There is little doubt that feed ingredient usage has commanded the primary interests of the rendering industry for the past several decades, an interest forged by the marketplace. The rendering industry has performed a very vital function, as well as process useful and valuable products for animal feed ingredients. Certainly, many other industrial use applications have provided marketing opportunities, but it has been the feed, livestock, poultry, and companion animal utilizations that have been the primary market for animal by-products. However, things changed!
In the “global community,” change is rapid, often radical, and very often not well understood as to its causation. In the rendering industry, the changes have been quite evident since 1986. In North America, change has been even more evident since May 20, 2003, with the diagnosis of a single case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a six-year-old Canadian cow, an incident that both forward and backward surveillance activities provide scientific input for the origin to be a spontaneous case. However, an investigation has also established epidemiological evidence that supports the probability that the case animal had opportunities to have been legally fed rations containing ruminant meat and bone meal prior to 1997. A known phenomenon for the annual occurrence of human Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is at an established case per one million population. The CJD incident rate has been determined to be independent of demography, diet, and social practices. The intensive review of the incident portrayed a strict compliance record to the prevention practices and regulations and predict the improbable for the amplification of the disease.
The rendering industry often seems shrouded in a blanket of doom and gloom and that blanket has often times been due to change, brought about from a variety of sources. But changes in consumer attitudes and regulatory/legislative reactions have been most vivid. Thus, how should the animal industries, and more specifically the rendering industry, which is so very much an integral part, react? All too often industries, businesses, and the organizations that serve them become trapped by their history and try to maneuver into the future by looking through their rearview mirror. To be continually successful they all must constantly test and adjust their missions, their core competencies, and core businesses. Their assumptions must be adjusted to be certain that they fit with current reality and that they incorporate the obvious.
During rapid change, assumptions and theories are unlikely to persist very long. Thus, anticipation and rapid proactive plans to external changes are especially critical. The basic question that must be constantly answered is, “Is the future catching up with us?” Even more basic, “Has the future passed us?” The issues associated with rendered animal products have certainly been on the fast track of rapid change. It is a product line that has been woven so ever tightly on its use as providing protein, energy, minerals, and a multitude of essential nutrients when used as feed ingredients. The future has been projected very vividly as presenting an environment for an even enhanced rate of change. A future that will be driven by a focus on health, safety, and environmental issues as perceived by a consumer-driven economy. These assumptions are not only predictions, as illustrated by examples, as nearly all indications and data qualify them as facts. The future extends forever and as Yogi Berra has stated, “It just isn’t what it used to be.” So, a basic question that awaits our answer is, “Has the future passed us by?”
By all indications, the future has not passed us by in that the need for rendering’s basic services as the most economical, biosecure, environmentally safe process and utilization for the animal by-products produced still belong to rendering. But in my opinion the future is catching up with us.
Strategic Inflection Points
Dr. Lonnie King, dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, recently spoke at a veterinary conference and quoted from the book Only the Paranoid Survive, by Andy Grove. Grove coined a phrase – strategic inflection point (SIP). SIP is defined as a time in the life of an industry, business, or organization when its very fundamentals are about to change. To quote from that reference, “This can be a time to rise to new heights, but it is just as likely to signal the beginning of the end. SIPs are truly full-scale changes in the way we conduct our work or business. A SIP is a point in time when a critical change occurs and your past successes and strategies may no longer be relevant or effective in either anticipating or responding.” I do not have all of the SIPs identified for the rendering industry or the future utilization of its resultant products, but there are, however, a number of fundamental factors that I believe are major challenges facing the industry and the organizations with the mission to serve it. Whether the issues can be labeled as SIPs is a moot point. What is done to rise to greater heights becomes the important result.
There are several over the shoulder glances that suggest the industry has reason to look well beyond the areas of its current expertise. By most criteria, the technology of producing and providing availability of quality, safe, economical feed ingredients has been the rendering industry’s expertise. But have the business principles been applied to that expertise? Producing more efficiently is a single dimensional strategy that does not fit reality. A difference between today and tomorrow is that the production and financial figures are impacted by a number of factors that cannot be measured by just the traditional business parameters. A greater appreciation for adding value and seeking ways that add further value to rendered products, processes, services, and skills must become a theory of the business model. More and more, the industry’s competitors will use their portfolios of resources for an increasing share of the market and future opportunities. The industry needs to maximize its share of the future, build alliances, assemble greater competencies, conduct research, and seek opportunities to meet new societal demands. It is the rendering industry that needs to be more influential in developing societal demands.
