Darling Ingredients Inc. (DAR) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, and welcome to the Darling Ingredients Inc. conference call to discuss the company's first quarter 2025 financial results. [Operator Instructions] Today's call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Ms. Suann Guthrie, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you for joining the Darling Ingredients First Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. Here with me today are Mr. Randall C. Stuewe, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Mr. Bob Day, Chief Financial Officer; and Mr. Matt Jansen, Chief Operating Officer, North America. Our first quarter 2025 earnings news release and slide presentation are available on the Investor page of our corporate website. And will be joined by a transcript of this call once it is available. During this call, we will be making forward-looking statements, which are predictions, projections or other statements about future events. These statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results could materially differ because of factors discussed in today's press release and the comments made during this conference call and in the Risk Factors section of our Form 10-K, 10-Q and other reported filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We do not undertake any duty to update any forward-looking statements. Now I will hand the call over to Randy.

Good morning. Thanks, Suann, and thanks for joining us for our first quarter 2025 earnings call. As a reminder, Darling Ingredients is a global ingredients company that operates in 23 countries and repurposes over 15% of the world's meat production and food waste. Our global presence and diversified portfolio enables us to navigate and manage through challenging times very effectively. Although tariffs challenged various supply chains at this time, we expect them to remain immaterial to our portfolio and, frankly, support increased prices of waste fats. In first quarter 2025, Darling's business performed very well. With results accelerating throughout the quarter. This resulted in overall positive cash flow and demonstrated stability in an otherwise unpredictable global environment. The positive narrative surrounding renewable fuels public policy is very encouraging and margins have started to improve and normalize. Ultimately, we expect our core business to continue to perform well, generating cash and allowing us to continue to delever the balance sheet and opportunistically repurchase shares throughout the balance of the year. In first quarter, combined adjusted EBITDA came in at $195.8 million, and we saw the impact of higher fat prices really starting to move through the P&L in March. Specifically, during the first quarter, we paid down $146.2 million in debt, lowering our financial leverage ratio to 3.33x and received $129.5 million in dividends from DGD, and also repurchased $35 million in common stock. Now turning to the Feed Ingredients segment. Global rendering volumes remained strong. And despite several severe weather events in the Midwestern United States from flooding the tornadoes to high storms, our U.S. rendering team adjusted well and managed operations very well in the first quarter of 2025. European and Brazilian operations also enjoyed improved performances in the latter part of the quarter. The uncertainty on tariffs is a minor headwind and specifically for specialty proteins. However, tariffs are generally supportive of higher domestic fat prices. With the renewables market having digested the mechanics of 45Z, we expect to benefit through higher fat prices for the balance of the year. Now the Food segment. We saw a nice improvement in sales and volumes, particularly during the latter part of the first quarter. Collagen peptides have regained strength and the demand for our library products is growing. Nextida, our revolutionary natural glucose moderation collagen peptide is gaining momentum and other active peptide products are in clinical trials. We anticipate consistent and continued performance improvement in the Food segment throughout the balance of the year. In our Fuel segment, DGD had a challenging first quarter with lower-than-expected margins and volumes were affected by the turnarounds performed in DGD1 and DGD2. Receiving guidance on 45Z in late January created a choppy quarter as supply chains had to be redirected, contracts had to be modified, and customers had to adjust. We are very encouraged about the sustainable aviation fuel market. Interest remains strong and premiums and volumes have met our expectations. While the transition from the blenders tax credit to the producer's tax credit created some complications DGD has made the necessary adjustments to optimize the tax credits available, and we anticipate we will book 100% of the producer's tax credit for eligible feedstocks during the second quarter. The effects of 45Z are in full swing with a sharp decline in imported biofuels during the first quarter. The sharp reduction in imports, coupled with the rationalization of domestic production points to an improved outlook for renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel during the second quarter. Now I'd like to hand the call over to Bob to take us through the financials. I'll come back at the end here and discuss my outlook for the balance of 2025. Bob?

