AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

© 2015,Science Huβ, http://www.scihub.org/AJSIR

ISSN: 2153-649X, doi:10.5251/ajsir.2015.6.1.12.22

Assessment of the waste generation and management practices in

Nigerian food industry: towards a policy for sustainable approaches
*Olalere W. Oladepo,1 Matthew O. Ilori,1 and Kehinde A. Taiwo2
1
African Institute for Science Policy and Innovation and
2
Department of Food Science and Technology, Obafemi Awolowo
University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria. ,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +2348060885174; +2348077655128
E-mail address: woladep@yahoo.co.uk
ABSTRACT

The number of food processing firms in Nigeria has increased over the years and also a
corresponding increase in the types of products and wastes generated. This study assessed the
various practices and technologies of managing wastes generated by some selected food
processing firms in South-western Nigeria. Data were collected from forty food processing firms
randomly selected among fruit juice and milk; meat and poultry; and fast foods selected from
Lagos and Oyo States of Nigeria using two sets of structured and unstructured questionnaire.
Food / raw material wastes ranked highest (49.2% or 3,148.8kg) among varied types of solid
waste generated while 5000 to 10,000 litres volume of wastewater were generated per firm per
production activity. Preliminary peeling and cutting operations ranked highest (3.84 ± 0.291)
among the different sources of wastes generation. Open dumping / land filling (4.27 ± 0.231) and
contracting of waste for disposal (3.70 ± 0.324) are the major waste management disposal
practices adopted by the food firms. Primary wastewater treatment (4.51 ± 0.207) was the major
technology employed by the firms. High cost of installing waste treatment plants (4.86 ± 0.069)
ranked highest among the obstacles for the adoption of waste technology measures. From the
result, the food processing firms generate huge amount of solid and liquid waste, which are not
appropriately managed. The practices of waste management by food firms need an upward
review. The firms should also venture into the possibility of re-use and recycle of their wastes that
litter around the street.

Key words: Food Industry; Waste Generation & Management; Policy for Sustainable Approach.

INTRODUCTION springing up in the country’s major cities. Products

Food industrial enterprises are known to deliver a
comprehensive supply of fresh and processed foods
of high quality to their consumers which make
essential contributions to wealth creation and
supports improved quality of life of people within any
particular country. The industry represents the largest
manufacturing sector and produces the largest
exporters in the UK economy (Ridgway et al., 1999).
The number of food processing companies in Nigeria
has increased over the years and so also have the
types of products manufactured (Taiwo et al., 2002).
About 17 industrial food-processing sub-sectors
comprising over 5,000 companies are involved in
food processing and production in Nigeria (MAN.,
2003; Food Processing Magazine., 2010). Several
registered and unregistered fast food outlets are also
manufactured by food firms may be broadly classified
into 7 categories. These are grain milling; soft drinks
and fruit juice brewing; distilleries and wine; dairy
products, vegetable oil and fat products; and
confectionary and sugar products.
The continuously increasing human population,
increasing sophistication of consumers due to
improved wages, increased demand for fast and
convenient food items and improved product quality
has resulted in a huge demand for processed and
packaged foods. (Ladipo et al., 1986, Omolayole,
1983).
The food processing entrepreneur generates varied
types of wastes ranging from solid, gaseous to highly
contaminated liquid waste from their various handling
and processing operations (Raghupathy, 2004).

