Sustainability of dry Petfood and the carbon-footprint

1. Sustainability of dry Petfood and the carbon-footprint Jacques Wijnoogst Tema & Partners Owner and senior consultant

2. First Some definitions • Definitions: • Sustainability is, in a broad sense, “the ability to endure, to exist and continue to exist” • A carbon footprint is "the total set of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by an organization, event or product"

3. Further definitions • The ecological “footprint” of a human being is a (controversial) method to measure how environmentally harmful our way of living is. • It is a measurement of all greenhouse gases we individually produce and has units of tonnes (or kg) of carbon dioxide equivalent.

4. Human CO2 production • An European produces as an average 11 tonnes CO2 - equivalent per year

5. And animals? • Robert and Brenda Vale, two architects who specialise in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand wrote a book : • “Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living”

6. How to compare eco-footprints? • The authors calculated the ecological paw, claw and fin-print of the family pet and they expressed it in land surface area (m2, ha ) • They calculated the energy which is consumed to produce, maintain, exist or grow and compare this with the energy that can be produced by one hectare per year. • This is approximately 135 gigajoules

7. And now! • The consumption of a 4,6 Toyota Land Cruiser, driving 10.000km/year, is 55.1 gigajoules and the Vales calculated a resulting eco-footprint of 0.41 hectares. • A big dog like a German shepherd has a footprint of 1.1 hectares if the dog eats his daily meal of dry pellets and based on the average composition of this feed.

8. Some other animals • Cats have an eco-footprint of 0,15 hectares (slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf) • Hamsters have 0,014 hectares each ( two is the same as a Plasma TV) • Even a gold fish has a “fin-print” of 0.00034 hectares to sustain (equals two cellphones)

9. And a check! • John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, UK checked the calculations and concluded: • "Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat" • David Mackay, physicist at Cambridge University, UK and government’s energy advisor says: • "Pets definitely deserve attention: by my estimates, the energy footprint of a cat is about 2 per cent of the average British person's energy footprint - and it's bigger for most dogs."

10. What can be our attitude towards this? • First of all: Let’s except that there might come more critical attitude to dry petfood!

11. And this can be a resulting main question! • “How can we make our dry products more Green?”

12. Possible philosophy • Pets belong to the human environment and we should take care to feed them well! • But we also have to take care of the carbon footprint and an option is to produce feed by using only by-products from the human food industry.

13. Let’s start with the raw materials • A dry petfood in general might contain: • Meat or fish meal like ingredients which are mainly dried to give it better storage and handling properties. --This is the first production of a lot of ghg’s. • Whole cereals like corn, wheat and so on. Here we need a lot of fertilizer to get good crops and we need to cook them -- costing energy • Whole soy or soy products sometimes made by special -- energy consuming processes.

14. Composition of a dog product 59,1% 24,6% 11,3%

15. Origin of the raw materials • Whole cereals 50,80% • Cereal by-products 8,30% • Animal by-products 35,90% • Premix/minerals 5,10%

16. As Diagram here we can “change” Here and

17. And this means: • no whole cereals, • no fish meal from caught fish, only by-product from fish (filleting) processing plants and/or hydrolyzed proteins from fish and meat remains. • No oils/fats from plants but only from by-products from meat processing facilities

18. Also increase the FCR of petfood • The Feed Conversion Rate = Kg’s of feed to make kg’s of meat. • FCR improvement is not a hot item in the petfood business. We are no meat producers! • Nevertheless look what happened in the feed industry: • In 1950s, 5 kg of feed were required to produce 1 kg of pig (live weight). The figure is now below 3 kg for the most efficient production systems!

19. If we do this for petfood • The benefit for society is threefold: • Lower demand for feed sources • Lower production cost • Lower amounts of N and P emissions, smaller droppings • And the main result: • Lower carbon-footprint

20. And an other option • Keep animal byproducts from slaughter houses liquid and/or hydrolize them and produce high concentrated feed pellets from it by “extrusion at the slaughter house” • Mix with pellets made from the agriculture by-products and with simple extruders that can do “Dry extrusion”

21. The influence of that ? • No more drying cost of blood, hydrolized proteins, meat by-products and so on • Dry extrusion of the agriculture by-products can result in average 20 % less drying cost

22. Let’s go green! • Produce new products that are: • Only made from by-products of human food production. • Avoid drying of certain raw materials and introduce them as liquid in the extrusion process.

23. And in the current factory situation? • Look to the main energy consuming processes and analyze properly all steps.

24. Where do we consume energy during production of dry extruded petfood?

25. The same in diagram

26. Investigate your present process!

27. Dryer calculation data

28. Some energy saving options • Close loop grinding and introduction of flash off in the grinder or in fluid bed exchanger • Finer grinding of the meal • Addition of enzymes in the meal

29. Close loop grinding and flash off use

30. Finer grinding • 10 – 20% capacity increase extruder • 1 – 2 % less steam in the conditioner • Less wear extruder barrel and screw elements • Better and more equal shape of the chunks • Higher quality

31. Enzyme addition • Addition of amylase can give 10% capacity increase and lowers energy use of the motor.

32. Options for design of the process lines • Use a gas fired steam generator per line and connect the exhaust with dryer entrance (exhaust air can be up to 140 degrees Celsius) • Do not use pneumatic transport between extruder and dryer but place extruder on top of the dryer. (can save up to 75 kW/hr electric energy and less air to be treated in odour abatement installation)

33. More options • Use an eco-processor (fluid bed system) to recover energy from flash off and the first stage of the dryer /cooler exhaust air. • The aim of the eco-process is to recycle the heat content of these mass flows into the process and thus to reduce the demand for live heating steam. (Less CO2!) • Besides, the eco-process ensures a significant reduction of the emission of odours.

34. So far some options to improve Thank you!