The feed industry is still a target market and feed ingredients are still rendering’s core business. There still remain a number of unanswered questions regarding the nutritional components and contributions of animal proteins and fats. In comparison, however, the data is more complete in referencing the nutritional specifications than most other attributes. In particular, data to discern the queries for its safety, biosecurity, variability, and any components that provide nutraceutical or commercial use opportunities are less available. Research by nature is exploratory and its outcome uncertain, but there are ways to guide the direction so the outcome has a higher probability of being productive. The Fats and Proteins Research Foundation (FPRF) is going about that guidance process. There are many potential applications for rendered products that have been identified. The question is, which ones are more likely to provide commercial applications? The rendering industry lacks much of this basic information to answer the question. More importantly are the socio-economic influences identified which will focus our path.
Corporate Policy Needs Sound Science
An identified SIP is the need to pursue non-feed/non-food uses for animal by-products. The continued utilization of animal-derived feed ingredients will undoubtedly be influenced by factors other than their established nutrient contributions. The factors of consumer perception, regulatory activities, international trade manipulations, anti-animal activists, opportunistic marketing practices, and either support or non-support of the animal industry sectors will influence by-product’s future. There are so many food safety issues or perhaps fears that continue to provide affluent consumers the opportunity to guide the market. One can cite genetically engineered crops and the controversy surrounding their influence on the commercialization risks for enhancing total production volumes so that the less affluent can be consumers as opposed to starvation or going to bed hungry. Other examples have been the extreme reactions to animal welfare issues. Just recently, McDonald’s Corporation publicized their intent to restrict growth promotion antibiotic usage in food producing animals from which they purchase meat, milk, and eggs. Though the decision addresses a scientific controversy, it is not based on sound science.
A number of scientific organizations to include the American Veterinary Medical Association, Animal Health Institute, Federation of Animal Science Societies, and Animal Agriculture Alliance defied a science base as a need for the corporate policy decision. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for Veterinary Medicine references the policy as a “social policy rather than a scientific policy.” All of these “decisions” affect basic agricultural production globally in a variety of factors, but most notably by increasing production and processing costs to be passed on to the consumer or, in a very frequent result, of lowering farm margins. The ultimate result being the demise of the smaller family farm styles that cannot compete, and the perpetuation of “super” farms that are also contrary to most “rightist,” “welfare,” “green,” “natural” visions and beliefs. But as fickle and as fragile as the non-scientific and even “common sense” determinations are that dictate our food supply market, the mandates of “no animal by-products in our products” from any major supplier would be major influencers for change. Competition from both protein and lipid sources will become more intense. The tremendous increase in further processing of grain for alcohol production provides vast new sources of protein, energy, and mineral ingredients. World production of oil seed crops continues to increase annually. But there are several indicators and projections for the rendering industry to look positively forward rather than pessimistically over its shoulder at the past.
Alternative Uses
There have been some recent successes within the alternative use markets. Bioenergy and soil amendments can be cited as introductory level products to a potential emerging market. Bioenergy, as derived from the production and utilization of biodiesel or the utilization of fats, oils, and greases as burner fuels and energy derived from the other by-product components, are becoming a more significant alternative-use opportunity. This discussion will not address a multitude of industrial-use opportunities that could be exploited, but at this time probably needs to be considered more visionary as opposed to readily commercializable opportunities.
History books reference the use of animal-derived fats for heat and light since mankind lived in caves. Tallow and whale oil were reported as being primary to the existence of our predecessors in search of extending the daylight and providing comfort of supplemental heat. As rendering processes were initiated and advances made during the past 150 years, the combustible properties of animal fats providing energy resources is frequently referenced. Though the world’s energy reliance in modern history has been directed to petroleum-derived sources, the last decade has resulted in considerable interest for alternative fuels.
Biofuel has become a household word. It defines fuels made from renewable or organic matter (biomass) that reoccurs within common production practices such as in the agriculture industry. Biofuels include ethanol, biodiesel, methanol, and direct combustion of the feedstocks. Certainly, animal by-products are a valuable resource within the renewable energy pool should their use be di-verted or expanded into these uses.