Analysis of municipal solid wastes (MSW) revealed
that large proportions were discarded packaging
materials such as cans, aluminium foils, plastics,
cardboards, and other non-biodegradable materials
that can cause harm to the environment. However,
there is little or no available statistics for the actual
quantity of wastes produced in the Nigerian food
industry. The industries make private arrangements
for disposal of their wastes, with little or no monitoring
(Onibokun and Kumuyi, 2005).
The generations of wastes result in various degrees
of air, water and land pollution. Pollutions arise
because many industrial effluents contain toxic metal
ions and exotic organic and inorganic chemicals as
well as materials, which make the effluent turbid,
acidic or alkaline in varying degrees (NEST, 1997).
However, despite various approaches used to
manage various waste types in the Nigerian
municipality, the environment remains polluted; this is
evident in the environmental litigation and communal
pressure on firms in recent years (Adeoti, 2001).
Many of the developed countries have been found to
pay particular attention to waste management
practices and technological strategies of their
pollution intensive food manufacturing sectors, using
various approaches such as, utilization of waste as
manure, landfill, composting, recycling, sedimentation
of factory effluents, physical, chemical and biological
conversion of waste to marketable by-products,
chemical and microbiological decomposition,
adoption of returnable containers, and anaerobically
converting distillery waste to biogas
supplementary heating fuel, and as feed for Tilapia
mozambica fish and fermentation using genetically
modified microorganisms (Hulse, 2004).
In developed countries where waste disposal
techniques have been well appraised, disposal of
packaging materials is a major consideration in
selecting packaging materials, companies also tackle
the problem of waste from product formulation and in
many cases; incentives instituted to encourage
proper handling of waste (Zaror, 1992). For instance,
in Canada there is refund of money for packaging
materials returned to the company or retail shops.
Some food processing companies in Nigeria have
internal waste treatment plants for wastes generated
within the premises but with little or no consideration
for what happens outside the company premises.
However in Nigeria, many food processors are faced
with a problem of managing solid wastes, which
constitute up to 30% of incoming raw materials (
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2014, 6(1): 12-22
Schaub and Leonard, 1996 ). This study assessed
the waste management practices and technologies of
the food processing firms operating under the
medium and large-scale enterprises.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study was carried out in two States of South-
western Nigeria (Lagos and Oyo States) purposively
because of their population and high concentration of
food processing companies. Information on the
medium and large scale food enterprises was drawn
from the directories of National Association of Small
and Medium-Scale Enterprises (NASME, 2010),
Manufacturing Association of Nigeria (MAN, 2003)
and Association of Food, Beverage and Tobacco
Employers (AFBTE, 2009). Questionnaires were
designed for two categories of respondents (the
production manager food processing firms and the
residents around the food companies) to obtain
information such as types of waste generated,
technologies and methods for waste collection,
treatment, disposal and utilization, possible impact of
waste disposed on the environment and residents.
The first set of questionnaire ws administered to 40
food-processing firms which included twenty (20)
firms processing fruit juice or milk; ten (10) firms
processing Meat and Poultry; and ten (10) were Fast
food firms. The second set of questionnaire was
administered on a total of 200 residents living around
the food processing firms using a systematic random
sampling technique. Out of which 182 responded.
Five (5) residents were randomly selected 500m
radius equidistance from each food firm. Key
for
informant interviews and participant observations
were also conducted to complement the
questionnaire technique. The data was analysed
using SPSS computer software.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of Waste generation from the Food
firms: The result (Fig. 1 & 2) showed various
categories, quantities of solid and volume of liquid
wastes as measured within the food processing firms
surveyed. Of all the waste types, food waste / raw
material waste ranked highest (49.2% or 3,148.8 kg
per production). Others include bones/horns (21.9%
or 1,401.6 kg); packaging waste (13.3% or 851.2 kg),
faecal waste/dung/litter (12.9% or 800 kg) and pouch
content and carcass trimmings (3.1% or 198.4 kg).
About 63.3% of the food processing firms generate
10,000 litres of wastewater per production, 26.7%
generate 5,000 litres of wastewater per production
while 10% generate liquid waste above 15,000 litres.
13
 Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2014, 6(1): 12-22

Information gathered from key informant findings
shows that about half of the waste (Solid / liquid)
generated comes from raw materials handling,
Faecal / Dung /Litter,
12.50%
washing, purchase and sorting probably due to little
or absence of efficient manufacturing processes or
better sorting of raw materials.

Bones / Horns, 21.90% Food Waste/ Raw

Materials, 49.20%

Pouch Materials, 3.10%

Packaging Waste, 13.30%

Fig. 1: Solid waste profile of the food firms

Fifteen thousand litres,

10.00%

Five thousand litres, 26.70%

Fig.2: Volume of liquid waste generated by food firms.
From the study, it was also discovered that the
quantity or volume of each category of waste
generated in the food firms studied depended on the
frequency and volume of production; types and state
of raw materials; raw materials handling (sorting and
processing); types of packaging materials; status of
processing equipment and employees.
Ten thousand
litres, 63.30%
Determination of the actual quantity and volume of
each category of solid and liquid waste was a bit
difficult as most of the firms did not segregate or sort
their waste at source. Some of the firms discharged
their liquid waste directly into the streams. The
Regulatory agencies surveyed on the other hand do
not have records of actual quantity of solid or volume

