Material flows in livestock product utilisation
Yüklə 0,86 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Prozyme
- 5. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH REQUIRED
| Table4.2.5.1: An indicative level of returns from edible offal and co-products, 2007
Source MLC. Note – This table does not show a representative sample of prices nq=no quote Imported offal prices were observed to be at the top end of these ranges for the main items. The EBLEX reports referred to, give examples of retail prices, which in most instances are 100 to 150% higher than those above. Export According to the MLC Export Development team, there are now good opportunities to export more edible offal’s and co-products to the EU and further a field, particularly to China. The trade in such materials was reported in detail in the 2006 reports Chapter 6 (MLC, 2006). Since then it has been the subject of further review by EBLEX, however, compared to European and North American abattoirs many edible offal and edible co products (from the gutroom) are neglected due to lack of facilities, skills and available markets. In the EU for example, France has a thriving market for prepared tripe dishes that also use the bible/manifold e.g. Andouillette, and the rest of Europe have similar dishes and high demands for gutroom products. The Spanish have a pork blood dish that is simply pig blood with a setting agent added at the abattoir. The blood sets in trays and is then cut like a cake, this is very popular in Madrid. In the USA the abattoirs tend to have there own rendering facilities normally with a railhead leading into the plant. Currently the bulk of the ‘green offal’s’ are turned into animal feed, the pig offal into chitterlings for the ethnic trade and tripe is blanched and sold to Mexico. Plants that do not have their own rendering facilities are served by renderers who are willing to travel vast distances to collect product, 700 mile trips are common place with several vehicles in the loop to clear the high throughput abattoirs. The export trade for by-products is of major importance for the USA plants and they all have full facilities for further processing by-products, unlike the bulk of the UK abattoirs. Japan is currently a major market for beef straps from cattle feet along with the mountain chain from the tripe. 4.2.5.2. Managing the abattoir gut room A key prerequisite for improving the return from many edible co-products is in improving the efficiency and hygiene of operations in the gut room. Traditionally in abattoirs the management of the gut room has always taken a second place to the other areas in the plant. Because of the working condition it has always been difficult to find staff to work in the gut room. An efficient gut room operation requires a practical approach to make sure product quality is maintained in what is often seen as ‘rubbish’ and it also requires someone able to market the product to ensure maximum returns or, as is often the case, minimum loses. Because finding suitable staff is often difficult many plant operators will employ a company to manage the gut room operation on their behalf. This has a number of advantages to the plant operator. The management company is responsible for providing and training staff and as specialists in this area they are knowledgeable in best practice techniques to maximise yield and quality. The management company can also negotiate favourable deals with customers on the basis of larger volumes, brought together from a number of plants, and better quality as a result of specialisation. Many plant operators have chosen this option and with an efficient and trustworthy gut room operating company, costs can be minimised and in some cases small profits returned. The opportunities for abattoirs in improving their gut room operations were the subject of a RMIF industry forum in 2007. 4.2.5.3. Progress towards lifting of the feed ban Regulation EC 1234/2003 defines the framework in which any substantive legislative changes will be made. The EC believes that changes can be made without endangering the health or the policy of eradicating BSE, and provided that the positive trend continues and scientific conditions are in place. However, only when the analytical methods and tools for the detection of the presence of species-specific animal proteins in animal feed are developed and validated, will the scientific conditions exist to permit the re-evaluation of the total feed ban. The science must lead before legislation can follow. Work to improve the existing methods of identifying species-specific animal proteins is essential in order to lead to the lifting of the total ban but continuing to implement the anti-cannibalism ban. To this end, a collaborative European project to provide this scientific evidence, SAFEED-PAP, has been now been agreed with the European Commission and DG Research. The SAFEED-PAP proposal has three main objectives that should lead to solve the problematic of the species-specific detection of MBM in compound feeds:
The SAFEED-PAP website is available at. http://safeedpap.feedsafety.org The provision of the scientific evidence is of course only the first, if essential step. Thereafter this evidence must be presented and accepted by the EC. There will be due discussion and consideration before the preparation of proposals. These proposals then need to be drafted into legislation. In principle, Commission Regulation EC 1923/2006, which introduced the concept of “tolerance” or threshold limits will be of significant assistance when completing these important discussions. However, even if the SAFEED-PAP project is completely successful at providing the scientific evidence that will underpin the lifting of the total ban, it is likely to be at least 2010 before the necessary legislation is passed to allow the feeding of non-ruminant PAP’s to farmed animals. A more immediate proposal by the European Fat Processors and Renderers Association (EFPRA) is expected in December 2007. This proposal will focus on the re-authorisation of non-ruminant PAP specifically for use in Aqua-feeds, using existing controls throughout the whole supply chain. 