TECHNICAL SERVICES BULLETIN, December, 2001
(2 of 4 pages)

October 2001 Meetings

There were nearly 70 members and guests from eleven different countries that participated in the FPRF meetings and discussions held on October 15-16, 2001 in Naples Florida. The “Emerging Issues and Opportunities” Seminar received extremely high marks. Tina Caparella, in the December 2001 Render, summarized the program very aptly. The FPRF spring meeting is scheduled for April 23-24, 2002 in Vancouver, BC, Canada. The Seminar is scheduled for the second day (Wednesday April 24, 2002) and has already scheduled a number of interesting presentations and discussants. Attendance is a benefit of FPRF membership and is offered without any associative registration fees.

New Project Assignments

After evaluating and discussing thirteen submitted research proposals the Research Committee selected seven of which six were approved by the Board of Directors for funding and initiation as follows:

01B-1
“The Role of Alfalfa in Alleviating Milk Fat Depression When Tallow is Supplemented to Corn Silage-based Dairy Diets”
Dr. Ric Grummer – University of Wisconsin - Madison

01B-2
“Identification and Evaluation of Value-Added Chemical Product Opportunities for Animal Fats and Proteins.”
Meat Livestock Australia and Australian Meat Processor Corporation, Ltd.

01B-3
“Effects of supplemental fat on growth performance and quality of beef from steers fed corn-finishing diets.”
Dr. Mark Nelson – Washington State University

01B-4
“The Use of Fat and Grease as an Industrial Broiler Fuel.”
Dr. Thomas T. Adams – The University of Georgia 

01B-5
“Potential Usefulness of Meat and Bone Meal and Poultry By-Products Meal in Diets for Gibel Carp.”
Dr. Shaugi XIE – Institute of Hydrobiology, The Chinese Academy of Science 

01B-6 
“Non-Food/Feed Uses of Rendering Products: Identification of New Opportunities and Assessment of Major Barriers to their Exploitation.”
Dr. Davis Clements – Renewable Products Development Laboratories, Inc.

The studies were selected on the basis of the established priorities of FPRF and consistent with the operating policy of investing at least 75% of your investment in biosecurity, image, negative associative issues and new use applications for rendered animal products.

Future for Animal Byproducts in Beef Cattle Diets – Opinion
Terry Klopfenstein, Ph.D., University of Nebraska

We have conducted research on animal byproducts over the past 25 years. These byproducts include meat and bone meal, blood meal, feather meal, poultry byproduct meal and tallow. That research along with all of the other research done on these byproducts, much supported financially by the Fats and Proteins Research Foundation, shows excellent feeding values for these byproducts. I often refer to the book published by FPRF, NRA and APPI, “The Original Recycler” which clearly presents these nutritional values.

All of that nutritional background is of essentially no value today if we cannot change the attitudes among livestock producers, nutritionists, feed industry representatives, packers and immediate consumers. At the present time, there is doubt in the minds of all of these people. They have been bombarded with rhetoric about “Mad Cow Disease” which has created this doubt. Science is being ignored and emotion is influencing many people. When producers, nutritionists and others hear over and over that meat and bone meal causes BSE, they start to believe it regardless what the science says.

My best example of this rhetoric is from the September issue of BEEF Magazine. On page 32 is an article titled “Going Veggie” written by associate editor, Clint Peck. The article is very poorly done with many nutritional inaccuracies (inaccuracies is a very kind word for how bad it is). A cattle producer is quoted as saying “We’ve stopped feeding any kind of mammalian derived feed”. The writer Peck then states “It’s important to note that vegetable fats do provide the energy without the perceived problem of feeding animal fats. But the data are not in whether or not animal fats present a human health risk. Meat and bone – yes, but not animal fats”.

Obviously, that statement is grossly inaccurate! I was so discouraged that a writer for a beef magazine would write such misleading material that I sent an e-mail to him. That is the first time in 36 years at a University that I have done that. I bring this example up because I believe it illustrates the problems the rendering industry is faced with.

1. Producers, nutritionists, writers, etc. believe meat and bone meal is a human health risk. Because we have not had BSE in the United States, meat and bone meal cannot be a human health risk. However, it is perceived to be a risk.
2. The ban on feeding meat and bone meal is perceived to be a mammalian ban. It is not understood that pork meat and bone meal can be fed and further, that there is no risk to feeding pork meat and bone meal.
3. The precautionary principle has been accepted. If there is any perceived risk, then just don’t use any animal products in cattle feed. The individuals mentioned above believe this is the way to protect the cattle industry.
4. The cattle industry has little or no connection to the rendering industry. This perception further leads to the belief that the cattle industry has no responsibility for byproducts.
5. There is too much risk in having ruminant meat and bone meal in a feedmill that produces beef cattle supplements or feeds.
6. Tallow and blood meal have some perceived risk just because they are animal byproducts, not because of the science involved.

Somehow, the cattle industry needs to get the message that the rendering industry is an integral part of the cattle industry. This includes producers, nutritionists, veterinarians and feed manufacturers. Dr. Gary Pearl described very well at the Western Nutritional Conference how important the rendering industry is. It is imperative that the message really “sinks in” with the audiences. My impression is that the message has not gotten through and that it is going to take a great effort by the rendering industry to change attitudes if the cattle industry is to remain a viable market.

An International Co-Product Research Center Principle - A Developmental Concept

It has been stated on numerous occasions the naiveté that continues to be expressed of rendering. Even the dictionary does not offer an explanatory definition. Thus the industry has been in state of defense in support of the process, its benefits, and is burdened with the perception that because the raw material looks bad, smells bad and is derived from sources with bad images it must be bad.

Research has been a resource in defending those fallacies. FPRF has completed over 500 such projects. Much of the research has been completed using commercial facilities and commercially produced product. This has been a valuable attribute of the reported research in that it is applicable to the products and processes directly related to those that are offered by the industry. This practice has served the industry well in defining nutrient specifications, optimum feeding levels, other nutritional parameters and the past concerns of biosecurity.

In contrast this practice has hampered the exploration of research requiring enhanced replication studies for biosecurity, new use applications and bringing together a staff of interdepartmental disciplines to address all of the benefits and opportunities for the rendering process, perhaps a modified rendering process and the associative products.

As the industry moves to another level of scrutiny, it is becoming more evident for the need to provide research capabilities that duplicate commercial practices but do not rely on commercial facilities as the laboratory. There have been recent centers developed to allow concentrated research efforts to be directed at specific industries and their specific concerns that could not be completed via the reliability on commercial units. Examples are feed; Kansas State University, manure; North Carolina State University and soybeans; University of Illinois. On the basis of several past discussions, with various entities, obtaining input based on the description of need and concept, I will be recommending that FPRF pursue the concept for the development of an Inedible Co-products Research Center (Actual name to be determined). Though rendering has to date provided the majority of resources for providing an outlet of approximately half of the tonnage associated with the US livestock and poultry production, slaughter and processing, all other animal dependent industries, state, federal regulatory and those allied to human/animal health have a stake in sustainable animal agriculture and thus must be part of the coalition.

Should you wish to discuss the concept both pro or con please communicate with me.

next page >

BACK TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BULLETINS INDEX