14
 Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2014, 6(1): 12-22

of liquid waste generated as they do not regularly
carry out environmental audit on the food firms
probably due to inadequate technology and facility for
separation of wastes at source as identified by
Babayemi and Dauda (2009).
The high volumes of wastewater were found to be
generated mostly by Meat; Poultry; Fruit juice and
Fast food firms probably due to frequent washing of
materials, equipments and floors. These finding
agrees with earlier reports by Chukwu et al (2011)
that food processing is a water-intensive operation
requiring water for operations such as washing,
evaporation, extraction, and filtration and generate
large volume of wastewater largely laden with organic
waste.
Sources and Causes of waste generation in the
Food processing firms: The result findings shows
that different quantities and volumes of waste (solid
and liquid) are generated through different key
operation sources such as preparatory operations
(e.g preliminary peeling, cutting and washing of raw
materials), production operations (e.g Technical /
Table 1. Sources of Waste Generation in the food firms
production faults, process operations and clean up),
and post-production operations (eg packaging and
product not conforming to standard) within the food
firm manufacturing premises.
The result of ranking various sources of solid waste
generation in the food processing firms (Table 1)
shows that preliminary and cutting operations ranked
highest (3.84 ± 0.291) closely followed is the unused
/ undersized raw material (2.57 ± 0.167). Technical /
production faults (2.16 ± 0.192) ranked lowest. The
little generation of waste through other processing
operations (2.27 ± 0.184) and technical / production
faults implied efficient machines/production schedule,
while the high generation of waste through
preliminary cutting operations and unused /
undersized raw materials is an indication of
inefficiency in sorting, handling / purchasing of raw
materials and probably due to poor inspection or
specifications not being met. This result indicates that
most of the wastes were generated mainly from
peeling and cutting operations i.e preparatory
operations.

` Rank (1 lowest- 5 highest) Statistics

1 2 3 4 5
Waste Source Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Mean ± S.E Std. Dev.

b
A 3 9.1 1.0 3.0 5.0 15.2 2.0 6.1 22.0 66.7 3.84 ± 0.291 1.8

a
B 6.0 17.1 14.0 40.0 9.0 25.7 4.0 11.4 2.0 5.7 2.27 ± 0.184 1.1

a
C 6.0 18.2 9.0 27.3 15.0 45.5 1.0 3.0 2.0 6.1 2.16 ± 0.192 1.2

a
D 6.0 16.2 12.0 32.4 14.0 37.8 4.0 10.8 1.0 2.7 2.57 ± 0.167 1.0

Mean with the same letters are not significantly different at P≤ 0.05

Key
A = Preliminary peeling and cutting operations C = Technical / Production faults
B = Other processing operations e.g pasting etc D = Unused / undersized raw materials
It was also discovered that different quantities and constituted between 16-20% of waste generated in
volumes of waste (solid and liquid) are generated the firm while clean up loss, process loss and
through different key work zones during production packaging loss constituted between 1-5% of the
processes. As presented in Table 2, the percentage waste generated respectively.
of raw material loss during production process
Table 2: Percentage of Waste generated through different Work zones

15
 Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2014, 6(1): 12-22

Sources of loss 1 - 5% 6 - 10% 11 - 15% 16 - 20% 21 - 30%

Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

A 6.0 18.2 10.0 30.3 1.0 3.0 11.0 33.3 5.0 15.2

B 17.0 51.5 11.0 33.3 - - 5.0 15.2 - -

C 24.0 72.7 - - 2.0 6.1 2.0 6.1 5.0 15.2

D - - 27.0 81.8 5.0 15.2 - - 1.0 3.0

Key
A = Raw material loss B = Packaging loss C = Processing loss D = Clean up loss

Poor operational practices (3.08 ± 0.253) ranked
highest among the major causes of waste generation
in the food processing firms (Table 3). Others are
poor work plan (2.86 ± 0.252) and poor processing
Table 3. Causes of Waste Generation in the food firms
operations (2.35 ± 0.202). Poor training of workers
(1.86 ± 0.186) ranked lowest. Low waste generation
a
due to obsolescence of machine (1.92 ± 0.157) is an
indication that the machines are new and efficient.