Biodiesel
Much has been written on the subject of biodiesel. Conventionally defined as a biofuel produced through transesterification, biodiesel by definition is feedstock neutral. Biodiesel is derived from any organically derived fat or oil following the combination with alcohol (ethanol or methanol) in the presence of a catalyst to form methyl or ethyl ester. Thus, biodiesel can be made from animal fats, recycled cooking and restaurant greases, plant oils, or microalgae oils. European countries have been much more aggressive in the development and commercialization process as compared to North America and especially the United States.
Biodiesel is a commercial fuel in Europe and in parts of the United States. Production and consumption in Europe is about one billion liters (260 million gallons) per year. It is used widely for motor fuel in Germany, Austria, and France, as heating oil in Italy, with smaller amounts being used as motor fuels in other countries such as Sweden and Norway. Use in the United States has grown in the past several years but is still below 20 million gallons in total annual consumption. Reports in the United States project that there is enough feedstock available domestically to produce 1,644 million gallons of pure biodiesel (B100) annually. This estimate represents excess production and exports that can be diverted to domestic use for fats and oils. It has further been estimated that if used as B5 (five percent biodiesel blended with diesel fuel) it could be added to every gallon of diesel fuel sold in the United States for on-road transportation. Thus, biodiesel will never be able to displace more than five to six percent of the petroleum diesel demand in the United States, but it can provide a valuable role as a fuel extender.
The properties and attributes of biodiesel have been well defined, perhaps best summarized recently by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report of a compilation of 39 separate studies. The November 2002 report (see Biodiesel Bulletin, December 2002 Render) stated the reduction of particulate matter (PM) emissions of 47 percent when compared to petroleum diesel in unmodified diesel engines. The report also claimed a 67 percent reduction in unburned hydrocarbons (HC) and a 48 percent reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) with pure biodiesel. Studies have confirmed that significant reductions in these emission perimeters also result even at the lower two to five percent blend levels. Additionally, biodiesel derived from animal-based feedstock provides greater benefits from PM, HC, and CO, and less detriment in nitrogen oxides than all other feedstock types (soybean oil, rapeseed, or canola oil).
A newly published report, “Biodiesel Demonstration and Assessment,” May 30, 2003, Biobus Project: Montreal Canada, confirmed these benefits. The study ran for one year from March 2002 to March 2003. Three sources of biodiesel derived from animal fat, used cooking oil, and vegetable oil were used at five percent and 20 percent blends in 155 Montreal, Canada, buses during the study period. The animal fat consisted of equal portions of lard and tallow. The used cooking oil was collected from restaurants in the greater Montreal area and consisted of a range in vegetable oil to animal fat content. The vegetable oil was soybean oil. Tail pipe emissions were obtained for both regulated as well as numerous unregulated emissions. Emissions were obtained using buses powered with both electronic and mechanical fuel injection systems. All fuels complied with the American Society of Testing and Materials D6751-02 biodiesel fuel standard.
Feedstocks of animal fat and recycled restaurant grease provided biodiesel that were superior or equal to that of soybean oil in most all categories. A challenge that soybean oil has in physiochemical characteristics is a significant nitrogen oxide emission increase. This characteristic was again evident in this study when compared to the other feedstock sources. Thus, the performance, environmental benefits, and economics of production are all very complimentary for the use of all animal fats and recycled cooking/restaurant greases to be important resources for deriving biodiesel. It is, however, unfortunate that special interest groups have concentrated actions on legislative incentives that ignore all feedstock neutrality principles, biodiesel definition, scientific data/technology, and cooperative efforts that have stagnated the tremendous opportunities that exist in the United States. Canada has accepted the benefits of feedstock neutrality to a greater extent even though their country’s dependence on foreign oil is not as critical as documented for the United States. Discriminatory tax codes and incentives for oilseed producers and processors have been a persistent action plan of the “check-off” funded organizations representing the industry. Consequently, biodiesel commercialization has been hampered and threatens the adoption of incentive programs for all biodiesel.
The future of biodiesel in the United States is, at best, uncertain. There have been some past analogies made in that two things should not be observed during its production process: sausage and legislation. It is certainly appropriate as it relates to biodiesel legislation and the opportunities that may or may not exist for animal fats and recycled cooking/restaurant grease as resources for energy as biodiesel.
