Rendered Ingredients in Pet Foods

Greg Aldrich, PhD

Research Associate Professor

Pet Food Program Coordinator

NRA- 30Jan2013

Outline

• Pet Industry Trends

• Ingredients: Protein Meals and Fats

• Protein quality: more than a name

• Fat quality: more than a preservative

• Take home

Pets and Pet Food

• US – $53 B pet supplies, $ 19 B Pet Food – 9 MMT - $1 billion export – Dogs and cats – 165 million (APPA, 2012)

– 213 million more including the birds, fish, horses, rodents

– Pets live in 62% of homes

• Global Pet Food – $ 56 billion – 4% growth (Packaged Facts, 2011)

• Growing “value” for mental & physical health, protection, detection & service

Paradigm Shift

Barnyard security Furry “child”

Pet Food Trends/Market Pressures • Increased offerings of high protein low carbohydrate “no-

grain” diets • Growth in minimally processed, fresh, refrigerated-frozen,

& raw diets • Increasing number of “limited ingredient” and “novel

ingredient” diets • Expanding “NO” list (no corn, wheat, soy, beef, byproducts,

beet pulp, menadione, etc.) • Increased drive for natural/non-synthetic, domestic (non-

China), and species specific ingredients • Demand by retailers and distributors for longer shelf-life • Expanding life-stage, breed, (in)activity targeted, and

special purpose foods

NO, NO, NO, NO

• No Corn

• No Wheat

• No Soy

• No Beef

• No By-products

• Gluten Free

• Grain Free

• All Natural

• No Artificial Colors

• No Artificial Flavors

• No Artificial Preservatives

• Hormone and Antibiotic Free

Rendered Ingredients

Rendering

• Rendering, in its simplest description, is a sterilization, dehydration, and resizing process

• Extensive heating (ca. 280°F) drives water and fat from the bone and tissue

• The fat is separated by pressing and the remaining “cake” is ground in a hammer-mill to a uniform particle size

Defining Quality

• Protein

– Protein & ash levels

– Color, aroma, particle size, flow characteristics

– Amino acid profile

– Digestibility

– Contaminants

• Fat

– Color, consistency, aroma

– Palatability

– Stability - Free fatty acids, PV, AOM

– Fatty acid profile

Impact

• Rendered protein meal represents a substantial portion of the high quality protein and fat in modern companion animal diets.

• They are commonly included at 5 to 40% and can contribute in excess of 85% of the dietary protein and 30% of the dietary fat.

• Rendered fats support 2 to 10% of most dry extruded diets

• Pet foods consume ~25% of the rendered ingredients produced

Does Your Pet Care?

Digestibility and stool quality of protein sources

BBM PBPM PM SBM

Intake, g/d (DM) 396 338 318 380

Digestibility, % (DM) 78.6b 83.0a 84.5a 78.3b

Fecal output, g/d (ASIS) 136b 117b 106b 226a

Fecal output, g/d (DM) 56a 39b 36b 54a

Fecal score 2.1b 2.2b 2.3b 2.6a

Bednar et al., 2000

Meat & bone quality

Johnson and Parsons, 1997; Johnson et al., 1998

High

Ash

Low

Ash

High

°T

Low

°T

Rooster TAA dig., % 74.3a 71.3a 75.2a 84.0b

Dog Ileal TAA dig., % 81.5b 71.4a 81.8b

Dog Ileal N dig., % 72.7ab 65.7a 76.4a

Chick PER 1.03a 1.63b 1.48b 2.05c

By-products or No By-products? • “Secondary products produced in addition to the

principal product”

• Applies to many ingredients used to produce food for man and animal, such as…… – Grain by-products – “Wheat bran”

– Meat/Poultry by-products – “Beef liver”

Animal/Poultry By-Products – Acceptability?