Causes of Waste Generation 1 2 3 4 5

Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Mean ± S.E Std. Dev.

b
Poor Work Plan 7.0 20.6 3.0 8.8 8.0 23.5 12.0 35.3 4.0 11.8 2.86 ± 0.252 1.53

b
Poor Operational Practices 5.0 13.5 7.0 18.9 11.0 29.7 9.0 24.3 5.0 13.5 3.08 ± 0.203 1.23

Poor Training of Workers 15.0 42.9 10.0 28.6 7.0 20.0 2.0 5.7 1.0 2.9 1.86a ± 0.186 1.13

a
Obsolescence of Machine 12.0 33.3 16.0 44.4 5.0 13.9 3.0 8.3 - - 1.92 ± 0.157 0.95

Poor Packaging Materials 9.0 27.3 15.0 45.6 5.0 15.2 3.0 9.1 1.0 3.0 1.95a ± 0.201 1.22

Poor Processing Operation 4.0 11.8 16.0 47.1 7.0 20.6 6.0 17.6 1.0 2.9 2.35b ± 0.202 1.23

Mean with the same letters are not significantly different at P≤ 0.05

Waste Collection and Transportation: As be probably because this method is commonly

observed, the food processing firms investigated
used varied methods to collect and transport solid
waste generated to the disposal site. Ranking the
various methods of waste collection from 1 (lowest)
to 5 (highest), the result shows that there were
significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) among the mean
ratings as shown (Table 4). Floor washing using
water hose ranked highest (4.66 ± 0.129)). This may
utilised by all the firms. Most firms that use this
method claimed that it is simple to use and make
appropriate cleaning of the floor. Others are
sweeping (3.11 ± 0.262) and manual scrapping with
spades / shovels (3.08 ± 0.272). The use of
mechanical scrapper ranked lowest (3.05 ± 0.268)
probably due to its high cost of purchase and
maintenance. Manual scrapping was the most

16
 Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2014, 6(1): 12-22

predominant method for solid wastes collection in the used in the fruit juice and milk establishments.
meat and poultry. Mechanical scraping was mainly
Table 4. Method of Waste Collection by food Firms

` Rank (1 lowest- 5 highest) Statistics

Waste Collection Methods 1 2 3 4 5
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Mean ± S.E Std. Dev.

Manually scrapping with Spade/shovels 6.0 17.6 3.0 8.8 7.0 20.6 9.0 26.5 9.0 26.5 3.08a ± 0.272 1.656

Sweeping 2.0 6.1 5.0 15.2 10.0 30.3 7.0 21.2 9.0 27.3 3.11a ± 0.262 1.595

Floor washing using water Hose - - 2.0 5.4 1.0 2.7 4.0 10.8 30.0 81.1 4.66b ± 0.129 0.784

Use of Mechanical Scrapper 9.0 25.0 4.0 11.1 6.0 16.7 7.0 19.4 10.0 27.8 3.05a ± 0.268 1.632

Mean with the same letters are not significantly different at P≤ 0.05
collected to the disposal site varies, of these
methods, contracting out the waste for a fee ranging
During the study period, collection and packing of
from N5000 to N10,000 a month ranked highest. This
solid waste into an assigned area, drums, tanks or
implied that the method is widely used by the firms.
waste bins by the factory cleaners for onward
The use of wheel barrow and tractor to convey waste
transportation to the disposal site were observed in
to disposal site ranked lowest (0.95 ± 0.232) (Table
most of the firms studied. As also observed in almost
5). This finding is in line with Adeleke (2010) who
all the firms visited, wastes generated were not
reported that most of the industries employed the
segregated into various categories but packed
services of waste disposal contractors and only a few
together making it difficult to determine the waste
of the industries put their wastes into profitable use.
profile of the firm. Methods of conveying waste
Table 5. Methods of conveying waste to disposal site
` Rank (1 lowest- 5 highest) Statistics
Waste Conveying Methods 1 2 3 4 5
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Mean ± S.E Std. Dev.
a
wheel barrow 5.0 31.2 2.0 12.5 4.0 25.0 1.0 6.2 4.0 25.0 1.19 ± 0.290 1.761

b
Tractor trailer 4.0 14.8 5.0 18.5 5.0 18.5 10.0 37.0 3.0 11.1 2.27 ± 0.292 1.774

a
Wheel barrow & Tractor 3.0 20.0 7.0 46.7 2.0 13.3 2.0 13.3 1.0 6.7 0.95 ± 0.232 1.413