Biofuels
FPRF has been instrumental in acquiring data on the various fats for use as alternative burner fuels. Studies have involved the collection of data regarding their combustion efficiencies, emissions, and fuel characteristics when used as liquid burner fuels. Comparisons were made to the commonly used natural gas, No. 2 fuel oil, and No. 6 fuel oil. The No. 2 fuel oil can also be characterized as a light fuel oil and the No. 6 as a heavy fuel oil. Currently, these energy sources have experienced significant increases in cost. This is particularly evident for natural gas sources, which have nearly doubled during the past year and are projected for further significant increases.
Tallow, choice white grease, yellow grease, and poultry fats can all be considered to be biofuels for burner usage. Considerable data has been assembled to document that these sources burn cleanly, readily, without odor, and without damage to boiler equipment. They produce fewer combustion emissions than both sources of fuel oils and are very comparable to natural gas. The EPA Office of Air and Radiation was supplied with the data and has published a guidance document indicating that “state and local permitting authorities should reference the data as sufficient information to make permit decisions regarding the substitution of these biofuels for conventional sources without the need for costly stack testing prior to issuing a permit” (see Newsline, page 8).
When used as industrial fuels for steam production for the heating of the University of Georgia campus, boiler efficiencies ranged from 93.7 percent to 95.3 percent when burned as neat fuels compared to No. 2 fuel oil. When added as a 20 percent blend to No. 2 fuel oil, efficiency was improved over that of burning the fuel oil neat. The published heating value of No. 2 fuel oil is rated between 130,000 to 132,000 Btu per gallon. The quality of the respective animal fats is important. In particular the moisture, impurities, and unsponificables influence their value and performance. The values, as commonly acceptable for their use as feeding fats, provide excellent guidelines for their use as burner fuels.
Fuel characteristics are fat-source dependent. All biofuels have been successfully used in a variety of burner types, facilities, and temperature environ-ments. The viscosity of lard and choice white grease handle and atomize easier than No. 6 fuel oil and more like No. 5 fuel oil. Flames have been described as having blue “natural gas like” to a bright orange “oil like” jet surrounded by a grayish flame. In addition to being a viable alternative for the direct substitution for liquid burner fuels with little necessary equipment modifications, and a substitution for natural gas with minor conversion, these alternative biofuels have potential to also serve as co-firing fuel sources. Several biomass materials sourced from other industries such as wood, paper, and plant residue are being utilized with greater frequency for fueling central electrical and heating facilities through direct combustion. A very frequent complaint is the dust that accompanies the handling of these materials as they are prepared for fluid bed combustion chambers. Animal fats applied during the processing controls the dust and contribute to the energy contribution derived from such biomass material. A number of innovative applications for the direct use of animal fats as complimentary energy sources exist. It is, however, a market driven by the competitive energy sources based on a global supply and demand market.
Combustion/Energy Values of Animal Protein
Though currently more value is derived from the various animal by-product protein sources for protein, amino acids, energy, and major/minor mineral components for livestock, poultry, agriculture, and companion animal diets, several exploratory analyses have been obtained in reference to their energy value when combusted. Meat and bone meal, when burned in combustion chambers, is difficult to maintain a sustainable flame without blending with other combustible materials. The most probable is coal or fuel oil. Perhaps other biomass sources could serve as co-firing agents.
Combustion properties and energy derivation are highly dependent upon the residual fat and percentage of ash content. Databases have reported Btu values for meat and bone meal of 6,400 per pound (/lb.) to 10,000/lb. as compared to 13,000/lb. to 14,000/lb. for coal when obtained in fluid bed combustion chambers. Thus, energy values are reported to be approximately 50 to 75 percent that of coal. It is projected that the combustion, fuel characteristics, and the factors that determine variability are very similar to that of meat and bone meal when utilizing poultry meal. Feather meal is more combustible, but due to its elevated level of sulfur-containing amino acids, emissions opportunities exist. Combustion of animal protein meals is an alternative for disposal but their utilization as much higher value products as feed ingredients or perhaps other industrial uses are dictated. Their burning will still leave a 10 to 25 percent ash residue that requires utilization or disposal.