4.3 POULTRY and EGGS Previous sections outlined the scale of the waste and the possibilities for reducing waste in the Poultry sector mirror those of the Red Meat sector while disposal is strictly controlled by legislation. While there are specific breeds for each section of the industry i.e. food producing breeds and egg laying breeds, it will be impossible to use the waste male chicks from the egg laying breeds for food production. If it were possible to produce a general ‘all purpose’ bird this would be ideal, but unfortunately the economic pressures and specific needs of each sector of the industry will not allow this to happen 4.4. DAIRY It is recognised that, because of the efficiencies already carried out and the financial pressure to eliminate waste it is difficult to see any areas of production where further savings could be made. The recent move to recycling has pleased the multiple retailers and created a green image for the milk processors but the economics of the process do not make it a viable process and it is carried out for other reasons than pure cost savings. Both live dairy bull calves, and the meat of adult dairy-type cattle is demanded in Europe. With further development in exporting meat to the continent, there is the potential for more male dairy calves to be reared, and finished in the UK as opposed to being disposed of or exported as calves. The UK is currently not self-sufficient in beef production, with much of the manufacturing quality beef being imported. With sufficient returns to cover costs of production producers could be encouraged to produce beef to displace these imports. To encourage producers to dispose of fewer calves, it is essential that improvements in the market value, whether it be for the live calf or meat, reflects increasing feed costs and is fed back through the supply chain. 4.5 PROPOSAL FOR LEGISLATIVE CHANGES THAT WILL ASSIST IN REDUCING PRODUCTION OF WASTE This section will consider each area of legislation separately and make recommendations for any actions by industry that might expedite faster actions in that particular legislative sector. 4.5.1 Food & Edible Co-Poducts No real changes are considered to be needed to assist in the project objective. However, the development of industry guides (to the EU hygiene regulations), are expected to assist in optimising the use of materials that could be used in these sectors. 4.5.2 Animal By-Products Regulation The ABPR is being reviewed at the current time, and the expectations will be that the principles laid down in the current version will be retained. It is intended that there will be a “lighter touch” with regard to the implementation while maintaining a low risk to animal and human health and the environment. However, one key change will hopefully see the removal of the requirement to “dispose of (certain) processed products, as waste, according to the waste incineration directive”. It is expected that processed products will be re-termed “derived products” which may then be considered as outside of the scope of the ABPR. Determination that certain derived products are “fuels”, may then lead to the control of emissions according to the general IPPC legislation, rather than specifically the WID. 4.5.3.Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Regulations The TSER will be the actual vehicle for re-entry of certain products back into the food chain via animal feeds. This area includes the TSE roadmap, the SAFEED project and all associated areas of control tools, but most specifically that of species identification in processed proteins. Developments in this area will lead to further amendments to the TSE regulation, which could lead the way forward to re-entry of certain products. An already approved product “Hydrolysed Protein” is already approved but the testing method is complex and is interpreted in different ways in some member states to the other. Clarification by acceptance of a common standard could lead to an immediate re-entry of Hydrolysed feather meal (if it is accepted as a “true” Hydrolysed protein). 4.5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IPPC: Some aspects of this legislation are under review, including the scope for emissions monitoring when emissions to air are made (in context of combustion). WID and WMLR issues: These should be considered to be part of the more holistic discussion on the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD is currently under review and discussion within the European Commission and the Parliament. 4.6 THE ESTIMATED EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES ON WASTE REDUCTION
4.6.1 Feed Ban The first would be change the existing feed ban to enable unwanted protein to be used as animal feed. Obviously this could not be permitted within the same species but cross species feeding is possible and would result in major changes to both the economics of the food industry but also the position of the UK food industry within the world market. 4.6.2 Protein conversion The second change would be to develop initiatives and processes that would enable more of the carcase to be consumed by the population. This would not necessarily mean that fewer carcases would be produced because the feed stock for the process would be the less popular by-products that are not consumed in their natural form. As the population becomes more affluent the consumption of the cheaper, less attractive products is reduced and the demand for what is perceived as the “best quality” products increases. This can be clearly seen by the amount of offal currently consumed in the UK. This is not the case in other countries where cultural differences have helped to maintain a more a wider appreciation of all parts of the carcase. One possible way to over come this problem would be to change the appearance, taste and texture of the less attractive items in a way that makes them more attractive to the public. With the current strict labelling requirements the opportunities for “hiding” these products within other more popular products is very small and many products could only be included by first converting them into their base primary components. The conversion of muscle to protein is not a new process and Prozyme is mentioned earlier as developing a system for converting bone and muscle into protein and other useful products. During discussions with Prozyme we discovered that they have carried out lab scale trials to see how effectively their system would convert unwanted and unattractive muscle and offal into protein powder for inclusion in soups and other food products. Should this prove viable it would provide the industry with an acceptable disposal route for the huge amounts of unwanted muscle and offal and it would ensure that the maximum amount of the carcase is consumed for human consumption even though not in a readily identifiable form. 5. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH REQUIRED 5.1. INTRODUCTION If we ignore the cost of disposal, a number of the alternative schemes become less attractive and we are left with better utilisation and reduced waste as the main aim. Discussions with each sector has resulted in a “wish list “ of problems and possible solutions. 5.2. RED MEAT The meat industry is keen to reduce disposal costs and do not see better usage of the carcase as a way of reducing the number of carcases needed. However two things that would improve usage would be the lifting of the feed ban and converting waste muscle and offal into protein. Much of the science required to justify lifting the feed ban is already in place and the change in legislation is based on a political rather than a scientific decision. The industry is already lobbying the UK and EU governments to take the next step and allow limited use of animal and poultry protein in animal feed. It is therefore unlikely that any additional funding would accelerate this decision. The conversion of muscle and offal into protein requires some basic research to be undertaken. This can be focused research using the existing knowledge of bone conversion but it needs to be done to ensure the acceptability and wholesomeness of the final product. 5.3 POULTRY Harper Adams University College hosted a Poultry Industry * meeting on July 17th 2006, to reprise the Temperton 12 report and consider the wishes of the UK Industry. At the end of the meeting a voting system was used to prioritise the “aspirations” of the industry. The headings of the subject groups under discussion were arbitrary, so the following summary shows the main findings by subject area. 5.3.1. SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS, (showing % votes cast) 35% a) Influence regulators and food chain members to re-authorise and approve the use of Poultry [PPP]** in feedingstuffs for farmed food producing animals. [** PPP = Processed Poultry Protein] 31% b) Determine the benefits of re authorisation of PPP including a scientific assessment of all beneficial properties of poultry by-products. 14% c) Establish method of local/ on-site processing systems to minimise environmental impact, maximise compost and /or energy (CHP). 13% d) Develop alternative uses of hatchery waste, including egg shell. The aspirations a) to d)(above) are not prioritised in a chronological order, so projects need to be developed to coordinate all of these activities in a logical order. 5.3.2. POULTRY INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
During the completion of this study we have found that the Dairy Industry is very efficient and is already doing a lot to reduce waste and ensure production costs are kept to a minimum. This is especially true with the larger companies that are being pushed into more efficient production and reduced waste by the large multiple retailers. At the smaller end of the industry the dairies and creameries complained about the cost of chilling the product and the need for a simple “quality kit” that could be used on farm so that the farmers would be aware of the quality of the product they are sending to the large processors. Unfortunately neither improved chilling nor local testing will result in reduced waste but both would enable the small producers to feel that they are more in control of their own destiny. Trying to investigate the cost of either problem proved very difficult. The refrigeration companies contacted all suggested that solutions using existing technology would be suitable but these could only be costed on a site-by-site basis. The “quality kit” proved equally as elusive because the instrument companies contacted were reluctant to get involved when they realised the potential sales would be a few farmers who are notoriously famous for not wanting to spend money. Everyone contacted raised the issue of male calves and their disposal, as the current veal market is uneconomic. All suggested that a proper veal industry within the UK would enable these calves to be produced and reared with a small profit. Whether the demand for veal would enable all these calves to be finished is a difficult question but everyone felt it would be worth developing a market and industry to make use of the calves. It was also felt that with the more humane production methods this veal could have an export market into the more “caring” countries. The option of specialist ‘finishers’ taking the male calves on to a commercial beef weight to supplement any forecast beef shortage is very appealing and should be possible using existing conventional rearing techniques without the need for any further research using 5.4. EGG INDUSTRY The Egg Industry had two main areas of concern. The disposal of shells and the disposal of male day old chicks. Many mentioned the separation of shell and membrane as the ‘holy grail’ but all soon admitted that the reported “gold rush” hasn’t happened and is unlikely to happen until the process becomes easier and cheaper. The process would provide an additional income to the egg producers and some even suggested it might prompt them to produce more eggs, and throw away the contents, if the return on shells was high enough. Hardly helping efficient production……. The waste of day old male chicks is one that on the face of it looks criminal – just as the disposal of male calves in the dairy industry. But the egg laying strain has proved to be unsuitable for meat production and the cost of rearing does not justify the return obtainable on a poor quality carcase. It was suggested that a move to a more general purpose strain would satisfy both needs – a good layer for egg production and good male carcase for food use. Unfortunately no one made any suggestion as to how this should be achieved and the general view was that it’s a problem for the scientist. It was also suggested that any compromise on the egg laying ability of the existing hens would result in higher production costs that would not be tolerated by the multiple retailers. 5.4.1. INDUSTRY VIEWS Most of the respondents referred to the Harper Adams University College meeting in July 2006 and the Temperton Fellowship report No 14 of 2006, “The future challenges facing the UK Egg Industry”. The main problems raised by the industry is finding better and cheaper solutions for using or disposing of hatchery waste and finding better and cheaper solutions for using or disposing of egg shells produced arising from the processed egg industry. Although highlighted as the major industry problems those contacted were reluctant to provide details of the costs involved – again this information was seen as confidential. Yüklə 0,86 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|