ROYAL AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

100 CLUB
A Creative Study Into the Scope
for Increasing Value from Fallen
Livestock and Animal By-products
by Stewart Houston CBE FRAgs
Board member of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
and Chairman of the British Pig Executive
Final report
June 2012
Sponsored by PIC and National Fallen Stock CIC NFSCo
Annual Fellowship in Food Chain Enterprise 2011/12
REPORT No. 1
ISBN: 978-0-9572178-0-5
2
A Creative
Study Into
the Scope for
Increasing
Value from
Fallen
Livestock
and Animal
By-products
ISBN: 978-0-9572178-0-5
PREFACE
The Royal Agricultural College (Est. 1845) has
always been an integral component of the overall
United Kingdom Food Chain and this particular
Fellowship in Food Chain Enterprise facilitates
the opportunity to consider pertinent aspects of
the modern industry which, in their own way, can
have a signifcant impact on proftability.
The livestock industries have traditionally focused
on achieving full utilisation of all the components
of the carcase. With the increasing cost pressures
of the current market place, they recognise the
importance of creating Best Practice in every
aspect of their role in the food chain.
The 2011/2012 Annual Fellowship, initiated
by the National Fallen Stock Company, is
specifcally focused on the very timely, practical
and commercial issues relating to fallen stock
and animal by-products. This includes the clear
objective of understanding and exploring the full
signifcance of the animal by-products regulations
as they apply to the UK industry, with particular
regard to the collection and disposal of carcases.
Best Practice can ensure that the true defnition
of quality across the food chain is Repeat
Business.
Peel Holroyd
NDP, DipPoult (HAC), DipAgric (OAC), CBio,
PAS(USA), CSci, FHAAC, FRAgS, FIFST
CHAIRMAN RAC 100 CLUB
June 2012
3
Turning wasteful cost into value and proft
Foreword by Stewart Houston
I
n todays ever
competitive glob-
al markets and
given our insa-
tiable demands on the
Earths limited natural
resources, none of us
can aford to be waste-
ful. Industry continu-
ously seeks better and
more efcient ways of
producing goods and
services for consumers, who themselves demand
high standards of quality and ethical business
practice. This is as true for food, and, therefore,
livestock production, as for any other sector of
our economy. The National Fallen Stock Company
(NFSCo) had the foresight to propose this study
dedicated to increasing value from fallen stock
and animal by-products and I was glad to be asked
to lead it.
From the outset, I decided to take a broad
approach: looking within and across livestock
production sectors, set in the context of a wider
processing and supply chain, including fallen
stock collectors, renderers and by-product manu-
facturers. That approach has delivered some re-
markable results. I have discovered that the objec-
tive to extract value from fallen stock and animal
by-products, where they are inevitable, runs from
the farm, through collection, processing and into
product quality and design. Poor management in
one stage of the process results in lower quality in
later stages and the fnal output.
It is this golden thread which needs to be
understood by all players within the supply chain
and for them to think outside the box (ie. not just
within the parameters of their traditional sector)
in the way they manage their business. In other
words, anyone who has a role in the handling
and management of livestock waste should
think more about by-product value and act in a
way that exploits the inherent value of the waste
so that the waste actually becomes less of a li-
ability and more of an asset. This is illustrated by
animal by-product waste from abattoirs, which
historically incurred a disposal cost to the abat-
toir. Nowadays, some of the same waste material
attracts a payment from processors, who require
high quality ingredients for their own manufac-
turing (eg. in pet food production).
Larger volumes of good quality animal by-
product are likely to ofer greater potential for sup-
plying new and emerging markets eg. in renew-
able energy and feed for aquaculture. Individual
farmers are unlikely to bring such changes about
in isolation but if whole sectors working as part
of an animal by-product supply chain move in a
certain direction, collectively they may be able to
generate economies of scale justifying new invest-
ment in additional processing plant or new tech-
nologies.
As much as possible, I have focused on prac-
tical solutions (existing and near-market) that can
be introduced and explored now. Livestock pro-
ducers and others may be able to reduce costs of
fallen stock disposal, on average by as much as 25
percent (or 10m across all sectors) and increase
value from unavoidable fallen stock and animal
by-products by a further 17-20m. This report
also identifes areas for further research in the pur-
suit of knowledge transfer and the development
of practical solutions of even greater added value.
If all the potential opportunities identifed
in this report were acted upon by industry, the
eventual benefts to industry could be worth in
excess of 40 million per annum. Improvements
to economic performance also deliver a num-
ber of environmental and social benefts. These
range from reduced levels of odour and noise in
local communities, to a greater use of renewable
energy contributing to fewer greenhouse gas
emissions and their impact on climate change.
In undertaking the study and presenting this
report, I have been fortunate to have had a lot of
support from others, whose expertise and skills
have delivered an output where the total is far
greater than the sum of its parts. While I am grate-
ful to the many organisations and people who
contributed to this study, I wish to record special
thanks to each and every member of a core-group,
without whose dedication this report would not
have been possible: Ian Campbell, Director of NF-
SCo; Stephen Woodgate, Director of FABRA; Bob
Bansback, Professor at Harper Adams University
College; and Duncan Prior, Independent Consult-
ant.
Teamwork has been the cornerstone through-
out this study and I think it is important to main-
tain that theme across the supply chain in tak-
ing forward the recommendations in this report,
whether they are addressed to individual specie
sectors, the supply chain collectively or to Govern-
ment. It will be important to remember that the
changes required to deliver the benefts cited in
this report will not happen overnight. However,
with efort maintained collectively by all potential
benefciaries, I am convinced that such efort will
be rewarded commensurately. I therefore com-
mend this report to all relevant parties and hope
it will provide a useful kick-start towards realising
signifcant benefts.
Stewart Houston CBE, FRAgS is a Fellow of the Royal Agricultural Society; a member of the Agriculture and Horticulture
Development Board and Chairman of BPEX; Director of the National Pig Association; member of COPA COGECA (the EU
committee of agricultural trade associations); non-executive Director of the Scottish Agricultural College; and a member of
the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England. He was awarded the CBE in 2007 for services to agriculture.
A Creative
Study Into
the Scope for
Increasing
Value from
Fallen
Livestock
and Animal
By-products
4
CONTENTS
Introduction/Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 1: Industry Structure and Economic Factors .......................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2: Mitigating Fallen Stock and Animal Disease ................................................................................... 10
Chapter 3: The Animal By-products Sector ........................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 4: Fallen Stock Disposal ............................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 5: Animal By-products from Food Business Operators .................................................................... 19
Chapter 6: Recommendations and Working Together on Solutions ........................................................... 21
Chapter 7: Progressing Change More Swiftly ....................................................................................................... 23
Appendix 1: Questionnaire to Stakeholders ............................................................................................................ 24
Appendix 2: Respondents to Questionnaire ............................................................................................................ 24
Appendix 3: Best Practice Case Study Biosecurity .............................................................................................. 25
Appendix 4: Regulations Covering Animal By-products ..................................................................................... 26
Appendix 5: Analysis of the Economic Impact of ABP Freshness and Quality Parameters
for Rendering ............................................................................................................................................. 29
Appendix 6: Danish On-farm Refrigerated Storage Units ................................................................................... 30
Appendix 7: NFSCo/NFSS ................................................................................................................................................ 32
Appendix 8: Research on Alternative Disposal Methods .................................................................................... 33
Appendix 9: An Example of the Challenges of getting Approval for New Processes ............................... 34
Appendix 10: FABRA Initiative on Training and Education .................................................................................... 35
Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................................... 36
A Creative
Study Into
the Scope for
Increasing
Value from
Fallen
Livestock
and Animal
By-products
5
A Creative
Study Into
the Scope for
Increasing
Value from
Fallen
Livestock
and Animal
By-products
INTRODUCTION
1. In collaboration with the National Fallen Stock
CIC (NFSCo), the Royal Agricultural College (RAC)
invited me to review current practice in manag-
ing fallen livestock, animal by-products and con-
demned material of animal origin and to make
recommendations for future improvements and
cost savings. This report is the culmination of that
study, in which I have adopted a practical ap-
proach towards the challenge of increasing value
from fallen stock and animal by-products (ABPs).
2. Many individual livestock producers and allied
industries continually review their management
arrangements in this area. Trade associations and
other representative bodies also have relevant
programmes of on-going R&D work as do some
academic institutions. This study did not seek to
duplicate any of that good work. Instead, it took
a pragmatic approach, through asking the funda-
mental questions: What is the current state of the
industry in relation to fallen stock disposal and ani-
mal by-product returns? and, Where are the key
opportunities for delivering improved outcomes?
3. To help validate an understanding of the is-
sues and identify or accelerate solutions to them,
a short information-gathering questionnaire was
sent to representative organisations and profes-
sional bodies across principal livestock production
sectors, allied industries and others. The question-
naire (see Appendix 1) was a managed way of en-
gaging interested parties in providing a frst cut
at addressing these issues. The advantage of this
approach was that it not only drew out consult-
ees interpretation of the problem areas but also
helped to identify the extent to which there was
appetite to address them. The scope of the project
was not, therefore, constrained at all, but allowed
stakeholders to infuence its direction and focus.
4. Questionnaire responses and other contribu-
tions came from a diverse range of people and
organisations, including signifcant livestock and
other sector organisations, as well as individual
producer and veterinary practitioners. Individual
and organisation respondents are listed at Appen-
dix 2. Many specifc issues arising from stakeholder
consultation and recommended responses/solu-
tions, are included in this report.
5. Although livestock producers have a direct in-
terest in the subject when it comes to fallen stock
resulting from on-farm mortalities, we sometimes
forget that we also have a big indirect interest in
the value obtained from animal by-products both
from meat plants and other food businesses. After
all, these values can in turn infuence the price re-
ceived by the producer for his stock at auction or
through direct sale at the abattoir.
6. The Report therefore starts by looking at the
structure of the animal by-product chain and at
those key areas where animal by-product values
(including fallen stock) can be enhanced or costs
reduced. In Chapter 2, I address the importance of
reducing on-farm mortalities. Chapter 3 describes
the structure of the animal by-products sector
and the diferent categories of ABP product in the
context of the legislative framework. In Chapter 4,
I identify the particular issues and opportunities
relating to fallen stock disposal. Chapter 5 looks
at the animal by-product categories disposed of
by meat plants and other food business operators
(FBOs). After all, these account for the vast major-
ity of the volume of ABPs. In Chapter 6, I draw con-
clusions on the steps to be taken to improve the
situation. Finally, in Chapter 7, I propose how we
should move from here in initiating change.
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE CHALLENGES
ES1. The annual cost of collection and disposal of
fallen livestock in the UK is estimated to be about
40 million, including lost value from the even-
tual sale of the animal. In addition to the impact
of fallen stock costs, producers also have an in-
terest in those parts of the animal which are not
sold for consumption. It is vitally important for the
competitiveness of the UK livestock industry that
returns on animal by-product disposal increase as
much as possible in coming years.
ES2. The UK currently produces about 2.5 million
tonnes of ABP a year. In practice, about 90% is pro-
cessed through rendering, with other treatments
taking up the rest. Historically, a disposal cost fell
on the producers of ABPs but more recently the
commercial value of some ABPs (eg as ingredients
for pet food or biofuel) has resulted in producers
receiving payment. The challenge is to transfer
more and more material from being a costly liabil-
ity to a valued commodity, by increasing the Gross
Value to a maximum, by whatever means.
THE PRIZES
ES3. Although it is difcult to estimate accu-
rately the potential savings achievable through
the adoption of best practice across the livestock
industry as a whole, a 25% reduction in mortality
rateshould achieve savings in the order of 10 mil-
lion per annum, as well as improving the produc-
tivity of the farming unit.
ES4. Progress is being made to amend the EU
ABP control regulations to allow certain treated
material to be used as animal feed initially using
non-ruminant processed animal protein (PAP) for
aquaculture feed. If the proposal is adopted, the
potential commercial beneft could be signifcant:
for example, the British pig and poultry sectors
could enjoy a net value increase of 17- 20m per
annum.
ES5. Other work is being pursued to demonstrate
the public and animal health safety aspects of
using known technologies and techniques to en-
hance the value of fallen stock and ABPs. Examples
here include better on-farm treatment and stor-
age of carcases to reduce volume and disposal
costs and to increase the value of residual material
through preserved quality (ie freshness). A use-
ful example for quantifying potential beneft is
the on-farm carcase refrigeration method used in
Denmark. Notwithstanding the need to research
the applicability of the Danish arrangement in the
UK, the beneft could be worth some 7.5 million
per annum. It is not difcult, therefore, to envisage
potential savings and added value running into
many millions across British livestock and other
sectors.
ES6. If all the potential opportunities identifed in
this Report were acted upon by industry, the even-
tual beneft to industry could be well in excess of
40 million per annum.
THE WINNERS
ES7. An important feature that emerged during
this study is that there is a golden thread running
through all stages of dealing with fallen stock and
ABPs from original production to fnal disposal/
reprocessing where performance in one stage
directly afects performance in later stage(s).
ES8. Provided the supply chain as a whole em-
braces these opportunities as a complete pack-
age (and individuals within the supply chain are
not tempted to cherry-pick isolated elements
that only serve immediate self-interest) there is
no reason why all components of the supply chain
should not beneft including farmers, fallen stock
collectors, renderers and anyone who handles
ABPs.
TIMESCALES
ES9. The regulatory process required for change is
reason to be cautious and realistic about the likeli-
hood of substantial change leading to signifcant
increases in the value of ABPs in the short term.
However, with continuing advances in science
and technology, combined with a positive shift in
political attitude, it is reasonable to assume that
efort invested in bringing about change will be
rewarded over time.
KEY AREAS FOR IMPROVED PERFORMANCE
ES10. There are a number of important areas
where industry can improve performance, includ-
ing:
Improving efective management processes
and techniques across all aspects of business.
Developing better animal health management
through efective farm health plans, which are
implemented and maintained.
7
Implementing more stringent biosecurity
arrangements to prevent the incursion and
spread of animal diseases.
Working more closely with Government in
systematic surveillance of animal diseases and
their control.
Increasing value from animal by-products by
unlocking potential value currently lost by
inefciency and lack of efectiveness in the way
such material is managed.
LIVESTOCK SECTOR DIFFERENCES
ES11. When considering fallen stock, it is impor-
tant to appreciate the diferences between live-
stock sectors, whether it be the extent to which a
sector has a fully integrated supply chain; life cy-
cles for production; the size of individual animals
relative to disposal costs; geographical location
and remoteness; frequency of livestock mortality;
and so on. Against that backdrop, it is perhaps un-
derstandable that there are individual producers
who are relatively more advanced than their peers
within their sector but, strategically, sectors would
probably stand to gain more by investing efort to
improve performance from their current position
on the continuum (see illustration above).
PRACTICAL STEPS TOWARDS REALISING THE
POTENTIAL
ES12. There are many practical steps leading to
reduced costs and increased value in the manage-
ment of fallen livestock and animal by-products:
Reducing on-farm livestock mortality.
Reducing costs of fallen stock collection.
