membrane separations used in the dairy industry.
It is interesting to note that overlaps between membranes occurs, once the retentate will always
contain some material from the permeate.
73
Figure 4.1 – Membrane Filtration for the Dairy Industry. (Source: Dairy Management Inc., 2000)
Table 4.1 – Description of Membrane Separation for Milk.
(Source: Fox et al., 2004; Dairy Management Inc., 2000 ; and Lucey, 2006)
Reverse Osmosis Nanofiltration Ultrafiltration Microfiltration
(RO) (NF) (UF) (MF)
Pore Size (microns)
0.0001 to 0.001
0.001 to 0.01
0.001 to 0.02
0.1 to 10
Mol. Weight (Da)
150 or less
1,000-200,000
200 to 1,000
200,000-above
Pressure (psi)
350 to 1,500
up to 350
45 to 150
1 to 25
Permeate
Water, and ionized minerals
Water, and small ionized molecules
Water, lactose, soluble minerals, non-protein nitrogen, and water-soluble vitamins
Water, sugars, whey proteins, and polysaccharides.
Retentate
Fat, proteins, undissociated minerals
Lactose, proteins, and fat
Proteins, fat, and colloidal salts
Somatic cells, fat globules, bacteria, and casein micelles
According to Fassbender (2000), membrane separation has been commercially used in
milk since 1927. The cheese industry was one the first to explore the use of microfiltrated milk
to standardize milk and to elevate solid content of cheese-milk. Fox et al. (2004) indicates that
membrane processing was introduced in cheese-related applications in the late 1960s, through
the MMV process (named after the inventors Maubois, Mocquot, and Vassal).
Since then, innumerous research have been conducted in order to develop new
applications and improve the technology. For instance, with the technological advances and new
trends in cheesemaking, membrane processing became a potential allied to high-volume cheese
plants for milk standardization and for processing of whey into various value-added components
74
(Johnson and Lucey, 2006). This section will discuss applications of membrane separations in
the dairy industry, including UF milk in cheesemaking and on-farm concentration.
On-Farm Concentration
On-farm concentration of milk started in France in 1974, and three years later, the
company Alfa Laval developed technology for an on-farm UF milk processing (Fox et al., 2004).
In the U.S., research of on-farm concentration began in the early 1980s at Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY (Dairy Management Inc., 2000). The investigation was conducted by Dr. Robert
Zall, who used a conventional UF system.
Nowadays, the technology of “on-farm cold concentrating of milk” has been patented by
Membrane System Specialists Inc., Wisconsin Rapids, WI, who designs and manufactures both
UF and RO systems for large dairy farms with more than 1,500 milking cows (Dairy
Management Inc., 2000). According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, 4
dairy farms in New Mexico and Texas were processing UF milk to be transported to cheese
plants in the Midwest as for 2004. Fassbender (2000) indicated that these farms were processing
about 1.5 million pounds of milk daily.
The benefits obtained from on-farm concentration with transportation costs and cheese
yield were estimated since the early years of the technology. As pointed out in the review by
Dairy Management Inc. (2000), there are many benefits in concentrating milk on the farm rather
than at the processing plant. Firstly, since volume is reduced to at least 50%, transportation costs
are reduced. Moreover, separation of milk components at the farm makes it possible to ship each
product to the most profitable location. Handling of concentrated milk also becomes cost
savings, because less storage silos are required, consequently, refrigeration costs are also
75
reduced. Another advantage relates to the permeate that stays on the farm and can be used in
animal feed, minimizing handling by the processing plant.
On-farm milk concentration using either RO or UF takes place after milk has been cooled
to about 40F or lower immediately after milking. Previous studies have suggested that at cold
temperatures, fat globules are more resilient and this reduced fat shearing. Moreover, it is
believed that warm UF whole milk undergoes partial homogenization of milk fat and
denaturation of whey proteins, causing impaired curd formation and increase susceptibility to
lipolysis during cheese ripening (Govindasamy-Lucey et al., 2006).