Thank you, Randy. Good morning, everyone. As Randy mentioned, DGD's results in the first quarter had more to do with macro events impacting the biofuel market than anything specific to DGD. Meanwhile, the core Darling Ingredients business performed very well and gain momentum as the quarter progressed. For first quarter 2025, Darling's combined adjusted EBITDA was $195.8 million versus $280.1 million in the first quarter of 2024. And adjusting for DGD, first quarter 2025 EBITDA was approximately $190 million versus approximately $165 million in the first quarter of 2024. Total net sales in the first quarter of 2025 were $1.38 billion versus $1.42 billion in the first quarter of 2024, while raw material volume was almost the same at 3.79 million metric tons and 3.8 million metric tons, and gross margins improved to 22.6% in the first quarter of 2025 versus 21.4% in the first quarter 2024. Looking at the Feed segment, total net sales increase and EBITDA improved on relatively unchanged volumes and higher fat prices, increasing through the end of the quarter. Specifically, total sales for first quarter 2025 were $896.3 million versus $889.8 million in the first quarter of 2024. Feed raw material volumes were approximately 3.1 million metric tons for both quarters while EBITDA increased to $110.6 million in the first quarter of 2025 versus $106.8 million in the first quarter of 2024. Gross margins for the Feed segment in quarter 1 2025 were lower at 20.3% versus 20.7% in quarter 1, 2024, which was due to certain onetime items such as inventory adjustments. Moving to the Food segment. We began to see noticeable improvement in margins as the industry continued destocking from the inventory buildup experienced over the past 12 to 18 months. While total sales for first quarter 2025 of $349.2 million were lower than first quarter 2024 at $391.3 million, margins and volumes increased with raw material at 329,400 metric tons versus 299,800 metric tons. And EBITDA increased to $70.9 million versus $61.7 million. Looking at the Fuel segment. Sales for the first quarter 2025 were $135.1 million versus $139.2 million in the first quarter of 2024 of higher raw materials of 374,100 metric tons versus 356,900 million metric tons, but slightly lower finished product sales volumes. Meanwhile, overall EBITDA and other metrics in the Fuel segment were clouded by DGD's results. Specifically, EBITDA was $24.2 million in the first quarter of 2025 versus $133.1 million in the first quarter of 2024, whereas net of DGD, EBITDA was approximately $18 million in both quarters. Looking more closely at DGD results were mainly impacted by 4 things: first, the transition from the blenders tax credit to the producers tax resulted in a lower value per gallon and a delayed reaction in RIN values as obligated party compliance is slow to react. Second, the complexity of the producers tax credit and delayed guidance temporarily impacted both sales and feedstock eligibility for fuel types and destinations. Three, tariffs on imported feedstocks. And Four, downtime related to catalyst turnarounds at DGD1 and 2. Darling's share of DGD EBITDA was approximately $6 million for the first quarter of 2025 versus approximately $115 million for first quarter of 2024, a difference of approximately $109 million. These items had a bigger impact on DGD in quarter 1 than we expect will be the case going forward. However, DGD was and remains ahead of the curve with respect to making changes to its supply chain and positioning the business for success in this environment. Overall, DGD has adjusted to supply chain requirements needed to maximize the value of tax credits, and we're pleased by the positive direction in the RIN market and overall margins for renewable diesel and SAF. While we faced some challenges during the quarter, we continued to improve the health of our balance sheet as we paid down approximately $146.2 million in debt and repurchased slightly more than 1 million shares for approximately $35 million. The company's total debt net of cash as of March 29, 2025, was $3.84 billion versus $3.97 billion at December 28, 2024, leading to an improvement in our bank covenant preliminary leverage ratio of 3.33x at quarter end first quarter 2025 versus 3.93x at quarter end fourth quarter 2024. In addition, capital expenditures totaled approximately $63 million in first quarter 2025, and we ended with approximately $1.27 billion available on our revolving credit facility. The company recorded an income tax benefit of $1.2 million for the 3 months ended March 29, 2025, yielding an effective tax rate of 4.6% and which is lower than the Federal statutory rate of 21%, due primarily to the producer's tax credit. The effective tax rate, excluding the impact of the producers tax credit and discrete items was 21.7% for the 3 months ended March 29, 2025. The company also paid $9.2 million of income taxes in the first quarter of 2025. For full year 2025, we expect the effective tax rate to remain about the same at 5% and cash taxes to be approximately $60 million for the remainder of the year. We are also in the early stages of monetizing Darling's share of the producer's tax credit and look forward to providing an update next quarter. Overall, the company had a net loss of $26.2 million for the first quarter of 2025 and or negative $0.16 per diluted share compared to net income of $81.2 million or $0.50 per diluted share for the first quarter. Now I will turn the call back over to Randy.