Enhancing the value of ABP.
Industry working with Government.
ES13. As well as addressing species specifc issues
on a sector basis, livestock sectors should collabo-
rate on a shared agenda, not just in seeking to fa-
cilitate relevant knowledge transfer and take-up of
best practice but also in developing new solutions
through combined efort (and where necessary
pooled resources).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
ES14. There appears to be a real opportunity for
moving things forward and making progress in a
number of areas. Against this backdrop of positive
attitude and the desire to realise the potential de-
scribed in this report, I make the following recom-
mendations in the form of a frst-step action plan
towards the goal of increasing value from fallen
stock and animal by-products:
Relevant sector bodies to attend a half-day
workshop to consider this report and agree
steps to be taken by individual sectors, by
species supply chains and overall collaborative
activity.
In each area to consider the question, What are
the fallen stock and ABP challenges; are they
being adequately addressed; and what more
can be done to deliver valued outcomes? and
to prepare an action agenda that will realise
immediate benefts for their constituency.
In relation to collaborative action, to have a co-
ordinated plan drawn up.
ES15. Furthermore, one or two organisations may
be prepared to volunteer their good ofces to co-
ordinate cross-sector collaboration. AHDB work-
ing with NFSCo would appear to be the natural
team, given their coverage of red meat and dairy
beef sectors and focus on delivering reduced cost
solutions. I therefore recommend to AHDB and
NFSCo that they agree to take on the coordinat-
ing role, if sufcient industry commitment is evi-
dent.
Ruminants Pigs & Poultry
LIVESTOCK SECTORS ON THE CONTINUUM OF BEST PRACTICE
Adoption of existing best practice Emerging new best practice/existing R&D New R&D
8
A Creative Study Into the
Scope for Increasing Value
from Fallen Livestock and
Animal By-products
Chapter 1: Industry Structure and Economic
Factors
1.1. It is understandable that livestock producers focus on the prin-
cipal costs of production (capital investment, labour and input costs)
when seeking innovative ways of reducing overall costs and/or en-
hancing efciency (eg. via better feed conversion rates). Productivity
improvements in these areas of business can lead to the most sig-
nifcant savings and better returns on investment. But to do so exclu-
sively, is to ignore the potential enhancements from those aspects
of the business which ofer relatively smaller advantages but which
nonetheless can still be signifcant in cash terms.
1.2. As markets become more and more global (both the opportu-
nity of exports, but also the threat of imports), competitive pressure
increases, giving rise to renewed incentive to minimise the cost of
production. In times of highly competitive markets and small proft
margins, the diference between realising or not realising even the
smallest of efciencies can be the diference between winning or los-
ing a contract ultimately impacting on a businesss sustainability.
1.3. The annual cost of collection and disposal of fallen livestock in
the UK is estimated to be about 40 million. This is the direct cost to
the livestock industry (cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and horses), includ-
ing the producers loss from not getting value from the eventual sale
of the animal. There are a number of indirect costs to add to this
including the potential impact of reduced biosecurity. Finally, there
are externality costs to wider society, such as impacts on the environ-
ment through waste management and disposal.
Farmers collection/disposal costs for fallen stock vary widely
from area to area around the country
Indicative fgures per head:
6-12 month lamb 10-15
2 year old bovine 65-90
Finished pig 12-16
Estimated
1
fallen stock disposal costs as percentage of total
production costs:
Upland breeding sheep 2.7%
Lowland breeding sheep 2.1%
Most other livestock categories 1.0%
1.4. It is evident that under-performing farms should be able to
adopt better existing practice and beneft immediately from higher
productivity and lower disposal costs from fewer incidents of fallen
stock. High standards of on-farm animal husbandry are often the
best way of mitigating the risk of signifcant fnancial loses through
fallen stock and other detrimental impacts on farm or, indeed, across
national herds (eg. in the case of farm to farm disease spread).
1.5. However, in addition to the impact of fallen stock costs, pro-
ducers also have an interest in returns or disposal costs for animal
by-products in general, ie. the value put on those parts of the ani-
mal which are not sold for meat or edible ofal consumption. This has
been calculated as 58% of a sheep carcase, 53% for cattle and 40% for
pigs (See Figure 1). Some of these by-products have signifcant value
while others are disposed of at considerable cost. Traditionally, the
ffth quarter, as these items have collectively become known, has
been sufcient to more than cover the costs associated with slaugh-
tering. In other parts of the world this is still the case indeed, by-
product values play an important role in maintaining proftability of
meat businesses. However, in the UK (since the introduction of legis-
lation during the BSE outbreak in the mid-1980s), animal by-product
disposal is still a cost to the ruminant livestock sector; even returns
1
From a study commissioned by NFSCo in 2008 Planning for the Future - A Report on issues facing the National Fallen Stock Company. Bob Bansback August 2008
9
for pig and poultry producers are signifcantly less than in some oth-
er countries.
Figure 1: Breakdown of components of cattle, sheep and pigs
into usage and category
Adult
bovine
Sheep Pig
Kg % Kg % Kg %
Edible meat 252.0 47.0 15.69 42.3 50.63 60.3
Pet food 31.9 5.9 2.74 7.4 3.40 4.1
Rendering (excl. gut content) 95.7 17.8 6.25 16.8 10.27 12.2
Specifed Risk Material (SRM) 9.2 1.7 1.16 3.1 0 0
Hide and skin 38.0 7.1 4.10 11.0 4.00 4.8
Gut content 80.0 14.9 4.50 12.1 8.40 10.0
Other 29.6 5.5 2.66 7.2 7.20 8.6
Total liveweight 536.6 100 37.10 100 83.90 100
Source: Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. Note: Fig. 1
contains estimated data. Some categories may go into more than one
section, and it is therefore difcult to obtain an exact breakdown.
1.6. It is noteworthy that gut content represents a signifcant ele-
ment of a slaughtered animal. It would be worth researching ways
of reducing gut content so that an animal goes to slaughter with an
empty stomach, especially in cases where savings could be made by
reducing valuable feed (eg. pig rations) being consumed in the pe-
riod before slaughter.
1.7. It is vitally important for the competitiveness of the UK live-
stock industry that returns on animal by-product disposal increase
as much as possible in coming years. This would have an impact on
meat plant proftability with potential implications right along the
chain, including producer prices.
1.8. Figure 2 shows the simplifed structure of a typical livestock sup-
ply chain. Points A, B and C indicate areas where there is scope for
cost reduction or value enhancement for fallen stock and animal by-
products.
1.9. The interdependence of the whole chain means that there is
a collective interest in reducing costs and enhancing value if future
competitiveness of the UK meat and livestock sector is to be sus-
tained.
B
C
Collector
Renderer
Incinerator
A
Fallen
Stock
A
B
Animal By-
Product
C
Animal By-
Product
Livestock Production Farm
Wholesaler
Retailer
Foodservice
Exporter
Auction Market
Meat Plant
Finished Stock for Meat
Production
Figure 2: Typical Livestock Production Chain
Illustrating the diferent stages of animal by-product disposal
The three sources
of animal by-product
Fallen Stock Category 1 or 2 ABP
Category 1, 2 or 3 ABP from FBO
Category 1, 2 or 3 ABP from FBO
10
Chapter 2: Mitigating Fallen Stock and Animal
Disease
2.0.1. Across all livestock and allied sectors, the common theme of
prevention is better than cure was repeated by many respondents
to the studys questionnaire. It is helpful to put the challenge into the
context of the waste management hierarchy: reduce, reuse/recycle
and dispose. Although it might seem obvious that by reducing the
volume of fallen stock the consequential disposal costs are similarly
mitigated, it would appear that many respondents considered that
many livestock producers had the potential to adopt better manage-
ment practices in their businesses.
Below: Healthy animals are productive animals.
2.0.2. Figure 3 shows the current (ie. April 2012) average prices of
some British red meat livestock categories, to demonstrate the po-
tential value to be realised from avoiding fallen stock (ie. in addition
to the saved costs associated with fallen stock disposal):
Figure 3: Average prices of selected livestock categories
Livestock type April 2012 average price (per head)
Prime cattle 1190
Cull cows 840
Prime lambs 91
Cull ewes 83
Finished pigs 113
Weaners 43
Source: Based on Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board with per kilo
prices converted to per head using average carcase weights.
2.0.3. Figure 4 shows, for diferent species of British livestock, aver-
age mortality rates at farm level compared to mortality rates achieved
by the farms in the top third of the mortality performance league. For
example, on average, fallen stock from cattle is about 2.8%, whereas
the top third of better performing farms sufer just over 1.7% loss.
Sheep mortality rates are 2.6% on average, compared to 1.5% in the
top third. Obviously, the gap between the worst performing farms
and the best, ofers even greater scope for improvements and com-
mensurate savings in most cases.
Figure 4: Mortality levels across British livestock farms
Source AHDB
Livestock Species Average Top Third*
Cattle 2.8% 1.7%
Sheep 2.6% 1.5%
Pigs (pre-weaning) 12.7% 8.5%
Pigs (post-weaning) 5.2% 2.3%
* The fgure for the top third of producers is based on mortality perfor-
mance alone.
2.0.4. Currently, it is difcult to estimate accurately the potential
savings achievable through the adoption of best practice across the
livestock industry as a whole but a 25% reduction in mortality rate
should achieve savings in the order of 10 million per annum, as well
as improving the productivity of the farming unit. (It is worth noting
that farms performing best overall do not necessarily have the lowest
mortality rates. It is usually the case that top performing producers
achieve lower production costs in the round. This means that in some
cases, even the most economic farms can improve their mortality
rates leading to even higher levels of productivity.)
2.1 Getting On Top of the Business
2.1.1. When considering the need for fallen stock disposal, knowl-
edge about the volumes and dynamics of individual sectors helps us
understand why mitigating fallen stock costs for one sector is a high-
er priority than it is for another. For example, in the poultry meat sec-
tor, controlling and reducing mortality is accorded high priority with
stringent farm biosecurity and formal training of stock personnel
designed to prevent losses through disease incursion or husbandry
failures potentially afecting large numbers of birds on increasingly
large farms.
2.1.2. The intensive production systems typical of the pig and poul-
try sectors (especially the large commercial operations), predomi-
nantly have sophisticated management arrangements in place, sup-
ported by IT, continually monitoring all aspects of production (and
costs) enabling timely and appropriate management intervention
when necessary. For poultry, daily cumulative mortality and culls re-
cording and reporting is a legal requirement. Cattle and sheep, on
the other hand, are largely produced on extensive farming systems,
where highly skilled stockmanship is used to manage and monitor
herds and focks. Across all livestock sectors, producers are increas-
ingly focused on the need to manage their livestock efectively.
2.1.3. However, it would appear that in all sectors there are incidents
of poor livestock management practice, where businesses should be
informed of the risks to which poor performance is exposing their
business (and, in cases such as health monitoring/disease surveil-
lance, other businesses in their industry). Demonstrating the benefts
(both practical and economic) of efective management processes
and techniques across all aspects of business is the frst key step to
incentivising poor performers to want to improve. Where businesses
require help in identifying best practice, their trade bodies should be
able to provide support and guidance. For example, the EBLEX Better
Returns Programme (BRP) encourages English beef and sheep pro-
ducers to evaluate their businesses to identify where improvements
can be made in terms of cost reduction, environmental impact and
animal performance.
2.2 Animal Health Management
2.2.1. There appears to be little diference between livestock sectors
on the causes of fallen stock: mainly disease, poor health conditions
(eg. lameness, mastitis, pneumonia, and so on), physical injury and,
11
in some cases, animals being kept beyond their optimum produc-
tion age (a practice which itself increases health risks as older animals
become more vulnerable to disease and poor health conditions). Al-
though producers live with these factors on a day-to-day basis, some
appear unable to easily address the issue, especially if they are una-
ware of health problems (eg. liver fuke).
2.2.2. However, the situation is improving. In the pig industry a
scheme exists whereby abattoirs provide an immediate report to the
producer when endemic disease or other health problems are wit-
nessed at slaughter. This information is used by the producer, work-
ing with his/her vet, to take remedial action. For cattle and sheep, the
Food Standards Agency is working with industry, including the NFU,
on a similar initiative for those sectors. Some abattoirs have taken a
lead and will be feeding back ante and post-mortem information to
farmers in their supply chain.
2.2.3. Mitigation of disease risk, poor animal health and physical in-
jury can be achieved via efective on-farm biosecurity arrangements
(see biosecurity below). A particular issue is the possible imposition
of ofcial controls during a notifable disease outbreak and the im-
pact those controls could have on otherwise routine fallen stock
collection arrangements (eg. a requirement for longer periods of
on-farm carcase storage). These and other specifc health manage-
ment factors need to be contained within an efective farm health
plan which is implemented and maintained, NOT a document lost in
the farm managers ofce! There is plenty of advice and good prac-
tice readily available on how to go about implementing farm health
plans. Defra has undertaken a lot of work with producers on design-
ing efective farm health plans but still many farmers appear to need
further encouragement towards buy-in. The pig sector sets a good
example of implementation with its Pig Health Improvement Project
(PHIP), which aims to reduce national endemic disease (see Figure 5).
Figure 5: Pig Health Improvement Project
Pig Health Improvement Project (PHIP)
Since its launch in July 2011, PHIP has given all pig producers
the chance to join an industry-wide drive to improve pig
health. It builds on the successes of producers taking part in
regional projects in Yorkshire and Humberside, East Anglia and
East Midlands. The aim is to assist producers in taking a more
collaborative approach to pig health with the help of vets and
allied industries.
PHIP ofers fve useful services to help producers achieve their
health improvement goals:
BPEX Pig Health Scheme (BPHS) Reports an invaluable tool
for vets and producers to receive advance warning of sub-
clinical disease issues
Local Health Mapping enabling producers to access the
health status of farms in their local area who also register
with the project
Bespoke Biosecurity Action Plans formulated with their vet
to help reduce the risk of unwanted disease entering their
farm
Disease Testing support provided for groups of producers
and accessed with the help of their vet(s)
Regional Support dedicated BPEX staf to help producers
meet their health targets and support group activities in
their area.
Further information about PHIP:
www.pighealth.org.uk/health/home.eb
2.2.4. Also, producers need to keep up to date with work to develop
genetics with disease resistance qualities, and sector bodies need to
keep their R&D programmes under constant review. This is not to say
R&D is failing but some sectors may be further ahead than others
and there may be scope for learning from or working in collaboration
with other sectors (see Chapter 6).
2.3 Biosecurity
2.3.1. Biosecurity is a general term used in the context of mitigat-
ing the risk of pathogens being contracted by livestock. Biosecurity
measures include permanent physical arrangements to prevent the
spread of infectious diseases both within a farm and from one
farm to another or from elsewhere (eg. an abattoir); as well as con-
tingency arrangements to be used as a response when business as
usual biosecurity fails. Measures focus on the movement of people,
vehicles and equipment and animals on and of livestock premises,
as well as in the design and construction of those premises (eg. to
minimise exposure to risk, including airborne pathogens).
