Your Plan - Your Future

Process for extracting edible crab meat from bodies

and legs often considered waste

C.B.L. Services,
Karibu,
Timoney,
Roscrea,
Co. Tipperary,
Ireland.

C.B.L. SERVICES LTD

FOOD PROJECT ENGINEERING
KARIBU, TIMONEY, ROSCREA
CO. TIPPERARY, IRELAND
Tel: 00-353(0)505-41394 Fax: 41373 Mobile: 087-2416573
E-mail: cbl@eircom.net
Charles Lamb. CEng. MIMechE. MIFSTI. B.Tech.(Mech)

Report CGPP 2004/4

The Cleaner Greener Production Programme is financed by the Irish Government under the
National Development Plan 2000-2006. It is administered on behalf of the Department of
the Environment, Heritage and Local Government by the Environmental Protection
Agency.

This report is one of a series of reports authored by the companies involved and produced as
part of the Cleaner Greener Production Programme, copies of which are available from the
EPA.

DISCLAIMER
Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material contained in
this publication, complete accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The Environmental Protection
Agency, the Clean Technology Centre and the author(s) do not accept any responsibility
whatsoever for loss or damage occasioned or claimed to have been occasioned, in part or
in full, as a consequence of any person acting, or refraining from acting, as a result of a
matter contained in this publication.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2004

This publication may be reproduced in part or in whole without further permission,
provided the source is acknowledged.

Report No.

List of participating organisations and associated projects

CGPP 2004/1

Alert Packaging Ltd.

Cleaning up our act

CGPP 2004/2

Atlanfish

CGPP 2004/3

CGPP 2004/4

Building Contractor Training

Network c/o Waterford
Chamber of Commerce
CBL Ltd.

Treatment of shellfish wastewater by membrane filtration and

recovery of proteins, salt and upgrading through product
development
Value green construction scheme

CGPP 2004/5

Connaught Electronics Ltd.

CGPP 2004/6
CGPP 2004/7

Cork County Council

Envirotech

CGPP 2004/8

FDT

CGPP 2004/9
CGPP 2004/10

Glanbia Meats
GMIT-Letterfrack

CGPP 2004/11

CGPP 2004/12
CGPP 2004/13

Irish Flexible Packaging

Ltd./Manders Coatings And
Inks Ltd.
Irish Sugar Ltd.
Lakeland Dairies

CGPP 2004/14

Micro-Bio

CGPP 2004/15

Musgraves

CGPP 2004/16

NN Euroball Ireland Ltd

CGPP 2004/17

North Western Health Board

CGPP 2004/18
CGPP 2004/19

NUI Maynooth & St Patrick's Greening the university campus

College Maynooth
Oran Precast Ltd.
On site waste reduction

CGPP 2004/20

Renvyle House Hotel

CGPP 2004/21

Ring-a-link

CGPP 2004/22
CGPP 2004/23
CGPP 2004/24

RTE
Seaborn
SIAC Butlers Steel Ltd.

CGPP 2004/25

Tayto Ltd.

CGPP 2004/26

Tech Group

CGPP 2004/27

Tretorn Sport Ltd.

CGPP 2004/28

Waterford Metal Industries

Ltd
Wexport

CGPP 2004/29

Process for extracting edible crab meat from bodies and legs often
considered waste
Investigation and implementation of environmental benefits and
energy efficiency
Macroome integrated business & environment
Recovery of nickel and iron from a waste stream and evaluation of
electrochemical methods for cleaner production
Pilot plant feasibility/case study on recovery and reuse of spent
(CIP) cleaning solutions
Energy resource reduction using monitoring and targeting
The Furniture College, Letterfrack moving towards environmental
excellence
Development of water based inks for printing of bread and
confectionary wrapping
Cleaner sugar beet production
A programme of improvement - reduction in hydrochloric acid
usage
Reduction of atmospheric and sewer emissions incorporating re-use
and conversion to product
Cleaner production: eco-label feasibility for own-brand products
The reduction of wastewater generation and haul-off through reuse
within the plant
Clean technology options - Sligo General Hospital

Environmental actions leading to increased profitability at Renvyle

House Hotel
The drive for a greener future
In depth review of waste management in R.T.E.
Reduce emissions from the production of smoked fish
Upgrading of existing surface treatment plant by the elimination of
waste paint and solvent emissions
Oil recovery, upcycling of by-product and reduction in corrugated
cardboard usage
Minimisation of energy usage and waste production in a contract
manufacturing company
The reduction of solvent usage in tennis ball manufacture from 30%
to negligible quantities
Reduction at source of fugitive emissions incorporating flux
chemical recycling and heat recovery
Production on of ethanol (96%) EP and approval for use in
tinzapatin manufacture

C .B.L . S E R V I C E S L T D
FOOD PROJECT ENGINEERING
KARIBU, TIMONEY, ROSCREA
CO. TIPPERARY, IRELAND
Tel: 00-353(0)505-41394 Fax: 41373 Mobile: 087-2416573
E-mail: cbl@eircom.net
Charles Lamb. CEng. MIMechE. MIFSTI. B.Tech.(Mech)

FINAL TECHNICAL PROGRESS REPORT.

1. Project Summary and Contact Details
Project Number: 2001-CP-30A-M3
Title of Project: Extracting Edible Crab Meat From Bodies and Legs Often Considered
Waste.
Name of Participating Company: C.B.L. Services Ltd.
Contact Person: Charles Lamb
Company Address: Karibu Timoney Roscrea Co Tipperary Ireland
Telephone number: 0505-41394 Mobile: 087 2416 573
Fax number: 0505-41373
E-mail address: cbl@eircom.net
Author of Report: Charles Lamb
Date of Report: 26/9/03
The process developed produces attractive edible white crab meat from material that
has traditionally been dumped
The project came about as a result of discovering that much waste and potential pollution
occurs as a result of the dumping of crabs legs and bodies. Traditionally, only the claw of
the crab was considered to be of value. The aim of our project has been to find a way to
process this waste in such a way that meat recovery for Crab Producers is increased and the
by-product - clean broken shell - does not pose such a threat to the environment. We
constructed a hygienic system capable of breaking the shell of crab legs and bodies;
extracting and conveying meat in one direction while removing and conveying shell and
other unwanted particles elsewhere. This has been achieved using a breaker block for
breaking crab shell; recycled water flows for meat recovery and pumping system for shell
extraction.
Using recycled water retains better flavour than when using large amounts of water. It also
cuts down on water use and effluent problems. Test runs have been done to find a
satisfactory way of cleaning the machine and keeping the process water and product
hygienic. Use of sufficient salt is a possible solution, but produces product with too salty a
flavour. Use of organic citrus biocide gave an off taste. Trials with copper and silver
ion system looked promising, but copper and silver levels in product were unexpectedly
and unacceptably high; further testing is required. The results of project are encouraging
when one considers that what was normally a waste product can now becomes an attractive
product for sale.