Thanks, Bob. As I said earlier, January and February started slow. But as fat prices continue to rise, we had great momentum for the remainder of the year. I'm encouraged by the performance of our core business in March. March EBITDA contribution was strong, and we expect this trend to continue. This gives me great confidence that our core business is strong enough to consistently generate cash and enable us to delever, effectively weathering any uncertainty that exists in the biofuels market. Looking at the March run rate. I think the core business will earn somewhere between $950 million and $1 billion of EBITDA for the year. As I mentioned, there has been a lot of noise in the renewables market. And while DGD did not perform as we had hoped, we believe the worst is behind us. We expect margins to improve and DGD to adjust accordingly. With that, I am reaffirming our guidance of $1.25 billion to $1.3 billion combined adjusted EBITDA for the balance of the year for fiscal 2025. With that, now let's open it up to questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Derrick Whitfield with Texas Capital.

Maybe starting with DGD. As I understand, DGD was not able to optimize feedstocks for 45Z policy in Q1. Looking forward, what is the value of an optimized feedstock slate? And then more broadly, what's the composition of that slate as you see it today?

Yes. This is Matt. I'd answer that, at least initially, as some of the others maybe to join in on that. But typically processes a mix of feedstocks. And that is essentially margin driven. And so it's always procuring the best product that met the highest margin. And so that can be a mix of all types of oils and fats. And frankly, we have all types in our recipe, so to speak. And so that will vary depending on the month of the quarter. But it's a traditional mix that is largely based on animal fat and cooking oil as well as corn oil and different bean oil and other oil. So it's an ever-changing mix, but it's the usual suspects, let's say, in the mix that are -- it's all margin driven.

Yes. Derrick, this is Bob. It's this is going to depend in part how hard we're running SAF. Obviously, the value of the PTC is higher for -- the potential value is higher for SAF. The feedstocks required to make SAF are generally lower carbon intensities further enhances the value of 45Z. So we plan on fully maximizing the value of that. As Matt pointed out, some of this, it just depends on access to different feedstocks. Obviously, as Darling, we have an advantage in maximizing what we can pull through our own network to obtain low CI score feedstocks that are eligible for PTC. And so I think we're pretty optimistic about what the value of that is going to result in for DGD. But it's hard to kind of tell you right now what's the average cents per gallon. I think what I would say is we'd be on the very higher end of the curve for both RD and SAF as we go forward.

Yes, I think, Derrick, this is Randy. And I think Matt and Bob did a nice job there. I mean the optimism that comes out of here is really the move from the noise that we had in Q1. Remember, we didn't get guidance from treasury until January 20. We had feedstocks in route to qualify that didn't qualify. There's various things, as we noted in the script, there are requirements under 45Z that required us to go back to our customers and rework contracts, get them to a degree. There were 3 basic requirements. We won't go through them, but they had to use it or it had to go to retail and there was one other. But at the end of the day, there's just a lot of noise that went down that allowed us only to claim a portion of 45Z in Q1. And what we're seeing is in Q2, we've got the supply chain normalize. We've got the turnarounds behind us, and we expect to recognize 100% PTC on the eligible feedstocks that we'll process. And that's not to be slide a hand. Some of the feedstocks that may come in cheaper that don't need the PTC. So it's really, as Matt said, it's a margin driven. But we see margins moving dramatically in Q2 versus Q1.

Terrific. Makes sense. And then with regard to feed, we can see your March optimism in the spread between waste and SBO feeds, as they materially tightened or turned positive to your benefit. Other than timing for the quarter, were there any other drivers for lower margins in 1Q.