2.3.2. Aligned to poor on-farm health monitoring, there is often to
be found a lack of preventative measures, particularly biosecurity (eg.
where fallen stock collectors arrive at farms without dedicated collec-
tion points, causing collectors to wander about farms unaccompa-
nied looking for carcases). Poor biosecurity was reported even where
livestock sector-specifc biosecurity protocols and codes of practice
exist. Interestingly, such measures are employed during disease out-
breaks - especially notifable diseases, where farmers are placed un-
der legal duty to do so. Poor biosecurity poses a threat not only to the
individual production site/farm, but also to neighbouring sites and
the wider industry at large. Where extensive farming systems make
defending a perimeter impractical, farmers should consider moving
fallen stock carcases to a location fully separated from main produc-
tion areas. This can be designed in liaison with collectors to facilitate
biosecure collection arrangements.
2.3.3. However, it would be wrong to draw from this the conclusion
that nothing is being done to improve the situation. There is much
good practice either in place or being developed. For example, the
British Cattle Veterinary Association has promoted biosecurity man-
agement, including specifc protocols for many years through prac-
titioner CPD, publications and Farm Health Planning, as well as the
health planner tool, MyHealthyHerd. DairyCos Healthy Feet is another
example of a sector-wide initiative helping to reduce the incidence
of poor animal health on-farm. Under the Equine Health and Welfare
Strategy
2
, the importance of biosecurity is recognised, and a code of
practice is being developed (the racing and breeding sectors already
have voluntary codes of best practice).
Myhealthyherd programme helps farmers:
Evaluate herd health and disease measuring costs and recov-
erable losses due to health and disease problems that may be
causing inefcient production in a herd
Create plans that will assist efective herd health management,
as well as comply with farm assurance standards
Manage infectious disease that may threaten herd health
protecting herds from common diseases and creating controls
where disease already exists.
For further information see: www.myhealthyherd.co.uk
2
www.equinehealthandwelfarestrategy.co.uk/home
12
DairyCos Healthy Feet programme helps dairy farmers reduce the
number of lame cows on their farms by identifying and applying
the right management techniques.
The Programme is a step-wise approach towards diagnosing
the problems, devising an action plan and developing the skills
necessary for long-term lameness control. Trained providers (vets
or foot trimmers who have attended a specialist course) facilitate
the whole process and act as one-to-one advisers or mobility
mentors.
For further information see: www.dairyco.org.uk/farming-info-
centre/healthy-feet-programme.aspx
2.3.3. With examples of good practice available for biosecurity
measures and farm health planning (eg. in the pig and poultry sec-
tors), the key question must be: Why are such practices not employed
by all livestock producers and how can such producers be encour-
aged to act in their own self-interest?
2.3.4. It is equally incumbent on the farmer to mitigate the risk of
endemic disease spread to neighbouring farms and others by keep-
ing disease in as well as out. Again, demonstrating the benefts (both
practical and economic) of employing efective biosecurity measures
is the frst key step to incentivising poor performers to want to im-
prove. At national level, industry is working with Government to re-
duce and eradicate endemic diseases.
Good biosecurity is paramount.
2.3.5. In the pig sector, BPEX has produced a guidance note as part
of its Action for Productivity programme (see www.bpex.org.uk) set-
ting out practical biosecurity measures farmers can adopt to:
Limit the spread and occurrence of disease.
Improve overall herd health.
Increase the growth and efciency of the herd.
Appendix 3 provides a case study of good biosecurity practice in the
pig sector, refecting the guidance from BPEX.
2.3.6. As well as farmers practicing good biosecurity voluntarily, un-
der NFSCos National Fallen Stock Scheme, collectors and farmers are
required to adhere to the Schemes biosecurity guidance (see www.
nfsco.co.uk), together with any biosecurity procedures that may al-
ready be in place by the local authorities.
National Fallen Stock Schemes Key Biosecurity
Requirements:
Collectors must ensure:
The outside of vehicles or trailers are cleaned and disinfected
before arrival on every farm
Appropriate protective clothing is also cleansable and disin-
fected between farm premises
Fallen stock collection vehicles are not taken into areas where
there are live stock
Refrain from entering livestock areas themselves.
Farmers also have an obligation to make sure that biosecurity on
their premises is not jeopardised during collections. They:
Are encouraged to develop methods of working which are
designed to minimise the movements of people, vehicles and
equipment into areas with livestock
Must remove any fallen stock to areas where other livestock
and wildlife do not have access
Should, where possible (eg. poultry, young stock, small rumi-
nants), store deadstock in leak-proof, ventilated and covered
containers.
2.4 Systematic Surveillance
2.4.1. While physical biosecurity measures help to prevent the
spread of disease onto and within a farm, those arrangements need
to be complemented by constant, systematic surveillance. Farm vet-
erinary advisers are an important frst point of information but more
can be done at sector level, for example, the pig sector introduced
the BPEX Pig Health Scheme (BPHS). BPHS uses vets to assess a range
of health conditions in pig carcases slaughtered in specialist pig ab-
attoirs in England. This provides early warning of emerging disease
problems so producers can take action before they become a crisis.
It gives producers an objective measurement of the health status of
their herd so that health management programmes can be planned,
eg. parasite control. BPHS measures the efectiveness of vaccinations
and treatments helping to decide what and when to use.
2.4.2. Also, farming sectors can and should work with Government
to optimise national arrangements for surveillance. As part of its cur-
rent review of routine animal disease surveillance (both existing and
emerging diseases), the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories
Agency (AHVLA) is considering a more managed and systematic ap-
proach to using fallen stock from farms as an important input to its
Surveillance Programme. Currently, farmers may ofer fallen stock to
AHVLA at their own discretion (and cost of delivery) to a local testing
laboratory for investigation. While this has provided a useful source
of testing material, it is a practice that has lacked formal assessment
by AHVLA in determining the value of such donated carcases/mate-
rial for post mortem analysis.
2.4.3. With appropriate guidance to farmers and their vets, AHVLA
should be able to enhance surveillance efectiveness by ensuring
that fallen stock samples are taken in a managed way that, for exam-
ple, provide optimal geographical spread across all animal species (in
a way that maximises alerts not only to individual suspect cases but
geographical and species related disease issues/trends). Carcase post
mortem need not rely wholly on the provision of dedicated labora-
tory testing. Local post mortem examinations (on-farm and/or at re-
gional fallen stock collection points) could be capable of ofering an
alternative service efciently and efectively.
13
2.4.4. In addition to any regime that might be established for physi-
cal collection and testing of fallen stock, AHVLA should be able to
use management information relating to fallen stock to identify pos-
sible alerts and trends. This should provide a cost-efective element
to underpin and complement a pre-planned practical testing regime.
2.4.5. Reporting mortality is a legal requirement for poultry focks
going to slaughter. AHVLA should consider how best to use that data
as part of national surveillance. Also, other data to which AHVLA cur-
rently does not have access could be used. For example, the statistics
collected by NFSCo already show fallen stock trends year on year (by
geography and by species). There is currently a delay in this informa-
tion being reported by collectors, who do so once a month (thereby
delaying an incident/collection report by up to a month). If neces-
sary, it would be possible to introduce adapted reporting procedures
to facilitate live reporting as incidents occur. This option would allow
central analysis to identify possible disease and animal health risks/
spikes in fatalities, which may not be seen at the local veterinary
practice level for some time. NFSCo has made these observations to
AHVLA and stands ready to explore further with AHVLA the possibil-
ity of using a NFSCo statistical alert function.
2.4.6. Trade and other organisations ofer a range of advice and
support services to livestock producers. Figure 6 contains key points
promulgated across sectors on how to achieve lower mortality levels.
Practical steps towards less fallen stock
CATTLE AND SHEEP
Use your vet as an adviser
rather than just for
emergencies - put in place
a herd/fock health plan to
manage disease risks.
Implement a biosecurity
policy for bought-in stock
and stock returning from of
the farm.
Cull cows before they get too
old to be productive or at the
sign of health problems.
Better use of Estimated
Breeding Values, particularly
for calving ease and
longevity.
Keep good records so that
replacement females can be
bred from cows or ewes that
are easy to manage and have
long productive lives.
Good health planning to
ensure proactive treatment,
eg. worm control in lambs
and calves, pneumonia
prevention in cattle.
Use appropriate tests to
diagnose infectious diseases,
eg. BVD in cows, enzootic
abortion in ewes.
A good health plan should
also providedecision support
for unplanned problems.
Good feed management
around lambing and calving
to reduce death rates.
Select bulls and rams with
Estimated Breeding Values
for calving and lambing
ease to reduce potential
problems.
PIGS
Manage health status,
stabilise and improve. Farm
health plan should be a living
document and not a paper
exercise.
Defne a perimeter to
the production site and
minimise live and deadstock
trafc across it. Avoid your
neighbours bugs and
protect your neighbour from
yours.
Join local PHIP cluster group
and engage with local
producers and hauliers.
Monitor and record mortality
level, reasonand weight
of pig - helps identify age
groups most at risk.
Good cleansing and
disinfecting protocols
between batches.
Animal husbandry skills and
on-going staf training.
Reinvestment in buildings
and operating systems.
Engaging the services of a
pig specialist veterinarian
and being prepared to
change if necessary.
POULTRY
Manage health status,
stabilise and improve. Farm
health plan should be a living
document and not a paper
exercise.
Good cleansing and
disinfecting protocols
between batches*.
Animal husbandry skills and
on-going staf training*.
Reinvestment in buildings
and operating systems.
Engaging the services of a
poultry specialist veterinarian
and being prepared to
change policies and
applications if necessary*.
(*required by EU law)
Figure 6: Practical steps towards lower mortality levels
14
Chapter 3: The Animal By-products Sector
3.0.1. Fallen stock and slaughterhouse by-products (SBP) are both
considered as animal by-products (ABP) as described in the EU/UK
veterinary regulations. As such, many of the regulatory controls, pro-
cessing options and economic considerations apply to both items.
3.0.2. Animal by-products are subject to a requirement to be treated
in accordance with EU law. (An ofcial defnition of ABP and an in-
troduction to the full range of the regulations is listed in Appendix
4). The current and main legislative instrument for land (and fshery)
by-product treatment in Europe is the Animal By-Products Regula-
tion (ABPR) (1069/2009). This regulation is supplemented by an Im-
plementing Regulation (ABPR-IR) (142/2011). ABPR/1069 includes all
of the key aspects regarding categorisation, treatment, disposal or
use of all animal by-products. The frst and key aspect of the legisla-
tion is the placing of animal by-products into categories according
to their risk to humans, animals and the environment. Figure 7 sum-
marises the Categories and the main type of material that is found in
each one.
Figure 7: Summary (non-exhaustive) of types of ABP according
to ABPR Category
Category
Animal by-products per Category (Summary;
Non-exhaustive)
1
Animals suspected of being infected by a TSE
Specifed Risk Material (SRM) and entire bodies of
dead animals containing SRM.
Mixtures of Category 1 with either Category 2 or
Category 3 material.
2
Animals and parts of animals, that die other than
by being slaughtered for human consumption (eg.
fallen stock), including animals killed to eradicate
an epizootic disease.
Mixtures of Category 2 with Category 3 material.
3
Animal by-products or parts of slaughtered
animals, which are ft for human consumption in
accordance with Community legislation but are not
intended for human consumption for commercial
reasons.
3.0.3. There are important key diferences between fallen stock and
SBP. Fallen stock is in Category 1 or 2. However, SBP can consist of
all three Categories. In practice, ruminant fallen stock is Category 1
and non-ruminant is Category 2. However, some collectors will col-
lect ruminant and non-ruminant fallen stock and mix them together,
resulting in the whole load being graded as Category 1. SBP is mainly
Category 3. Although it is possible to downgrade ABPs from one to
another Category (eg. Cat 3 to Cat 2) for the purposes of economic
treatment, it is not possible to then upgrade material at a later stage.
This applies also to downgrading SBP to Cat 3 or 2. It is therefore very
important to categorise material correctly if the maximum value is to
be extracted from it. This important distinction becomes clearer in
Chapters 4 and 5.
3.0.4. The Category of the ABP will determine permissible treatment
options. There is a range of possibilities but not every treatment op-
tion is available for all Categories of ABP. A summary of the ABP treat-
ment options is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Processing options according to ABP Category
(Source: FABRA)
ABP processing Options ABP Category
1 2 3
Incineration/ Co-incineration
ABP processing Rendering
Compost or anaerobic digestion
(Category 2 ABP may be processed by
composting or anaerobic digestion after
pre-processing)

Pet food (Raw)

3.0.5. The only common disposal processing options available (with-
out extra or pre-conditions) for all types of ABP are incineration/co-
incineration and rendering. Other treatment options that are availa-
ble for specifc Categories of ABP are considered in Chapters 4 and 5.
Incineration and co-incineration (incineration with energy recovery)
of ABP are generally operated by specialist operators.
3.1 The Rendering Process
3.1.1. The modern rendering industry is illustrated diagrammati-
cally in Figure 9. Broadly, the basic principles are very simple. ABP
raw material contains both high levels of moisture (~ 70% on aver-
age) and microbial loading. The primary objective is to stabilise the
raw material, by heating it to more than 100oC, to efect an inacti-
vation or sterilisation of the microbes. Water is also evaporated and,
as a further consequence, the fat is separated or rendered from the
other solid components. After a further physical separation such as
centrifuging or expeller pressing, two products are produced: a high
protein meal and a liquid fat. Product terminology is important: ren-
dered animal fat may also be called tallow and the protein meal is
termed either meat and bone meal (MBM-produced from Category 1
or 2 ABP) or processed animal protein (PAP-produced from Category
3 ABP). More details surrounding the rendering process are available
in Woodgate & van der Veen (2004)
3
.
Raw ABP
Size reduction
Processing:
Dehydration and
Sterilisation
Separation
Wastewater
treatment
Filtration and QA
Storage
Product Despatch
Milling and QA
Storage
Product Despatch
Crude
rendered fat
Processed
Protein Meal
Processed animal
protein (PAP) or
Meat and Bone
Meal
Rendered Animal Fat
(Tallow)
Heat (steam)
Sized raw material
Process
condensate
Figure 9: Schematic diagram describing the rendering priocess
3
2004 Woodgate S L and J T van der Veen The use of fat processing and rendering in the European Union animal production industry in Biotechnology, Agronomy,
Society and Environment, Vol 8 No 4, p283-294.
15
3.1.2. In practice, according to FABRA, rendering accounts for >90%
of all ABPs treated in the UK, with other processes such as pet food
manufacture (Category 3 ABP only) taking up the rest.
Above: Rendering plants have to be approved by Defra/AHVLA in order
to operate.
Above: Rendered fallen stock and animal by-products Processed
Animal Protein (PAP).
Above: Rendered fallen stock and animal by-products ABP Category
3 rendered fat.