a
Head pan 4.0 25.0 4.0 25.0 3.0 18.8 4.0 25.0 1.0 6.2 1.05 ± 0.248 1.508

c
Contract it out 5.0 15.6 - - 3.0 9.4 1.0 3.1 23.0 71.9 3.70 ± 0.324 1.97

Mean with the same letters are not significantly different at P≤ 0.05
Waste Management Approaches in the Food
Industry: Open dumping / land filling (4.27± 0.231)
and burning (2.89± 0.282) ranked highest among
various waste management approaches commonly
practiced by all the food firms. Re-use / recycle of
solid waste materials are rarely practiced by the firms
(Table 6; Figure 3 & 4). This result agreed with the
report of Igoni et al. (2007) that open dumping of
solid waste is a common practice in Nigeria. Some
(0.49 ± 0.170) utilised the streams to transport their
wastes out of sight, a practice commonly practiced by
Meat and Poultry firms probably due to their location.

17
 Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2014, 6(1): 12-22

Most of the Meat and Poultry firms studied were
observed located closed to the perennial streams.
Some (2.41 ± 0.325) e.g Fast food; Fruit juice and
Milk etc. utilised the waste disposal contractors who
most of the time directly dumped the wastes collected
Table 7. – Practices for Disposal of Liquid Wastes
by the roadside. Several (2.89 ± 0.282) others e.g
Fast food; Fruit juice etc. considered it a cheap way
of disposing their solid wastes by setting the mixed
wastes on fire.

` Rank (1 lowest- 5 highest) Statistics

Liquid Waste Disposal Methods 1 2 3 4 5
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Mean ± S.E Std. Dev.
b
Discharge into septic tank 5.0 14.7 1.0 2.9 4.0 11.8 12.0 35.3 12.0 35.3 3.30 ± 0.292 1.777

b
Direct to a drainage 8.0 23.5 - - 3.0 8.8 13.0 38.2 10.0 29.4 3.27 ± 0.270 1.644

b
Direct to a stream 11.0 33.3 - - 3.0 9.1 6.0 18.2 13.0 39.4 2.84 ± 0.321 1.951

a
Re-use 9.0 34.6 2.0 7.7 4.0 15.4 9.0 34.6 2.0 7.7 1.84 ± 0.281 1.708

a
Recycle 10.0 40.0 1.0 2.7 3.0 12.0 2.0 8.0 9.0 36.0 1.89 ± 0.326 1.983

Means with the same letters are not significantly different at P≤ 0.05

Information gathered from the residents around the in Nigeria have been reported to be of serious health
food firms also confirmed that most of the solid hazard, as they are breeding grounds for many
wastes packed from the firms are either dumped in disease vectors. Burning of plastic waste materials
the bush along the roads or burnt, while liquid wastes can generate toxic materials like dioxins, injurious to
are discharged into the streams. Most of the human health (Asgedom and Desta., 2012)
residents complained of ugly sights and unpleasant
odour emanating from the decomposing wastes, flies,
reptiles and rat infestation around their homes and
offices and pollution of the environment with smoke
through indiscriminate burning of the waste. It is also
common to see most of the Government established
and illegal dumpsites in Nigeria set on fire
indiscriminately emitting smokes and thereby
polluting the environment. Aboderin (2013) also
reported similar observation in Oko-Oba abattoir
Lagos Nigeria.
About 5 of the dump sites visited in the study area
were seemed over filled and not well managed. A
number of residents around the sites also complained
of offensive odour, environmental pollution and
blockage of road and waterways from illegal dump Fig. 3: Illegal Dumping and Burning of Solid Waste
sites located close to residential areas. Uncontrolled along the Road Side in Nigeria.
and unmanaged landfills as they are commonly found