2. Background Aim and General Description

2.1. Participant Description: The Project was initiated by C.B.L. Services Ltd. an
Engineering Consultancy Company involved with various projects in many areas of the
food industry. C.B.L. Services Ltd. is a small firm employing not more than three people.
Projects have involved previous design work most notably the design and manufacture of a
Mussel/Shell Separator using a fresh water system. Other projects have included washing
systems for fruits and a cheese piercing system for use with blue cheese. We operate from
an office adjacent to our home and offer services to the Food Industry in factory and plant
layout specialist equipment and mechanical and electrical services. Latest projects have
involved plant layout and mechanical and electrical services for new bakeries in Roscrea,
County Tipperary and Nenagh, County Tipperary.
This present Crabmeat extraction project has been further facilitated by the involvement of
Atlanfish Ltd. Malin Road, Carndonagh, County Donegal. Atlanfish Limited are mainly
involved in processing crabs and mussels. Their factory processes about a thousand tonnes
of crab per year. Having seen the wooden prototype of the machine operating, Atlanfish
expressed interest in having such a machine. The machine was not ready for the 2002 crab
season so when it was ready, significant quantities of material were not available and
additional material had to be obtained from Errigal Fish for trials. The space available in
the clean area at Atlanfish proved to be inadequate as the machine and ancillary equipment
took up more space than was originally hoped. Therefore Atlanfish requested that the
machine be moved to facilitate other work needing to be done during their production
season.
Errigal Fish, while not formally part of the project, facilitated us and the machine was set
up on their premises. Errigal Fish, have a larger factory and are located in Meenaneary,
Carrick, Co. Donegal. They process whelk, crab and herring and had space available in
their herring factory (out of season) for the machine to be set up.
2.2. Aim of the Project: As far as we were aware, at the start of the project, there was only
one other company who had produced a machine for separating crabmeat from legs and
bodies. That machine plus ancillary equipment was considered to require a lot of space
compared to the space, which we hoped our machine would take up. The competitors
machine also required an enormous amount of fresh water compared with our proposed
system, which operates on the principal of recycling water. The aim of the project is to
prove that the extraction of meat from legs and bodies of crab can be done in a more
environmentally friendly manner. Instead of having tonnes of Crab thrown out as waste
material, the meat can be used in food processes and the leftover broken shell now
virtually meat-free, has other possible applications, which will not be harmful to the
environment. In addition to increased food recovery from the crab catch and increased
income for processors of crab, our machine has advantages in terms of improved flavour of
crabmeat; and the reduced amount of water used and therefore a reduced effluent load.
One possible disadvantage with a water recycling system is that a very close watch has to
be maintained to ensure that the product is hygienic i.e. has an acceptable bug count.
Further design aims included:
Minimising flavour loss with less water used:
Minimising damage to raw material by gentle handling.
Shorter product retention time in the water.
Production of hygienic product with low bug count.
Easily cleaned system.
Low labour requirement.
Removal of shell from separator and production area in hygienic manner.
2

3. Project Implementation
3.1.

Investigation of Prevention Opportunities

3.1.1. Strategy to identify prevention opportunities Through visiting a processing

factory to see if there were project opportunities, we were asked if we could
produce a machine for recovery of meat from crab bodies and legs. We agreed to
try and find a way to do this and so reduce the waste of good edible crab. (We had
previous experience of separating shell from Mussel meat).
3.1.2. Knowledge of company operations We have been in contact with three companies
in Ireland who process the Crab. Some companies have traditionally dumped waste
bodies and legs and others have packed and frozen product for sale to other
companies, which have meat recovery systems.
3.1.3. Prioritised improvement options Identification of potential improvements is a
simple task - convincing the owners of Crab producing businesses that they can
really benefit from our Crab meat/shell separator is a more formidable task given
the present economic climate and the fact that many companies operate in limited
space. We believe the benefits to the owners will be in terms of increased cash
flow and decreased pollution problems compared with dumped crab. These
benefits are in direct relation to the amount of crab each business is processing each
year.
3.1.4. Implemented Improvements Because of lack of space in clean cooked meat area
of either Atlanfish or Errigal the use of the separator has been limited to trials and
its potential has not yet been fully realized.
3.2.

Changes in Practices or Processes

3.2.1. Outline description of the project What we have invented is a separator and
ancillary equipment for use in a particular process which is not for direct use to our own
business, except for as-yet-unrealised-potential-for-sales. The machine has the definite
potential to improve the performance of businesses in the crab processing industry by
waste reduction and increased crabmeat sales.
The concept of separating shellfish meat particles from shell fragments in a flow of water
is not a new concept. However, using a flow of water, which takes meat particles upward
while allowing shell fragments to slide downwards is a new concept.
Separation of Shell from meat using high concentrations of salt was also known in the past.
High salt concentration spoils the flavour of the product. A small amount of salt enriches
the flavour. The known process, which uses large quantities of fresh water, also included a
final salt dip to add salt flavour. The ability of the new process to operate with different
levels of salt allows the plant operator to choose salt level to provide desired taste.

Separator system
Grant aid was applied for and C.B.L. Services Ltd then engaged Smisco Food Processing
Equipment Ltd. of Mitchelstown, Co. Cork specialists in stainless steel fabrication to build
a hygienic prototype Separator.
An agreement was reached with Atlanfish of Carndonagh, Co. Donegal whereby C.B.L.
Services Ltd could set up the Crabmeat extraction system for testing of crabs on a factory
site. Atlanfish agreed to provide Water, Compressed Air, Electrical supply, drainage etc.
along with product for testing, Operators and Cleaners.
Subsequently, the machine proved to be larger than Atlanfish at first thought it would be
and they asked that the machine be removed to make room for crab seasons production of
brown meat to take place.

Processing at Atlanfish - Donegal

Another company in County Donegal Errigal Fish agreed to house the crab machine and
on-going testing has been taking place at their premises.
Developing the process has been a slow step-by-step procedure. Each trial has had to be
followed by laboratory testing that takes at least three days. During the trial, operation of
the equipment was observed and improvements planned; refining has also been a step-by
step-process.
3.2.2. Project management This Project has been managed by Charles Lamb. This
included the design of the equipment.