3.2 Volumes of ABP Processed in the UK
3.2.1. Total ABP rendered in the UK currently amounts to about 2.25
million tonnes, of which just over half is Category 3 material:
Total ABP by Category in 2010 (000 tonnes)
Category 1 ABP (includes any Category 2ABP) 1,100
Category 3 ABP (includes some Former Foodstufs) 1,150
Total ABP processed by Rendering 2,250
(NB. fallen stock accounts for about 5% of this volume)
The production of rendering derived products
in 2010 (000 tonnes):
Category 1 MBM: 300 Rendered Fat 155
Category 3 PAP: 275 Rendered Fat 200
3.3 The Basis for Payments by Renderers
3.3.1. The economics of collection and processing of all ABPs are
driven by the so called Gross Value (GV) of the raw material. The GV
is calculated by converting the value of the derived products (two in
the case of rendering) into the value of the raw material. This calcula-
tion uses the yield of products produced and adding them up (see
illustrative example - source: FABRA).
Illustrative example
ASSUMPTIONS
(i) ABP X produces 25% protein meal and 15% rendered fat.
(ii) value of the protein meal = 100/tonne and rendered fat is
valued at 300/tonne.
(NB. this will vary signifcantly according to category of ABP
and the derived products produced.)
CALCULATION
The gross value of ABP X = (100 x 25/100) + (300 x 15/100) =
(25 + 45) or 70/tonne.
To calculate the value or charge made to the supplier (usually a
farmer), the following cost deductions are generally made:
Collection, Transport (ABP), Process (Storage), Transport
(derived product), and an element to cover renderers
overhead and proft.
The total sum of these amounts constitutes the Total
Processing Cost. In the example, if the total processing cost
is more than 70/tonne then the ABP will be charged for;
however, if the total is less than 70/ tonne then the material
will be paid for.
3.3.2. The main objective for all involved in this sector is to increase
the Gross Value to a maximum, by whatever means. This includes
R&D to efect regulatory change and thereafter add value by produc-
ing products of the highest monetary value, including improvements
to nutritional values if appropriate.
3.4 Regulatory Change
3.4.1. All treatment of ABPs whatever their original Category or in-
tended use is required to be approved under the ABP regulations. If
an intended treatment is not within the current regulation then an
16
application must be made to gain approval. This is achieved by a pos-
itive vote in the EU Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal
Health (SCoFCAH) following apositive opinion from European Food
Safety Authoritys Biohazard Panel. For further information see www.
efsa.europa.eu/en/panels/biohaz.htm
3.4.2. Processesor containment systems for ABPs may be approved
by amendments to the ABPR following initial assessment made by
Member States and the Opinion of EFSA. Dossiers from EU Member
States seeking EFSA opinions have been and are currently progress-
ing. It is important to recognise that the EFSA Biohazard Panel has
a consistent view on the very high safety standards that need to be
met, and are rigorous and independent in their assessments and
Opinions.
3.4.3. As an example of this, at present, the SRM list (Category 1 ABP)
includes bovine intestine. However, EFSA are currently considering
the removal of this organ from the defnition of SRM, which will then
by default remove it from Category 1. If and when this step is fnal-
ised, the weight of SRM will reduce signifcantly and alter the propor-
tions of ABP processed as either Category 1 or Category 3.
3.5 Adding Value
3.5.1. The principles of adding value are clear but any steps taken
must be in accordance with the regulations. In a broad sense the
Gross Value potential for Category 3 ABP is higher than Category 1
ABP; so, any eforts to move Category 1 ABP into Category 3 ABP by
regulatory changes (eg. bovine intestine) will generally beneft the
value returned to the sector.
3.5.2. Carbon footprint work at Harper Adams University College
(Ramirez et al 2012) has revealed a renewable energy synergy be-
tween the processing of Category 1 ABP and Category 3 ABP. This
is because Category 1 derived products are used as carbon neutral
fuels that can be used to substitute for fossil fuels in the production
of Category 3 derived products. The use of these low carbon foot-
print derived products in subsequent fnished products such as pet
food, animal feed or fertilisers can lead to a reduction of the carbon
footprint of these retail products. If carbon or carbon equivalents
were valued in economic terms, low carbon footprint products may
be able to realise signifcant economic advantages. (This issue could
usefully be explored more fully see suggested further research in
Chapter 5.)
3.5.3. Another example of potential economic beneft relates to the
preservation of raw material freshness and yield by cooling. This can
beneft both fallen stock and slaughter by-products. The returns may
be achieved in diferent ways: (i) by added yield (more product pro-
duced from the same amount of raw material); (ii) via increased quali-
ty that, in turn, leads to additional value for the derived products; and
(iii) environmental benefts accruing from fresher raw materials (due
to reductions in the cost of controlling the environmental impact
from processing, such as odour controls and efuent treatments).
See Appendix 5 for more detailed information about the economic
impact of ABP freshness and quality parameters for rendering.
3.5.4. On-farm chiller units for storing fallen stock prior to collec-
tion are increasingly becoming a feature in Denmark, where users
are convinced that the capital cost of purchase and installation and
day to day running costs, are outweighed by the increased economic
benefts which are derived.
Above: A standard on-site chiller unit in operation in Denmark.
3.5.5. As there is no confrmed data to be able to conclude that
freshness or environmental conditions such as ambient tempera-
ture, storage and transport conditions do really afect yields of prod-
ucts from the rendering process, it would be valuable to initiate a
controlled study on this topic to see how this might apply in the UK
situation. Nevertheless, the Danish model provides a useful exam-
ple to quantify potential economic benefts for the UK. 6,700 (excl
VAT) capital outlay for equipment per farm is recovered in just 4 to 5
years via increased carcase value/reduced collection charges to the
farmer. (At about 200 per annum, running costs are low.) This means
that the net added value per annum after that repayment period is
about 1,500 per farm. Notwithstanding the need to research the ap-
plicability of the Danish arrangement in the UK
4
, when extrapolated
across, say, 5,000 livestock farms, the beneft could be worth some
7.5million per annum.
3.5.6. In addition to economic beneft at farm level, the outcome of
higher value carcases would also beneft fallen stock collectors (in-
cluding by reducing their own operational costs). Appendix 6 pro-
vides more information about the cooling unit in operation in Den-
mark.
3.5.7. The Fats and Protein Research Foundation (FPRF) based in the
USA is a research oriented organisation that covers a wide variety
of global research that includes work on ABP from slaughterhouses
(such as animal nutrition research for feed ingredients) and on non-
nutritional subjects (such as biofuels derived from fallen stock, for ex-
ample). A full description of the current work and an extensive library
of information and reports is available from FPRF (www.fprf.org).
3.5.8. Having looked at animal by-products in general, Chapters 4
and 5 look at the two diferent sources of animal by-product mate-
rial fallen stock from farms and animal products sent from Food
Business Operators (FBOs) - ie slaughterhouses, cutting plants and
retailers.
4
Cooling, as an intermediary step in managing material of animal origin, falls within the scope of the ABP regulations; though installations on farm would need to be
approved by AHVLA.
17
Chapter 4: Fallen Stock Disposal
4.0.1. Disposal of fallen stock is almost always a cost to the producer.
This is partly due to the collection costs (from farm to renderer) in-
volved but also because the end result is Category 1 or 2 material de-
pending on the Category of the ABP processed. There are opportuni-
ties for reducing costs to producers by improving the efciency of
the collection process (eg. improved logistics, encouraging increased
competition etc.) through exploring ways of better storage on farm
and increased returns for the end product. Work is currently under-
way to explore the potential to store fallen stock on-farm in a way
that facilitates bioreduction of carcases, so that after a spell of stor-
age a smaller volume of net animal waste for of-farm disposal and
treatment is achieved at lower cost to the farmer see Appendix 8.
4.0.2. This multi-layered approach to managing fallen stock, when
taken as a whole package rather than considering individual ele-
ments in isolation, has the potential to increase the value of a re-
duced total volume, whereby all parties to the process beneft in-
cluding farmers, fallen stock collectors and renderers.
4.1 On-farm Disposal
4.1.1. The potential for on-farm uses of fallen stock material, such as
in anaerobic digestion for power generation, should always be kept
under review as technologies and techniques develop to provide a
better option than pure disposal. However, in the case of small ani-
mals, where volume of fallen stock may not be sufcient to supply an
alternative disposal route or justify capital investment in the neces-
sary on-farm infrastructure (eg. an anaerobic digester), it has been
suggested that on-farm burial or controlled composting of fallen
stock should be permitted.
On-Farm Carcase Composting
Carcase composting involves the biological decomposition of
carcases in organic matter under controlled conditions. The com-
posting process itself is aerobic, completed in two stages and takes
around 6 months to complete. In the primary stage, a high rate of bi-
ological activity results in rapid composting and high temperatures.
This is where most of the organic breakdown occurs. The secondary
stage has lower biological activity resulting in slower composting
and lower temperatures, allowing the compost to complete the bio-
logical activity and stabilise, also called curing. Composting dead
pigs requires the addition of a carbon source (commonly sawdust)
to ensure that a proper carbon-nitrogen ratio is present for the com-
posting process.
Carcases are placed in specially erected bins (at least 2 are needed
for the two stages) and layered with sawdust until the bin is full. Car-
cases placed in the primary bin should be allowed to compost for
a minimum of three months before moving the contents to a sec-
ondary bin for the second phase of composting (for a further three
months, at least).
After the secondary stage, the compost will be a dark, nearly black,
humus-like material with very little odour that can be used as a
fertiliser or for soil amendment. Some large resistant carcase parts
(teeth, skull, etc.) may still be identifable but should be soft and eas-
ily crumbled after the process is fnished.
While composting occurs naturally, the process requires proper con-
ditions to occur rapidly, minimise odour generation, and prevent
nuisance problems. This process is currently not approved for use
in the UK because of concerns related to disease spread by animals
scavenging for food. However, this has not been reported to be an
issue in Australia or the USA. A number of hurdles would have to
be overcome before this technique would be approved under EU
regulations (see Chapter 3.4).
5
www.defra.gov.uk/publications/fles/pb13527-farm-reg-task-report.pdf
4.1.2. Although on-farm burial is currently illegal in the EU (except in
the case of the UK in remote parts of Scotland and one or two small is-
lands in England and Wales), scientifc evidence is being re-examined
to look at whether the perceived harm to public and animal health
of such practice is not as acute as was believed when the regulations
were introduced. Last years Farming Regulation Task Force Report
(Striking a balance: reducing burdens; increasing responsibility;
earning recognition
5
) recommended that scientifc evidence should
continue to be gathered and presented in support of a legal deroga-
tion allowing the burial of small farm animals on-site.
4.1.3. The Government is sympathetic. In its response of February
2012 to the Task Force recommendation, Defra agreed that farmers
should have greater choice when disposing of fallen stock than is
currently permitted by the EU Animal By-Products Regulations if it
can be demonstrated that the alternatives are safe. Specifcally re-
lating to on-farm burial, Defra observed that the Department has
sponsored research into the risks from Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathies (TSE) transmission in the soil and results are ex-
pected later this year to help consideration of relaxation of the rules
banning burial of fallen stock. Defra intends to review the position
later this year as the evidence becomes available, to see if it is pos-
sible to make a case for seeking changes to the current EU controls.
4.2 Of-farm Disposal
4.2.1. Fallen stock disposal services are, of course, themselves sen-
sitive to the market principles of supply and demand. Such consid-
erations are refected in the way collection and rendering sectors
structure themselves. As with on-farm use and disposal options,
the factors infuencing of-farm arrangements may change in a way
that benefts the farmer. For example, as the value of post-rendering
product increases, so too does the economic justifcation for invest-
ing in new and more comprehensive fallen stock and ABP collection
arrangements, such as the creation of a greater number of central
collection points/centres, collectively ofering a wider area of cover-
age/service than currently exists. However, these types of develop-
ments are consequential, depending on the successful emergence of
new uses and demands for ABPs.
4.2.2. Previous studies have been conducted into the structure of
the collection and disposal industries (eg. the 2008 MLC Report, As-
sessment of the Infrastructure for the Disposal of Fallen Stock in the
Eastern Region) and so has not been duplicated in this study. How-
ever, within the current structure of collection and disposal services,
it is useful to highlight examples of successful outcomes achieved by
others and also to identify best practice for the beneft of the wider
livestock production sectors generally. Such practice has developed
to help reduce producers costs, ensure producers and others in the
process comply with legal obligations, and to maintain a degree of
customer choice that ensures competition maintains downward
pressure on costs (either absolutely or via increased value to the
supply chain as a whole). Figure 10 ofers a short description of how
Jockey Club Estates introduced arrangements that led to signifcant
cost savings:
18
Figure 10: Case study taken from the horse racing industry
Case Study taken from the horseracing industry illustrating how
a simple but efective solution reduced costs and enhanced
benefts
Jockey Club Estates, based at Newmarket, has been running a
scheme to collect fallen horses since 1991. Before that, horses
were incinerated at a crematorium. Through an agreement
with a collector, carcases are removed twice weekly from a re-
frigerated, Defra approved, store owned by the Animal Health
Trust. This arrangement has saved Jockey Club Estates between
30/40K or 15 to 20% on an annual turnover of 200k.
Two men are employed to provide a 24 hour, 365 day service
with biosecurity at the heart of what they do. Collection ranges
from high value animals with insurance issues through to indi-
vidually owned animals where some compassion is needed at
the point of collection. In the spring, they are very busy as the
breeding season brings forth the seasons new foals. Part of the
contract is to pick up placenta for disposal.
The service includes the removal and provision of parts (mostly
legs) to validate insurance claims, but also for research and CPD
at the major horse focused veterinary practices in the area.
The scheme operates on a not for proft basis and its members/
sponsors include trainers/studs (automatic addition to the train-
ing ground fee) in the area (mostly East Anglia), Tattersalls, Race-
courses and Equine Vets, together with small private owners.
Costs for collection and rendering are about 100 per horse. A
rebate scheme operates if a horse is shot and goes to the hunt
(about 25). If the scheme has a good year, this is refected in
the subscription the next year and by the same token, extra ex-
penses are covered in the same way.
4.3 Fallen Stock Collection and the National Fallen Stock Scheme
4.3.1. The National Fallen Stock Company (NFSCo) was set up in
2004, as a not-for-proft company servicing the interests of livestock
sectors. NFSCo runs the National Fallen Stock Scheme (NFFS) which is
now used by over 47,800 livestock farmers across the UK. The Scheme
facilitates farmers access to a network of some 107 collectors, cover-
ing the whole of the countrys 800 postcode areas. Collectors ofer
a reliable, efcient and competitive service. All premises approved
under the Animal By-Products Regulations are able to register as
collectors under the Scheme. Within the Scheme, NFSCo oversees
compliance with regulations and voluntary operating protocols (eg.
biosecurity), so that farmers can be safe in the knowledge that the
collection and disposal arrangements that they employ do not com-
promise their own obligations.
4.3.2. The National Fallen Stock Scheme is considered to be an ex-
ample of best practice by many: it enjoys the full confdence of Gov-
ernment and delivers an efcient and efective service to its farmer
members and collectors alike. The main proof of this claim is that
Scheme users represent about 65-70% of livestock product across
the country, and do so out of choice. Further information about the
National Fallen Stock Scheme can be found at Appendix 7 and at
http://www.nfsco.co.uk.
