Proposed Solution for B-Meg Pelleting Mill
Introduction
San Miguel Corporation has always been the vanguard in providing high quality products and services to Filipinos. And today, the San Miguel seal of excellence will be found on most Filipino tables through its popular and well-loved food and beverage brands.
In 1953, when it first ventured into the feeds manufacturing business, San Miguel went one step further in its drive to feed the nation. Using bacillus megatherium, a growth promotant derived from its beer brewing operations, it began supplying quality animal feeds for poultry and hog raisers nationwide.
Since then, the San Miguel feed manufacturing business has grown by leaps and bounds. In 1955, it registered its flagship brand B-MEG with the Bureau of Animal Industry, giving it the distinction of getting BAI Registration Certificate No.1.
From a one-ton feedmill at the San Miguel Polo Brewery, to the Manila B-MEG Plant in Balintawak, to more than 25 strategically-located feedmills that produce B-MEG products nationwide – raisers are assured of fresh, high quality B-MEG feeds for the growth of their livestock.
Background of the Study
Last Year, B-MEG at Mariveles, Bataan, one of San Miguel’s many plants encountered a problem on one of their process machines, the pelleting mill. The plant has a machine which can produce 50 tons of pellets in just an hour it cannot meet its requirement. It only runs 35 tons per hour because the trouble its encountering The down time of the machine gives them a shortage in supplying their products. Chia Tung Company, located at Taiwan, the pelleting mill supplier of B-MEG also commissioned the said problem for it still covered by the warranty
Objectives
General Objective
– Develop a solution on B-MEG’s Problem on their Pelleting
Specific Objective
– To discuss the pelleting process in terms of operation
– To describe how the success or failure of the operation
Scope and Limitation
Process
The process of the pellet actually occurs at the “nip” between the rolls and the die. All other activities associated with the operation such as conditioning, cooling, etc. really support and augment the action at that point in the system.
In order to understand the process and be in a position to make intelligent decision to improve throughput, quality or appearance, one must have a thorough understanding of what happens at the nip point.
Depending upon the physical characteristics of the feed, a lesser or greater proportion of the work done by the pellet mill is used for compression. For example, if the formula contains a high level of fibrous ingredients such as bagasse, bran or ground alfalfa, the mill will expend a large amount of energy simply compressing the mash to the density of the subsequent pellet. Conversely, for a relatively dense feed such as high grain and soy meal, the mill will expend a lesser amount of energy for compression and a greater amount for throughput.
The “extrusion area” is the point at which the mash has reached pellet density and begins to flow through the die holes. There are many physical forces that must be dealt with in the pelleting process.
The primary purpose of the roll is to provide a force on the mash to densify the feed and cause it to flow toward the die. The gap between the roll and the die, the roll surface characteristics and the physical properties of the mash determine how great this potential force might be.
The die provides, not only the final diameter of the pellet, but the resistance force on the feed and has a direct influence on throughput rate and pellet quality. These two forces (roll and die) are opposite each other but must work together to provide quality pellets at an acceptable production rate. The force generated by the roll must be greater than the resistive force provided by the die; if not, throughput is zero.
With a general understanding of the process inside the pellet chamber, it is appropriate to move to a discussion of various factors that affect both throughput and pellet quality.
Formulation
There are feedstuff materials that pellet well and produce a durable pellet and others that will not. Researchers (1966) developed a pelletability chart in which he ranked feed ingredients in their pelletability and degree or abrasiveness. They (1962) experimented with applying numerical value to each major (feed) ingredient to indicate its “stickiness” or its ability to help form a tough, durable pellet. He called that value a “stick factor” and fed that factor into the computer along with the various nutritive values of each ingredient to provide formulas that meet all nutritional specifications as well as supplying a formula that will produce a quality pellet at least cost.
Those early workers led others to experiment with the effects of various ingredients – grains, milled by products, fats, pellet binders, minerals, etc. on pellet quality or durability. They also led to the development of a standard method for testing pellet durability perfected in the 1960’s by Dr. Harry B. Pfost at Kansas State University and accepted as a standard by the American Association of Agricultural Engineer- ASAE S-269.3 (ASAE, 2003). That method is generally known as the K-State, or tumbling can, durability test; and it provided a means of quantifying the toughness of pellets or their ability to withstand the downstream handling that is typical in feed plants and feed delivery systems. That was a major breakthrough in the technology of pelleting and has served the industry for all these years.
Schedule of Activities
Week 1 and 2 – Observe Process
Week 3 and 4 – Gather Data
Week 5 and 6 – Analyze Data
Week 7 – Purchase new equipment
Week 8 – Test equipment
Expected Outcome
After the activities, the company replace the single machine with (3) three sets of the same machine but in different production capacity.
References
ASAE, 2003, ASAE Standard: ASAE S 269.3, Wafers Crumbles, and Crumbles – Definitions and Methods for Determining Density, Durability, and Moisture Content, ASAE Standards 2003, The Society of Engineering in Agriculture St. Joseph, Michigan: 70-72.
Bartikoski, R.G., 1962, The Effect of Steam on Pellet Durability, Cost Reductions Through In-Plant Production Controls, Midwest Feed Manufacturers’ Association, Kansas City, Missouri: 42-47.
Behnke, K.C., 1981, Pellet Mill Performance as Affected by Mineral Source, Feedstuffs, Vo.l. 32, No.12, Miller Publishing Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota: 34-36