In the on-farm concentration in New Mexico, raw milk is ultrafiltrated at temperature less
than 45F to about 28% w/w of total solids, and 10% w/w of true protein. This UF raw milk is
classified as Grade A according to the regulations by Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
once the total bacterial count is less than 300,000 per ml. Transportation takes place at 38-40F to
cheese plants located in other parts of the country, where the UF milk is used to standardize
cheese-milk to 13.5-15% w/w total solids.
Studies at the University of California-Davis in 1996 showed no increased on bacterial
counts with cold UF membrane concentration of raw milk (Dairy Management Inc., 2000; and
Fassbender, 2000). It was also shown that if membranes are cleaned and sanitized in proper
manners, there are no negative impacts on pasteurization. In the late 1996, the FDA approved
the use of on-farm concentration as long as the process is single pass configuration, without
recirculation of the retentate, and temperature of the milk must remain less than 45F at all times
of processing, storage, and transportation. The common on-farm concentration factors (CF) is 2.8
for RO and 3.5 for UF. Figure 4.2 illustrates the concentration of milk components under
membrane processing.
76
Fassbender (2000) states that processing facilities may cost from $2 to $3 million dollars
to install and build, and thus, an individual facility would process milk from a minimum of 4,000
to 10,000 or more cows daily.
Figure 4.2 – UF/RO Concentration of Fluid Milk with CF=3.0. (Source: Dairy Management Inc., 2000)
Microfiltration of Raw Milk
As shown in Figure 4.1, microfiltration contains a wide range of pore sizes (0.1 to 10
microns), which enables the separations of most milk components. The potential application of
77
microfiltration is in the reduction of microbial counts in milk. Fox et al. (2004) states that the
average bacterial removal is of 99.6%, independently on the initial count present in raw milk.
Application of microfiltration with a recirculation loop has been commercially used
under the name “Bactocatch.” In this system, raw milk is microfiltrated at 35-50C, and bacteria
and somatic cells are captured by the membrane in the retentate stream. The cream from
retentate can be removed through separators, heat treated, and then blend it with cream to use in
milk standardization for cheesemaking, though the retentate are more likely to be used as animal
feed.
Similar to microfiltration, bactofugation is another technology used to reduce bacterial
count in raw milk without thermal processing. Bactofugation removes bacteria through
centrifugal force, and it is capable to reduce count to 86-92%. Consequently, microfiltration
seems to be more efficient than bactofugation, once it removes to about 99% of the total count,
and shelf life of the milk can be extended up to 32 days with pasteurization. Figure 4.3 shows a
schematic of membrane processing of milk.
However, FDA does not approve the use of microfiltrated milk in cheesemaking
applications. FDA stated that the use of microfiltration as the starting ingredient of cheese does
now follows the basic nature of cheese, because this process separates specific fractions of milk
proteins, while UF does not.
In addition, this membrane process is not fully attractive to cheesemakers, because by
removing almost all bacteria and microorganism, cheese-milk is considered as “dead milk,” and
produces negative effects on cheese quality. Possible applications of microfiltrated milk in
cheese operations, however, are option of making an enriched casein powder for standardization
and making whey protein-free cheese.
78
Figure 4.2 – UF/RO Concentration of Fluid Milk with CF=3.0. (Source: Dairy Management Inc., 2000)
79
Use of UF Milk in Cheesemaking
Ultrafiltration of milk separates caseins and whey proteins from lactose, minerals, water
soluble vitamins, and water. The greatest opportunity of UF milk in cheesemaking is in milk
standardization. By boosting the total solids content of milk, it eliminates difficulties on milk
composition variation, caused by several factors, such as stage of lactation, feeding, and weather.
UF milk also eliminates the use of non-fat dry milk, which is commonly used to increase solid
content, and it does not result in high residual lactose in the cheese, preventing bitterness and
discoloration of the cheese.