4.4 Better Returns from the Rendered Product
4.4.1. Opportunities for obtaining better returns for the end product
of rendered fallen stock essentially come from research-based peer
reviewed papers demonstrating the safety of any particular process.
4.4.2. Proposals from the UK to EFSA have been made in the past,
some are currently being assessed and some are pending applica-
tion of the dossier (subject to completion of the scientifc research).
In the UK, a Harper Adams University College project is looking at on-
farm storage and bio-reduction of pig carcase material by anaerobic
digestion. Results so far suggest efective pathogen control is achiev-
able. At Bangor University, research is assessing the possibilities of
aerobic bio-reduction of fallen sheep or pigs as a means of storage. A
recently published academic paper
6
has concluded that bioreduc-
tion is efcient at containing pathogens from carcase material and
hence that the system could potentially be suitably secure to store
fallen stock prior to ultimate disposal. This may be of interest to the
poultry sector too. (For further information on these two projects, see
Appendix 8.)
Above: The bioreduction feld site at Henfaes, Bangor Universitys
research farm.
Above: Anaerobic digestion vessels used in the Harper experiments.
4.4.3. Another area where further research may be productive re-
lates to non-nutritional applications of ABPs. After the emergence of
BSE in Europe, North American research (mainly FPRF) began a con-
certed focus on non-nutritional applications for animal by-products.
An Animal Co-Products Research and Education Centre (ACREC)
http://www.clemson.edu/public/acrec was established at Clemson
University in South Carolina USA. A wide range of studies have been
completed over the last 6 years, including potential uses of ABP
components in plastics and flms, as fuel components and structural
materials. FPRF funded reports can also be found under directors di-
gest at the FPRF website. From a commercial standpoint, many of
the alternative uses have proven not to be as viable as hoped for.
Although some of the most promising products (plastics and flms)
or processes (alternative biodiesel processes) have been able to gain
some interest, the cost of actually converting the raw ABP to a fn-
ished alternative product has proved to be too expensive or has not
been robustly evaluated to make a commercial investment decision.
Nonetheless, it will be important to follow developments at this Cen-
tre.
6
Fate of pathogens in a simulated bioreduction system for livestock carcases. Waste Management 32, 933-938.Gwyther CL, Jones DL, Golyshin PN, Edwards-Jones G,
Williams AP (May 2012).
19
4.5 Making Innovation Fit With the Rules
4.5.1. When pursuing market and technological development, it is of
course important to consider the extent to which new methodology
in processing and application of ABP products may be constrained
by existing regulatory tolerances, and the need to seek changes to
those tolerances. It is equally important for the proposer to comply
with any protocols and procedures laid down by relevant governing
authorities. This process can be challenging. For example, a proposal
to use a novel treatment method (instead of traditional rendering
and incineration methods) to produce a soil improver was recently
submitted to EFSA for an Opinion. The proposal sufered a set-back
because EFSA identifed some shortcomings in relation to the appli-
cation. Further information about this case and lessons to be learned
from it is provided in Appendix 9, together with steps that could be
taken to mitigate the risk of repetition.
Chapter 5: Animal By-products from Food
Business Operators (FBOS)
5.0.1 Animal by-products from Food Business Operators (ie. slaugh-
terhouses, cutting plants and retail outlets) will normally be Category
3 material. In addition, some by-products or ofal, that in the past
might have been considered as ABP, are now harvested as Edible Co-
products, demonstrating that over time increased values are being
achieved. This Chapter considers only the Category 3 ABP produced
at FBOs. (NB Any Category 1 or 2 ABP arising at FBOs will be subject
to the same requirements as the fallen stock material mentioned in
Chapter 4.)
5.1 Current Regulatory Change
5.1.1. The European Commissions TSE Roadmap
7
, published in July
2010, notes that the positive trend in the BSE epidemic has continued
since 2005, when the European Commissions frst TSE Roadmap was
published and that the impact of BSE on human health appears to be
more limited than initially feared. The Commissions objective for the
coming years is to continue to review the TSE measures while assur-
ing a high level of food safety. Amendments to the TSE measures will
be stepwise and supported by scientifc advice from the European
Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The Commissions initial priorities were
review of BSE testing and the feed ban.
5.1.2. On the latter, a major change to the regulatory framework
that can be expected to bring more value to the ABP sector is the
re-authorisation of processed animal protein (PAP) from abattoirs
for use in animal feeds. Specifcally, the frst phase will focus on the
use of non-ruminant PAP in feeds for non-ruminants (expected to
be limited to aquaculture species in the frst instance). Changes to
regulation will be via the DG SANCO/SCoFCAH process (see Chapter
3.4, Regulatory Change). Validated tests to detect ruminant protein
contamination in fnished feeds will be a fundamental requirement
of the regulatory change.
5.1.3. At the same time the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test
is being developed for PAP re-authorisation. European and National
research has focused on detection methods for animal proteins over
the last 10 years. An EC reference laboratory has been established
(EURL-AP www.eurl.craw.eu) to act as a focal point for Member States
national reference laboratories. The current EU method for detection
of animal proteins (for the last 10 years) is microscopy. This detects
muscle fbres and bones but is not species specifc. The test under
validation currently is a PCR test that can detect species of origin in
processed animal proteins. In terms of practicality, it remains to be
seen how the use of PCR by industry and regulators will evolve. PCR
is capable of ofering detection of species protein to very low levels
and it will be a challenge for operators and regulators to integrate
this control tool into the already established risk and HACCP based
controls.
5.1.4. If the proposal to use PAP in aquaculture is adopted, the po-
tential commercial beneft could be signifcant. For example, assum-
ing that each pig produces 10kg of Category 3 ABP (see Figure 7,
Chapter 3), producing 95,000 tonnes per annum across the British
pig sector as a whole, the value of the PAP could rise from its current
value of 3 to 4 million (pet food) to 12 to 13 million (aquaculture
feed). Even allowing for the capital investment required to meet the
practical commercial elements of implementing the new regime (not
an insignifcant challenge), the net annual beneft to industry should
be in the region of 6 to 9 million possibly more when the value of
the nutritional content of the PAP is evaluated.
5.1.5. However, despite the encouraging progress now being made
in these specifc areas of limited change to the regulations, it would
be misleading to imply that wider wholesale change is imminent. It
7
www.ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/tse_bse/docs/roadmap_2_en.pdf
20
is therefore necessary to be cautious about the likelihood of substan-
tial change leading to signifcant increases in the value of ABPs in the
short term.
5.2 Further Research Areas of Importance
5.2.1. Nutrition: As a consequence of any regulatory change, non-ru-
minant PAP from the EU should be available for use in animal or aqua
feed. There is a signifcant body of literature describing the nutrition-
al value of meat and bone meal (MBM) in a range of farmed animals
all over the world. The Fats and Proteins Research Foundation (FPRF
www.fprf.org) has been a great advocate and focal point for such re-
search over the last 30 years. Nearly 350 reports are published (under
directors digest tab on the publications menu on the home page).
However, in terms of modern EU-produced PAP, there are knowledge
gaps which will need to be addressed before widespread acceptance
is achieved by European feed formulators and animal nutritionists
(subject to amending the feed ban). In particular, as EU animal by-
products are categorised by risk and processed by diferent methods
(also risk based), there is only very limited information available re-
garding the nutritional value of a certain species PAP (such as porcine
PAP) in feeds for poultry and aquaculture species.
5.2.2. Sustainability of ABP processing: the Foodchain and Bio-
mass Renewables Association (FABRA: www.fabra.co.uk) and other
members of the European Fat Processors and Renderers Association
(EFPRA: www.efpra.eu) have funded a PhD study at Harper Adams
University College. The reports coming from this work are starting to
be published widely in scientifc journals and agricultural and food
industry press. The overall fndings to date indicate that rendering
can produce products with very low carbon footprint values due to
its unique ability to utilise some of the rendered fat produced as bio-
fuel for the rendering process. Comparisons have been made with
some of the alternative processes in collaboration with other insti-
tutes (Bangor and Cranfeld). In Europe and indeed the world, this
area is receiving considerable attention, with many companies and
associations working on it. Information is available from individual
sources although much of it is based on private data and is not pub-
lished in peer reviewed scientifc journals. Both EFPRA and the World
Renderers Organisation (www.worldrenderers.org) have made it
a priority to gather together the various sustainability data and to
summarise for publication.
5.3 General Improvement in Procedures by Food Business
Operators (FBOs)
5.3.1. There is much scope for improvements in the handling of ABPs
by FBOs. An example of this relates to the gutroom. The gutroom is a
colloquial term used to describe a place or location where the inter-
nal organs of slaughtered animals are separated and sorted. Gener-
ally, gutrooms are used in FBOs dealing with mammalian species and
here the raw materials that could be either Edible Co-products or Cat-
egory 3 ABP are separated and sorted according to their defnition,
destination and/or use. For example, Edible Co-products are required
to be handled and transported hygienically, so suitable equipment
(including, if necessary, coolers and hygienic packaging) is required.
Some ABP may require separation and/or washing to make it suitable
for use in certain markets such as pet foods, while some ABP is just
sorted into diferent organs.
5.3.2. Gutrooms can play a very important role in managing Edible
Co-products and ABP, and thereby maximise proft from the respec-
tive materials. (A good review of the range of opportunities arising
from the use of gutrooms can be found in the presentations given at
the BPEX/EBLEX Conference Fifth Quarter: Go Green for more Proft
held in September 2010
8
.) The gutroom is still viewed by some plant
owners as a drain on resources costing money with little or no re-
turns. However, more efcient operators are able to demonstrate
that good management and control of gutroom processes can have
an important impact on the bottom line.
5.3.3. In Europe and elsewhere, some companies, eg. Vion Food
Group Ltd, use certain Edible Co-products (eg. edible ofals) in the
production of medical products and cooking ingredients, which
might otherwise become Category 3 material subject to controlled
treatment under the Animal By-Products regulations. Such practice
is not commonplace in the UK and underscores the proposition that
the UK could achieve higher payback from some Edible Co-products
which are currently disposed of as waste.
8
www.fabra.co.uk/foodchain-and-biomass-renewables-association/index.php/fabra-news/5th-quarter-conference-presentations-available
21
Chapter 6: Recommendations and Working
Together on Solutions
6.0.1. From the evidence shown in Chapters 2 to 5, there are many
opportunities for reducing costs and improving returns. I summarise
as follows:
6.0.2. In relation to reducing on-farm livestock mortality:
Stepping up education on reducing mortality and linking it to
demonstration of bottom line benefts.
Making greater pro-active use of on-farm health plans.
Putting greater emphasis into biosecurity, particularly in the ru-
minant livestock sector (including the option of producing sector
guides on biosecurity).
Investigating practical solutions used elsewhere in the EU and
their applicability in the UK.
Investing in more genetic/genomic research for disease resistance
(as already practiced in the poultry sector).
6.0.3. In relation to reducing costs of fallen stock collection:
Exploring systems for improved cooling of fallen stock stored on-
farm, for the mutual beneft of farmers, collectors and renderers.
The Danish system of cooling for storage of porcine carcases
on-farm merits further research to determine the extent to which
fresher carcases add value and produce less unpleasant odour
resulting from storage.
Improving the efciency of collectors through business efciency
techniques geared to improving logistics and reducing travel
times and extending best practice where it clearly exists across
the sector.
Enhanced collaboration between farmers and fallen stock
collectors in pursuit of optimum practical storage and collection
arrangements at the farm.
Exploring the possibility of extending the remote areas where
burial is permitted.
Pursuing R&D on anaerobic and aerobic disposal of non-ruminant
fallen stock, with a view to proposing legislative changes to the
ABP regulation.
Researching ways to reduce fallen stock gut content.
6.0.4. In relation to enhancing the value of ABP:
Better training and education down the line can result in
increased raw material value of ABP. The training initiative recently
introduced by FABRA is to be greatly welcomed in this context.
Improving management of abattoir gutrooms. This has long been
advocated but progress has been slow, particularly in the SME
sector.
Research into alternative techniques for adding value to ABPs
should be encouraged and explored. Ideas and techniques from
other parts of the world should be continually monitored and
Figure 11
LIVESTOCK SECTORS ON THE CONTINUUM OF BEST PRACTICE
Adoption of existing best practice Emerging new best practice/existing R&D New R&D
Ruminants Pigs & Poultry
assessed.
Strong eforts should be made to allow non-ruminant ABP
Category 3 material to be used as aqua feed under EU regulations.
Even if the uptake in the EU may initially be slow, there is an
important export market which can enhance value.
6.0.5. In relation to industry working with Government:
Encouraging more priority to appropriate Government funded
research into this important area particularly where industry
commercial beneft coincides with better use of sustainable
resources and greater carbon efciency.
Industry to work closely with Government to secure science-
based changes to the EU ABP regulation that allow well-
researched and sound techniques and processes to be used.
Industry to work closely with Government (possibly via AHWBE)
on strategic issues relating to disease control (eg. on enhanced
contingency arrangements, including at farm level, for managing
livestock and fallen stock within ofcially designated control
zones during exotic disease outbreaks).
Industry, vets and Government/AHWBE working together on the
early detection of animal health and welfare incidents (eg. fallen
stock data reporting as part of AHVLAs surveillance programme).
6.1 How Should We Proceed From Here?
6.1.1. A principal consideration that has emerged during the study
has been the importance of understanding the golden thread that
runs through all stages of managing fallen stock and ABPs from
original production to fnal disposal/reprocessing. This includes the
fact that performance in one stage can directly afect (benefcially or
detrimentally) the performance of the later stage(s). In short, there is
much scope for industry to work together on solutions.
6.1.2. It is worth stressing, therefore, that many issues and factors
to be considered in the strive for enhanced value from fallen stock/
ABPs are not free-standing but are interrelated. They beneft from be-
ing considered in the round and taken forward within the context of
a holistic agenda for change. Also, it is important to recognise that
there is much good practice in place, which has the potential to be
more widely applied (especially from one sector to another, as well
as within sectors).
6.1.3. When looking more closely at the various livestock sectors,
perhaps not surprisingly, diferent livestock sectors are at diferent
stages of achievement when mitigating and managing fallen stock.
There are individual producers who are relatively more advanced
than their peers within their sector but, strategically, sectors would
probably stand to gain more by investing efort to improve perfor-
mance from their current position on the continuum (see Figure 11).
6.1.4. However, before drawing conclusions on how to make pro-
gress, it is important to understand the signifcant diferences be-
tween the diferent production sectors:
For poultry, the life cycle for production is very short and costs of
actual fallen stock disposal are of less concern than the health of
the fock and the critical need to avoid incoming organisms and
the need to prevent fallen stock presenting a disease risk to the
22
animals in the production unit.
For pigs, producers are particularly concerned about good
biosecurity although cost of fallen stock is an issue as well. In
view of this enhanced on-farm storage and the potential for
eventual disposal on farm features highly in the priorities of many
producers.
For cattle, the situation is more complicated as BSE regulations
still require testing of fallen stock over 48 months of age and 72
months for healthy slaughtered animals. Disposal costs are an
important consideration for all sectors, but especially for cattle
due to the size of the individual animal.
