Challenges Remain
Conventional systems in rendering have changed little in 30 years. But packers and suppliers must still pay attention to detail
Most of the inedible rendering systems in today's meat industry are still referred to as "conventional systems." They have changed very little in the past three decades because they work so well, claims one rendering expert.
Daryl Johnson, who worked for Dakota City, Neb.-based IBP Inc. for almost 30 years, is a former rendering specialist and remains a rendering consultant for the company. He explains that in a typical inedible rendering system, raw material (bones, viscera, condemned products) is collected from the kill floor, and this is usually dropped into a raw material bin. Next, the material goes through a pre-crusher and a pre-breaker. Pre-breakers offering finer grinding and faster action do a better job of sizing particles, Johnson claims.
"If you get your particles too big, it takes a lot longer to get the moisture out of them," he adds.
Product is then conveyed from the grinder to a dry rendering cooker.
"You put product in there to cook it or evaporate the water out of it until you get the moisture down to about 5 percent in the solid material," he adds. "At that point, most of the moisture is gone from the oil because oil releases the moisture much easier than bigger particles do."
Next, this material is put in a screened hopper to allow the free fat to drain off. The free fat is then usually taken through a centrifuge to remove fine particles of tissue that are remaining. Then the material is pumped to storage and some is usually sold to a soap maker, and a lot of it goes into products like poultry feed.
"The higher-quality fats go to soaps, and the lower-quality fats go to feed," Johnson says.
On the solids side, material goes through a press so the operation can lower the fat in the solids down to about 8 percent. And then it is ground, and most of that goes either into pet food or poultry feed, Johnson says.
"And that about takes you through inedible rendering," he adds.
The conventional systems are pretty much the same as they have been over the years except for the grinding (into smaller and smaller particles). Johnson says the major challenges for packers' inedible rendering operations are holding down their energy and maintenance costs.
"It's very expensive to grind raw material fine," he adds. "And it is much easier to release the moisture from the particles if they are fine. That's where the real challenge is."
Boston-based A. Martucci & Sons Rendering Co. picks up fats, bones and rendered grease from area restaurants and transports the materials to other points for further processing. Anthony Martucci, owner of the company, cites two challenges facing renderers in the east: dwindling supply of raw materials because packing plants to the west are breaking down the raw materials on site; and lack of government mandates for proper raw material disposal.
"The rendering company is the only salvation for [fighting] water pollution and [handling condemned products]," he says. "When chicken is condemned for containing salmonella, for example, the board of health and state officials just make them throw it into dumpsters.
"This material is transported to a dump," he adds. "It should be mandatory that a rendering company hauls this material away. They are the only ones who can properly dispose of such material."
The supply side
David Breaz, president of East Chicago, Ind.-based Faroc Corp., which repairs centrifuges that are used in the rendering industry, says the biggest challenge facing renderers is "keeping their machines running."
"Everybody wants to do it better, faster and cheaper," Breaz notes.
There is a greater emphasis today on fighting salmonella contamination, Breaz says.
"The salmonella issue doesn't involve just chicken or turkey," Breaz adds. "It's a bacteria that doesn't have its own SIC code boundary. It's in red meat and other items. It's a universal bacteria.
"Contamination and cross-contamination are directly linked to how you render," he adds, noting that a major concern is what can be done to minimize contamination in machines and centrifuges during the rendering process.
Another challenge is convincing packers to upgrade their rendering systems in these tough economic, competitive times, he adds.
"Most packing plants were built in the 1960s and 1970s," Breaz says. "We have many outdated plants using outdated equipment. They are used to having cheap energy.
"When you go to more advanced, expensive [rendering] equipment, energy costs will also decrease," he adds.
Some packers will fight advancing their rendering operations in an attempt to hold down energy costs.
"With energy costing more today, some people ask themselves, 'Why spend X number of dollars to produce a pound of steam in my process when I can spend a lot less and get the same thing accomplished?' " Breaz says. "Newer centrifuge designs also allow for greater capacities and generally better quality products."
Are more packers who are not currently involved in rendering becoming more interested in starting their own on-site rendering operations to contribute to their bottom line?
"Yes and no," Breaz answers. "Historically [in rendering], you produce either tallow or grease. And historically, the prices for yellow grease have stayed around 14 cents a pound. It has been at this price for almost 12 years.
"It has been a real challenge for some packers to afford a rendering system," he adds. "Packers that do purchase such equipment are usually large and can afford it. You have to spend from $500,000 to $1 million for a rendering system, and for making products that sell at 14 cents a pound-it might not be worth it to some companies."
When asked about the future of rendering, Breaz said small packers and renderers are having a tougher time surviving.
"For example, you have Iowa Beef, National By-Products and Darling International," Breaz says. "Those are the three big guys that are basically doing rendering, and they just keep eating up the little guys.
"The days of 'We process everything but the squeal' have been with the industry for many years," he adds. "Where do we go from here?"
Exports might be the answer, but this, too, has a major challenge.
"It's the same old thing," Breaz says. "You have to be big to afford to have the overseas contacts to move your material. At the same time, the National Renderers Association is doing what it can to push these products. But they only represent about 25 percent of the total capacity [from rendering in the U.S.]."
Catering to niches
The secret for success for one rendering equipment company has been catering to niches.
Duane Anderson, president of Bloomington, Minn.-based DGA & Associates, importer of crushing and grinding equipment for raw by-products from A/S Svaertek of Denmark, says his rendering customers are seeking "the smallest particle size possible with the lowest horsepower and lowest maintenance."
"This is what we've been doing for the past 14 years," he adds. "We've developed quite a few machines as a result of customers demanding unique equipment."
DGA's line of machinery evolved as a result of meeting customer requirements. It first offered the Type 15 coarse grind pre-breaker.
"It's a big horse of a machine," Anderson says. "It runs in the area of 38 rpms with a 50 horsepower motor. It takes 65,000 pounds an hour of any raw material you want to give it. It's the only machine I know of that will take raw boar hides."
But the particle sizes yielded from the machine were pretty large: two inches by three to four inches.
"This wasn't suitable to go right into a cooker, so we developed a secondary Type 156 fine crusher," Anderson says. "These machines go behind the coarse grinder, so we're double-grinding in that particular case. But we're only talking about a 75-horsepower motor on the fine crusher and about 70 rpms.
"It will take the 65,000 pounds an hour coming from the coarse grinder," he adds. "And it gives us a one-inch particle size that's suitable for any cooking application. As a result of that we worked with IBP because they wanted to develop a stainless steel, USDA-approved [pre-breaker] for edible rendering."
Some customers, however, didn't want the double grind because of the costs involved in buying two machines.
"So we built the 15-30 and 20-40 pre-breakers," Anderson says. "It yielded an inch-and-a-half particle size, which was suitable for batch cooker plants."
But when feeding into certain cookers on the market, even that particle size wasn't small enough to prevent problems with cooking times.
"As a result of that, we're developing the 30-60 pre-breaker," Anderson says. "The first one is being developed now, and will go into a plant in North America for inedible rendering. It will deliver with a single grind in a one-inch particle size. Once crushed, product will go into the cooking system to make tallow and meat meal."
This machine will replace the Type 15 and the fine crusher. It will take about 100 horsepower to drive the 30-60 pre-breaker.
"We think it has a good market, especially for companies with specialty grinding needs," Anderson notes.
In looking to the future, Anderson says rendering operations at packing plants will continue to demand higher efficiency and capacity-but with more cost savings.