It has been pointed out that the use of ulltrafiltrated milk can increase plant productivity
and cheese yield, once more cheese is made per vat or man-hour (Fox et al., 2004). For instance,
by replacing 10 to 15% of regular cheese-milk with UF milk, production can increase as much as
18% (Dairy Management Inc., 2000). Increase of cheese yield is a result of the reduction in fat
and casein particles lost in whey (Fox et al., 2004; Govindasamy-Lucey et al., 2006; and Lucey,
2006), and incorporation of whey proteins into the aqueous phase of the cheese (Lucey, 2006).
If fact, UF retentate can give a curd that does release much, if any, whey, under proper design
operations.
The incorporation of whey proteins (up to 20%) is actually the most notable feature of
UF cheeses, and it is responsible for the slower ripening as compared to traditional cheeses. The
general idea is that the greater the amount of whey proteins, the slower is the flavor
development. Furthermore, large variations of flavors have been observed due to varying levels
of immunoglobulin and proteose-peptones in the whey proteins. On the other hand, incorporated
whey proteins have higher water binding capacity than casein, which prevents drying of the
cheese.
80
Conversely, increasing the solid level of the cheese-milk can cause faster clotting and
increase rate of gel formation, making it difficult to control cutting time, and therefore
consistency. Moreover, amount of starter used may increase, because UF retentates have a
higher buffering capacity, as minerals (calcium phosphate) are bound to casein micelles at the
same proportion. As a result, modifications of the cheese manufacturing practices and protocols
are required according to the solid/protein content achieved with ultrafiltration. Studies have
suggested a 14% solid level, which represents approximately 5% protein, so that problems in
coagulation and excessive fat losses can be minimized (Guinee et al., 1994; and Govindasamy-
Lucey et al., 2006).
In addition, increase of solid content (10-16% and higher) in cheese-milk requires higher
pasteurization temperature of at least 166 F (74.4 C) for 15 seconds, instead of 161 F for 15
seconds, according to the USDA Pasteurization Milk Ordinance (PMO) and to the Wisconsin
regulations (Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, 2002).
Cheesemakers tend to avoid excessive and unnecessary heat treatment of cheese-milk, because it
can cause higher moisture content, not to mention inactivate enzymes and flavors, and change in
textural properties.
According to the GAO report from 2004, 22 dairy plants processed UF fluid milk to
make cheese within the plant. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated through a
hearing report in 2005 that they agency did not recognize filtered milk in the definitions of
“milk” to be used in the making of cheeses and related cheese products. Consequently, at that
time, cheese made with UF milk as an ingredient could not be named or labeled as standardized
cheese, according to the standards of identity for cheeses and related cheese product (21 CFR
133).
81
After some petitions have been submitted to the FDA, the agency proposed to amend the
definitions of both “milk” and “nonfat milk,” including ultrafiltrated milk. However, when UF
milk is used, the term “ultrafiltrated milk” would need to be declared on the ingredients
statement of the final product. In summary, the FDA has proposed permission to the use of fluid
of UF milk, once studies have shown that UF milk does not change the physical and chemical
properties of the finished cheese, and it can be used in standardized cheeses as long as maintains
the standards of identity.
From a recent research study on the use of cold UF retentates for the manufacture of
Parmesan cheese by Govindasamy-Lucey et al. (2006), the investigators concluded that whole
ultrafiltrated milk, that can be produced on-farm, is an option for cheesemakers in Wisconsin to
consider. The study evaluated all aspects of cheesemaking using UF retentates, and found a
significant increase in cheese yield without major modifications on cheese manufacture
protocols. It was shown that amount of whey was reduced, but the authors point out that it
contains more solids that are richer in true protein. Furthermore, milk gel was cut sooner due to
the high casein content of the milk. And lastly, proteolysis and cheese quality were not affected
by the use of UF milk.
