Sustainability, Rendering, & Pet Food

Kurt A. RosentraterIowa State University

Acknowledgements• Partial support provided by

– Pet Food Sustainability Working Group (PSWG)– Pet Food Institute (PFI)

• Peter Tabor & Mary Emma Young

• Co-investigators– Mingjun Ma Mariana Rossoni-Serao, Elisabeth Lonergan, Ranga

Arachchige

A work in progress….these are preliminary findings

Outline• Need• Objectives• Methodology• Results• Data gaps• Key takeaways

Need• Many challenges for the pet food industry &

ingredient suppliers– Changing consumer demands – industries respond– Push for different ingredients

• Better nutrition??– Greater focus on sustainability

• Better for the environment??– Perceptions vs. reality

• Education vs. training vs. www/social media

Sustainability• Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

– Standardized approach to understanding environmental impacts from

• Processes, products, ingredients, etc.

Sustainability

• What answer do you want?

Sustainability

•It depends!

Objectives• Review published literature (scientific journals) for meat-based

ingredients & rendered ingredients– Products

• Beef, pork, sheep, poultry, fish• Byproducts/rendered products

– Sustainability metrics (life cycle assessment results)• GHG (global warming potential -- CO2 & CH4 & NOx)• Eutrophication• Acidification• Land use• Water use

– Calculate estimates of savings by using rendered products instead of meat products (kg/kg tradeoff)

Methodology

Typical stages of a product life-cycle, from raw material to end of life.

Farm

Methodology• Literature databases extensively searched

– Specified types of animals and environmental impacts– In total, 55 published LCA studies were found – Key metrics/data extracted from each paper

• Most quantified GHG (i.e., global warming potential)• Only a few reported eutrophication, acidification, land use, water use• Most were focused on North America and European animal production

processes • Each had different functional units, system boundaries, environmental impacts

studied, ag production methods, and purposes• Difficult to compare results amongst the studies

– Apples to oranges– We were able to compile results and establish ranges– Then estimate ranges for environmental savings due to rendered products

MethodologyAnimal mass allocations.

Conversion factors for determining meat vs. non-meat portions of animals.

(USDA, 2001; Jayathilakan et al., 2012; Sams, 2001)

Mass allocation category

Beef

Sheep

Poultry

Pork

Market live weight

100%

100%

100%

100%

Dressing percentage (Carcass weight percentage)

63%

62.5%

77%

77.5%

By-products

37%

37.5%

23%

22.5%

Bones (per carcass weight)

15%

16%

25%

11%

Beef

Sheep

Poultry

Pork

Non-meat ratio (live weight basis)

46%

48%

42%

31%

Non-meat ratio (carcass weight basis)

52%

54%

48%

34%

Non-meat ratio (meat basis)

85%

92%

72%

45%

MethodologyAllocations of non-meat components.

(USDA, 2001; Jayathilakan et al., 2012; Sams, 2001)

* Environmental savings can be allocated using these percentages

By-product composition

Beef by-product (100%)

Sheep by-product (100%)

Pork by-product (100%)

Poultry by-product composition

Poultry By-product (100%)

Fat and blood

14.2%

16.4%

13.5%

Feathers

14.8%

Red offal

3.5%

4.9%

4.5%

Heads

5.3%

Gut content

8.9%

9.8%

9.0%

Blood

6.7%

Hide

12.4%

18.0%

13.5%

Gizzard and proventriculus

7.4%

Stomach/Intestines

17.7%

14.8%

22.5%

Fee

7.4%

Feet/Head

26.6%

19.7%

18.0%

Intestines and glands

17.9%

Bone

16.7%

16.4%

19.1%

Bone

40.6%

Beef production GHG emissions Sources: Swanson et al. (2013); Nijdam et al. (2012); JW Casey & NM Holden (2006); Cederberg et al. (2009a, b); Peters et al (2009); Williams et al. (2006); Blonk et al. (2008); van Oort & Andrew (2016); Nguyen et al. (2010); Edwards-Jones et al. (2009); Pelletier et al. (2010); Phetteplace et al., (2001); X.P.C. Vergé et al. (2008); Beauchemin et al. (2011); Capper (2011); Huerta et al. (2016); Nielsen et al. (2003); Lupo et al. (2013); Mogensen et al. (2015); Ogino et al. (2016); Roop et al. (2013); Rotz et al. (2015)

Easiest to illustrate ranges(due to differences)

Potential GHG emission savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Beef production land useSources: Nijdam et al. (2012); Cederberg et al. (2009a); Williams et al. (2006); Blonk et al. (2008); Nguyen et al. (2010); Pelletier et al. (2010)

Potential land use savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Beef production eutrophication potential Sources: Williams et al. (2006); Nguyen et al. (2010); Nielsen et al. (2003); Ogino et al. (2016)

Potential eutrophication savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Beef production acidification potential Sources: Williams et al. (2006); Nguyen et al. (2010); Nielsen et al. (2003); Ogino et al. (2016)

Potential acidification savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Poultry production GHG emissions Sources: Swanson et al. (2013); Vries & Boer (2010); Nijdam et al. (2012); Blonk et al. (2008); van Oort & Andrew (2016); Katajajuuri (2007); Cederberg C et al. (2009); Williams et al. (2006); Vergé et al. (2009); González-Garcia et al. (2014); Nielsen et al. (2003); Pelletier (2008)

Potential GHG emission savings for poultry by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Poultry production land useSources: Vries & Boer (2010); Nijdam et al. (2012); Blonk et al. (2008); Williams et al. (2006)

Potential land use savings for poultry by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Poultry production eutrophication and acidification potentialsSources: Williams et al. (2006); González-Garcia et al. (2014); Nielsen et al. (2003); Pelletier (2008)