For sheep, costs are an important consideration for many
producers particularly for those in remote and/or inaccessible
areas. Average disposal costs were calculated to be as much as
7 to 9% of gross margins for breeding systems in England and
were signifcantly more than this where the farm was located at
some distance away from a collector or in an area of low sheep
population density. Sheep producers have also been faced with
increased identifcation and traceability requirements; failure to
comply with these would result in cross-compliance penalties.
For horses, a key consideration is that a large majority of horse
owners keep only a small number of horses (whether as a
single companion animal or a few race horses as a commercial
investment) and those owners will only be faced with the death
of a horse very infrequently. It is neither realistic nor necessary to
expect such owners to have permanent and elaborate disposal
arrangements in place but they will nevertheless require a
suitable disposal arrangement available when necessary.
6.1.5. In addition to the need to address these species issues on a
sector basis, a case can be made for livestock sectors to collaborate
on an agenda to address the challenges of fallen stock and ABPs: not
just in seeking to facilitate relevant knowledge transfer and take-up
of best practice but also in developing new solutions through com-
bined efort (and where necessary pooled resources). Such collabora-
tion should help to accelerate progress across the board.
6.1.6. No doubt there will be some in industry who will need con-
vincing of the merits in commercial terms of intra and cross-sector
collaboration. Why, they may ask, should I give up my competitive
advantage in order to raise the game of my competitors? Though
such a stance may be understandable, it is perhaps to miss the point
(and opportunity). There is a direct link between volume/quality of
fallen stock and its commercial value. If all sectors work to a common
goal, it is possible that an increase in quality of fallen stock would
lead to greater scope for post-rendering product uses. Consequently,
the value of the raw material similarly increases, as has been wit-
nessed in recent years with regards to the demand for ABP Category
3 material from abattoirs (allowing farmers and collectors to share
the benefts brought about by higher value carcases). Also, collabora-
tion in sponsorship of R&D should facilitate a wider range of projects
with accelerated delivery of results towards commercialisation.
6.1.7. Thus working together will involve initiatives carried out by:
Individual species sectors for example, the pig producer sector
seeking to secure an on-farm disposal solution as speedily as
possible or the sheep sector looking at greater opportunities for
groups of nearby farms sharing an on-farm storage facility.
Individual species throughout the chain for example, exploring
the practicalities of the cooling systems for storage of porcine
carcases on-farm to reduce disposal costs and exploit potential
added value for producers and collectors.
Cross-collaboration between species for example, changing
consumer attitudes towards the future use of non-ruminant PAPs
in aqua feed or supporting R&D to deliver more positive carbon
footprints across the supply chain.
6.1.8. So, if the logic of working together is accepted, considera-
tion needs to be given to which sectors and bodies need to come
together in order to achieve these anticipated benefcial outcomes.
Fortunately, there is no need to create new bodies for this purpose!
The trick is in the ability of existing bodies to adopt a specifc agenda
for benefcial and achievable change. Initially these bodies might in-
clude: AHDB (representing red meat and dairy beef sectors business
development); NFU/NPA/NSA/NBA/BPC (representing all livestock
sector interests, from small-scale farms to large-scale FBOs); BMPA
and AIMS (representing meat processors); LASSA (representing li-
censed animal slaughterers and knacker trades); FABRA and UKRA
(representing the ABP rendering industry) and public authorities (eg.
Defra/AHVLA, FSA and possibly the Environment Agency). The exper-
tise and experience of NFSCo will also be necessary to take things
forward. From within this portfolio of organisations, it would be ex-
pected that scientifc expertise would be provided/available.
6.1.9. Most of the representative trade bodies identifed here are
long-established, well known to each other and, indeed, already col-
laborate in other areas of farming and food production. That track
record provides a basis for collaboration on fallen stock/ABP, which,
if successful, could be an efective mechanism for delivering the po-
tential benefts to all sectors within the chain. It is worth pointing out
that FABRA is a relatively new Association, established in 2009. FAB-
RAs creation was driven by the perceived need of its founder mem-
bers to provide dedicated efort to food chain and biomass recycling.
FABRA has been engaged with this study and sees cross-sector col-
laboration (including itself ) as an important key to unlocking many
of the potential benefts cited in this Report. It has also introduced a
new training and education initiative, which has the objective of rais-
ing standards and increasing knowledge of the animal by-products
sector (see Appendix 10).
23
Chapter 7: Progressing Change More Swiftly
7.1. This study has been an enlightening journey for a number of
reasons. First, because the relatively simple question of how to in-
crease value from fallen stock and animal by-products has proved to
have a diverse and complicated answer! Second, not all sectors (or
even individual businesses within sectors) are at the same point in
employing or developing practical solutions to common challenges;
there exists signifcant scope for learning from others and exploiting
best practice. And third, there appears to be a real opportunity for
moving things forward and making progress in a number of areas.
A Proposal for
Initiating Progress
Against this backdrop of positive attitude, and the
desire to realise the potential described in this Re-
port, I make the following recommendations in the
form of a frst-step action plan towards the goal of
increasing value from fallen stock and animal by-
products:
Relevant sector bodies to attend a half-day
workshop to consider this Report and agree steps
to be taken by individual sectors, by species
supply chains and by overall collaborative activity.
In each area to consider the question, What are
the fallen stock and ABP challenges; are they
being adequately addressed; and what more
can be done to deliver valued outcomes?, and
to prepare an action agenda that will realise
immediate benefts for their constituency.
In relation to collaborative action, to have a co-
ordinated plan to be drawn up.
Furthermore, one or two organisations may be pre-
pared to volunteer their good ofces to coordinate
cross-sector collaboration. AHDB working with NF-
SCo would appear to be the natural team, given their
coverage of red meat and dairy beef sectors and fo-
cus on delivering reduced cost solutions.
I therefore recommend to AHDB and NFSCo that they
agree to take on the coordinating role, if sufcient in-
dustry commitment is evident.
24
APPENDIX 1
Stakeholder Questionnaire
This Appendix reproduces the questions asked of selected stake-
holders from relevant livestock sectors and allied industries/profes-
sions. (Not all questions were appropriate to every respondent.)
1. Which sector(s) do you represent?
2. Is the cost of managing/disposing of fallen stock/animal by-
products a signifcant overhead to your business/sector(s)? If so,
broadly what would that estimate be (m and % of production
costs)?
3. In which aspects of managing fallen stock and/or animal by-
products do you think your sector(s) can improve arrangements
to enhance efectiveness and efciency?
4. Is your sector pursuing any R&D aiming at (i) reducing waste in
animal by-products or its disposal; or (ii) increasing added value
from managing/processing animal by-products disposal? If so,
please provide brief details.
5. Does your sector have sector-wide on-farm biosecurity
protocols and if so are they widely practiced?
6. Are there any aspects of legislation that impose
disproportionate control and/or cost on efective management
of fallen stock/animal by-products? If so, what are they, and
how could they be amended efectively?
7. What are the top three risks/causes of fallen stock or
uneconomic animal by-products in your sector(s) and how can
they be mitigated?
8. To the extent that fallen stock is a feature of livestock
production, how can its level of incidence be reduced? OR To
the extent that waste from animal origin is a feature of livestock
production, how can the cost of processing/managing it be
reduced?
9. Can material from fallen stock (or waste material from livestock
production generally) be better utilised? If so, what needs to
happen to facilitate that opportunity?
10. Are you aware of relevant good practice abroad that is
prevented from adoption in the UK (either through lack of
awareness or legislative barriers)? If so, please provide details.
APPENDIX 2
Questionnaire responses and other contributions received
from:
ADAS UK Ltd
Anglo Beef Processors UK
Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency
BPEX (a division of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development
Board)
British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA), in conjunction with the
Cattle Health and Welfare Group (CHWG)
British Poultry Council
British Veterinary Association
Chief Veterinary Ofcer, Wales
DairyCo (a division of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development
Board)
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Afairs
Derbyshire Veterinary Services
Dunbia Farm, Co Tyrone, Northern Ireland
EBLEX (a division of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development
Board)
Equine Health and Welfare Group (on behalf of The Horse Trust,
World Horse Welfare, British Equine Veterinary Association and the
British Horseracing Authority)
Foodchain and Biomass Renewables Association (FABRA)
Goat Veterinary Society
Incinerator Replacement Technology Ltd (IRTL)
Jockey Club Estates
Licensed Animal Slaughterers & Salvage Association
Meat and Livestock Consultancy Services Ltd
National Fallen Stock Company
National Pig Association
National Farmers Union
National Farmers Union, Wales
Reading University
Sandlands Farm, Melton Mowbray
United Kingdom Renderers Association
Vion Food Group Ltd
25
APPENDIX 3
Biosecurity Best Practice Case Study
A3.1. In the pig sector, BPEX has produced a guidance note as part of
its Action for Productivity programme (see www.bpex.org.uk) setting
out practical biosecurity measures farmers can adopt to:
Limit the spread and occurrence of disease
Improve overall herd health
Increase the growth and efciency of the herd.
Refecting that guidance, here is a description of one successful mul-
ti-production unit companys specifc biosecurity approach.
Companys Attitude and Underlying Policy
A3.2. Biosecurity operates at many levels within a pig business
some more obvious than others. It is important to be confdent that
biosecurity measures are both relevant and achievable. All site per-
sonnel must understand and practice good biosecurity and this is as-
sessed quarterly as part of the Vet visit process.
Animal Movements
A3.3. Pig-fow is the primary factor that determines the risk of health
breakdown. Breeder units are predominately closed herds, which
only receive Grand Parent replacements or regular gilt input from a
dedicated multiplier. For grower units, the sites are managed on an
all in and all out arrangement employing a clean-down programme
between batches that includes full wash-out and disinfection (ide-
ally with muck removed between batches). Site-specifc biosecurity
measures are used, as described below.
Physical Set-up of Production Sites
A3.4. All production sites have a dedicated biosecurity point, a small
hut at the visitors entrance to the site. Each hut will contain a key
phone contact number display; protective clothing; visitors registra-
tion book; and other information and guidance about biosecurity
(eg prohibition of pork products on site, location of hand cleaner
and boot & vehicle disinfection point, as well as farm visitor policy).
There will also be a dedicated visitor car parking location and general
biosecurity signage around the site.
A3.5. In addition to a dedicated biosecurity point, breeding herd
units and grower herd units will have site-specifc biosecurity meas-
ures in place:
Breeding herds will only be started following a review of loca-
tion and likely risks to/from other pigs. The site will have bulk
feed storage bins for less frequent deliveries, minimising the
risk of disease transfer that more frequent deliveries of smaller
quantities would pose. A dedicated and well-controlled pick-up
point for piglets and cull sows is maintained; and livestock haul-
age is undertaken done by a dedicated feet working to strict
biosecurity guidelines relating to animal movements. Multi
pick-ups for breeding units are prohibited, as are return vehicu-
lar journeys from abattoir to breeding unit. Fallen livestock is
predominantly incinerated on-site (the higher cost is traded for
lower biosecurity risk and associated costs of disease).
For grower units, there is generally less risk (and relatively lower
cost impacts of a biosecurity breach than for breeder units), but
biosecurity is still very important. A key feature of grower unit
design and layout is the provision of an operating process that
separates clean activity from dirty activity to minimise the risk
of contamination spread (eg. a clean end for feed delivery and
livestock delivery/pick up and manure management at the other
end of the site). Dead stock is mainly collected (from dedicated
collection points) in close liaison with approved collectors oper-
ating to agreed standards of practice.
Management of Visitors
A3.6. High herd health status breeding units are defned across
the company so that all personnel know where they are and what
biosecurity standards must be achieved. Where possible, non-
company visitors must complete the companys written biosecurity
declaration in advance of each visit. Where advance declarations
are not possible, visitors must complete it when signing the site visi-
tors book on the day of visit. The minimum biosecurity requirement
would be for an overnight break between visiting a company site of
higher health status and the site to be visited next. Multiple visits are
allowed to grower units, subject to a change of clothes/boots, etc.
at each site. Visits from one unit to another of higher health status
are prohibited, ie. travelling back up the generation pyramid. Such
arrangements apply to all visitors, including livestock haulage/feed
lorries whose operatives are informed of the health status of the
companys individual production units (and which is written into
their operating protocols).
Contingency Arrangements
A3.7. Specifc contingency plans are in place should they be re-
quired, such as a suspicion of disease outbreak on or near to unit
(especially a suspected notifable disease) or an operational failure
which threatens to compromise efective biosecurity arrangements.
26
APPENDIX 4
Regulations Covering the Animal By-Products Sector
This Appendix is an extract from the Food Standards Agencys Manual for Offcial Controls,
which provides details of the tasks, responsibilities and duties Food Standards Agency (FSA)
staff and veterinary contractors undertake in approved establishments.
27
28
29
APPENDIX 5
Analysis of Economic Impact of ABP Freshness and Quality
Parameters for Rendering
(Source: FABRA)
(The following principles, applied in this analysis, are relevant to all
Categories of ABP; but some aspects are more appropriate for Cat-
egory 1 ABP (including fallen stock) whereas some are more related
to Category 3 ABP.)
A5.1. Yield/Value: In simple terms, the more product that can be pro-
duced as a result of rendering (yield), the greater the value can be at-
tributed to the raw material. This assumes that products themselves
can attract an income as pet food ingredients, animal feed ingredi-
ents, fertilisers, biofuels, etc. However, there is no confrmed data to
validate a conclusion that freshness or environmental conditions,
such as ambient temperature, storage and transport conditions re-
ally afect yields of products from the rendering process; and most
of the reports about the efects on freshness and yield in ambient
conditions are anecdotal. Nevertheless, yield data has been collected
from a number of plants over a three year period and the overall ef-
fects (by month) are shown in Table 1. This data appears to confrm
the overall hypothesis that months of lower ambient temperature
have higher yields of protein and fats than that achieved in warmer
months.
Month Protein yield Fat yield
Jan 28 16.5
Feb 25 17
Mar 23 15.5
Apr 22 16
May 21 14.5
Jun 24 13.5
Jul 22 12.5
Aug 22 12
Sep 23 12.5
Oct 24.5 14
Nov 26 14.5
Dec 27.5 15
Table 1: Efect of monthly temperature on yield of protein and fats from
processed ABP.
A5.2. The parameters that cause a protein and fat to achieve a dif-
ferent value in the market place are well known and the diferences
in values between medium and high quality (Table 2) are taken from
current market data and relate to defned quality parameters:
Protein
a) Total Volatile Nitrogen (TVN) and Biogenic Amines (BA) a pro-
tein meal with high levels of TVN/BA will make product unsuitable
for many animals (especially aqua feed and pet food applications)
and a lower value will be certain.
b) Protein denaturation will occur during the heat processing
phase and will cause the protein digestibility to reduce. This will
limit uses of proteins in animal nutrition and will subsequently re-
duce the value.