RO in Cheesemaking
Similarly to UF, reverse osmosis can be used to increase the solids content of cheese-
milk. In Fox et al. (2004), it is indicated that concentration of milk to 20-25% solids with RO
reduces the amount of both starter and rennet to about 50 and 60%, respectively. The properties
of finished cheese are identical to the cheese made with unconcentrated milk, and therefore, it
82
does not change the standard of identity for cheeses as stressed by the FDA. Cheese yield may
also increase to 2-3% with a 20% volume reduction.
The major drawbacks of RO in cheesemaking lie on the losses of fat to whey, and
lipolysis can be induced with just a small pressure release during the process. Moreover, high
concentration factors (CF) can result in elevate concentration of residual lactose, which may
cause bitterness to the cheese and detrimental of organoleptic qualities. Because of these
reasons, reverse osmosis systems are very seldom used in cheese operations, while being more
used for whey processing in cheese plants.
Energy Requirements
The energy used by membrane systems can be accounted through the power generated by
pumps and motors to deliver the require pressures. For instance, reverse osmosis requires high
pressures to overcome the osmotic pressure, which are five to ten times higher than
ultrafiltration. Table 4.1 indicates pressure ranges for each membrane technology. The osmotic
pressure of milk and whey is 0.69 x 105 Pa (Felows, 2003).
RO is widely used in cheese plants for processing of whey as pre-concentrating process.
Alternatively to evaporators, whey processing with RO removes water at low temperatures,
without the need of heating the fluid, and therefore, preventing detriment of product quality. in
addition, membrane systems use energy more efficiently, once separation does not involve
change in phase. Table 4.2 shows a comparison between RO and evaporation of whey.
Consequently, with the information provided from Table 4.2, consumption of electric
energy can be estimated based on amount of water removed by membrane processing.
Therefore, the cheese plant that processes about 1,551,500 pounds of milk per day (29 vats of
83
53,500 lbs of cheese-milk each per day) obtains approximately 1,318,775 lbs of whey per day.
Removal of whey cream (fat) though centrifugal separators result in 1,318,115 lbs of skim whey
per day. (Please note that values for sweet whey and skim whey were estimated on this
analysis.) Then, assuming a concentration factor (CF = initial volume/final volume) of 3.45,
936,053 lbs of water is removed with RO, leaving 382,062 lbs of concentrated whey. Therefore,
electric energy consumption can be estimated to be nearly 4,122,044 kWh per year.
Table 4.2 – Concentration of Whey with RO and Evaporator. (Source: Fellows, 2003)
Parameter Reverse Osmosis Evaporation
Steam consumption 0 250-550 kg per 1000L of water
removed
Electricity consumption 10 kWh per 1000L of water Approximately 5 kWh per 1000 L of
removed (continuous); water removed
20 kWh per 1000L of water removed (batch)
Energy use (kWh) 3.6 (6-12% solids) 1-effect: 387 (6-50% solids)
8.8 (6-19% solids) 2-effects: 90 (6-50% solids)
9.6 (6-20% solids) 7-effects: 60 (6-50% solids)
MVR: 44
Labor 4 hours per day Two operators during whole
application (boiler house and
evaporator)
Cooling-water 0-29: 300 kJ per 1000L of water (5.2-1.2) x 10^6 kJ per 1000 L of water
consumption removed (continuous) Removed
0-58: 600 kJ per 1000L of water
removed (batch)
Economical plant size 6000 L per day 80,000-100,000 L per day
Consideration in the Maximum 30% total solids Up to 60% total solids
final product
84
References
Dairy Management Inc., “Opportunities for Membrane Filtration of Milk,” Innovations is Dairy.
January 2000. Available online at: www.innovatewithdairy.com/NR/rdonlyres/
GAO report, “Dairy Products: Imports, Domestic Production, and Regulation of Ultra-Filtered
Milk.” March, GAO-01-326, 2001.
Govindasamy-Lucey, S., J.J. Jaeggi, A.L. Bostley, M.E. Johnson, and J.A. Lucey. 2006.
Standardization of Milk Using Cold Ultrafiltration Retentates for the Manufacture of
Parmesan Cheese. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 2789-2799.