18
 Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2014, 6(1): 12-22

that it will involve. Discharge to stream was found to

Fig. 4: Dumping of Solid Waste in the Stream in Nigeria.
The result of ranking from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
showed significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) among the
various technological methods of liquid waste
disposal identified by the food processing firms
investigated (Table 7). Out of these methods, direct
discharge to a stream (2.84 ± 0.32), discharge into
septic tank (3.30 ± 0.29) and direct to drainage (3.27
± 0.27) ranked highest, while re-use (1.84 ± 0.28)
and recycle (1.89 ± 0.32) ranked lowest. This implied
that in most of the firms recycling of liquid waste is
not commonly practised probably due to the high cost
Table 8 – Waste Management Preventive Measures in the Food Industry
be commonly practiced by meat and poultry firms
probably due to their location, as most of them are
located close to streams while direct discharge to
drainage and discharge into septic tank were mostly
practiced by fruit juice, milk and fast food firms. Many
(56.8%) of the firms surveyed were found to carry out
analysis on their liquid wastes before disposal for
possible microbial load, re-use and recycle. The
liquid wastes were mainly water used for cleaning
and washing. This result suggests type of effluent
disposable method is dependent on type of food
being processed.
Table 8 shows the waste management preventive
strategies by the food processing firms. Most of the
firms embarked on waste preventive measures, out
of these measures, reduction at source (4.27 ±
0.209) ranked highest, while other measures such as
re-use of product for same purpose (0.81 ± 0.177)
and on-site recycling (0.78 ± 0.252) ranked lowest.
This finding further implies that recycling and re-use
is not practiced in the firms surveyed. This result is
not unexpected because of the nature of the products
been processed.

` Rank (1 lowest- 5 highest) Statistics

Preventive Measures 1 2 3 4 5
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Mean ± S.E Std. Dev.

Reduction at source 3.0 8.1 2.0 5.4 1.0 2.7 6.0 16.2 25.0 67.6 4.22c ± 0.289 1.27

a
Re-use of product for some Purpose 9.0 50.0 3.0 16.7 6.0 33.3 - - - - 0.81 ± 0.177 1.076

On-site recycling 6.0 50.0 - - 1.0 8.3 1.0 8.3 4.0 33.3 0.78a ± 0.252 1.53

Source oriented waste quality improvement 2.0 7.1 4.0 14.3 6.0 21.4 8.0 28.6 8.0 28.6 2.65b ± 0.315 1.918

Means with the same letters are not significantly different at P≤ 0.05
ranked highest (4.51 ± 0.297) among others. This
may probably be due to large volume of water
The result (Table 9) shows that primary wastewater
requirement by the companies as most processing
treatment is the only waste management technology
firms sourced their water from the river, borehole, or
employed by the food process firms studied as it
municipal water supplies.

19
 Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2014, 6(1): 12-22

Table 9 - Waste Treatment Technologies

Rank (1 lowest- 5 highest) Statistics
Treatment 1 2 3 4 5
Technologies Std. Dev.
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Mean ± S.E

c
A 3.0 8.1 2 5.4 - - - - 32.0 86.5 4.51 ± 0.207 1.26
a
B 6.0 66.7 - - 3.0 33.3 - - - - 0.41 ± 0.142 0.87

C 3.0 18.8 3.0 18.8 1.0 6.2 4.0 25.0 5.0 31.2 1.38 b ± 0.323 1.96

D 7.0 63.6 - - 1.0 9.1 1.0 9.1 2.0 18.2 0.65 a ± 0.223 1.36
a
E 7.0 53.8 4.0 30.8 1.0 7.7 1.0 7.7 - - 0.59 ± 0.162 0.99
a
F 8.0 66.7 2.0 16.7 2.0 16.7 - - - - 0.49 ± 0.138 0.84

Key
A = Primary wastewater treatment D =Raw material re-use / recycle
B = Secondary wastewater treatment E = Change in one / more raw material input
C = Wastewater re-use / recycle F = Integrated physical devices in production line

pollution control (1.57 ± 0.203) are indications that

Among the various obstacles identified to adopting the managers of the food firms have adequate
waste technology measures by the food companies knowledge/ information on pollution control and are
are, high cost of installing operating waste treatment well acquainted with technologies of managing types
plant (4.86 ± 0.069) and high cost of process of waste generated but do not have the financial
integration (4.41 ± 0.224) ranked highest among capacity for the installation of the waste treatment
others (Table 10). The low rank of technical plants probably.
capabilities (2.29 ± 0.301) and information about
Table 10. Obstacles to adopting Waste Technology Measures

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Statistics
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Mean ± S.E Std.Dev