• Wild and ancestral canids – organ meats first consumed following a kill

• Small predators consume whole prey – skin, organs, and contents

• Most “natural flavors” produced from hydrolyzed liver and viscera

Protein quality of chicken by-product meal (CBPM) and chicken meal (CM) in the chick

CM CBPM-A CBPM-B SEM

Protein, % 67.7 70.9 68.3

Ash, % 16.7 10.4 12.8

Lysine, % 4.12 4.66 4.77

Methionine, % 1.13 1.23 1.22

Weight gain, g 76.8 74.4 66.2 4.72

Protein intake, g 19.6 19.0 18.0 0.79

PER 3.91 3.91 3.61 0.13

Aldrich and Daristotle, 1998

Structural Protein the Issue • Bones are 15-25% protein, with most from collagen

• Collagen lacking in tryptophan, deficient in essential amino acids, BV estimated to be 0

• Negative index of protein quality for animal protein meals? (Eastoe & Long 1960)

• Collagen = 7.56 * OH-Proline level (Bonifer and Froning, 1996)

• Chicken Skin 38.9% with pepsin and 25.1% with ethylenediamine (Cliché et al., 2003)

Fat • Quality parameters

• Fat Sources

• Oxidation & Preservatives

Fat Quality Defined Measurement Significance Target

Moisture (%) Pro-oxidant, diluent <1%

Impurities Pro-oxidant, contaminants <1%

Unsaponifiables Sterols, pigments, alcohols, etc <1%

FFA, Acid Value Hydrolytic rancidity <5%

Peroxide Value Primary oxidation products <2meq/kg

Anisidine Value Secondary oxidation products nil

Iodine Value Double bonds 76-80

FAC Color, Processing damage <21

AOM Capacity to retard oxidation 20 h >10 meq/kg

R=R

•O2

* R-R

Catalyst

To, uV,

Fe, *R

R’ R” Antioxidant

Fat Oxidation

Oxidation Reaction

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Time

Oxid

ati

on

IP

Relative rates of reactivity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 2 4 6 8

Iod

ine

Val

ue

Stability

Soy

Sunflower

Rape

Olive

Lard

Tallow

Adapted from Erikson, 1985

Comparison of Fatty Acid profiles: Animal

Beef Pork Chicken Mutton Turkey

18:2n6 3.1 6.5 19.5 5.5 21.2

18:3n3 0.6 0.3 1.0 2.3 1.4

20:4n6 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.3

20:5n3 0 0 0 0 0

22:5n3 0 0 0 0 0

22:6n3 0 0 0 0 0

IV* 33-47 45-70 76-80 35-46

www.nal.usda.gov 5-7-04

*Firestone, 1999

Comparison of Fatty Acid profiles: Marine oils Herring Salmon Menhaden Sardine Mackerel* Tuna*

18:2n6 1.1 1.5 2.2 2.0 2.3 1.0

18:3n3 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.3 2.2 0.6

20:4n6 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.8 0.5 1.7

20:5n3 6.3 13.0 13.2 10.1 9.7 7.1

22:5n3 0.6 3.0 4.9 2.0 1.9 1.5

22:6n3 4.2 18.2 8.6 10.7 14.5 26.3

IV** 115-160 130-160 150-200 159-192

www.nal.usda.gov 5-7-04 *Frankel et al., 2002

**Firestone, 1999

Comparison of Fatty Acid profiles: Vegetable

Soybean Canola Flax Sun Olive

18:2n6 51.0 20.3 12.7 65.7 9.2

18:3n3 6.8 9.3 53.3 0 0.8

20:4n6 0 0 0 0 0

20:5n3 0 0 0 0 0

22:5n3 0 0 0 0 0

22:6n3 0 0 0 0 0

IV* 118-139 110-126 170-203 118-145 75-94

www.nal.usda.gov 5-7-04

*Firestone, 1999

Preservatives

• Trend toward Natural Preservatives

• Tocopherol based systems most effective

• Rosemary becoming more prominent

• More costly and require greater attention

• Oil is often used as the vehicle to deliver antioxidant to stabilize diet

Waste Not Want Not

Ingredient Availability is the Biggest Threat to Near-Term Sustainability

• Import and trade barriers

– BSE, GMO, Newcastle, scrapies

– Bovine free, Starch duties

• Rendered protein meals and fats

– Increasing demand

– Increasing ash content

– Growing competition with aquaculture

• Negative perceptions and connotations

– Generic terms

– Byproducts

– Perceived allergens

• Novel ingredients become less novel (e.g. lamb), more scarce (duck, rabbit, venison).