Fassbender, R. 2000. “On-Farm Concentration: The Future is Now,” in the 39th
Annual Dairy
Cattler Day at the University of California-Davis. Available online at:
www.animalscience.ucdavis.edu/events/DairyCattleDay/2000/proceedings.pdf
Fellows, P.J. 2003. Food Processing Technology. 2nd
Edition. CRC Press.
Fox, F.P, P.L.H McSweeney, T.M. Cogan, and T.P. Guinee. 2004. “Application of Membrane
Separation Technology to Cheese Production” in Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and
Microbiology. 3rd
Edition. Volume 1. Elsevier Academic Press.
Lucey, J.A. “Use of Membrane Processing in Cheesemaking” in Chemistry and Technology of
Dairy Products class notes, Spring 206.
85
PART 5 – CASES OF Energy process improvement
Understanding the Analysis
In the previous sections, process operations and energy flows in the dairy industry were
described and analyzed individually. Now, the analysis will take into consideration that cheese-
milk used to one cheese plant for a day of operation, which is equivalent to 29 vats per day and
1,551,500 lbs of milk processed, is supplied by a group of dairy farmers. Therefore,
approximately 18 dairy farms of 1,200 milking cows in size will together deliver milk to the
plant, working similar to a cooperative organization.
Once milk production and milk flow have been sized up according to the cheese plant’s
demand of milk, the next step is to determine the total energy consumption by all 18 milk
operation dairy farms. Similarly, costs and energy requirements to haul milk from the group of
dairy farms to the cheese plant are matched. As for the cheese plant, no changes are required.
Figure 5.1 illustrates a block diagram of milk flow and energy requirements for stages of dairy
processing. Energy analysis and energy costs for this scenario is described in the case referred to
as “current.”
The other case scenarios were analyzed at the stage of milking in the dairy farms up until
filling the make vats at the cheese plant. This is because the remaining of the cheese process
(cheddaring, milling, packaging, etc.) tends not change much in regards of both process and
energy consumption, independently if there are variations in earlier processes or not. The
objective of these scenarios is to identify possible energy process improvements, by alternating
process operations and take advantages of some conditions available. Moreover, the cases were
studied based on energy use of milk cooling at the dairy farms, on-farm milk concentration, milk
86
pasteurization (farm and plant), milk transportation, and non-thermal milk pasteurization (UV
treatment).
The volume of milk taken into consideration corresponded to 1,551,500 lbs per day,
which is equivalent to a day of production for cheese manufacturing and total milk production of
18 dairy farms with 1,200 milking cows each. Energy consumption by vacuum pump and water
heating were considered in all scenarios, whereas milk cooling varies. Milk pasteurization,
either at the farm or at the plant, was calculated based on 60% heat recovery by the regeneration
section in the plate heat exchanger. Consequently, only the remaining of heat applied by the
heating section to pasteurize milk was considered in the analysis.
As for milk transportation, average of thermal energies were calculated from each region
according to the volume of milk to be hauled, while energy costs were determined by the amount
of fuel diesel required to transport milk and cost of fuel per gallon. Therefore, hauling charges
and zone rates were not included in the energy costs. Meanwhile, energy use to concentrate milk
by RO was obtained based on the electric consumption per volume of water removed (10
kW/1000 L of water).
UV treatment was considered as an alternative for on-farm milk pasteurization. In the
case scenarios, it was assumed treatment right after milk cooling (Case 5). The energy dosage,
which corresponds to the energy delivered per surface area of the treatment, was considered to be
0.47 kJ/L, once it was reported in Reinemann et al. (2006) to obtain better sensory attributes as
compared to other doses (0.93 or 1.4 kJ/L)
87
Figure 5.1 – Block Diagram of Milk Flow and Energy Requirements.