Lack of information about 23 67.6 3 8.8 5 14.7 1 2.0 2 5.9 1.57a ± 1.2
pollution control 0.203
technologies
High cost of installing - - - - 1 2.7 3 8.1 33 89.2 4.86c ± 0.069 0.4
operating waste treatment
plant
Lack of technical 4 12.9 4 12.9 6 19.4 7 22.6 10 32.3 2.92b ± 1.8
capabilities 0.301
High cost process - - 3 8.6 - - 3 8.6 29 82.9 4.41c ± 1.4
integrated technique 0.224
Means with the same letters are not significantly different at P≤ 0.05
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the are suggested to develop appropriate waste
findings of this study, the following recommendations management strategies for managing industrial waste

20

for corporate profitability and environmental
preservation in Nigeria.
The food companies generate huge amounts of
waste (packaging, raw materials and liquid). Within
the firm, it seems the companies have adequate
facilities to treat waste water and undertake practices
that minimize waste generation but companies are
not involved with or concerned about the waste
generated by their products outside the firm. As part
of efforts to reduce pressure on municipal waste
management facilities, there is a need to make the
individual food-processing firm responsible for the
management of waste generated before and after
product sale.
From the findings, investment in the waste
management technologies seems not being taken as
priority in the Nigeria food firms probably due to
inadequate finance and inconsistent Nigerian
government policy on the enforcement of regulation
for companies to be responsible for managing waste
generated by them and their consumers in the
municipality. To alleviate the problem of inadequate
capital, the financial institutions should be
encouraged to establish loan packages attractive to
the food processing firms at low interest rates for firm
development and investment in waste management
practices and technologies research. As an
inducement, there can be tax deduction for such
loans by the government to cover up for the low
interest rate.
Also considering the high cost of investment
necessary to install waste processing facilities, local
government authorities in each state in Nigeria
should be encouraged to set up and manage
centralised waste processing facilities for use by the
companies at an affordable fee. Many of the existing
waste processing facilities in the municipalities could
be modified, re-organised, redesigned and efficiently
managed to receive food industrial wastes. Industrial
estates could also collaborate to establish common
waste processing facilities for use by the member
industries as been practiced in the developed
countries.
Government should promulgate stringent regulatory
measures or give incentives for the retrieval of their
non-consumable packaging materials from the
municipality for re-use, recycle which can serve as a
useful source of income to the collectors as
obtainable in Canada, South Africa, Burkina Faso
etc. As an incentive, the government can give rebate
to companies who use biodegradable or
21
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2014, 6(1): 12-22
environmentally friendly packaging materials and
charge 1% for use of poor (non degradable, or non
reusable) packaging materials.
Increased amounts and changing nature of varied
types of waste generated by the food processing
firms as well as little or absence of available statistics
for the actual quantity / volume, practices and
technology management of waste produced in the
Nigerian food industry seem to complicates the task
of dealing with different kind of wastes generated.
The food industry should as a matter of necessity
carry out quantification of different types of waste
generated from their handling and processing
activities for appropriate management.
There is a need for the food processing firms to
develop better sorting, purchasing and handling of
raw materials to minimise waste generation from
preliminary peeling and unused raw materials. For an
efficient waste management practices and
technology for the food industry waste stream
analysis, assessment and auditing is essential.
Waste stream analysis assists the firm to generate
waste inventory list; distinguish between the different
wastes, help track waste generation levels, help
control costs associated with meeting waste
management practices and technologies and raise
the understanding of waste generation levels and
associated environmental responsibility and
compliance.
Environmental pollution is high due to burning and
dumping of waste materials, the Federal Government
should charge companies a fine for polluting the
environment. Packaging companies should be
encouraged to promote development of
biodegradable packaging materials.
Food processing firms in collaboration with the
regulatory agencies should strengthen investment in
Research and Development (R&D) to develop and
improve processing technologies that will minimise
waste and also improve waste management
practices and technologies. The food firms can
organise workshops in which they identify common
problem areas and can jointly sponsor a research
study to minimise the cost. As done by several
governments in the developed countries, special
agencies may be set up to fund research projects of
the food processing firms.
Various environmental regulatory agencies and
regulations developed by the Federal government of
Nigeria need a review of their mandate (policies,
functions and monitoring activities) as the agencies