3.2.3. Operating history Experiments began in February 2001. A simple wooden

prototype was built by Charles Lamb and used near our own office. We were given small
amounts of crab from Shellfish de la mar and later Errigal Fish for testing. Having
established a primitive method of breaking the crab legs and bodies, it was then necessary
to ascertain whether the theory of an upward flow of water could carry meat particles
upwards and at the same time allow shell fragments to settle to the bottom. Many trials
were run each time gradually eliminating problems presented by prototype. Initially most
of the machine parts were constructed by Charles Lamb of C.B.L. Services Ltd. At this
stage, apart from a few stainless steel parts, there was virtually no involvement of other
companies until we were fairly certain the process had potential. Having satisfied
ourselves that the process could probably work, we borrowed further ancillary equipment
in the form of a vibrating screen, belt for meat removal and pump for extracting shell from
the bottom of the separator. This was all unhygienic second-hand equipment; there being
no need to produce hygienic product.

Photo of Initial Experiments

Experiments took place off and on for several months. We found it necessary to carry on
work with other unrelated projects while at the same time experimenting with the new
concept of a crab meat/shell separation system. Joe Somers - Consultant and Crab
Processing Expert observed a test on the process and thought it had merit. Gareth
Gallagher of Atlanfish was also impressed when he saw the prototype in operation. On
that basis, a grant was applied for so that a hygienic prototype could be built and a place
found to operate it. Following functional testing at Smisco in Mitchelstown in December
when attempt was made to use vibrating screen for dewatering meat, a decision was made
to build a frame for a draining belt.
Trials commenced at Atlanfish in February 2003 and moved to Errigal Fish in June 2003.
Trials have progressed with small improvements being made on each occasion

3.2.4. Implementation experiences

Problems Encountered
A/Shell Pump: Problems with shell pump blocking were encountered so the outlet size
was increased which reduced that problem, then both pump outlet and pipe were further
increased and this has solved the shell discharge problems.
B/ Vibrating Screen: The product-conveying-action on the vibrating screen did not operate
as it should. Changes to suspension of vibrating screen were made which gave some
improvement but still not right. Liam Conlon of Smisco fitted new springs and adjusted
vibrating screen, which significantly improved operation.

Draining Belt
C/ Draining Belt
Problem with cleaning belt: - Full width air knife originally installed to blow clean the belt
was not adequate so a moving wind jet was fitted to replace air knife. This proved
successful.
Problem with draining belt overflowing: - Tapping the belt obviously helped, so a trial was
done using vibrator on draining belt. This improved the situation but was not completely
satisfactory. Belt was formed into trough by supporting the sides. This solved the
overflowing problem.
The final product coming off the draining belt contained too much water: - Suction, created
by air mover, through the belt, was tried. This removed some water, but the amount was
inadequate and this technique used too much compressed air, so it was abandoned.
Vibrating the belt helped, but proved inadequate. Pressing product by hand after discharge
from belt adequately removes water.
Building a press system for this appears to be the long-term solution.
D/ Shell Tank: Initially there were problems with inadequate removal of shell. A baffle
was made and tried in the tank, but it was hard to clean and did not work well. It was
found that extending the shell feed pipe to near the bottom of the tank solved most of the
problems, except for the tank emptying when shell pump was switched off due to water
siphoning back. Drilling a hole in the pipe to break the siphon solved the problem. There
was another problem of foam forming on top of shell tank. This was due to the water
return from the tank sucking air. An increase in liquid levels in the tank to keep the
discharge opening flooded and the installation of a baffle to prevent foam getting to the
discharge pipe solved the problem. A screw conveyor in the shell tank consistently
discharges clean shell from both bodies and legs and attached ligament from legs.
6

Shell from legs

E/ Testing For Bug Count: Initially, trial with Crab gave a very poor bug count. There
were three problems:
q
q
q

Cleaning of equipment
Raw Material
Circulation Water

Cleaning of equipment
This was due in part to problems with availability of power washer to clean belt and foam
equipment with sterilizing foam.
Bug Count Testing to check the cleanliness of a surface is normally a slow procedure of
taking swabs, incubating them and getting results two days later. To avoid this delay,
Biotrace Test Equipment was used as readings of results can be obtained in a few minutes.
This Biotrace method was used for both equipment surface testing, and water testing after
filling the separator with water. Biotrace equipment could not be used after production
started because it measures both organic material and bugs and water rapidly picks up
organic material once production starts.
The aim was to obtain surface results of less than 500 after cleaning.
The quick Biotrace tests revealed many areas, which needed additional cleaning. The
following table lists the bad results and some acceptable results after changes in cleaning
procedures.
TABLE OF BIOTRACE RESULTS - SAMPLE TESTING
Position Tested
Bad Results
Acceptable after cleaning
Feed Tray

811

85; 197

Breaker Joint below seal ring

2296; 2512

Inside Cyclone

1345; 809

Impellor

90557; 5406

393

Separator Belt

4671; 2312; 2533

258

Separator Drive Roller

24284; 2312; 5303; 540

Above Door Seal

7110; 1701; 1966

Side of Channel

5111

Vibrating Screen Top

106

465

Vibrating Screen Underside

20429; 16524; 54208; 1726

272

Draining Belt Top

22312; 9985; 1118; 1446

791; 482

Draining Belt Side

8991; 1707

375; 775

Draining Belt Underneath

906

Draining Belt Drive Roller

6880

Draining Belt Rollers

80111; 24784

Draining Belt Scraper

12163; 1225

417

Water in Tank Before

starting

3371

53; 161; 255

Inside Shell tank

5587

628; 382

As a result of these tests, the following changes were made:

q
q
q

Alternative cleaning material 1% solution of Johnson Diversy TC 86.

Improved cleaning by using hot 55C water.
Continuous washing of draining belt. Jets were fitted to clean draining belt on a
continuous basis, using re-circulated detergent.

Attention to detail: - The following areas require special attention:

q
q
q
q
q
q
q

Above seal at separator door.

Sides of channel.
Under-side of vibrating screen.
Draining belt rollers.
Feed tray.
Scraper bar.
Below breaker seal after machine has been unused for some time.

The following cleaning procedure was developed:

q

Set up the continuous cleaning of the belt.

o Fill the main circulation tank with rinse water.
o Close valves to prevent water entering separator and open valve to belt cleaning
jets.
o Start circulation pump and draining belt.
o Turn on air cleaning jet.

While belt is cleaning, rinse loose material away from:

o Inside shell tank.
o Feed tray (which has been removed) and clean inside feed tube.
o Inside separator, after removing door and dividing plates.
o Top of vibrating screen.
o Bottom of circulation tank.
o Scraper at end of draining belt.
o Draining belt rollers and around draining belt blower pipe.
o Sides of the channel.