Rendered Fat
Free Fatty Acid (FFA) is caused by the enzymic hydrolysis of triglyc-
eride fats during decomposition. High levels of FFA can be directly
correlated with lower values. Interestingly, this relates to Category
1 Tallow used for production of biodiesel, where high FFA is a deter-
rent to the efcient processing and yield of fatty acid methyl esters
(FAME = Biodiesel).
The degradation of fats results in the production of peroxides
caused again by enzymic action on fats (rancidity). The presence of
peroxides above a very low threshold level again reduces value of
the product for applications in animal feeds and petfoods.
PAP (APB Category 3) Rendered fat
( C1 & C3)
Medium
quality
High TVN,
low protein
digestbility
150/mt High peroxide,
High FFA
400/mt
High quality Low TVN,
high protein
digestbility
200/mt Low peroxide,
Low FFA
500/mt
Table 2: Diferent Value/Quality scenarios for rendered products.
A5.3. Additionally, certain environmental factors may result in dif-
ferent values for ABP; for example, raw ABP material loses yield as it
starts to decompose. In simple terms, these lost components (which
could have been recovered as solids before natural decomposition
occurs) are liquefed and solubilized into volatile aqueous chemi-
cal components liberated as steam during the heating process. This
steam then requires treatment to avoid environmental pollution of
the atmosphere or water discharges. The treatment cost can be very
signifcant and hence directly impact on the value of the fnal pro-
cessed product.
A5.4. Moreover, where fallen stock begins uncontrolled decompo-
sition on-farm, there may be a requirement to protect the environ-
ment (and local people!) from odour pollution when transporting
such material of-farm to a rendering plant. Again, related costs will
directly impact on the value of the raw material.
A5.5. Based on these fndings and assumptions, the efect of an in-
cremental 1% increase in yield for the two products (protein meal
and rendered fat) in each of the medium and high value scenarios
(but without any other changes that might afect value) is signifcant.
Table 3 shows this clearly. Where the value of combined medium
quality products could difer by 27.50 per tonne of ABP for high
quality products the value could difer by 35.00 per tonne. When a
comparison is made between the low yield medium quality and the
high yield high quality, the value could difer by 59.50 per tonne of
ABP.
PAP yield 25% 26% 27% 28% 29% 30%
Med 37.50 45.00
High 50.00 60.00
Rendered fat yield 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17%
Med 48.00 68.00
High 60.00 85.00
Combined PAP & fat
yield
37% 39% 41% 43% 45% 47%
Med 85.50 113.00
High 110.0 145.00
Table 3: Gross value of ABP /tonne relative to % product yields.
A5.6. A conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that, al-
though the data presented combines practical data and theory, there
appears to be sufcient justifcation for practical evaluation of the
efects of storage and transport conditions (and, therefore, the merits
of enhanced control via artifcial cooling/refrigeration) on the quality,
yield and economic value of animal by-products at source. Such an
evaluation should include the methods and costs of addressing en-
vironmental factors, so that a full commercial cost/beneft appraisal
may be produced.
30
APPENDIX 6
On-farm cooling or chiller units currently being used in
Denmark
A6.1. The purpose of storing fallen stock in on-farm cooling units
prior to collection is to manage the image and environmental condi-
tions of carcases at production sites and to increase economic value
from better post-rendering products, not least improved fat quality
for use in biodiesel. Along with these benefts comes transportation
savings, allowing for cheaper pickup costs for farmers.
A6.2. Denmark has already introduced more than 50 on-farm chiller
units for storing fallen stock prior to collection and has targeted in-
stallation of 500 units in the longer term, facilitated by the Danish Co-
operative Society, Daka. (Daka is a Cooperative Society in Denmark
owned by 15 members representing most of the Danish meat indus-
try and the Swedish slaughterhouse Scan AB. Daka has two subsidi-
aries, Daka Proteins and Daka Bio-industries, producing commercial
products from ABP processing.)
A standard on-site chiller unit in operation in Denmark.
Summary
A6.3. The units, which come in two sizes, cost upwards of DKK
60,000 excluding VAT (6,700 approx.) for purchase and installation.
The farmer receives a 30% discount on collection charges from Daka
and, depending on the size of farm, payback on investment will typi-
cally be 4 to 5 years. The chiller operates at 7oC and is capable of
holding carcases for up to 6 weeks. A unit is emptied by crab-crane
which transfers large carcases from the chiller unit to the collectors
lorry (small carcases should be stored separately, preferably in freezer
units) and placed in the chiller unit on collection day). The system
clearly ofers signifcant health/hygiene benefts for the farmer (as
well as improved public perception).
A6.4. The main economic benefts are savings in fallen stock trans-
port costs and the opportunity to carry full loads, as well as the qual-
ity benefts, mainly less rancid fat for biodiesel production, particular-
ly during hot weather. The chiller units run on about 1,800 kilowatts
of electricity per year. A formal cost/beneft analysis has yet to be car-
ried out, but Danish users are convinced that the capital cost of pur-
chase and installation and day to day running costs are outweighed
by the increased economic benefts which are derived.
Detail
A6.5. How the Daka scheme works:
As a Cooperative, Daka works in partnership with local livestock
farms, whereby fallen stock is stored on-farm, collected and
transported to Dakas processing plants in such a way as to en-
sure maximum value is derived from fallen stock material. In es-
sence, Daka supply on-farm chiller units (at farmers capital cost)
and gives the farmer a 30% reduction on collection charges (ie
revenue costs) provided the farmer complies with the operating
standards associated with the chiller and the collection service.
The pay-back period for the capital cost is just 4 to 5 years, af-
ter which the economic returns via reduced running costs go
straight to the farmers bottom line as a saving or proft.
A6.6. Chiller unit technical information:
There are two sizes of chiller unit (brand name in Denmark, Kle-
brndene): 3.94mx 2.84m outside dimensions or 2.34mx 2.34m
outside dimensions. Preliminary experience has shown that it is
predominantly the large model that attracts most interest. The
small model is not yet in production and is dependent upon suf-
fcient orders to justify a production line.

The individual cooling unit (or well as it is sometime called) is
supplied as pre-cast base with four ready-made sides that are
assembled with a fold and groove feature. All joints are treated
outside with primer and bear a bitumen membrane which makes
the cooling unit waterproof. The exterior height of the unit is 1.50
meters but it is buried in the ground so approximately only 0.5
meter shows above ground level. One of the units sides is mould-
ed with a mounting hole for the cooling device. The temperature
in the unit would be approximately 5
o
C to 8
o
C.
The cooling units lid is made of fberglass with polyurethane in-
sulation approximately 11cm thick. It opens by means of a manu-
ally operated hydraulic arm, which raises the lid approximately
10 cm, before it is swung to the side so that the facility is acces-
sible for loading and unloading from above.
Water for cleaning is stored in a separate tank and waterproof
cover (supplied as part of the main unit). Cleaning water can be
pumped with a submersible pump (not included) and must then
be disposed of as slurry.
A separate refrigerated storage facility (ideally freezer unit
at a nearly location) should be used for small carcases (eg.
piglets or poultry). This is because small carcases deterio-
rate more quickly in warm temperature. It is permissible to
freeze items in paper bags (no plastic bags) supplied by Daka.
A6.7. Site preparation, delivery and installation:
Daka must approve the pickup site before construction work be-
gins. The site should be designed appropriately and in a manner
to accommodate the larger vehicles likely to be used in the fu-
ture. The farmer is responsible for obtaining any necessary plan-
ning and/or environmental operating permissions (Daka provide
farmers with necessary information for applications), and for site
preparation (ie hole dug to correct dimensions, water and elec-
tricity supplies laid to the installation site pre-delivery instruc-
tions provided by Daka).
Daka arranges for the chiller unit to be delivered and installed
once confrmation is available that the site has been satisfactorily
prepared and there is adequate site access for the lifting crane
and other installation equipment.The farmer must also arrange
adequate labour to assist with during unloading/assembly of
the unit. Once installed, the farmer is responsible for levelling
the ground around the unit with a suitable draining material.
A6.8. Carcase storage and collection:
Animal carcases in the chiller unit will stay fresh for many weeks,
but only when they are placed in the units immediately after
death. Daka permit carcases to remain in the chiller units for up
to 6 weeks before collection. The storage of carcases within the
chiller unit has to comply with specifc instructions from Daka.
31
Small items stored in separate refrigeration units (see technical
information above) may be transferred to the cooling unit on col-
lection day.

Daka require 24 hour access to empty the chiller unit, at times
of their choice, giving maximum fexibility to generate optimum
cost savings. The farmer is responsible for notifying Daka when
the chiller unit is full (or when the frst carcase is approaching 6
weeks in storage).
A6.9. On-farm benefts from using a chiller unit:
Dead animals are hidden from passers-by, avoiding distress
or uninformed opinions about the reason for deadstock
Protection against wild animals.
Prevention of rapidly decomposing carcases and reduction
of odours during storage, transport and processing is
signifcant.
Fewer collection visits and therefore reduced biosecurity risks
of disease spread.
Provides for the capture of the small amounts of fuid and
nutrients that may be released from dead animals.
Non-use of chemicals or other hazardous substances in the
management of fallen stock.
A6.10. Costs:
The current price of the large cooling unit (including delivery and
installation on the pre-prepared site) is approximately 6,700 ex-
cluding VAT payment due 8 days before delivery. Running costs
are mainly related to electricity (1,800 kilowatts per year) and wa-
ter charges a total of about 200 per year.
Only after Daka is satisfed that the cooling unit has been installed
and operating correctly will the farmer be eligible for a 30% dis-
count on collection charges (for all species of fallen stock). Dakas
discount rate is valid until further notice but is subject to Dakas
instructions being adhered to, including that animals are imme-
diately placed in the unit and that the units sump is kept clean
and dry.
32
APPENDIX 7
The aims and objectives of National Fallen Stock CIC are:
To provide a national service for the collection and disposal of fallen stock that farmers use from choice
To create competition at local level to keep prices low
To provide high levels of biosecurity
To assist farmers in complying with Animal By-products Regulations
To fnd ways of reducing costs and improving profts of British livestock producers by investing in research into alternative methods
of storage and disposal of fallen stock.
How the National Fallen Stock Scheme Works:
For Farmers
Farmers register with the Scheme for the collection and disposal of
fallen stock. Upon becoming a member, farmers will receive a list of
all the approved collectors operating in their local area and the prices
that they charge. When members have fallen stock, they will contact
a registered collector of their choice (based largely on locality and
competitiveness of collectors). Collectors are required to collect all
species for which they have provided prices and may not refuse any
reasonable request to collect stock. On picking up the fallen stock,
the collector is required to deliver a signed NFSCo receipt to the
member. As acceptance of the accuracy of the receipt, the member
should if possible, countersign the receipt. If this is not possible, an
unsigned copy must be left at the members address. The member
must notify the collector within 72 hours of collection if no receipt
has been received. The member has 72 hours to dispute a receipt di-
rectly with the collector after which if it cannot be resolved it should
be referred to NFSCo.
Members will receive a monthly statement from NFSCo summa-
rising the categories and quantities of fallen stock collected. The
monthly statement will list both the actual cost of collection and
the charge to the member after any Government contributions
(where applicable). An NFSCo administration fee of 1.75 for mem-
bers who receive statements by post or a reduced fee of 1.25 for
those opting for email invoicing will be applied to the monthly
statement only if a member uses the service in the same month.
An annual compliance statement which will enable a farmer to show
any compliance inspector an up-to-date record of all fallen stock col-
lections through NFSCo over the past twelve months will be avail-
able. There will be a small administration fee to cover report genera-
tion and printing of the annual compliance statement which will cost
4.65 plus VAT. Members must contact NFSCo, preferably by email,
if they do not wish to receive the compliance statement which will
be invoiced on the 31 January annually. Members have 14 days to
dispute any items on the statement. After this time, NFSCo will debit
the member for undisputed amounts using the variable direct debit
mandate set up at registration.
For Horse Owners
Although horse owners can join at the time an animal dies they may
wish to join in advance to save having to go through the procedure
for registering for the Scheme at what may be a distressing time. On
registering for the Scheme, the horse owner will be given details of
collectors and premises operating in their area including prices for a
variety of collection and disposal services such as:
Disposal only
Putting down the animal by the collector
Collecting an animal after it has been put down by a vet
An urgent request for attendance
Out of hours attendance
Roadside attendance
Incineration and return of ashes .
On requiring the service, the owner will contact their preferred col-
lector and make the required arrangements.
Members will receive a statement from NFSCo summarising the ser-
vices used. An NFSCo administration fee of 1.75 for members who
receive statements by post or a reduced fee of 1.25 for those opting
for email invoicing will be applied to the monthly statement only if
a member uses the service in the same month. Payment will then be
collected 14 days later by direct debit.
For Collectors
All premises approved under the animal by-products regulations are
able to register as collectors for NFSCo including;
Knackers
Hunt kennels
Maggot farms
Renderers
Incinerators.
Collectors without premises must make their own arrangements for
the legal disposal of fallen stock with the approved premises of their
choice.
Collectors provide charges for the postcodes in which they wish to
operate:
On a headage basis for cattle, sheep, pigs and horses
On a weight or volume basis of a standard container for all
species.
Charges are reviewed and updated throughout the year through re-
pricing exercises.
Members contact a collector when they have fallen stock and ar-
range a suitable time for the stock to be collected. A signed receipt is
left for the member with details of the collection. Collectors submit
a monthly invoice to NFSCo providing details of the members, col-
lection points, species, categories, quantities of fallen stock collected
and charges during the month. Payments to collectors will be made
by NFSCo within six weeks of the date of the members monthly
statement.
AHVLA, on behalf of NFSCo, carries out audits of specifc Scheme
requirements at each plant registered to the Scheme and each col-
lector using these establishments to ensure they comply both with
the provisions of the ABPR where they apply to the Scheme and sup-
plementary provisions required by NFSCo.
33
9
Fate of pathogens in a simulated bioreduction system for livestock carcasses. Waste Management 32, 933-938.Gwyther CL, Jones DL, Golyshin PN, Edwards-Jones G,
Williams AP (May 2012).
10
The digesters were inoculated with Salmonella typhimurium, Clostridium perfringens, E. coli K88, Ascaris suum eggs and Porcine parvovirus (PPV). Results suggest
the achievement of log 5 reduction in S. typhimurium, E. coli and PPV at 35C and a log 6 reduction at 55C. There was 100% destruction of A. suum eggs at 55C
and 93% destruction at 35C (however remaining eggs appeared non-viable). The maximum reduction for Cl. perfngens at 35C was log 2, however, at 55C a log 5
reduction was achieved. This information was kindly provided by Harper Adams College University.
APPENDIX 8
Research on Alternative Disposal Methods
A8.1. BPEX are currently funding two research projects which are
looking at alternative methods of carcase storage and disposal.
Aerobic Bioreduction
A8.2. The frst is a project with Bangor University looking at biore-
duction as a storage method for fallen livestock. The BPEX funded
work is part of a larger project funded by the Welsh Government and
HCC which has been looking at the process of AB as a means of re-
ducing the cost of disposal of fallen sheep and lamb carcases.
