Product Yield
Is the bottom line
By Brandon Lairmore
Director of Operations, Protein Conversion, Pilgrim’s Pride, Inc.
I
n every industry, there are ongoing questions that never
seem to have a concrete answer. In the rendering industry,
one of those questions surrounds product yield. Now, in
the interest of full disclosure, I don’t know much about critters
with four legs or gills, but in the land of wing and feather yields,
finding its true value is a continuous battle. Renderers are
constantly on the hunt for the answer, but in a world where
genetics, nutrition, and Mother Nature are ever-changing, it
can be like chasing a ghost. So, how do renderers understand
this ghost and help production team members manage the
day-to-day operation to prevent fluctuations in this crazy,
albeit, essential number?
Let’s start by taking a short look at some of the things that
affect yield. Renderers deal with a virtual buffet of unwanted
goodies from their raw material suppliers, from whole animals
and boneless meat, all the way down to offal and everything
in between. That buffet is called product mix and is where the
yield conundrum begins. Most every trailer of raw material
received has a different mix and there
is no way to determine
10 June 2014 Render
the actual make-up of that material. In fact, one typically
has to go back to the live weight of the animal to reconcile
volumes. That move is the first of many discrepancies that
drive renderers to premature gray hair. This article will focus
on a few things that renderers have some control over, like
managing excess water, product freshness, and maximizing
allowable moisture content in finished protein meals.
Obviously, renderers
can’t control the amount
of excess water that
might be loaded into
offal trailers and
hauled needlessly
www.rendermagazine.com
up and down the road by power units burning diesel that is
being sold at the highest prices seen in years. And no matter
how much renderers beg and plead with their raw material
suppliers, they just don’t seem to understand renderers are
trying to help their customers save money by showing them
the cost of hauling those excess pounds. Yet, renderers can
manage that excess water and keep it from having an effect
on product yield. First and foremost, the volume of that water
must be understood and not figured into the total raw material
volume. Many renderers don’t have the ability to drain and
reweigh every trailer that hits the yard, so they must develop
a way to determine the typical amount of excess water so it
can be deducted from total pounds. For those that have the
luxury of reweighing each load, congratulations, you are one
step closer to solving the problem. Once the excess water
challenge is battled, the next piece of the puzzle is maintaining
product freshness.
Product freshness has a wide range of impacts on
rendering, including quality assurance, odor, processing issues,
and yield variance. Many renderers dream of a refrigerated
trailer staging area where offal and other products can wait to
be processed in the comfort of about 33 degrees Fahrenheit,
but then wake up and realize its actually 105 degrees outside
and the material is preheating in the trailers. Why is that a
is to make sure the company’s production team recognizes
the value of that seemingly insignificant drip of product. They
must understand that fat or meal hitting the floor is the same
as money hitting the floor.
As an example, let’s say there is a fat leak that is approximately two gallons per hour. Doesn’t sound like much, right? If
you run 120 hours per week, that would equate to 240 gallons
of fat lost per week. Fat weighs roughly 7.4 pounds per gallon,
so 240 gallons multiplied by 7.4 means 1,776 pounds of fat
is lost per week. Annualized, that is approximately 92,352
pounds of fat lost per year, so that two gallon per hour fat
leak translates to a loss of two tanker loads of sellable fat per
year. Using an average sales price of 30 cents per pound, that
equals a $27,705 loss in revenue, not to mention the additional
operating cost incurred with no return and, of course, a lower
yield for the facility.
The final area of control involves maximizing the amount
of moisture in finished meals. Often, customer specifications
allow up to six percent moisture content in their finished
meals, while many rendering facilities still produce meals with
moisture content in the three to four percent range. Simply
managing the cooking process better and raising the moisture
content in finished products closer to the upper allowable limit
can have a nice impact on both yield and the bottom line.
Table 1. Example of increasing revenue by increasing moisture content
500 tons poultry by-product meal per week x .03 (3% increase in moisture content/weight) = 15 additional tons per week
15 tons per week x 52 weeks per year = 780 additional tons of poultry by-product meal per year
780 tons per year x $600 per ton value = $468,000 increase in annual revenue
Table 2. Example of increasing yield by increasing moisture content
15 additional tons poultry by-product meal per week x 52 weeks per year = 780 additional tons per year
500 tons poultry by-product meal per week / .19 (19% protein meal yield) = 2,632 tons of raw material per week
2,632 tons raw material per week x 52 weeks per year = 136,864 tons raw material per year
780 additional tons poultry by-product meal production / 136,864 tons raw material = .6% yield increase per year
problem? As the product begins to break down, or degrade,
many of the recoverable proteins and oils will become soluble.
When excess water is drained from the trailers, those proteins
and oils are lost down the drain to water treatment facilities
where they are transformed from yieldable finished product
that can be sold, to a waste stream renderers have to pay to
treat. The moral of the story is, raw material must be managed
utilizing an effective first-in, first-out process, and processing
plants must be maintained in a manner that keeps them
operating both efficiently and reliably. This will help ensure
that product doesn’t sit in the yard longer than necessary.
Once fresh, well-drained product goes into the system,
renderers can then take total control of yield destiny. Here is
an area where renderers have no excuses, can’t blame anyone
on the outside, and can take the opportunity to help maximize
yield and drive value to the bottom line. One area that will
help maintain a normal yield is through proper equipment
maintenance. Leaks and spillage are both yield killers. Every
ounce of product that hits the floor will cause loss to yield. For
those thinking this is obvious, take a stroll around your facility.
If not a single leak is found, congratulations. The point here
www.rendermagazine.com
For example, if a plant that produces 500 tons per week
of poultry by-product meal were to increase the moisture
content in that meal from an average of three percent to the
maximum specification of six percent, and using an average
value for poultry by-product meal of $600 per ton, that plant
would see an increase in revenue of $468,000 per year (see
table 1).
The increase in revenue is essentially bottom line dollars
and doesn’t include the energy savings realized by not
evaporating the water in the process. It also has a positive
impact on the yield of the facility (see table 2).
Although chasing yield can be an exercise in insanity at
times, it is certainly worth the effort. Although not all variables
that affect final yield numbers can be controlled, renderers can
control much of it and those should be the areas of focus. It
is imperative that each and every person on the production
team understands their role in maximizing yield and that
they have the ability and tools needed to help drive that all
important percentage. At the end of the day, yield is money
and renderers should never lose sight of that, no matter how
confusing and irritating it gets.
R
Render June 2014 11