From farm to fork to farm: Recycling grocery store food waste into dairy cattle feed

Transcription

1 From farm to fork to farm: Recycling grocery store food waste into dairy cattle feed M. A. Froetschel Animal and Dairy Science The University of Georgia

2 Jean Kinsey Emerging trends in the new food economy: consumers, firms, science (Int. Agr. Trade Research Consortium IATRC, 2003) 2010 D.W. Brooks Lecture: A tale of two food cultures: Feeding billions: Local solutions or global distributions C=Consumers R=Retail food companies FS=Food service companies W=Wholesalers M=Manufacturers I=Ingredient manufacturers H= First stage handlers F=Farmers S=Seed and feed companies G=Government agencies TV=Media U=Universities L=Scientific laboratories B=Banks X=Commodity exchanges and stock market Food waste is a big problem. Americans discard half of all the food calories produced

3 Dana Gunders. (2012) Wasted: How America is losing up to 40% of its food from farm to fork to landfill. National Resources Defense Council (NRDC ) ISSUE Paper U.S. Food to Fork - 10% total energy budget - 50% land use - 80% freshwater use U.S. Food to Fork to Landfill ~40% - 4% total energy budget - 25 % fresh water use - $ 165 billion cost (> $40 billion from households) - Largest component of municipal waste - 33 million tons landfill waste $ 750 million - 25% of U.S. methane emissions

4 Dana Gunders. (2012) Wasted: How America is losing up to 40% of its food from farm to fork to landfill. National Resources Defense Council (NRDC ) ISSUE Paper U.S demographics: Waste 10X more food than SE Asia Waste 50% more food than 1970 Drivers (complex): Wealth? Thrift? Food cost Waste Waste Food Production

5 Percentage of foods wasted at different levels of the supply chain (Gunder, NRDC, Issue paper) for developed countries (U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) Supply chain Grain products Seafood Produce Meat Milk All Production Post harvest handling & storage Processing & packaging Distribution & retail Consumer Total Source : Food and Agriculture Organization 2012

6 Dana Gunders. (2012) Wasted: How America is losing up to 40% of its food from farm to fork to landfill. National Resources Defense Council (NRDC ) ISSUE Paper NRDC position: Reduce losses at every step of the food supply chain Production Postharvest handling and storage losses Processing and packaging Distribution and retail losses Consumer losses (food service and household) Less emphasis: use of reduced waste stream Composting/Anaerobic digestion Feeding Livestock?

7 Paul Bosch and Justin Sherrard ( Rabobank Report) Don t waste a drop : F&A Industry turning waste into revenue instead of cost (Changing Views) - Rising agricultural commodity costs - Resource scarcity concerns (energy and water) - Industry sustainability and consumer expectations - Regulatory pressures for waste disposal - Technological developments creating new markets for fuel, feed, and fiber Waste Valorization animal feed, fertilizer, energy and bio- based plastics and chemicals

8 Valorization F&A waste (Source: Rabobank as referenced in Feedstuffs ) Old paradigm: waste as a cost Push Factors Resource Scarcity Regulation Enabling Factors Technology Scale Pull Factors Consumer expectations New Revenues New Paradigm :waste as a revenue

9 Wal-Mart Introduction 2010 Global Sustainable Agriculture Goals Reduce food waste ( landfill $) 10-15% by 2015 Zero waste Viridiun LLC (Cumming, GA) Recycling company subcontractor of Quest LLC Grocery By-Product (GBP) feed: Readi-blend Citrus, produce and bakery Over 800 stores and clubs, Florida to Michigan Several tons/store /week Collected weekly, processed, and delivered to farms

10 Ensiling Experiment A representative mixture of vegetable, fruit and bakery refuse from several Atlanta grocery stores was processed into a homogenous slurry. GBP was processed and ensiled in 8L lab silos with pre-ensiling treatments to increase its DM content: 0, 8, 16 and 24% additions of citrus pulp 24 h seep, 24 h oven 80 C or 50:50 blend Methods: 3-5 silo replications / treatment, inoculated 8 weeks of anaerobic storage (26.7 C) 72 h of aerobic exposure Laboratory analysis on pre-ensiled, post-ensiled and 72 h anaerobic stability samples Nutrient composition value Fermentation stability (ph, temperature, organic acids)

