The number and types of new ethanol coproducts are continuing to evolve. And with all the new products on the market, more regulatory diligence is needed as well, according to an article for Ethanol Producer (http://bit.ly/…) written by Kurt Rosentrater, executive director of the Distillers Grains Technology Council.
Some of the new developments in the coproducts industry Rosentrater mentioned are commercialized cellulosic ethanol, Generation 1.5 processes being implemented, evolving Generation 1 dry grind plants, and scientists developing "new ways to extract more uses and value upstream from kernels of corn and downstream from coproduct materials."
With increased focus on human food safety, the safety of feed fed to livestock has also become an important issue. This has been implemented in the past two years in the form of the new Food Safety Modernization Act, including the Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals, as well as the Sanitary Transport of Human and Animal Food plans.
In order for livestock feed, and then human food, to be safe, it is important for the industry to be careful in the processes used to make them and diligent about meeting regulations, Rosentrater said.
Ethanol producers, as well as beverage distillers, need to be sure to meet the defined legal definitions for co-products published by the Association of America Feed Control Officials. If co-products do not fall within any established definition, a new definition may be needed.
For example, with the increasing popularity of oil removal technologies, the industry, including the DGTC, worked to establish a legal definition for distillers oil that enables ethanol producers to sell it legally, Rosentrater said.
Technology continues to evolve in removing fractionate compounds from the grain or the coproduct stream, including fiber, proteins or other nutrients, as well as new fermentation products from corn other than ethanol. Likewise, the new fractionated products must be proven safe for their intended use by either the AAFA definition process, the Food Additive Petition process or the Generally Regarded as Safe determination with voluntary notification, all of which can be lengthy and require extensive documentation.
Rosentrater said that companies may choose which path to take, most follow the official AAFCO process to establish the legal identity and get a published definition by AAFCO.
Cheryl Anderson can be reached at Cheryl.email@example.com.
© Copyright 2016 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.