Concerns about the Food and Drug Administration's new rule prohibiting high-risk cattle materials from being processed into feed for any animals are still looming as stakeholders such as cattle producers and small processors work to comply. David Meeker, vice president of scientific services at the National Renderers Association, tells Meatingplace how they can do so.

How are packers and producers coming to grips with FDA's new feed ban rule?

Packers and producers who have had rendering services in recent times will need to contact their renderer and review the terms for continued service. In some situations, renderers may choose to end dead stock collection because of the added expenses necessary to comply with the new feed rule which requires removal and separation of brain and spinal cords from all cattle 30 months of age and older. In many situations, producers will be asked to verify ages of animals and packers will be asked to separate brain and spinal cords from cattle 30 months of age and older from other materials rendered for animal feed.

At this point, what is the most difficult practical aspect of the legislation for meatpackers?

Meatpackers have been separating SRM's cattle 30 months of age and older for some time, but these materials have been rendered. Now, they need to either separate the brain and spinal cord from the other SRM or discard all of the SRM. The most difficult aspect of the regulation for meatpackers is how to dispose of materials that were formerly rendered. Many landfills are hesitant to accept these materials or will significantly raise their charges.

The rule requires removal of brains and spinal cords from older carcasses. Are most renderers choosing to perform this work or discontinue taking older animals altogether?

Renderers must comply with the rule and have several options —
discontinue dead stock collection, discontinue taking older bovine animals, or invest in equipment and training to remove brains and spinal cords from older carcasses. We have members in each of these categories, but I believe about 60 to 70 percent of those renderers that accepted dead stock before the new rule will attempt to remove brains and spinal cords from older carcasses. If this is not economically sustainable over time, this proportion may decrease further.

What is the most promising, most economic alternative to rendering at this point, and why?

All of the alternatives have serious shortcomings, but the most promising to producers is probably on-farm composting. It's not easy to do it correctly with cattle, but it can be done. Some with nearby landfills may find that alternative useful. By far, the most environmentally sound option is rendering, and long-term government policies should be adopted so that renderers can economically recycle dead stock and offal whether or not it is used in animal feed.

Are there any positive aspects of this regulation?

In spite of the fact that the risk of BSE in the U.S. is already negligible, the rule should remove the last remaining excuse to restrict international trade with the U.S. in beef and beef by-products. Often, conversations about beef trade ignore the need to reopen international markets to rendered by-products from U.S. cattle. The value of the by-products helps pay processing costs and contributes to profitability.

For more stories, go to www.meatingplace.com.