11 Processing and ensiling grocery byproduct as feed

12 Fermentation characteristics of pre-ensiled and post-ensiled grocery byproduct (GBP) with various drying treatments 1 Item GBP 8% C. Pulp 16% 24 % C. Pulp C. Pulp Pre-ensiling Oven Dried Seep 50:50 SE 2 DM 20.8 a 26.2 b 29.7 b 34.7 c 54.5 d 26.2 b 41.8 e 1.6 WSC 53.7 a 38.2 b 40.0 b 36.4 b 37.7 b 49.1 a 48.7 a 2.4 ph 5.06 a 4.99 a,b 5.12 a,c 5.17 c 4.49 d 4.89 b 4.70 e.02 Lactic 17.7 a 14.7 b 11.7 c 10.1 a 3.2 d 15.4 b 4.7 d 1.0 Acetic 2.2 a 1.5 a 1.3 a 1.3 a.3 b 1.6 a.7 b.3 Post-ensiling DM a 25.9 b 28.3 b,c 57.2 e 20.6 a 33.6 d 1.1 WSC a 2.5 a 2.8 a 68.1 c 1.7 a 10.3 a 1.7 ph a 3.94 a 3.93 a 4.56c c 3.96 a 4.11 b.01 Lactic a 15.1 b 13.3 b 3.6 c 18.6 d 11.2 b.7 Acetic a 2.8 b 3.0 a,b.4 d 2.7 b 2.2 b.2 1 All values are least square means and expressed on a percentage DM basis. Standard error of the mean estimated using the general linear model procedure of SAS. Drying treatments: Citrus pulp, oven drying at 80 C or seeping for 24 H. a,b,c,d,e LS means with unique superscripts are significantly different (P<.05)

13 TDN1X Prediction Dairy NRC 2001 Predict TDN DE P ME P NE L TDN 1X = tdnfc + tdcp + (tdfa * 2.25) + tdndf - 7 Truly digestible NFC (tdnfc) =.98 * (100 - [(NDF -NDICP) + CP +EE + Ash] *PAF) Truly digestible CP for forages (tdcpf) = CP * exp [-1.2 *(ADICP/CP)] Truly digestible CP for concentrates (tdcpc) = [1-(.4 *(ADICP/CP))] * CP Truly digestible FA (tdfa) = FA ( if FA< 1 then FA = 0) Truly digestible NDF (tdndf) =.75 *(NDFn - L) * [1-(L/NDFn).667 ]

14 Relationship between NRC DE values and In vitro DE as fit a Linear Regression Equation (Lim MS Thesis 2009)

15 Nutrient composition of ensiled (28 d) grocery byproduct (GBP) with various drying treatments: citrus pulp (8, 16 & 24%), seeping, oven-drying (24 80 C), or a 50:50 mixture. 1 Items 8% Citrus Pulp 16% Citrus Pulp 24 % Citrus Pulp Oven dried 24h Wet GPB 24h seep 50:50 Blend SE DM a b b,c e a d 1.09 WSC 3.76 a 2.45 a 2.80 a c 1.70 a b 1.68 NDF ADF Ash CP a b b b a a.26 Fat a b 9.94 b b b a.53 TDN a b b a b a.97 (NRC pred.) IVDMD IVDE IVTDN IVTDN fat a Values are least square means and expressed on a % DM basis except ph and IVDE (Mcal/kg) b Standard error of the mean estimated using the general linear model procedure of SAS. a,b,c,d,e LS means with unique superscripts are significantly different (P<.05)

16 72h Aerobic stability trial: Temperature stability Seepage Lactic acid 50-90%

17 Ensiling Experiment GPB readily ensiles despite DM% soluble carbohydrates ph Does not require packing O 2 Requires specialized processing Viridiun processing mill Feed Value? TDN and CP Organic acids Fat content Predicted VS actual nutritional values?

