More leftovers Encouraged to be Used in Your Pets Food!:eek:
The president of the Pet Food & Ingredient Technology, Inc. thinks its
time for left over ingredients from the processing of ethanol to be
utilized in pet food. Being more concerned with rising costs of grain
products instead of quality nutrition, Greg Aldrich, PhD feels its time
pet food manufacturers use spent-fermentation leftovers. He feels it will
be well received if its pitched to pet owners as a green ingredient.
Wonder if it will make pets feel green?As if the pet food industry doesnt have enough problems, now the
president of Pet Food & Ingredient Technology, Inc., "which facilitates
innovations in foods and ingredients for companion animals" is encouraging
dog food and cat food manufacturers to consider using leftovers from
ethanol processing. Geez.In an article on the Pet Food Industry website
(http://www.petfoodindustry.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=22862) Dr. Aldrich
states: The production of ethanol has meant many things to the petfood
industry - much of which hasn't been pleasant because of the pressure it
has placed on grain supplies. But, maybe there is some redemption for
ethanol production that petfood companies have overlooked these last few
years. Redemption in the way of an ingredient - specifically the
protein-enriched, spent-fermentation co-product known as distillers dried
grains with solubles (DDGS).Allow me to interpretThe production of ethanol has raised the cost
of otherwise cheap grains commonly used as protein in pet food. Ah, but I
discovered something that we might have overlookedand its even cheaper!
After they process grain for ethanol, the left over garbage still analyzes
as protein goodie for us! Jump on this gang, before the price goes up!Dr. Aldrich reports on research of DDGS (left-overs from ethanol
production): To summarize this battery of studies, the inclusion of DDGS
at up to 30% of dog diets was reported to be acceptable; but,
digestibility, stool consistency and palatability were measurably
diminished.Interpretation: Using up to 30% of this cheap @#$% is fine, even
though it wont provide much nutrition and will probably give the pet the
runs (and big time gas!).And Dr. Aldrich also reports on drawbacks: One drawback to DDGS
is the potential to concentrate mycotoxins, especially given that
fermentation and distilling do not destroy these mold metabolites. Nor is
the ethanol industry obligated to operate under the same restrictions as
the food and feed industries. In one extension report from South Dakota
State University, mycotoxin concentrations for 2000 through 2007 were
reported to be measurable in each testing year.Interpretation: There is one problem, and its big DDGS
(left-overs from ethanol production) are extremely prone to a deadly mold
that is known to be a killer of pets. Extensive research has shown its
very risky. But remember, its cheap so its probably worth the risk.As if the above isnt bad enoughDr. Aldrich feels petsumers will
welcome this change: Considering consumers generally have a favorable
view of "green" ethanol Well Dr. Aldrich, we might not all have a PhD
behind our name, but we certainly are not stupid! Green pet food is NOT
huge piles left in the backyard or litter box!AAFCO (American Association of Feed Control Officials) currently
name these types of products Distillers Grains, Distillers Dried Grain
Solubles, Wet Grains, and more. We can only guess that if this becomes
a popular ingredient, AAFCO will graciously accommodate The Pet Food
Industry with a nice, safe sounding ingredient name. Something like
Protein-rich Solubles after allleft-over @#$% from the processing of
ethanol on a pet food label probably wont sell much pet food.By the way, Dr. Aldrich reports there is no shortage of DDGS last
year there was over 3.5 million metric tons produced. Instead of pet
food, the perfect place for this left-over @#$% to go is to produce
BioFuel. Why not take the left over ingredients from producing ethanol
and turn it into even more energy? Perhaps that makes too much sense.
For more information on BioFuel:
www.TruthaboutPetFood.com/ByProductEnergy.html.Should you decide to call or email Dr. Aldrich, his contact
information is at the bottom of the article. Here is the link again:
http://www.petfoodindustry.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=22862.Wishing you and your pet the best,
Susan Thixton
Truth About Pet Food
Petsumer Report
==========
This came from my all breed dog rescue group…
WHAT ARE THEY THINKING???
Geeez, just stop using corn in the darn food altogether. Period.
And this guy is a Ph.D. - scary.