Potential eutrophication and acidification savings for poultry by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Pork production GHG emissionsSources: Nijdam et al. (2012); Swanson et al. (2013); Blonk et al. (2008); van Oort & Andrew (2016); Basset-Mensand van der Werf (2005); Williams et al. (2006); Cederberg C et al. (2009); Kool et al. (2009); Zhu and van Ierland(2004); González-Garcia et al. (2015); Nielsen et al. (2003); Reckmann et al. (2013)

Potential GHG emission savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Pork production land use Sources: Nijdam et al. (2012); Blonk et al. (2008); Basset-Mens and van der Werf (2005); Williams et al. (2006); Zhu and van Ierland (2004)

Potential land use savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Pork production eutrophication potential Sources: Basset-Mens and van der Werf (2005); Williams et al. (2006); Zhu and van Ierland (2004); González-Garcia et al. (2015); Nielsen et al. (2003); Reckmann et al. (2013)

Potential eutrophication savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Pork production acidification potentialSources: Basset-Mens and van der Werf (2005); Williams et al. (2006); Zhu and van Ierland (2004); Nielsen et al. (2003); Reckmann et al. (2013)

Potential acidification savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Sheep production GHG emissionsSources: Nijdam et al. (2012); Blonk et al. (2008); van Oort & Andrew (2016); Williams et al. (2006); Edwards-Jones et al. (2009)

Potential GHG emission savings for sheep by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Sheep production land use

Sources: Nijdam et al. (2012); Blonk et al. (2008); Williams et al. (2006)

Potential land use savings for sheep by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Sheep production eutrophication and acidification potentialsSource: Williams et al. (2006)

Potential eutrophication and acidification savings for sheep by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

Fish production environmental impactsSources: Ayer and Tyedmers (2009); Ellingsen and Aanondsen (2006); Hall et al. (2011); Iribarren et al. (2010); Nielsen et al. (2003); Ling et al. (1999); Pelletier et al. (2009); Driscoll and Tyedmers (2010); Driscoll et al. (2015); Farmery et al. (2015); Fréon et al. (2014); Hospido and Tyedmers(2005); Iribarren et al. (2011); Nielsen et al. (2003); Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2010,2011,2012); Ziegler and Valentinsson (2008)

Animal meat production water use.Source: MM Mekonnen and AY Hoekstra (2010)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Beef lamb pork Poultry

m3 /1

kg

mea

t

Water use for animal production

Potential water use savings by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Beef lamb pork Poultry

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

Sav

ings

(m3 /

1 kg

non

-mea

t pro

duct

)

Water use reduction for animal non-meat (meat basis)

GHG emission savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Beef Poultry Pork Sheep

kg C

O2-

eq/k

g no

n-m

eat u

sed

GHG emission savings comparison

1kg non-meat LW basis 1kg non-meat CW basis 1kg non-meat meat basis

Land use savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Beef Poultry Pork Sheep

m2 /y

/ kg

non

-mea

t use

d

Land use saving comparison

1kg non-meat LW basis 1kg non-meat CW basis 1kg non-meat meat basis

Eutrophication potential savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Beef Poultry Pork Sheep

g PO

4/ k

g no

n-m

eat u

sed

Eutrophication potential saving comparsion

1kg non-meat LW basis 1kg non-meat CW basis 1kg non-meat meat basis

Acidification potential savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Beef Poultry Pork Sheep

g SO

2/ k

g no

n-m

eat u

sed

Acidification poteintial saving comparison

1kg non-meat LW basis 1kg non-meat CW basis 1kg non-meat meat basis

Key Takeaways• Most studies on environmental impacts (for livestock,

poultry, fish) have assessed only from cradle-to-farm gate – Very few have assessed off-farm activities or impacts

• Using mass allocation, use of animal by-products – Results in substantially lower environmental impacts than

use of meat/muscle• Impact reductions

– Vary according to species– Also feeding/rearing methods and geographical locations

Data Gaps• Production/processing factories

– Meat & rendered ingredients– Pet food operations

• Down the supply chain– Distribution, consumer use, end of life

• Time dependence – efficiency improvements• Geographic dependence – production practices

& energy supplies• Other competing proteins

Thank youAny questions?

karosent@iastate.edu

Sustainability, Rendering, & Pet FoodAcknowledgementsOutlineNeedSlide Number 5SustainabilitySustainabilitySustainabilityObjectivesMethodologyMethodologySlide Number 12MethodologyMethodologyBeef production GHG emissions Potential GHG emission savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Beef production land usePotential land use savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Beef production eutrophication potential Potential eutrophication savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Beef production acidification potential Potential acidification savings for beef by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat. Poultry production GHG emissions Potential GHG emission savings for poultry by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Poultry production land usePotential land use savings for poultry by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Poultry production eutrophication and acidification potentialsPotential eutrophication and acidification savings for poultry by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Pork production GHG emissionsPotential GHG emission savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Pork production land use Potential land use savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat. Pork production eutrophication potential Potential eutrophication savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Pork production acidification potentialPotential acidification savings for pork by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Sheep production GHG emissionsPotential GHG emission savings for sheep by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Sheep production land usePotential land use savings for sheep by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Sheep production eutrophication and acidification potentialsPotential eutrophication and acidification savings for sheep by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.Fish production environmental impactsAnimal meat production water use.Potential water use savings by using 1 kg non-meat instead of muscle meat.GHG emission savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.Land use savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.Eutrophication potential savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.Acidification potential savings comparison amongst different animals by using 1 kg non-meat instead of 1 kg muscle meat.Key TakeawaysData GapsThank you