DAIRY FARMS (18 dairy farms/1,200 cows)
Milk production: 1,551,600 lbs of milk/day 566,334,000 lbs of milk/year Milk cooling: 1,764,088 kWh (bulk tank) Vacuum pump: 2,508,505 kWh Water heating: 718,332 kWh (electric) 897,915 kWh (gas) Total electric Energy: 4,990,926 kWh
TRANSPORTATION
Milk hauled: 1,551,600 lbs of milk/day 566,334,000 lbs of milk/year Location $/load $/lbs $/year Southwest 17.50 0.00033 10,695 East 20.00 0.00037 12,223 Central 37.50 0.00070 22.919 Average 25.00 0.00047 15,279 Location kWh/load kWh/lbs kWh Southwest 66.30 0.00123 40,522 East 75.77 0.00141 46,311 Central 142.07 0.00264 86,832 Average 94.72 0.00176 57,888
CHEESE PLANT (29 vats/day)
1 vat = 53,500 lbs of cheesemilk Total = 1,551,500 lbs of cheesemilk/day Milk HTST: 9,055,950 kWh (regeneration to pasteurization) Make vats: 2,392,832 kWh (cooking) Packaging: 796,259 kWh (cooling) Whey HTST: 5,301,044 kWh (regeneration) R. Osmosis: 1,504,842 kWh Evaporation: 15,512,148 kWh Spray drying: 501,100,931 kWh
88
Case Scenarios
Case “Current”
On-farm milk cooling
Milk transportation at 38F
Milk receiving at the cheese plant at 38F
Milk HTST pasteurization at the cheese plant
Location Temperature Thermal Energy Energy (electric/gas)
(F) (kWh) (kWh)
Dairy Farm at milking 98
Milk cooling 78 and 38 6,174,310 1,763,065
Vacuum pump 2,507,051
Water heating (elec) 717,916
Transportation Southwest WI 38 698,551
East WI 38 798,344
Central WI 38 1,496,894
Average 997,930
Receiving Storage 38
at Regeneration 111.800
(heat transfer) 7,697,558 9,055,950
HTST at Pasteurization 161
(heating) 11,546,337
at Regeneration 87.20
(cooling)
Make Vats
89
Case 1
On-farm milk cooling
On-farm milk concentration (RO) at 38F; CF =3.45
Milk transportation at 38F
Milk receiving at the cheese plant at 38F
Milk HTST pasteurization at the cheese plant
Location Temperature Thermal Energy Energy (electric/gas)
(F) (kWh) (kWh)
Dairy Farm at milking 98
Vacuum pump 2,508,506
Water heating (elec) 718,333
Cooling (b tank) 38 6,174,310 1,764,089
RO Electricity consumption: 1,771,288
10 kWh/1000L water removed
Transportation Southwest WI 38 202,478
East WI 38 231,404
Central WI 38 433,882
Average 289,255
Receiving Storage 38
at Regeneration 111.800
(heat transfer) 7,697,558 9,055,950
HTST at Pasteurization 161
(heating) 11,546,337
at Regeneration 87.20
(cooling)
90
Case 2
No milk cooling
On-farm milk pasteurization
Asceptic milk transportation at 88F
Milk receiving at the cheese plant at 88F
Location Temperature Thermal Energy Energy (electric/gas)
(F) (kWh) (kWh)
Dairy Farm at milking 98 F
Vacuum pump 2,508,506
Water heating (elec) 718,333
at Regeneration 135.800
(heat transfer) 3,942,652 4,638,414
HTST at Pasteurization 161
(heating) 5,913,977
at Regeneration 123.20
(cooling) 5,507,196 1,573,485
at cooling 88
Transportation Southwest WI 88 698,551
East WI 88 798,344
Central WI 88 1,496,894
Receiving Storage 38
91
Case 3
No milk cooling
On-farm milk pasteurization
On-farm milk concentration (RO) at 88F; CF =3.45
Asceptic milk transportation at 88F
Milk receiving at the cheese plant at 88F