Just a few comments and clarifications on the this posting. I used to work in the analytical lab for an ethanol plant owned by POET ethanol. They are one of the top ethanol producers in the country. I am personally a fan of using less grain in dog food anyhow, however this article gives a VERY biased view of DDGS potentially being used in pet food. I apologize for the long posting but I felt that several points needed correcting..
Dr. Aldrich
states: The production of ethanol has meant many things to the petfood
industry - much of which hasn't been pleasant because of the pressure it
has placed on grain supplies. But, maybe there is some redemption for
ethanol production that petfood companies have overlooked these last few
years. Redemption in the way of an ingredient - specifically the
protein-enriched, spent-fermentation co-product known as distillers dried
grains with solubles (DDGS).
Ethanol is now required by all states as a 10% or more additive to gasoline. It replaces methyl-tertbutyl ether (MTBE) which was not only a known carcinogen but also a compound with slow volatility, which means if any gas leaks or spills occur, MTBE seeps into your groundwater, lakes and streams. Ethanol is highly volatile, only carcinogenic if consumed (i.e. liver cancer risk rises if you are an alcoholic…) and doesn't cause groundwater or runoff contamination.
Ethanol production is nearly carbon neutral unlike gasoline production.
Ethanol producers, POET included, recognize the need for reduced pressure on grain supplies and are actively involved in researching more efficient enzymes for cellulistic ethanol production from various crop, leaf and yard litter. I can attest to this as I was involved in some different enzymatic temperature testing.
Despite growing ethanol production, I believe we still produce an excess of grain in this country.
DDGS will not get your dog "drunk" as the ethanol has been removed prior to the DDG drying process. >
Allow me to interpretThe production of ethanol has raised the cost
of otherwise cheap grains commonly used as protein in pet food. Ah, but I
discovered something that we might have overlookedand its even cheaper!
After they process grain for ethanol, the left over garbage still analyzes
as protein goodie for us! Jump on this gang, before the price goes up!Dried distillers grains, wet grains, or DDGS are essentially coarsely ground corn flour (20-10 ug size particles are most common) that yeast have removed glucose from and then this mixture of flour, ethanol produced by the yeast and dead yeast cells are seperated to remove the ethanol and a portion of the water. The remaining "garbage" as this author describes it, is the dried flour and yeast cells (up to 50 lbs per 50,000 gallon fermenter) to which is added a protein rich syrup derived from the removed water and all the soluable fats and proteins disolved within it. Typically protein content is around 30-35%, fat content under 10% and water under 10%. The remaining percentage is basically dietary fiber from the cellulose and other large polysaccharides that yeast do not utilize.
Dr. Aldrich reports on research of DDGS (left-overs from ethanol
production): To summarize this battery of studies, the inclusion of DDGS
at up to 30% of dog diets was reported to be acceptable; but,
digestibility, stool consistency and palatability were measurably
diminished.Interpretation: Using up to 30% of this cheap @#$% is fine, even
though it wont provide much nutrition and will probably give the pet the
runs (and big time gas!).
I can't comment on nutrition trials with dogs and dog food as our lab was a quality control lab and did not conduct these kinds of nutritional analyses. I can comment that our marketing department sold DDGS by truckloads to cattle, poultry and horse farmers.And Dr. Aldrich also reports on drawbacks: One drawback to DDGS
is the potential to concentrate mycotoxins, especially given that
fermentation and distilling do not destroy these mold metabolites. Nor is
the ethanol industry obligated to operate under the same restrictions as
the food and feed industries. In one extension report from South Dakota
State University, mycotoxin concentrations for 2000 through 2007 were
reported to be measurable in each testing year.Interpretation: There is one problem, and its big DDGS
(left-overs from ethanol production) are extremely prone to a deadly mold
that is known to be a killer of pets. Extensive research has shown its
very risky. But remember, its cheap so its probably worth the risk.