are not achieving their target objectives of waste
reduction probably due to inconsistency in
government policies and overlapping functions of
some agencies. A set of strategic action plans
developed by the agencies for effective
environmental compliance, monitoring and
enforcement also needs to be reviewed as most of
them concentrate mostly on municipal waste
management with little or no attention on the food
companies. With the increase in the number of food
processing firms in Nigeria and the corresponding
huge amount of various categories of waste
generated a particular regulatory agency that will be
responsible for enforcing all environmental laws,
guidelines, policies, standards, and regulation should
be instituted for industrial firms in Nigeria. Regulatory
agencies may also organise training sessions on
environmental awareness for captains of industries.
REFERENCES
Aboderin, M. (2013). Rubbish dump killing us- Lagos
residents. Punch News Paper
http://www.punchng.com/health/rubbish-dump-killing-
us-lagos-residents/ Retrieved 6/2/2014
Adeoti, J. O. (2001). Technology Investment in Pollution
Control in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Nigerian
Manufacturing. Journal of the Developing Economies
vol. 32(4), December 2001.
Asgedom, A. Gebrekidan and D, Mulu B. (2012). The
Environmental Impacts of Plastic
Bags and Water Bottles in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia.
Sacha Journal of Environmental Studies, vol.2 No. 1
(2012), pp.81-94
Babayemi, J. O and Dauda, K. T. (2009). Solid Waste
generation, Categories and Disposal Option in
Developing Countries: A Case study of Nigeria.
Journal of Applied Science and Environment
Management 13(3) 83-88
Chukwu, O. Adeoye P. A and Chidiebere. I (2011). Abattoir
wastes generation, management and the environment:
a case of Minna, North Central Nigeria.
International Journal of Biosciences (IJB) Vol. 1, No. 6,
p. 100-109, 2011
Hulse, J. H. (1993). Agriculture, Food and the Environment.
Food Research International 26, pp. 455-469
Hulse, J. H. (2004). Integrated Food Systems. Journal of
Food Science and Technology [18/2], pp. 44-45
Igoni, A. H., Ayotamuno, M. J., Ogaji, S. O. T. and
Proberts, S. D. (2007). Municipal Solid Waste in Port
22
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2014, 6(1): 12-22
Harcourt, Nigeria. Applied Energy, Elsevier 84(6): 664-
667
Kummu, M., H. de Moel, M. Porkka, S. Siebert, O. Varis,
and P. Ward, Lost food, wasted resources: Global food
supply chain losses and their impact on freshwater,
cropland and fertiliser use. Science of the Total
Environment, 2012. 438: p. 477-489.
Kroyer, G. T (1995). Impact of Food Processing on the
Environment-an overview Lebensm-Wiss u-Technol
28, 547-552.
Ladipo, J. K., Ossai., G. E. A., and Olunloyo, O. A. (1986).
Food Science and Technology in National
Development Entrepreneurship in the Food Industry.
Nigerian Food Science Journal, 4(!), 3-25
Manufacturer Association of Nigeria (2003).
http://www.manufacturers nigeria.org/subsectors.htm.
visited 18.8.2008
NEST (1997). Nigeria Threatened Environment: A National
Profile. Nigerian Environment Study action Team
1997, pp. 229-240
Omolayole, M. O. (1983). The role of Nigerian food
industries in the formulation and implementation of
National Food Policy, ED. By Atinmo, T. and Akinyele
L. M. Nutrition and Food Policy, National Institute for
Policy and Strategic Studies, Kuru, Jos, 245-253.
Onibokun, A. G., and Kumuyi, A. J. (2005). Ibadan, Nigeria:
International Development centre.
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-42976-201-1-DO_Topic.html
Visited 28.01.2007
Raghupathy, R. (2004). Waste Management in Food
Processing Industries. Science Tech. Entrepreneur
Magazine October 2004.
Ridgway, J. S., Henthorn, K. S., and Hull, J. B. (1999).
Controlling over filling in food processing. Journal of
Material Processing and Technology 92-93 (1999)
360-367.
Schaub, S. M., and Leonard, J. J. (1996). Composting: An
alternative waste management option for food
processing industries. Trends in Food Science and
Technology. August, 1996, Vol. 7.
Taiwo, K. A., Oladepo, O. W., Ilori, M. O., and Akanbi, C. T.
(2002). A study on the Nigerian Food Industry and the
Impact of Technological changes on the Small-scale
food Enterprises. Food Review International vol. 18,
No.4, pp.243-261
Zarror, C. A. (1992). Controlling the environmental impact
of the food industry: an integral approach. Food
Control, vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 190-199