Whoa, you're using an old browsers aren't you? This site would look better if you upgraded. We recommend Mozilla Firefox

WERA_OLD203: Animal Utilization of Products from Processing Agricultural Commodities

Duration:
October 01, 2000 to September 30, 2005
Administrative Advisor(s):
Erik Fritzell (ORE) - Co-advisor
James R. Males (ORE) - Research
NIFA Reps:
Larry Miller
Gary Cromwell

Statement of Issue(s) and Justification:

An agricultural by-product feedstuff, referred to as by-products in this proposal, is a secondary product obtained during the harvesting or processing of a principal commodity and has value as an animal feed. Examples of by-products include meat and bone meal, feather meal, wheat mill run, oil cakes, molasses, brewers grains, and bakery waste. Nine by-products generated in California in 1992 provided sufficient energy or protein to support over 31% of the milk produced in California in 1992 (Grasser et al., 1995, J. Daily Sci. 78:962-971). The number and amount of plant by-products produced in the United States will increase in the future regardless of the rate of population growth. This increase in plant by-products is due in part to a projected decrease in per capita consumption of meat products and to more types of plant byproducts entering the market. The number of by-products will also increase as a consequence of more stringent regulations on disposal of plant by-products. Total plant by-products available per animal will increase if meat product per capita consumption decreases or remains constant. Animal by-products available per animal will remain relatively constant over time. Historically, by-products were considered a waste product and processing industries paid to dispose of them. Over time, processing industries realized that by-products had economic value and would compete with other feed ingredients in livestock rations. The processing industries concluded that an efficient and economical method to dispose of by-products was to sell these by-products to the animal industries. Recently, more concern for the environment, through increased regulations, has prompted plant industries to assess if any waste produced through processing can be classified as a by-product suitable as an animal feed. Most plant by-products are fed to ruminants because of their ability to digest the by-products and to produce human edible products. Animal by-products are fed not only to ruminants but also to all livestock. Disposal of by-products would be a burden on society without consumption by livestock. It is important for the public to understand the integral role of livestock animals in the food and fiber system. Scientists need to understand how livestock animals digest and metabolize by-products to adequately advise processing industries and practicing animal nutritionists to better utilize by-products.

Private, state, and federal funding for by-product research is low compared to funding for primary foodstuffs research. This low funding is partly due to how much a single by-product is used in the ration. For example, alfalfa may comprise 50% of a lactating cow's diet on a dry matter basis, but an individual by-product may comprise less than 10%. Therefore, the importance of a single by-product may not be considered sufficient to warrant funding at the private, state, or federal level. However, by-products may comprise 30 to 50% of the diet, especially in the western states where by-product production from the harvest or processing of fruits, vegetables, and other plant commodities far exceeds the rest of the Limited personnel and resources are dedicated to research and dissemination of information on byproducts because of the lack of funding directed towards this very important area. Efficient utilization of personnel and limited resources requires a mechanism for cooperative interaction of a wide variety of researchers, extension personnel, and industry representatives. This cooperative interaction will allow generation and dissemination of information and technology to address problems associated with by-products. A coordinating committee will provide a forum to exchange ideas, identify critical problem areas, and develop programs that will address these critical areas.

Objectives

  1. Quantify the production, use, environmental impacts, and economic value of products from the processing of agricultural commodities.
  2. Improve the assessment of the nutritional value of by-products.
  3. Disseminate information on the use of by-products.

Procedures and Activities

Expected Outcomes and Impacts:

Project Participation:

Include a completed Appendix E form

Educational Plan:

The importance of livestock animals in the food and fiber system because of their use of by-products is a very important message that should be disseminated to the general public and legislators. This committee will provide information that quantifies the use of by-products through publications in popular press articles and other publications available to legislators and the general public. Members of this potential committee currently have published or are currently of publishing articles quantifying the production of by-products and the role ruminants and nonruminants play in the food cycle. This committee will solidify these efforts by providing a forum where integration of information is possible. Dissemination of information would occur through regional workshops and national symposia.

Governance:

Researchers and extension personnel from land grant institutions across the US and industry representatives will be invited to participate, and participation is likely to be high. Two (1991 and 1995) very successful National Symposia on Alternative Feeds have been held in St. Louis, MO, demonstrating growing national interest in this area. A preliminary national survey about two years ago identified that 110 scientists from 39 institutions in 35 states were interested in this topic. At least 58 scientists from across the US have responded by way of electronic mail this year with interest in the topic and potential participation in the efforts of a coordinating committee (see attached list). Fifteen scientists and two project administrators met on May 5-6, 1999 in Reno, NV to discuss the potential of organizing a coordinating committee, and this meeting lead to the content of this proposal.

The organizing group proposes the following initial officers for the Coordinating Committee

Co-chairs Jim Fadel, University of California, Davis Maurice Eastridge, The Ohio State University

Secretary Mary Beth Hall, University of Florida

After the first year, the coordinating committee will annually elect a chair and a secretary. The chair will coordinate communication, set the agenda for the annual meeting, and preside at the annual meeting. The chair will appoint sub-committees if necessary. The secretary will record and distribute the minutes from the annual meeting.

Literature Cited:

Attachments:

[petition.pdf]

Internal Linkages:

External Linkages:

Signatures:


s:/James R. Males

s:/Erik Fritzell

Last Modified: unknown

Back to Top