- There are three common mycotoxins in all grain crops, regardless of whether the grains are processed into DDGS or sold as is. Aflatoxin, Fumonisin and nivalenol. I have information on several common mycotoxins but I will have to figure out how to post it later. Mycotoxins are the toxins produced by various species of mold. The mold itself is not a "deadly killer of pets", but rather the toxins the mold produces can cause problems. Grain grown in wet conditions and/or improperly stored (not dried completely) are more susceptible to higher mycotoxin load. The amount of toxin is also an issue. Low level concentrations are not a problem as the liver can destroy/convert these toxins. Mycotoxins are not just a problems for ethanol producers. Any grain product for human consumption also must undergo testing for mycotoxins.
DDGS are not more "prone" to mycotoxins because the original concentration and type of mycotoxin come from the grain used to make the DDGS. The drawback of DDGS is that the syrup from the ethanol/water reduction concentrates mycotoxins.
No the ethanol industry is not required to follow feed and food federal guidelines, however they are controlled by market forces. By this I mean that if a consumer detects what they consider to be an unacceptable concentration of mycotoxins in their feed, they have every legal right to bring suit. Lawsuits are more expensive and detrimental to a company than any federal guidelines. The plant I worked for gave customers the opportunity to contract their DDGS at set mycotoxin levels, safe levels. We would then do daily lab testing, using ELISA techniques, to guarantee safe levels to our customers. We lost money, lost customers and lost reputation otherwise.
I also question this author's use of the South Dakota extension report. The 2000-2007 testing - was it on DDGS or grain crops? Because as I said before, mycotoxins come from grain crops and these often have detectable levels of mycotoxins ALL THE TIME. You must also remember that levels down to ppb (1 part per billion) are detectable with some techniques but that detectable levels are much lower than the levels associated with toxicity. For some toxins, it is a factor of 10, for some it is a factor of 100s.
As if the above isnt bad enoughDr. Aldrich feels petsumers will
welcome this change: Considering consumers generally have a favorable
view of "green" ethanol Well Dr. Aldrich, we might not all have a PhD
behind our name, but we certainly are not stupid! Green pet food is NOT
huge piles left in the backyard or litter box!AAFCO (American Association of Feed Control Officials) currently
name these types of products Distillers Grains, Distillers Dried Grain
Solubles, Wet Grains, and more. We can only guess that if this becomes
a popular ingredient, AAFCO will graciously accommodate The Pet Food
Industry with a nice, safe sounding ingredient name. Something like
Protein-rich Solubles after allleft-over @#$% from the processing of
ethanol on a pet food label probably wont sell much pet food.Why not take the left over ingredients from producing ethanol
and turn it into even more energy?
The problem with turning the DDGS, i.e. the "leftovers" into more energy is that current biofuel schemes are very energy inefficient. Some approach the efficiency of current coal plants of 20-30%. Now that's impressive!:mad:
No more ethanol can be produced from the DDGS either as the yeast have already consumed the glucose present in the flour and are unable to metabolize any of the other larger polysaccharides.
New enzymes must be developed to break down these larger molecules into glucose so that the yeast can then utilize it. Or alternative microbes need to be cultured and used. The bacteria that colonize intestinal tracts and cow stomachs are common cellulose degraders however, some intestinal tract bacteria also pose human health issues as well.
Overall, what to do with the "left overs" if they are not used for animal feed, is an area that just needs more research as there are NO easy answers right now.
Shannon,
Thank you so much for explaining in such great detail some of the misinformation in the original post. There are "real" threats of poison in our food supplies, such as imported additives from China that still need to be properly addressed. The labeling of this thread is effectively provocative and, now that we so luckily have additional information from you, also untrue.
I spend way too much time checking e-mails & articles such as this on sites like www.snopes.com so I thank you again.
BTW if we stop buying pet food with grain in it the pet food companies will stop producing it. READ LABELS! Cats and dogs don't need grain (regardless how much white bread my Basenji Ella thinks she needs to steal 
).
Lynn
Lynn,
Your b likes bread too? My boy is terrible around buttered toast! It is like a moth to a flame!
But on a more serious note, I do agree that less grain in their diets is better. From all the stuff I've read about meat feeding (raw vs cooked and etc) on this forum, most of us are trying our best to move toward that.
But keep looking up stuff on snopes cuz I use that site too!!:)