Well, I think -- I mean there's -- yes, if we compare it to first quarter 2024, it was a pretty significant improvement. But there was just some things that came into quarter 4, end of year type things that were somewhat one-off items that clouded a little bit. I don't know, Matt, if you want to...

Yes. I think at the end of the day, sequentially, when you look at the quarter, guys, there were some one-offs Brad noted in the script, we did have an insurance settlement in there. We've got a bigger pipeline now headed the DGD than we've ever had because of the restrictions on imported feedstocks and qualifications. And remember that the, euro is up remember, prices are up around the world for waste fats and so it made domestic fats now more attractive. So that flowed through. We said in the script, Jan-Feb, the typical weakness that we see. And then March, what we've done now is taken the March run rate and divide -- as I always tell people, this is an easy business to give you forward guidance on when you're either in a flat or a rising market. The DGD, given the amount of fat that comes out of the North American supply chain is now it's a very, very transparent thing for us, and it's a rising market. We have somewhere between 45Z and a 75-day pipeline sold at any given time. And so you didn't -- we had that done in November, December. And so now as January, February came in and March is when the prices are hitting. And you'll see that continue on. At the current pricing, that's where we're formulating the guidance that we're throwing out there. And I think prices have actually moved up since March even here. So it feels -- this business feels very, very solid going forward right now, barring any other craziness out of -- we're going to need a little help out of D.C. here, but I think we're okay.

Our next question comes from the line of Dushyant Ailani with Jefferies.

The first one, could you possibly quantify how much better feed was in March versus the first 2 months of the year? And then how that translates to core ingredients EBITDA for 2Q?

Dushyant, you can do the math and look at the $195 million for the first quarter, $190 million minus DGD and then to come with the $950 million to $1 billion run rate, you can back into that. But no, we don't break out a quarter. Second question, I didn't know. That was the only question I understood.

Yes. And then just a second one, I guess, could you quantify what the -- that onetime inventory impact was on feed?

The onetime inventory margins were lower?

Yes.

Dushyant, we're not calling those out. I think it's just -- there were some smaller onetime items, some have been called out in the last quarter. the insurance settlement. So a quarter-on-quarter comparison and to say it's sequentially lower, obviously, the numbers are what the numbers are. But there's just some one-offs on both sides of this, but we're not calling out.

They're not material. And the guidance that we gave in February was that we -- as we were talking to folks, and we said, well, what do you see the year off of Q4. And we said we ran $233 million in Q4, we said times 4. What we didn't say was it's not ratably spread over each quarter because you've got a situation of rising prices now. So you'll see an improved Feed segment gross margin. We look at all of it. If you look at all of the segments, even in the Food segment, remember, while 20% -- 17% to 20% is a high-value collagen gelatin, 80% of its feed and fat. So you get a lift there. You get a lift in the fuel segment, too, because of the different products that are processed there. So focusing on the Feed segment, in my opinion, focus on the $950 million to $1 billion run rate for the year, and that's what's important here.

Our next question comes from the line of Heather Jones with Heather Jones Research.

Thank you for the question. Randy, I wanted to start with -- so you've seen all the routers rumors, and we've all heard different reports. What do you think a 2026 RVO that would be suitable would be? Like what is the number that you would be happy with and that would represent, you think, upside to the $950 million to $1 billion you gave us.

Heather, this is Matt. I would say that the common that is expected and hopeful that we'll be coming out here in the next few days is 5.25 billion gallons. And that is something that I would say, across industries has been widely supported. And the feedback that we have so far is that, that is gaining traction, and that's what we're looking forward to.

Okay. And then my follow-up is not trying to belabor this point, but Randy, in the past, you've told us that roughly every penny and fats pricing is worth roughly $12 million to $15 million of EBITDA. And like if you look at Q1 fats pricing versus Q1 of '24, it was up several pennies. And then you also didn't have that Ward, South Carolina issue. But yet, the EBITDA for fee was roughly flat year-on-year. So just trying to get a sense of was your feed in Feed segment impacted by the dislocation at Diamond Green or was there something else that we're missing? I get the lag in pricing relative to Q3 and Q4 last year. I'm just having a hard time understanding the year-on-year impact.