Location Temperature Thermal Energy Energy (electric/gas)
(F) (kWh) (kWh)
Dairy Farm at milking 98 F
Vacuum pump 2,508,506
Water heating (elec) 718,333
at Regeneration 135.800
(heat transfer) 3,942,652 4,638,414
HTST at Pasteurization 161
(heating) 5,913,977
at Regeneration 123.20
(cooling) 5,507,196 1,573,485
at cooling 88
RO Electricity consumption: 1,771,288
10 kWh/1000L water removed
Transportation Southwest WI 88 202,478
East WI 88 231,404
Central WI 88 433,882
Average 289,255
Receiving Storage 38
92
Case 4
No milk cooling
On-farm milk concentration (RO) at 38F; CF =3.45
On-farm milk pasteurization
Asceptic milk transportation at 88F
Milk receiving at the cheese plant at 88F
Location Temperature Thermal Energy Energy (electric/gas)
(F) (kWh) (kWh)
Dairy Farm at milking 98 F
Vacuum pump 2,508,506
Water heating (elec) 718,333
Milk coolong (b tank) 6,174,310 1,841,856
RO Electricity consumption: 1,771,288
10 kWh/1000L water removed
at Regeneration 111.800
(heat transfer) 7,697,558 9,055,950
HTST at Pasteurization 161
(heating) 11,546,337
at Regeneration 87.20
(cooling)
at cooling 88
Transportation Southwest WI 88 202,478
East WI 88 231,404
Central WI 88 433,882
Average 289,255
Receiving Storage 38
93
Figure 5.2 – Block Diagram of Case Scenarios.
Milking
(98F)
Milk Cooling (38F)
Transportation (38F)
Receiving (38F)
Plant HTST (161F)
Make Vats (88F)
Milking
(98F)
Milk Cooling (38F)
RO (CF=3.45 / 38F)
Transportation (38F)
Receiving (38F)
Make Vats (88F)
Milking
(98F)
Farm HTST (161F)
Transportation (88F)
Receiving (88F)
Make Vats (88F)
Milking
(98F)
Farm HTST (161F)
RO (CF=3.45 / 88F)
Transportation (88F)
Receiving (88F)
Make Vats (88F)
Current Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Milking
(98F)
RO (CF=3.45 / 88F)
Farm HTST (161F)
Transportation (88F)
Receiving (88F)
Make Vats (88F)
94
The following represents a summary of energy consumption by each case scenarios
studied. In addition, the table allows the comparison between cases base on energy costs.
On-Farm HTST Transp. RO Total Savings
Thermal 6,174,310 7,697,558 997,930
Current Electric 4,988,032
Gas 9,055,950
Energy costs 299,282 9,494 263,394 0 572,170 0.00
% costs 52.31 1.66 46.03 0.00 100.00
Thermal 6,174,310 7,697,558 289,255
Case 1 Electric 4,990,927 1,771,288
Gas 9,055,950
Energy costs 299,456 9,494 76,346 106,277 491,573 14.09
% costs 60.92 1.93 15.53 21.62 100.00
Thermal 3,942,652 1,496,894
Case 2 Electric 3,226,838
Gas 4,638,414
Energy costs 193,610 4,863 263,394 0 461,867 19.28
% costs 41.92 1.05 57.03 0.00 100.00
Thermal 3,942,652 289,255
Case 3 Electric 3,226,838 1,771,288
Gas 4,638,414
Energy costs 193,610 4,863 76,346 106,277 381,096 33.39
% costs 50.80 1.28 20.03 27.89 100.00
Thermal 6,174,310 7,697,558 289,255
Case 4 Electric 5,068,694 1,771,288
Gas 9,055,950
Energy costs 304,122 9,494 76,346 106,277 496,239 13.27
% costs 61.29 1.91 15.38 21.42 100.00
Energy units in kWh. Energy costs in $. Savings in %.
Energy prices (assumed): Electricity = $0.05/kWh
Gas = $0.0307167/kWh = $0.9/therm
Fuel = $0.1697/lbs of milk ($3/gal)