Hot water wash:

o Drain water from system and fill system with 55 C water and add seven litres
of Johnson Diversey TC86.
o Turn on circulation pump and shell pump and open valves so that all pipes get
washed and also so that the cleaning jets run on the draining belt.
o Run the hot water wash for at least fifteen minutes.
Drain system and fill again with cold fresh water and run system for at least eight
minutes before draining that water out and filling the system with fresh water again
ready for production.

Raw Material
The raw material initially available was material that had been recovered from burst
vacuum packs, which could have been lying around for some time before freezing. This
material was then reheated to thaw and bodies and legs removed. Why the fresh crab
supplied for trial also produced bad bug count results is not known, unless it was handling
procedures after cooking or cleaning problem with the machine. Results improved when
better material became available. Low bug count raw material is essential for low bug
count product.
It is desirable that the flaps are removed from the body centres before processing. If flaps
are accidentally left on body centres, they do not present a problem to the breaker, but the
hairs on them cause them to go with the water through the separator instead of coming out
with the shell. The tubular parts of flaps with hairs on them are largely removed by the use
of a vibrating screen. It is undesirable that flaps are left on bodies.
Circulation Water
Initially chlorinated water from the regular factory supply was used, and while initial
product through separation system had acceptable bug count, the bug counts rapidly built
up to unacceptable TVC levels of over 200,000 to 1,000,000.
Various methods were considered for keeping the circulation water of acceptable quality.
Running the system hot was not tried because of the nuisance of steam produced, and need
for ventilation, a requirement that would also have applied to the use of Ozone.
Companies had reluctance to using Hydrogen peroxide. Ultra violet (UV) light was
considered, but not tried because of the risk of the cloudiness of the water rendering the
ultra violet light ineffective and potentially causing mutations. It was considered desirable
that the treatment not only kills the bugs, but also provides the recirculation water with
reserve capacity to attack the bugs throughout the system.

Three different methods of maintaining low bug counts in circulation water were tried:
1. Salt content of 2.2% plus
Bug count was kept to an acceptable level in finished product by salt content of over 2.2
%. Processing with 2.2 % + of salt in the circulation water is, from a TVC point of view, a
viable process, but product tasted too salty.
2. Salt content of 0.8% combined with Citrus Biocide
Trial was done using different percentages of sterilizing agent Citrus Biocide from 2% to
%. Bug count in this trial was acceptable, but an unacceptable citrus flavour tainted the
product.
3. Salt content of 0.8 to 1.7 % combined with use of ion unit to add copper and silver ions
to the circulation water.
The ion unit supplies copper and silver ions to the circulation water. Several TVC 30
results for tests done on meat produced from fresh raw material were less than 5000.
From the table at start of section 3.2.6, the significant reduction in meat TVCs achieved
during the test program are clearly visible. Some of the results* were from small batches
and therefore the TVCs are not realistic for larger batches. As hygiene levels and water
supply quality may vary in different factories it is desirable that factory trials are run to see
how long production runs can be achieved on one fill of water and still produce product
within the acceptable range.
Re-circulation water treated with ion unit when processing fresh material has given several
acceptable TVC 30 results of below 5000, but the result when processing year old material
was unacceptable at 950,000 TVC. Clearly the ion unit as operated was not adequate to
reduce high TVC in old material to an acceptable level.
It had been decided to try the ion unit because it has been accepted for use in Hospitals,
Swimming Pools, and for Lettuce washing. It was proved on raw herbs to be as effective
as 100 ppm of chlorine. It is effective in controlling pseudomonas, e-coli, listeria, coliform
and salmonella. The ion unit Silver/Copper ionisation system injects low levels of
positively charged ions (within EEC, WHO, and USA Drinking Water Standards).
The basis for using the ion unit is that treatment of water in this way is acceptable provided
copper and silver levels remain within the drinking water limits. It is normally acceptable
to use water of drinking water standard to process food. As the silver and copper are used
like chlorine to make water safe for consumption and as it is not required to declare this
use of chlorine as an additive, it would not appear necessary to declare the silver or copper
either.
The simple test for checking silver and copper levels does not work on cloudy water, so it
was not possible to use that test on process water. Water test for copper after water was
circulated through ion unit for three hours gave copper levels within recommended limit.
Testing therefore proceeded on the basis that if a larger volume of water was circulated for
a shorter time than this, copper levels would remain within accepted limits. It was further
assumed that the silver levels would be acceptable if the copper ones were acceptable.
Again, it was accepted on the basis of information supplied by Manufacturers that the
copper and silver levels in the meat would be similar to those in the water. Having
obtained good low bug counts on the meat and as a final check, water and meat samples
were submitted to laboratory testing. The silver content in the water was ten times above
the UK drinking water limits, while the copper level was within the UK Health and Safety
10

Recommendations. This excess of silver could be solved using ion unit with electrodes
containing a lower percentage of silver. The copper and silver contents in the one sample
of meat tested were many times higher than the levels in the water. This means that the
assumption that copper and silver levels in product are similar to that in water appears
erroneous. Copper and Silver levels in process water would have to be drastically dropped
to reduce levels in product to acceptable levels. The big question remains as to whether at
the reduced level of treatment, the ion unit can contribute significantly to the hygiene of
the process.
Further testing will have to be done to see how long one can safely process with salt alone.
F/ System Control: Problems were encountered with excessive flow of water in separator
and overflows of water when pumps stopped. Alterations were made to wiring so shell
pump speed was controlled and the speed controller was set so pump slows down
gradually. A speed controller was fitted for Breaker impellor and set so impellor speeds up
gradually. Panel wiring was altered so that stopping shell pump also stops main pump.
Wiring was altered so that pull-cord-stop on draining belt does not stop shell pump. These
changes have largely eliminated problems except when emergency stops are actuated.
G/ Cleaning Arrangements: Problem existed that when separator was being stripped for
cleaning it was not possible to wash draining belt, so pipe work was changed and extra
valve fitted.
H/ Product Quality:
Size A variable speed drive was fitted so breaker speed can be varied. Reduced speed
improved product quality in terms of size of meat pieces.
Flavour - Flavour is better using fresh product rather than frozen. Flavour is better with
salt content in circulation water.
I/ Foam: When recirculation water gets foamy, it is impossible to de-water the meat until
bubbles burst. Alteration were made to reduce amount of air being trapped in circulation
systems, this largely solved the problem.
J/ Problems with System: There were problems maintaining the level in the shell tank so
that it neither got too low and caused foaming or too high and overflowed. Speed control
was fitted to pump so that its speed can be adjusted to maintain level correctly.
K/ Product Yields: It was intended to do a test on each occasion to determine yield.
Mass balance figures at times show massive gains in weight and at other times losses.
Initially shell was weighed in large fish bins and on different scales than finished product.
There may have been some damage to the fish bins (which would affect their tare) or
differences in scales might have caused some of these problems.
There was also a difficulty of excessive water being retained with the meat. . Weighing
all product on the same scales has improved consistency of test results.
Problem has been discovered with screen throwing off usable meat when flow of meat was
too great, i.e. exceeding 60 kg/hr. This is clear from the test done with high rate of
500kg/hr and the yield from legs was only 13% compared to the normal 19-25%. This
problem was also noticeable when processing body centres. Changes have been made to
screen cleaning arrangement and this problem has been solved.