18 Proximate nutritional profile of GBP (DM basis) from University and commercial laboratories (2011 n>25) (Viridiun database) Item range Dry matter 15-20% Crude protein 10-14% Ash 7-14% Soluble carbohydrates 25-45% Fat 9-12% Fiber (NDF) 16-26% Lactic acid 15-17% Acetic acid % TDN 1X (predicted) 81-84%? DE 1X (predicted) Mcal/kg? $/ton ( ERV as-fed) ~ $ 50-60? Predicted VS actual intake and nutritional values?

19 Animal Feeding Trial Digestibility / Intake /DE Eight Yearling Holstein steers ±29(SD) Kg Body Weight - Individually fed in tie stall barn (UGA Dairy) Replicated 4 x4 Latin Square Design -8 week trial -2 week periods Ensiled Grocery By-Product (GBP)

20 Dietary treatments, feeding, sampling 0 (control), 20, 40, & 60% GBP substituted for a wheat silage based total mixed ration fed Ad-libitum to provide 120% of previous days intake Daily feed intake, weekly BW Pulse-fed 454 g digestibility marker feed mix with chromic oxide 41%corn, 41%SBM, 7% Trace Mineral salt, 6% Cr 2 O 3, 5% Cane molasses Week 2, fecal samples at ~12 h intervals over 6 days to represent every 4hrs of 24 h day

21 Animal Feeding Trial

22 Ration Formulations (DM basis) %Grocery By-Product (GBP) Ingredients 0% 20% 40% 60% Wheat Silage GBP Soyhulls Marker Mix (Cr 2 O 3 ) Soybean Meal Total Ration nutrients % DM % TDN CP Ca P

23 Daily Routine Animal Feeding/Analysis Released steers to loafing corral and clean barn Measure individual residual feed left in feed bunks at ~8AM At ~3PM brought steers to assigned stalls Pulse fed 1 lb DM of marker mix Fed steers which remained in tie stalls over night Lab analysis: Dry matter, Ash, Fiber, Crude protein, Gross energy, Chromic oxide Statistical analysis: SAS 9.2 PROC GLM, ANOVA, Test main effects with specified error term AxP(T), PDIFF for individual mean separations, test for linearity using orthogonal contrasts, correlation and regression analysis

24 Total Mixed Rations 0% GBP 20% GBP 40% GBP 60% GBP

25 Dry matter (DM, %) and intake (kg/d) of rations containing incremental amounts of GBP substituted for a wheat silage based total mixed ration Item 0% GBP 20% GBP 40% GBP 60% GBP SE a DM, (%) b 34.4 c 30.5 d 27.5 d 25.0 e.1 As-fed intake, (lb/d) b 36.2 c 45.9 d 49.6 c,d 52.5 e 1.5 DM intake, (lb/d) 12.5 c 14.0 d 13.6 c,d 13.1 c,d.18 DM intake, (% BW) 1.88 c 2.13 d 2.12 d 2.02 c,d.05 a SE=standard error of the mean b Linear effect due to treatment (P <.05) c, d, e Least squares means with unique superscripts are statistically different (P <.05)

26 Apparent digestibility (% DM) and digestible energy (Mcal/kg) of rations containing incremental amounts of GBP substituted for a wheat silage based total mixed ration Item 0% GBP 20% GBP 40% GBP 60% GBP SE DM digestibility (%) a 57.7 b 57.4 b 61.2 b,c 64.5 c 1.3 DE (Mcal/kg) a 2.24 b 2.31 b 2.51 c 2.73 d.05 Intake/Maintenance a 2.24 b 2.49 b 2.83 c 2.91 c.10 TDN (%) a 50.7 b 52.3 b 60.0 c 61.8 d 1.1 a Linear effect of treatment P<.01 b, c, d Least Squares means with unique superscripts are statistically different P<.05, SEM=standard error of the mean

27 Linear relationship between % GBP and DE 1X extrapolated to predict DE 1X of 100% GBP Apparent DE 1x (Mcal/kg) =% GBP r 2 =.62, P< % GBP DE= Mcal/kg Mcal/ Kg TDN 78.7% TDN

28 Nutritive Value of GBP Readily preserved by ensiling stabile upon aerobic exposure liquid and solid fractions Intake >2.0% BW at 20-60% DM inclusion rate with silage based rations that were 30.5 to 25.0% DM Palatability - spillage when GBP followed GBP Performance over 8 week trial BW 267 to 326 kg (588 to 718 kg) ADG 1.20 kg/d (2.65 lbs/d)