Biosecurity of Animal Fats, Greases, and Oils in Biodiesel and Biofuels
Just as myths and consumer perceptions impact the feeding and production of animals, they likewise surface when those same products are used as fuel sources. Queries are numerous regarding the safety and biosecurity when used for purposes other than feed ingredients. Fat and oil sources that are to be used as fuels are included. The overall class of lipids is common relative to their biosecurity properties. Rendered animal products, including yellow grease/used cooking oils, are subjected to sterilizing time and temperature conditions during their extraction and processing. Soybean oil extraction is accomplished by both a chemical and heating process. Lipids as a class of products are very poor media for microbial growth in that moisture and nutrients are not available for replication. In the case of rendered animal products, studies have been completed that verifies the animal protein fraction from which the fat is extracted, but still containing six to 10 percent fat, is rendered free of the six most common foodborne microorganisms during the rendering process (“Prevalence of Selected Foodborne Pathogens in Final Rendered Products,” Dr. F. Troutt, University of Illinois). Bacterial cultures and viral isolation attempts from fats, greases, and oils have not been successful (American Protein Producers Industry annual microbiological assay summaries). Additionally, as previously referenced, the initial processing of fats, greases, and oils are accompanied with microbial inactivation procedures. The basic manufacturing process of biodiesel exerts additional antimicrobial properties. Both methanol and the acid or base catalysts used in the production process are such compounds. Alcohol has long been used as a topical disinfectant. The data available provides assurance that any transmission of disease from any feedstock used for the production of biodiesel or directly as a biofuel would be extremely improbable.
The United States is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)-free. Only recently has BSE been identified in a single cow in Canada. An intensive surveillance program has been in place in both the United States and Canada since 1986 with the advent of the first BSE diagnosis in the United Kingdom. The 2003 Canadian incidence is documentation that the surveillance and compliance programs are effective in preventing an epidemic of BSE in North America. The FDA has imposed a regulation (21CFR§589.2000) that prohibits ruminant-derived tissues from being included in the diet of ruminant animals as a precaution for BSE, should it be diagnosed in the United States. Canada has a similar program in place.
Several tissues have been excluded as exempt from those regulations. Tallow, the fat derived from cattle, is an exempt tissue. The common accepted causative agent, prion, of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE), of which BSE is included, has never been isolated from fat tissue and oral inoculation studies have not demonstrated the transmission of BSE via tallow or fat. In studies conducted at the Institute for Moekulare Biotechnology in Jena, Germany, by Thomas Appel, et. al., and published in the European Journal Lipid Science Technology, the safety of oleochemical products derived from beef tallow or bone fat regarding prions was reported. To experimentally prove the destruction of the pathogenic prion protein, aggregate processes were emulated in the laboratory. Fat samples were spiked with highly infectious ex vivo prion rods. Chemical degradation processes of hydrogenation of double bonds, catalytic transesterification, and peptide bond hydrolysis resulted in risk factors for human consumption or skin application exposures as being lower than the background risk of contacting sporadic CJD, which has been established at 1 x 106 per annum.
In addition, studies conducted at the University College Dublin, “Human Risks from the Combustion of SRM [Specified Risk Material]-Derived Tallow in Ireland,” were published in the Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp 1177-1192 (2002). As previously referenced, epidemiological studies have failed to incriminate the dietary use of tallow with any risk of BSE development (Wilesmith, et. al., 1988, Veterinary Record 123: 638-644). This study, however, addressed the risks to humans associated with the combustion of tallow. SRMs comprise those parts of an animal that present the greatest risk of BSE infectivity. SRM materials were modeled for worst-case infectious doses with an assumption that insoluble solids, including protein material, may remain in the tallow. The analysis of the risks associated with the combustion of tallow derived from SRMs concluded that the risks are negligibly small. The risks are a number of orders of magnitude less than the sporadic incidence of CJD. Based on current knowledge, there are negligible implications to human health when tallow is used as a fuel extender or for the manufacture of an alternative fuel.
In high endemic countries with BSE such as the United Kingdom and Germany, tallow and yellow grease methyl esters are a primary utilization for the rendered fat. Thus, there is considerable demonstrative evidence that BSE, other TSEs, or diseases of microorganism origin do not present any zoonotic risks when fats, greases, and oils are used as biofuels.
Summary
It is very discerning to vision annual production without the utilization of approximately one-half of its total production, but as we look over our shoulders, it would not be prudent to ignore the possible fundamental issues dictating change. Nor is it prudent for the rendering industry not to pursue opportunities of enhancement. Societal demands will be intensive. It must therefore be the industry’s mission to maximize its share of the future, build alliances, assemble greater competencies, conduct progressive research, and seek opportunities to influence or meet new societal demands as they relate to rendered animal products.
August 2003 Render