11

Observations
Gains in weight, either indicates increase in water content of meat or errors in weighing.
Losses in weight indicate that some of the liquid in the raw material enters the circulation
water.
Consultant, Joe Somers, was present to observe test on 5/6/03 and offer advice. He was
concerned about moisture content in meat from draining belt. .
Drying test was carried out on pasteurised crab to try and establish normal dry solids
contents of meat manually extracted from pasteurised crab.
For comparison, some drying tests were also done on machine-extracted meat.
DRYING TEST ON PASTEURISED FRESH CRAB.
Average%
Manually extracted meat.
dry solids
Pasteurised
Claw Meat
19.4
Pasteurised
Leg Meat
19.5
Pasteurised
Body
20.2
Pasteurised
Gill
14.4
Drying test on meat extracted by machine.
M/c
Body
M/c
Leg meat

15.7
21.7

L/ Surges in Separator: - When foam problem was solved it became apparent that overflow
from top of separator was being caused by partial blocking of separator, followed by a slug
of meat and shell coming onto the screen un separated and contaminating the meat with
shell! Clearly the breaker is capable of breaking more than the separator can handle. The
combination of reduced breaker speed and increased separator belt speed appear to have
solved this problem.
M/ Feed Tray and Feed Tube
The feed tray is on the small side and could usefully be larger so that full tray of material
can be dumped on it at a time.

Crab Legs on Feed Tray

The feed arrangement was designed for either feeding legs or bodies. When it was
attempted to do bodies with legs attached, there was some difficulty with insufficient gap
for larger crabs. This problem was not solved because it requires a major alteration of
raising the bottom impellor bearing and alterations to safety guard. There was also a
12

problem of legs from the whole crabs catching between the feed tube and the feed tray. A
little block was put on the feed tray to eliminate the tapered gap where the catching was
happening. This largely eliminated the problem.
3.2.5. Equipment performance
Breaker worked well.
While the breaker was designed for capacity of 250kg per hour, one trial showed that it
could operate at over 500kg/hr on frozen crab legs.
The size of the meat pieces produced were better with the impellor running at a slower
speed than in the high speed trial.
Breaker door and feed tray are interlocked so that door cannot open until breaker has
stopped, and breaker cannot be started until both are in position. This is to prevent
Operator getting hand into breaker impellor.
Separator
The adjustment of water flow rate is critical to the satisfactory operation of the separator.
The flow rate is set by turning off the jet on the vibrating screen and measuring the time for
the tank under the draining belt to drop 100mm. The time needs to be longer when salt has
been included in the circulation water. If there is too high a flow rate, there is liable to be
shell carryover and if the rate is too low pieces of meat may be discharged with the shell.
Shell Pump
Once the pump outlet and pipe were enlarged, it proved adequate for removing shell,
including removing shell when legs were being processed at 500 kg/hr
Vibrating Screen
Once initial problems of angle, spring sizes and vibrator settings were sorted out, screen
has been operating satisfactorily, and also the cleaning water jet. The screen removes large
unwanted pieces from bodies and the odd large piece of shell or leg tips, which come
through the separator. It prevents anything larger than the hole size of the screen passing
onto the draining belt.
Draining Belt
The draining belt satisfactorily removes the meat from the re-circulation water, but too
much water remains with the meat. The scraping of the meat from the end of the belt is
satisfactory. The moving air jet satisfactorily clears the belt of fines that would otherwise
block it during production. The water spray jets fitted to the belt for hygienic cleaning
have proved an efficient method of cleaning on a continuous basis.
3.2.6. Modifications
3.2.7. Measurement/monitoring procedures
Acceptable Bug Counts
The aim of the testing was to achieve results, which come up to the following EU
requirements:
TAKEN FROM M ICROBIOLOGICAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE PRODUCTION OF
COOKED CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSCAN SHELLFISH (93/51/EEC).

1. Pathogens

13

Type of pathogen

Standard

Salmonella spp

n 5 c - 0

In addition, pathogens and toxins thereof, which are to be sought according to the risk
evaluation, must not be present in quantities such as to affect the health of consumers.
2. Organisms indicating poor hygiene (shelled or shucked products)
Type of organism

Standard (per g)

Staphylococcus aureus

m- 100
M-1000
n5
c2
m10

Either: Thermotolerant coliform (44C on

solid medium

Or: Escherichia coli (on solid medium)

Mnc-

100
5
2

mMnc-

10
100
5
1

Where parameters n, m, M and c are defined as follows:

n number of units comprising the sample,
m limit below which all results are considered satisfactory,
M acceptability limit beyond which the results are considered unsatisfactory,
c number of sampling units giving bacterial counts of between m and M.
The quality of a batch is considered to be:
(a) satisfactory where all the values observed are 3m or less;
(b) unsatisfactory where the values observed are between 3m and 10m (-M) and where
c/n is 2/5 or less.
The quality of a batch is considered to be unsatisfactory:
- In all cases where the values are above M,
- Where c/n is greater than 2/5.
3. Indicator organisms (Guidelines)
Type of organism

Standard (per g)

Mesophilic aerobic bacteria (30C)

(a) Whole products

m- 10000
M-100000
n5
c2

(b) Shelled or shucked products with the exception of crabmeat

14

m- 50000
M- 500000

nc(c) Crabmeat

5
2

m- 100000
M-1000000
n5
c2

These guidelines are to help manufacturers decide whether their plants are operating
satisfactorily and to assist them in implementing the production monitoring procedures.
Bug count tests normally known as TVC tests are described in technical terms in the above
table as Mesophilic aerobic bacteria and the (30C) is the test temperature. So results for
such tests are described below as TVC 30 results.
Product and water samples taken from separator were chilled and delivered to laboratories
within 24 hours or frozen and delivered frozen to laboratory.
In order to ascertain what bug count was occurring during the processing of crab, several
samples of water were taken from machine before process began. Water samples were
also taken after the process had been in session over a period of time and also samples of
crabmeat. These samples were sent to labs for analysis.
THE FOLLOWING IS A TABLE SHOWING SOME OF THESE RESULTS:
Test Date