29 Nutritive Value of GBP GBP 3.47 Mcal/kg and 78.7% TDN (DM basis) Intake over maintenance? TDN/DE discount TDN 1X? 20-60% RB 2.2 to 2.8% DE intake /DE maintenance adjusted TDN should be ~ 83.5 to 85.9%. Adjustment for metabolic fecal DE. Pricing Economic replacement value (ERV) = $ of mixture corn and SBM that will replace DE and CP in test feed ERV ratio = $ERV / $ actual price; usually ~1.0 for most feeds Variables : Moisture, DE and CP content $ corn and $ SBM

30 Impact of corn and SBM prices on economic replacement value of Readi-Blend (20% DM, 78.7% TDN and 12% CP). At $8.80/bu ($314/ton) corn and $510/ton SBM, ERV of GBP is = 65.7 $/ton

31 Impact of corn and SBM prices on economic replacement value of Readi-Blend (18% DM, 87.8% TDN and 12% CP). At $8.80/bu ($314/ton) corn and $510/ton SBM, ERV of GBP is = 59.1$/ton

32 Proximate nutritional profile of GBP (DM basis) from commercial laboratories ( to , 167 samples, Viridiun database) Item Mean Range STD DEV CV % Dry matter % Crude protein % Ash % Sugar % Fat % Fiber (NDF) % Lactic acid % Acetic acid % TDN 1X (predicted) % DE 1X (predicted) Mcal/kg $/ton ( ERV asfed) $60 ~ $

33 Mining the Viridiun Data base Correlations (P<.01) TDN and Fat (r=.81) TDN and ADF (r=.58) ERV and moisture (r=.95) ERV and TDN (r=.42) Regression analysis TDN= (fat %) (ADF) ( P<.01, r 2 =.83) ERV = (% moisture) (%TDN ) (P<.01, r 2 =.973)

34 Ration formulation simulation of feed costs and income over feed costs Substituted GBP feed for grain mix in a total mixed ration formulated for 77 lbs 3.7% fat Control ration % DM = 47.8% corn silage, 11.9% ryegrass silage, 16.5 grain mix,12.5% protein supplement and 1.6% minerals and vitamins Dairy Concentrate: Grain mix: 25%Corn, 25% citrus pulp, 20% wheat midds, 20% soyhulls, and 5% cane molasses Protein supplement: soybean meal, distillers grains, RUP supplement Feed costs:$12.5/cwt, dairy concentrate:$427/t, corn $8.6/Bu, SBM $480/T

35 Ration simulation and feed costs: substituting GBP feed for grain mix into a total mixed ration for 77 lbs fat % grain mix % of Ration DM % DM Feed Costs $/hd/d Income/ Feed cost /hd/d % substitution.58.58

36 Marketing Potential for use of GBP in dairy cattle feed in Southeast Feed cost and income over feed costs Concentration of animals with concentrate feed needs Feed mixing equipment to blend TMR Proximity to large suburban/urban areas Beef cattle feeding systems in Southeast are mainly pasture driven

37 Potential problems feeding GBP to Lactating dairy cattle 1. DM and nutrient variability and ration formulation 2. Impact of moisture content on dry matter intake 3. Shrink- liquid nutrient loss 4. Readily fermentable carbohydrates and organic acids rumen ph control /acidosis 5. Onions/garlic, beef and milk off-flavors, milk quality 6. Animal health 7. Food safety

38 Future Research 1. Variability: feed and nutritive value estimation, sampling and real-time testing procedures 2. Solid and liquid feed supplements 3. Feeding and pricing recommendations 4. Genomic screening to confirm animal health and food safety of livestock fed food waste 5. Impact of pungent ingredients (onions, garlic) on food sensory /organoleptic properties of milk 6. Develop drying methods using heat sourced from biofuel generated from the liquid fraction of food waste

39 Acknowledgements Viridiun LLC Larry Brewer UGA Dairy Pat Smith Carrie Ross Kaleb Marchant James Rasalam Pauline Michot