A8.3. Bioreduction is an on-farm method of storing fallen stock prior
to fnal disposal. Fallen stock are placed into a sealed vessel contain-
ing water, heated to 40C and aerated. Carcases can be added to the
vessels as and when they die on farm, at a time convenient for the
farmer and with minimal efort. The liquor waste is subsequently
emptied when necessary and disposed of via rendering or incinera-
tion
A8.4. The benefts of bioreduction include the fact it is a straightfor-
ward system which requires minimal processing of the carcases be-
forehand. After being placed in the vessel, the majority of the carcase
material is liquefed within 3 months, including the majority of bone
material. As the majority of a carcase is made up of water, the vol-
ume of waste is reduced as the heated water evaporates; ultimately
reducing the quantity of waste to be disposed. Volume reduction al-
lows for the continuous addition of carcases to the vessel throughout
the year. Further work is needed to reduce the costs of buying and
running a bioreduction system; however in some circumstances (eg
larger farms) bioreduction could reduce the costs of disposal of fallen
stock compared to the conventional system. Bioreduction, therefore,
ofers a potentially practical and economic system for the livestock
sector.
A8.5. Another advantage is that this approach is on-farm potentially
alleviating some of the sectors biosecurity and environmental con-
cerns, particularly related to the centralised collection system which
results in transport between farms.
A8.6. Bioreduction has been shown to be biosecure at both the lab-
and feld-scales. Indicator bacteria and viruses reduced in numbers
over the 3-5 month trials. As a result, an application is currently being
drafted for submission to the EFSA for the validation of bioreduction
for industry use. The results of this submission should be known by
the end of 2012.
A8.7. A carbon footprint (CF) for bioreduction was undertaken to
identify areas of improvement should the technology become legal.
Under most scenarios, it seems that bioreduction has a higher CF
than the conventional centralised collection service, primarily due
to the electricity usage. This has led to changing the design of the
bioreduction system to improve the environmental sustainability of
the system.
A8.8. Bioreduction has been shown to potentially ofer a practical,
economic and biosecure method of storing fallen stock prior to dis-
posal
9
. Feedback from the agricultural community has suggested
that bioreduction would be favourably received. Further improve-
ments can be made to reduce the environmental impact; however
the contribution that a bioreduction system would make to a farms
overall CF is minimal. On-going work seeks to improve the efcacy of
the bioreduction vessels themselves and to increase decomposition
rate by the production of a tailor-made accelerant.
Anaerobic Digestion
A8.9. BPEXs second project is with Harper Adams University College,
looking at the use of anaerobic digestion (AD) as a possible technol-
ogy that could be developed to dispose of pig carcass on-farm.
A8.10. AD utilises diferent bacterial groups to degrade organic
material in an environment without oxygen. The advantages of AD
include the degradation of organic material to reduce biomass; re-
duced odour emissions and greenhouse gas emissions produced
from degrading carcase material; destroys certain pathogens; pro-
duces biogas and does not require aeration. Biogas mainly consists
of methane which can be converted into heat and electricity to be
used to heat the process, reducing the need to produce electricity
from fossil fuels. AD also produces an end-product, digestate, which
is suitable for direct land application or composted prior to land
application to be used as a fertiliser. After pasteurisation, digestate
can be applied directly to felds or be separated into liquid and solid
phases. The liquid can be used for irrigation and the solid phase used
as a fertiliser. Digestate has improved nutritional qualities compared
to traditional fertilisers, with 4-5 times higher concentration of nitro-
gen and phosphorus. AD is commonly used to treat animal slurries,
human sewage water, food waste and slaughterhouse waste.
A8.11. AD provides a good opportunity to develop a small, on-farm
system that could be used to dispose of carcases as previous research
has shown that protein can be successfully digested. Having an on-
farm system would reduce the reliance of farmers on using external
companies to collect fallen livestock, reducing costs and increasing
the biosecurity of the unit. A series of experiments has been conduct-
ed at Harper Adams to determine the preferred operating conditions
for the digestion of carcases. Results have shown that carcases can
be digested to produce 70% methane concentrations of the total
biogas, under certain conditions. The destruction of disease-causing
bacteria has also been investigated and showed under these small
scale experimental conditions that the AD process successfully de-
stroyed Enterococcus faecalis and signifcantly decreases the con-
centration of Clostridium perfringens
10
.
A8.12. The conditions that gave the highest methane yield were
applied to a commercial pig unit to estimate the potential energy
yield from digestion of carcases on-farm. The simulation was based
on the Harper Adams pig unit digesting piglet carcases and placen-
tas. Harper Adams runs a commercial, indoor 240 sow farrowing unit,
farrowing 2.3 times per year and producing an average of 14 piglets
per litter (this includes on average one stillborn and one mummifed
piglet per litter). Pre-weaning mortality was approximately 12%, with
the majority of mortalities occurring within the frst three days. Based
on this mortality rate the unit would produce an estimated 2,568kg
ABP per year from farrowing alone. Ofgem stated that the average
annual electricity consumption of a medium household was 3,300
kWh. Current results would suggest that digesting piglet mortality
would produce enough energy to heat an average of two houses per
year.
A8.13. AD has numerous benefts and could ft within the operation
of a commercial pig unit. The biogas produced could be converted
into heat and electricity to be used by the process. If the process was
to produce additional electricity this could be used on-farm. Using a
small-scale AD system would hopefully reduce the costs of disposal
34
as well as limiting the potential for deadstock vehicles
to transfer disease organisms between farms. Cur-
rently, AD of fallen stock is not a permitted method of
treatment under the ABP regulations and a change in
legislation would be required for it to be used. Similarly,
digestate from commercial AD plants can be applied
to agricultural land; however, a change in legislation
would also be required to spread digestate that had
originated from the AD of fallen livestock.
A8.14. A further research proposal has recently been
submitted to Defra and BPEX, seeking support to take
this work further. The objective of this next project will
be to develop protocols to optimise digester perfor-
mance, destroy pathogens and characterise the diges-
tate produced. The project also aims to develop a pilot
scale AD system working with a commercial contrac-
tor for on-site storage, bio-digestion and disposal of
pig carcase material (PCM). It then intends to make a
submission to the European Food Standards Agency
for approval as an alternative method for storage, bio-
digestion and disposal of PCM.
APPENDIX 9
An Example of the Challenges of getting Approval for New Processes
A9.1. A new company called Incinerator Replacement Technology Ltd (IRTL)
has been developing an alternative to traditional rendering and incineration
methods by a patented method of treating ABPs, called Biomation. Material to
be processed is macerated, dried, sterilised, milled and agglomerated to a use-
able crumb size. The end product is then used as a soil improver called Meat
Based Super Absorber (MBSA). This process could allow fallen stock, non SRM
abattoir waste, catering waste and other forms of proteinaceous material de-
rived from ABPs to be converted into commercially viable soil improver with
nutrient slow (or fast) release and absorbency qualities. In its mobile form, this
process could also provide a solution to deal with animal disease outbreaks
on-farm, dealing with immediate carcase disposal challenges and reducing
the risk of disease spread of-farm.
A9.2. For this innovative approach to be capable of adoption within EU regu-
lations, it had frst to secure an afrmative Opinion by the EFSA as a pre-cursor
to consideration/adoption by SCoFCAH. With the support of Animal Health
and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA Defras delivery agent) Bioma-
tion was submitted to the EFSA for a formal Opinion. Unfortunately, EFSAs
Opinion was negative. But, EFSAs assessment was critical of the robustness
of the written application as submitted, rather than dismissing the merits of
the proposal per se. EFSA noted that the written application was based largely
on theory, lacking sufcient demonstrable evidence of adequate control of
identifed risk (especially in the methods efectiveness to adequately reduce
risks that may be present in the treated material). EFSAs Opinion (available at
www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2614.pdf ) is relevant to all potential
alternative processes for ABP. In particular, EFSA commented that:
Major defciencies were noticed in the HACCP plan provided.
The Panel further concluded that there is no evidence that the proposed
alternative method is equivalent to processing method 1 described under
Regulation (EU) 142/2011, in terms of log10 reduction of the relevant hazards,
including TSE agents.
To assess alternative methods, the Panel recommended that the relevant
hazards and their level of inactivation to be targeted by the processing
methods for Cat. 2 animal by-products should be specifed in a more precise
and detailed way.
Moreover, to facilitate the assessment of the alternative methods for the
treatment and the specifc use of the Cat. 2 material under consideration it was
recommended that:
i) test organisms with defned resistance patterns should be specifed; and
ii) the required level of quantitative risk reduction of such organisms should
also be provided.
A9.3. Hopefully, this EFSA Opinion is more of a set-back than a show-stopper
for Biomation and the application to EFSA can be amended and re-submit-
ted. But for other proposals for alternative ABP processes, it is a lesson to be
learned if similar disappointing outcomes are to be avoided.
A9.4. As future proposals are likely to be sponsored by individual companies/
project developers without the expertise in the feld of dealing with domestic
Government and EU public authorities such as EFSA and the European Com-
mission, it would seem worth considering bringing together a UK group of
interested parties (ie representing animal production sectors, food processors,
the rendering/ABP processing industry, relevant scientists and Government)
to develop practical expertise in understanding EU level guidance and criteria
for making applications to EFSA, through shared knowledge and experience.
Advice from such a group/focal point would be an invaluable input at the out-
set of proposals, so that owners were clear on the hurdles to overcome, the
likelihood of success and how best to develop a proposal efciently and ef-
fectively.
35
APPENDIX 10
Our Mission
Underpinning our foodchain is an environmentally sustainable industry that fulfls a vital role. Dedicated to foodchain and biomass recy-
cling, it is an industry represented in the UK by FABRA, the Foodchain and Biomass Renewables Association.
Between them, the members of FABRA share the responsibility for the majority of the UKs meat by-product processing capacity, provid-
ing essential food and environmental services and producing a variety of biofuels and renewable energy resources.
By improving communication and developing closer links with the food industry, FABRA can work more constructively with UK and Eu-
ropean regulators, legislators and infuencers.
Our goal: Biosecurity in a low-carbon foodchain.
FABRA Membership
Established in 2009, FABRA aims include:
Pursuing technical advances for its members and the industry it represents
Promoting foodchain and biomass recycling
Representing members in dialogue with Government, its agencies, foodchain partners and consumers.
Our founding members process more than 65% of UK animal by-products and securely process food residues, as well as producing
green energy, valuable products for feed and pet food and by-products for oleo-chemical, pharmaceutical and construction industries,
amongst others.
New Vocational Recognised Qualifcation (VRQ) for meat industry
A new industry-wide nationally-recognised free-access training pro-
gramme has been devised to ensure that the British meat industry
maximises its returns from animal by-products. The programme,
which is designed to add value to the sector by improving efciency
and boosting confdence in systems and security, is being sponsored
by the Foodchain and Biomass Renewables Association (Fabra).

Training will cover a range of areas including the categorisation of
animal by-product in abattoirs an important area because the even-
tual value of processed animal by-products is dependent upon the
category of the raw material. Processed animal protein and animal
fat from risk-free materials ft for human consumption at the point
of slaughter, but which we choose not to eat for reasons of taste,
are more valued. Mis-sort these higher value raw materials and the
industry will fail to recover their full economic, environmental and
nutritional value.
As well as being worth more down the line, the most valuable animal
by-products known as category 3 raw materials - cost less to handle.
The fats and protein products derived from them are sold as ingredi-
ents to the pet food industry, for example, cutting the carbon cost of
meat production for human consumption and ofsetting the cost of
by-product disposal. But mis-sort them into a Category 1 container
and their eventual value is limited while cost of disposal increases.
Everyone whose role brings them into contact with animal by-prod-
ucts will be able to obtain a Level 2 VRQ which refects their skills and
understanding. The Fabra-sponsored animal by-product training is
available free-of-charge to employees and employers involved in an-
imal by-product processing and for a limited period Fabra will cover
the examination fees for those taking part in the training, subject to
meeting the terms of the scheme
The frst module in the FABRA training programme, Raw Material Cat-
egorisation, Transport and Traceability (Red Meat), will be available
from mid-May 2012.
For more details see www.fabraeducation.co.uk
36
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
AB Aerobic Bioreduction
ABP Animal By-Products
ABPR Animal By-Products Regulation
ACREC Animal Co-products Research and Education Centre
AD Anaerobic Digestion
AHDB Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
AHVLA Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency
AHWBE Animal Health and Welfare Board for England
AIMS Association of Independent Meat Suppliers

BCVA British Cattle Veterinary Association
BMPA British Meat Processors Association
BPC British Poultry Council
BPEX BPEX is a division of AHDB representing pig sector levy
payers
BPHS BPEX Pig Health Scheme
BRP EBLEX Better Returns Programme
BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
BVD Bovine Viral Diarrhoea
CF Carbon Footprint
CIC Community Interest Company
CPD Continuous Professional Development
DairyCo DairyCo is a division of AHDB representing dairy sector
levy payers
Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Afairs
DG SANCO European Commission Directorate-General for Health
and Consumers
DKK Danish Krone
EC European Commission
EFPRA European Fat Processors and Renderers Association
EFSA European Food Safety Authority
EU European Union
EURL-AP European Union Reference Laboratory for animal
proteins
FABRA Foodchain and Biomass Renewables Association
FBO Food Business Operator
FFA Free Fatty Acid
FPRA Fats and Protein Research Foundation
FSA Food Standards Agency
GV Gross Value
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
HCC Hybu Cig Cymru - Meat Promotion Wales
kWh Kilowatts per Hour
LASSA Licensed Animal Slaughterers & Salvage Association
MBM Meat and Bone Meal
MLC Meat and Livestock Commission (now AHDB)
NBA National Beef Association
NFSCo National Fallen Stock Community Interest Company
NFU National Farmers Union
NPA National Pig Association
NSA National Sheep Association
Ofgem Ofce of the Gas and Electricity Markets
PAP Processed Animal Protein
PCM Pig Carcase Material
PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction
PhD Doctor of Philosophy
PHIP Pig Herd Health Improvement Project
QA Quality Assurance
R&D Research and Development
RAC Royal Agricultural College
SBP Slaughterhouse By-Products
SCoFCAH EU Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal
Health
SMEs Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
SRM Specifed Risk Materials
TSE Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
TVN/BA Total Volatile Nitrogen and Biogenic Amines
UK United Kingdom
UKRA United Kingdom Renderers Association
USA United States of America
VAT Value Added Tax
VRQ Vocational Recognised Qualifcation
This Report is published by the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester GL7 6JS. First Published 2012. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission of the publisher. The views expressed in this report
are those of the Author. Copies of the report are available from the Royal Agricultural College at a cost of 20 per copy including postage. Whilst every efort has been made to ensure that the information in this report is com-
plete and accurate at the time of publication, neither the Fellowship, the College, PIC UK Ltd, nor the Author accept liability for any error or omission, nor for any loss, accident or damage which may arise from using the report.
37
Published on behalf of the Royal Agricultural College
Cirencester, Gloucestershire GL7 6JS
Tel. 01285 652531 www.rac.ac.uk