Source of
Material

Process Liquid

17/2/03

Recovered
Material
Recovered
Material
Crippled crab

Water

Test Date

Source of
Material

Process Liquid

18/3/03
17/4/03

Legs
Legs at start*
Legs at end
New Crab
Purse fresh*
Purse fresh*

Water
2% salt solution
2% salt solution
2.5% salt solution
Water
% Citrus
biocide % salt
solution
0.8% salt solution
0.8% salt solution
0.8% salt solution
1.2% salt solution
1.2% salt solution
1.7% salt solution

26/2/03
3/3/03

5/6/03
10/7/03
10/7/03

10/7/03
22/8/03
22/8/03
28/8/03
28/8/03
16/9/03

Purse fresh*
Fresh legs
Old purse
Fresh purse
Fresh leg
Fresh leg and
purse

TVC 30
TVC 30
Extracted
After
Meat
Pasteurising
360,000

Water

230,000

100

Water

1,357,000

250

15

TVC 30
Comments
Extracted
Meat
375,000
200
33,000
16,000
9,300
500 Product
flavour
tainted
6,200
1700 Ion unit
960000 Ion unit
2500 Ion unit
4300 Ion unit
1700 Ion unit

* Indicates that results were for small batch size.

The results using the Ion unit are acceptably low, but test on sample of 16/9/03 contained
unacceptably high silver and copper level so do not represent an acceptable process
method.
It is clear from the above table that for 26/2/03 and 3/3/03 Atlanfish pasteurising process of
meat packed in retort pouches adequately reduced the TVC to acceptable levels even from
material containing unacceptably high TVC.
Tests were also done on some samples for Staphylococcus aureus. All results obtained
were acceptable.
Circulation Water
Circulation Water Quality at end of test on 28/8/03 TVC 37C - 6000. TVC 22C 40000.
The weather was very warm at the time of this test and circulation water temperature was
17C, which is much higher than normal 10C. These results were obtained using the Ion
unit and are acceptably low but test on sample of 16/9/03 contained unacceptably high
level of silver so results do not represent an acceptable process method.
Shell and Ligament
Test procedure
Approximate 100 gm samples of meat were weighed and spread on a tray with two forks.
Tray was placed in oven at approximately 100C for 4 hours or more. Following drying,
the white pieces were sorted to side of tray with tweezers. Any lumps remaining were
carefully broken to see if they contained shell. Some meat remained stuck to some of the
shell and ligament pieces removed. An assumption was made that the meat, which
remained stuck to the white pieces about equals in weight the very tiny pieces of shell,
which remain with the meat.
We cannot say that the product produced on our separator contains no shell or ligament.
Drying tests, which are destructive to product, reveal shell and ligament. Dried meat is
brown while dried shell and ligament remain white.
The fine white shell of the body centres, which is the same colour as the body meat, is
more difficult to remove than the thicker leg shell. The ligament in the legs is more
difficult to remove than shell from the legs.
It is desirable that neither shell nor ligament remains in finished product. Yet there is a
risk of shell fragments being found with all picked crabmeat.
Results from sorting out the pieces of white material from dried product produced with the
system:
o Meat from Fresh Body Centres or legs contains less than 0.25% shell and ligament.
o Removal of shell from frozen material is more difficult.
One crabmeat supplier warns potential customer with the following: Every care has been
taken to remove all traces of shell, although some small pieces may remain.
The vast majority of the shell is removed in the separator and the vibrating screen ensures
that any shell particles that escape the separator and do not go through the screen size
16

selected are removed from the finished product. In the case of body centres, 99.6 % of the
shell is removed in the separator.
A selling point for Separating Machine of one particular Company proclaims that it
produces shell- free meat, but visual inspection of a small sample of product produced on
this machine showed that it contained shell fragment. Comparative drying test was carried
out on retail pack of meat produced by Competitors Machine, and results revealed shell
content of 0.6 %. That result is double the result we achieved with fresh product.
Yields
The following table gives details of yields obtained together with some explanation of
results.
INITIAL TEST RESULTS
Date

26-Feb

Raw Material

04-Mar

Recovered
Legs & Bodies

Percentage Of Shell
Percentage Of Meat
Inaccuracy
Comments

Fresh
Legs & Bodies

47.7
47.7
Gain10%*
Meat wet

39
28
21
Meat wet

06-Jun
Fresh
Legs & Bodies
74
50
Gain 27*
Meat wet

Above results are inaccurate due to weighing problems (See later results).
Please note the following points:
1/ Apparent Yields are dependent on how much water remains with the product. Initial
design hoped to avoid unnecessary pressing of product to minimise removing juices from
meat. It proved necessary to hand press product to remove surplus water as other efforts
were not successful.
2/ Drying tests were done to establish the normal percentage of dry solids in meat. It was
found that for the same apparent dryness of the meat the percentage of dry matter in
separated fresh material was 18% compared to 24 % from frozen crab, so indicating that
freezing breaks cells that would otherwise hold liquid.
3/ It should also be observed that later tests show increased yields of meat. This is partly
due to amount of screenings being excessive until action of screen cleaning jet was
improved.
LATER TEST RESULTS ON FRESH LEGS
Date

21-Aug

22-Aug

28-Aug

16-Sep

Raw material

Legs
(Fresh)

Legs
(Fresh)

Legs
(Fresh)

Legs
(Fresh)

50.1
31.8
1.3
16.8
Meat was
Hand Pressed

50.2
33.2
0.9
15.7
Meat was
Hand Pressed

48.2
29.3
0.9
21.7
Meat was
Hand Pressed

Percentage of Shell
Percentage of Meat
Screenings
Unaccounted
Comments

17

37.5
0.7
Meat was
Hand Pressed

Average

32.95

LATER TEST RESULTS ON FROZEN LEGS

Date

27-Mar

17-Apr

06-Jun

06-Jun

Raw material

Frozen
Legs

Frozen
Legs

Frozen
Legs

Frozen
Legs

66
19.8
3.1
13
Meat
Pressed

66
13.2
3.5
13
Meat
Pressed

Percentage of Shell
Percentage of Meat
Screenings
Unaccounted
Comments on Meat
Produced

62
25
3
10
Meat
wet

59
25
3
13
Meat
wet

Average for June

Only

16.5

Meat Pressed

LATER RESULTS ON FRESH BODIES

Date
Raw material
Percentage of Shell
Percentage of Meat
Screenings
Unaccounted
Comments on Meat
Produced

