BeerBorg

berryman wrote:

gwcr wrote:Spent grains are actually quite high in protein and fiber. This is what makes them attractive to cattle farmers (as well as the low cost). With cattle farmers in the family, I can assure you that they want the cattle to gain weight not starve them. The high protein content of the spent grain is a great supplement to their normal feed.

Agree 100%
Dairy farmers in my area have been using it for years. I have added it to my pig feed, I got it in 55 gal drums that a friend was getting from Southern Tier Brewing. My pigs loved it and it has good protein content.

Bluejaye wrote:I'd have to know more about "spent grain" before I could form an intelligent opinion. If these means grain that has all of its nutritional value leeched out of it from the mash, then essentially this would seem to me to be animal abuse via starvation. I'd have to side with the FDA if that were the case. But, again, I don't really know what it is, just guessing.

No animal abuse on this one, it is usually mixed with other feeds to get the protein level where required.
I would guess the FDA would like to have some control of this as all government agencies like to do. When you buy any type of package feed, it has to have a guaranteed analysis, dog food for an example, but spent grains isn't packed feed. I say let the breweries and farmers work together as they have been doing for years and keep the FDA red tape out of it for the best interest of both businesses.

ok berryman color me stupid but, how do you do that multi quote thing?

jimjohson wrote:

berryman wrote:

gwcr wrote:Spent grains are actually quite high in protein and fiber. This is what makes them attractive to cattle farmers (as well as the low cost). With cattle farmers in the family, I can assure you that they want the cattle to gain weight not starve them. The high protein content of the spent grain is a great supplement to their normal feed.

Agree 100%
Dairy farmers in my area have been using it for years. I have added it to my pig feed, I got it in 55 gal drums that a friend was getting from Southern Tier Brewing. My pigs loved it and it has good protein content.

Bluejaye wrote:I'd have to know more about "spent grain" before I could form an intelligent opinion. If these means grain that has all of its nutritional value leeched out of it from the mash, then essentially this would seem to me to be animal abuse via starvation. I'd have to side with the FDA if that were the case. But, again, I don't really know what it is, just guessing.

No animal abuse on this one, it is usually mixed with other feeds to get the protein level where required.
I would guess the FDA would like to have some control of this as all government agencies like to do. When you buy any type of package feed, it has to have a guaranteed analysis, dog food for an example, but spent grains isn't packed feed. I say let the breweries and farmers work together as they have been doing for years and keep the FDA red tape out of it for the best interest of both businesses.

ok berryman color me stupid but, how do you do that multi quote thing?

You just

Bluejaye wrote:

gwcr wrote:Spent grains are actually quite high in protein and fiber.

Ah, I see, thanks. I didn't realize the mash leaves protein intact and just removes the sugar. Obviously fiber is simply filler without any caloric value.

Scroll down and click

gwcr wrote:One of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite POTUSes.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Quote on the posts below. Then type you message.

lol I said color me stupid! I realized I was missing a obvious answer. thanks inkleg

I've read through this proposed regulation quite a few times as we partnered with the local micro brew and send them our spent grains as they have local farmers that come to pick up the spent grain from a central location, for free. Now I am not sure if it is targeting the breweries that only sold their spent grain (which is not many from what I can tell) or all breweries that are giving it away and will force them to charge for it.

If it is the latter, it seems they are making something out of nothing. Why would they (government) want to begin making breweries charge for the spent grain and forcing them to package it or if not, dump it somewhere? If we sell it, I guess more tax money is generated and I am assuming that is the prime concern here with the government. I don't buy the whole "breweries are making beer and animal feed at the same time" claim that is stated by the FDA. That is not the intent of any brewery to create animal feed, it's simply a byproduct that can be used for that. Nothing more.

They do specify this claim to be geared more towards the breweries who currently sell their grains, so I would assume this regulation only targets those breweries to a certain extent, as well as the thresholds they proposed that breweries with less than $500,000 in sales would be exempt, which would mean smaller breweries (pico, nano & some micros) would possibly be exempt anyway.

IN the end though to me it just seems they are making a fuss and some regulation out of something that is a non issue anyway.

Funky Skunk Brewing wrote:They do specify this claim to be geared more towards the breweries who currently sell their grains, so I would assume this regulation only targets those breweries to a certain extent, as well as the thresholds they proposed that breweries with less than $500,000 in sales would be exempt, which would mean smaller breweries (pico, nano & some micros) would possibly be exempt anyway.

When I first posted I figured it was all about the money, but now that you have pointed out some of the actual wording it is obvious it is. If they were concerned about health issues it would be across the board. Now that I see they are targetting only breweries that SELL their grains (after all, cant tax free) and making over $500k (less than that it costs more in paperwork than they will recover) it is pretty obvious. About time for another Boston tea party.

DaYooper wrote: When I first posted I figured it was all about the money, but now that you have pointed out some of the actual wording it is obvious it is. If they were concerned about health issues it would be across the board. Now that I see they are targetting only breweries that SELL their grains (after all, cant tax free) and making over $500k (less than that it costs more in paperwork than they will recover) it is pretty obvious. About time for another Boston tea party.

I would tend to agree with you as well, especially the way they set up the thresholds and as I read it ONLY target those breweries that sell their spent grain and have yearly sales of over $500,000. Then yes, it seems it really is all about the money and not the "health issues" as they would try to spin it. It seems they don't care too much about the health issues when you give it away or have sales less than $500,000 annually.

Section 116 of the FSMA makes exemptions for the raw ingredients to make alcohol and the production of it, under the FDA’s interpretation, “a brewery that sells its spent grains as animal feed may be manufacturing beer and animal feed simultaneously for at least part of the brewing process.” This statement makes me believe they are only targeting those that sell their grain.

But my question is and remains, why are they only concerned on this issue if the brewery is selling it (I say fully knowing it's about the tax money)? Would the concern also not be there if breweries were giving it away as well? I guess sold spent grain carries a higher health risk than free spent grain ... Who knew?

The problem I have with it is in line with what the Brewers Association has said as well. Many breweries that operate throughout the United States provide spent grain to local farms for use as animal feed at no cost. The proposed FDA rules on animal feed could lead to significantly increased costs and disruption in the handling of spent grain. Brewers of all sizes will either have to adhere to new processes, testing requirements, recordkeeping and other regulatory requirements or send their spent grain to landfills, wasting a reliable food source for farm animals and triggering a significant economic and environmental cost.

Without any form of non-partial risk assessment conducted by the FDA to prove that spent grain to animals is harmful to their health, this point and proposed regulations is almost mute. Spent grain has been a source of food for animals for centuries and it seemed to work out fine for all involved. So now I am supposed to believe their is a health risk involved, but only from those who sell their spent grain?

And what of the farmers involved in this as well? We tend to look at it from a brewing stand point (obviously) though some of these farmers are not mega operations and count on this spent grain at times to help reduce their costs which in turn reduce the overall cost of their products sold. If this were to be taken away, their cost go up, our cost go up ... It's not just a one industry burden at that point. It effects countless other industries and lives for that matter.

<<< Steps off his soapbox for now >>>