
Note; the following article is an excerpt from a (now) more complete article here.
The following study was done by a group of Students at the Siebel Institute in 2007. Although the data (such as costs) are likely only representative, the findings are interesting:
The scenario is a brewery in the Caribbean contemplating the replacement of a 30 year old tunnel pasteurizer with flash pasteurization or filtration. It is based on a production level of 150 HL/ YR and a product mix which is 95% Light Lagers and 5% Malta. Options are that the existing pasteurizer could be replaced with:
1) Direct Replacement of the existing tunnel pasteurizer
2) Replaced with sterile filtration and filling
3) Flash pasteurization and sterile filling, and warming
The assumptions of the case study were:
No importation taxes onto the Island
· No personnel additions required (Sterile Monitoring/Filter Cleaning)
· This is a 300 BPM packaging line
· Bottles have paper labels, and are packed into plastic crates
· A cooling tower exists which treats pasteurizer discharge water
· Effluent is discharged into the sea at no cost to the brewery
· Capacity exists to treat any effluent additions of the project
· Currently, the brewery \filters lagers to 2ยต, and does not filter Malta
· Cooling is required after the flash to arrive at filling temperatures
· Assumes no QC delay to market, and no impact to WIP
· If a Sterile Filler is purchased, the existing filler can be sold
· Malta would be sent from brew house to 100 bbl BBT
· Cost of spare parts and inventory adjustments has been neglected
· Pasteurizers and Warmers are cleaned by “Boil-Out” which does not create effluent
The assumptions made were:The study requested an analysis of:
- Capital Cost
- Operating Cost
- Shelf Life
- QC/QA Practices
- Process Changes
These will be the next 5 posts.
0 comments
Post a Comment