11-Jul
Fresh
Bodies
20
44
5.2
31
Meat
Pressed

28-Aug
Fresh
Bodies
22.1
45.9
21.9
11.1
Meat
Pressed

04-Sep
Fresh
Bodies
42
57
4.2
-1.5
Meat
Pressed

16-Sep
Fresh
Bodies

Average

55.7
3

50.65

Meat
Pressed

Meat
Pressed

LATER RESULTS ON FROZEN BODIES

Date
Raw material

Percentage of Shell
Percentage of Meat
Screenings
Unaccounted
Comments on Meat
Produced

27-Aug

04-Sep

Old Frozen
Bodies

Old Frozen
Bodies

Average

23.8
30.8
33.4
34.5
33.95
28.5
13.7
13.8
20.96
Meat pressed Meat Pressed
Too much good material came off the
Screen

Note: Screen was not functioning right during these tests and screening percentage should
be much lower; this was corrected for fresh body processing.
From the above tables it can be observed that:
Fresh Brown Crab Body Centres, (Purse)
Yields of between 45% and 57% have been obtained - Average over 50%.
Fresh Brown Crab Legs
Yields of between 28% and 37% have been obtained - Average 33%.
Frozen Brown Crab
18

Yields of meat from several month old frozen brown crab legs and bodies have
significantly been lower than those from fresh raw material. Bodies 33% and Legs 19 %.
Clearly the quality of the raw material significantly affects the yields. Pressing water out
of the product obviously affects yields. It is considered sufficient to press the product till
product has no further significant drip losses when left standing.
As the product from the fresh and frozen processing was similarly pressed by hand, so one
would have expected similar moisture contents but the frozen product was 76% water and
the fresh 82%. It is thought that freezing bursts some cells, so letting out internal
moisture, the loss of which contributes to lower yield of the frozen product.
Flavour
Tasting of product from machine revealed the following:
Flavour from meat obtained from fresh chilled product is significantly better than from
frozen product.
Flavour is improved by salt content. Salt content in separator circulation water can be
adjusted to provide desired salt taste in meat.
Effluent
Some tests were done to determine the likely effluent load from the water used in
processing in the separator.
The following table gives:
q The batch size of raw material used and the quantity of meat produced in the 1000
litres of water in the system.
q The Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) results of testing the water at the end of the
batch. The calculated kilos of COD produced by the batch from which is calculated the
amount of COD likely to be produced from processing 1000kg of raw material or
producing a 1000kg of meat.
q Similar calculations follow for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD); Suspended
Solids (SS) and Ammonia (NH4 ).
TABLE OF TEST RESULTS
21/8/03
Fresh
legs
Raw
176kg
Meat
38.9 kg
produced
Water Volume
1000
Water

21/8/03
Fresh
Legs

28/8/03
Fresh
Legs

04/9/03
Old
Bodies

16/9/03
Fresh
Bodies

109.9 kg
34.9 kg

140 kg
33.2 kg

267.7 kg
100.1 kg

206 kg
85 kg

1000

1000

1000

1000

litres

0.0
0

13680
13.7
51

8200
8.2
40

0
3780

137
13720

96
7000.0

mg/l
COD
kg
COD
kg COD / 1000 kg
processed
kg COD / 1000 kg meat
mg/l
BOD

3.8

13.7

7.0

ie

8624
8.6
49

3774
3.8
34

or

222

108

19

kg

BOD

ie
or

27

51

34

114

137

82

kg BOD / 1000 kg
processed
kg BOD / 1000 kg meat

Results maybe on
low
side as tank
overflowed
Suspended Solids

3058
3.058
11.423235
30.549451

Ammonia

Total Phosphorus

157
0.157
0.5864774
1.5684316

Total Phosphorus

0.01

mg/l
kg Suspended
solids
kg SS / 1000 kg
processed
kg SS / 1000 kg meat
produced
mg/l
kg Ammonia
NH4N
kg NH4-N / 1000 kg
processed
kg NH4-N / 1000 kg
meat
mg P/l

The above table shows:

1) The more Product that is put through Separator, the more COD loading increases.
2) BOD load from the process will vary depending on the quality and type of raw material
used - bodies contain a lot more meat than legs.
3) BOD load per 1000 kg processed is greater when old material is used.
4) The amount of phosphorus is negligible.
Circulation Water has to be replaced at intervals. Batches of 500 kg have been put through
with the same re-circulation water. One batch of water equals 1000 litres.
3.3 Capacity Building
3.3.1. Training of staff Video has been produced to provide training for staff in cleaning
of separator.
3.3.2. Integration of knowledge from external assistance

4. Project Outcomes
4.1. Environmental Impact
Trials prove that separator is able to remove usable meat from either legs or bodies of crabs
and retain some flavour. The System that has been developed appears to be the best water
based system available.
o It is no longer necessary to dump crabmeat from either bodies or legs as feasible
method of recovery exists.
o Dumping at sea is no longer necessary or permissible. According to Seafood Industry
Consultant, Joe Somers, The shell resultant from the process is almost free of organic
material and can be disposed of in direct landfill or composted for later use. The
knock-on effect of this is less pollution flowing into the seas and waterways.
20

o Why compost potentially good food when recovery system is available?

o Less water is required than existing methods and hence there is less wastewater to
dispose of.
o If the crabmeat available is properly utilized and the public educated on innovative
ways of using crabmeat in their diets, then existing crab stocks will provide more food
4.2. Economic Impact
On a crab meat/shell separator such as the one invented by C.B.L Services, the payback on
an investment of 70,000 would require 105 tonne of crab from which 15 % legs and 14%
body centres are extracted and processed through the separator. The Appendix gives more
details on how figures were calculated,.

Machine Cost

70,000

Output kg/hr of Selling price Saving

product
of meat
disposal
waste
80
5/kg
80/tonne

in Payback
of
53 days

This machine has the potential for sale in other countries, which increases the possible
revenue for Ireland. Ireland has an opportunity to set the rest of the world an example in
terms of environmentally friendly business methods. However, at this stage we have yet to
convince businesses that this is a truly viable alternative to their present methods of dealing
with crab.
4.3. Other Benefits
4.4. Involvement of other Business
In facilitating Project progress, we wish to acknowledge the assistance received from:
Gareth Gallagher, Karl McGowan and Suzanne McDermott of Atlanfish.
Aodh ODomhnaill and Andrew Doherty of Errigal Fish
Liam Conlan of Smisco who manufactured the separator.

5. Promotion and Publicity

5.1. Potential Replication in other Enterprises
The Brussels Seafood Exhibition and the Cromer Crab Company were visited in May.
Samples of product and video of the process was shown to several companies and several
expressed interest. As solution to bug count problem had not been proved at that time, no
effort was made to sell process to other companies.
Two companies are at present interested in the prototype, and it is hoped that one of them
will use it to produce product for sale. It is intended to circulate all contacts with latest
yield and product information, and see who else is interested
5.2. Dissemination of the Results
It is proposed to send final report to all companies that have expressed interest.

21

6. Lessons Learned for the Future

6.1. Lessons
Developing new process takes a lot more time and effort than one expects. A more
thorough feasibility study could have proved helpful, but such studies also have to be
balanced against the possibilities of being so negative one never chances anything.
6.2. Continuation of the project
We expect the process will be used on an ongoing basis by some companies.
6.3. Continuation of Cleaner Greener Production

7. Others

8. References

9. Photographs

22

Annexes
CRABMEAT SEPARATOR
Costing and Payback Calculation
Separator Cost
in euro

60,000

Running Cost per day labour and

consumables
Men
Day
Salt
Electricity
Cleaning
Material

Hours
8

Men
16
17
8
7

hrs
kg
kw/hr
litres

Rate
10.80
0.14
0.12
1.61

/hr
/kg
/kg
/l

Cost
172.80
2.38
7.68
11.26
194.12

Calculation of Yield from available crab

material
Wt of crab from which bodies and legs
are taken
Input to
separator

Output from
Separator

% of
crab
kg
Bodies
14%
Legs
15%
Total Input to
Separator

2000

280
300
580

Meat

kg/day

%
yield
50%
30%

Meat

Selling

Waste

Price

Disposal
cost
80.00

Yield
/kg

140
90

Surplus per 1000 kg of available

crab

kg

5.00
5.00

463.94

END

23

700.00
450.00

labour
&
Consumables
cost
335 Surplus

/1000kg
11.20
16.80

/1000kg
93.71
100.41
Surplus

/day

Payback
Payback

65
129

days
tonne

595.09
332.79
927.88

cgpp-news-layout

12/16/03

1:03 PM

Page 1

CLEANER GREENER
PRODUCTION IS
the application of integrated preventive environmental
strategies to processes, products, and services to increase
overall efficiency and reduce risks to humans and the
environment.
Production processes: conserving raw materials and
energy, eliminating toxic raw materials, and reducing the
quantity and toxicity of all emissions and wastes
Products: reducing negative impacts along the life cycle
of a product, from raw materials extraction to its
ultimate disposal.
Services: incorporating environmental concerns into
designing and delivering services.

CLEANER GREENER
PRODUCTION REQUIRES
new attitudes, better environmental management, and
evaluating available technology options. We need to take
good environmental practice to the stage where it is an
inherent part of any business operation.

HOW IS CLEANER GREENER

PRODUCTION DIFFERENT?
Much of the current thinking on environmental protection
focuses on what to do with wastes and emissions after they
have been created. The goal of cleaner, greener production
is to avoid generating pollution in the first place.
This means:

Better efficiency
Better business
Better environmental protection
Lower costs
Less waste
Less emissions
Less resource consumption

WHY IS THE CLEANER

GREENER PRODUCTION
PROGRAMME BEING RUN?

Autumn 2003 No.1

The long-term goal is to ensure that cleaner, greener production

becomes the established norm in Ireland. The programme seeks to
promote environmentally friendly business through increased
resource productivity, waste reduction, recovery of materials,
improved efficiency in a product value chain, energy management,
and a change of culture within organisations.
The programme aims are focussed on avoiding and preventing
adverse environmental impact rather than treating or cleaning up
afterwards. This approach brings better economic and
environmental efficiency.

AT A GLANCE
The system produces saleable
white crab meat from material
that has traditionally been
dumped. Traditionally, only
white meat from claws has been
recovered which is about 7.5%
of the live weight of crabs.

PROGRAMME MANAGERS:

Trials prove that the prototype

can recover 25% by weight of
meat from frozen legs and a
35% from combined bodies
and legs.

The Clean Technology Centre (CTC) at Cork Institute of

Technology was appointed to manage the programme in
association with OSullivan Public Relations, Ltd., and Energy
Transport Actions Ltd., (ENTRAC).
The CTC was established in 1991 and is now nationally and
internationally regarded as a centre of excellence in cleaner
production, environmental management and eco-innovation across
a range of industrial sectors.

The product retains some crab

flavour and after pasteurisation
product is acceptable.

WHERE CAN I GET

FURTHER INFORMATION?
This case study report is one of 29 reports
available from the organisations that
participated in the first phase of the Cleaner
Greener Production Programme. A summary
of all the projects and CD containing all the reports
are also available. More information on the Programme
is available from the Environmental Protection Agency

Or their website

Fax. 01 2680199

Email. ertdi@epa.ie

www.epa.ie

by selecting the link to cleaner production.

AIMS OF THIS PROJECT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

To produce a system capable of recovering

The construction of a Hygienic

saleable crab meat from crab bodies and

Separator has been completed and

legs while retaining reasonable flavour.

machine installed at Atlanfish Crab

This is to be achieved using a minimum

processing factory in Donegal.

amount of water and factory floor space.

The process should also then produce a

Basic components of the system are:

by-product of clean broken crab shell

something of possible use in a variety

The Crab Breaker

of applications.

The Meat/Shell Separator

Vibrating Screen

Draining Belt

A Shell Removal System which can

discharge shell outside production
area.

The company was founded in 1978

and provides project engineering
services to the food industry.
ie. Bakeries, Red meat, Chicken,
Bacon, Fish, Fruit, Dairy.

Ms. Helen Walsh,

CGPP,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Richview, Clonskeagh, Dublin 14, Ireland.
Tel. 01 2680100

PROCESS FOR EXTRACTING

EDIBLE CRAB MEAT FROM BODIES AND
LEGS - OFTEN CONSIDERED WASTE

CBL SERVICES LTD.

Printed on recycled paper using water based inks

The Irish Government, through the National Development

Plan 2000 - 2006, has allocated funds to a programme for
Environmental Research, Technological Development and
Innovation (ERTDI).

The Department of the Environment and Local Government asked

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to run the CGPP as
part of the ERTDI programme. With the programme continuing to
2006 about 60 businesses will be supported to implement cleaner
greener production and to demonstrate their achievements to the
rest of Ireland.

On the basis of previous experience

separating stones and unripe and
wizened currents from
blackcurrants while working in the
fruit industry, CBL Services
designed and supplied a Fresh
Water Separator for removing shell
from shucked mussels. This was
developed for an Irish Company
in 1981.
Fig 1 The Prototype

CBL LOGO
TO GO HERE

BETTER BUSINESS IN A BETTER IRELAND