Heather, it's Matt again. I would say, think about it this way. First of all, the -- we have a forward sales book on almost all the time, somewhere on average of 60 to 90 days. And so there's a lagging effect in this. And that's also partially one of the reasons it gives us confidence when we look at how March improved over the first 2 months because some of that started to get traction. So I think you'll see this shine through in the numbers as we go forward.

And I would add to that, Heather, remember, when you came out of '23, we came out in December of '23, soybean oil was $0.55 a pound. And by the time we got to Q1 and '24, we were in very much a deflationary market. So we were flowing through higher prices that were coming down in Q1 of '24. And now we're back in an inflationary improving markets. So they're not -- as I say, they're kind of hard with the forward sales book to kind of, if you will, reconcile and what you're trying to do. What we're trying to do is say, we've got 100% visibility to the March run rate. Prices have started to flow through in March. They're probably going to improve a little bit in April. If you look at imported fats into the U.S. today, they're closer to $0.60 a pound. So there are almost $100 a ton over top what we're doing right now in the U.S. maybe $120. So like I said, this is not a difficult business once you are in a flat or an improving market to give forward looks too.

Our next question comes from the line of Manav Gupta with UBS.

Randy, congrats on the leverage ticking down. Going back to the guidance a little, you still probably need about $250 million or so from the RD business. So help us understand a little bit what you expect besides the PTC help that you start getting in 2Q, any help that you think you'll probably get on the CARB front and then what could be the RIN prices. Help us bridge the gap to that about $250 million of EBITDA that you will need from the renewable diesel business to get to your guide?

Yes, Manav, good question. And I think it sets the stage, and I'll have Matt and Bob help me here, and we'll give -- we'll kind of give a view on the balance of the year. I mean, clearly, the Jan-Feb RIN production rate in the March suggest that the RINs have to improve. You've got capacity idled right now around the industry. The industry is behaving like it should. It's showing discipline and says, I'm not going to run and burn up catalyst for 0 margin. So where do the RINs have to go? The RINs have to go, I don't know, $1.5, somewhere in there, up $0.45, $0.50 from where they are to restart the capacity. So when we talk about the forward look here, the $1.25 billion to $1.3 billion, I think it's fairly conservative. And if you look at it, as we know on the Valero call here shortly, there'll be telling you an adjusted run rate for the year is about $1.1 billion because of turnarounds that we had in the gallons, total gallons. And you sit there and say, well, we told you we're going to earn $0.55, $0.65 a gallon on the PTC. It's not hard to back into how we come up with the additional $250 million to $300 million in -- within DGD to get to our guidance. What that says is we'll not make a statement that DGD is going to run at 0 for RD for the year and then get a PTC. We're seeing RINs have to improve, and we're giving you a conservative forward look.

Yes. So this is Bob. And I think with respect to RINs, the run rate so far, Jan, Feb, March, puts us on pace to produce about 6 billion RINs, D4 RINs. And really, we need to make 7.5 billion in 2025 to meet the mandate. So we're still underproducing by quite a bit. We've seen RINs go up by over $0.40 equivalent to $0.65 a gallon since the start of the year. So there is a lot of momentum moving in the right direction. And it really comes down to when obligated parties feel the need for compliance as to when those RIN values get to where they ultimately need to be. So we see a lot of support there. As Randy mentioned, in the PTC, we weren't able to realize a lot of the PTC in the first quarter due to the late guidance and having maybe not the best feedstocks in place, and some of the sales qualifications that we needed to go through to get ready. So that's going to also be a real lift to the P&L as we go forward. The other thing we haven't talked a lot about is just the downtime. I mean you can see the number of gallons we produced we were less than 2/3 of total capacity. So that's another thing that is really going to provide a helpful lift as we go forward through the rest of the year. And then lastly, there are a lot of positive discussions kind of going on behind the scenes around the RVO and also at CARB. And so I think we're pretty confident in what the outlook is without those things. But if those come to pass, then it certainly could change the picture in a positive way.

I would just also include -- this is Matt. I would also include that there's also the SAF component. I mean, so this is a continuous margin build with the PTC, with the RIN with obviously fat price. All of these will influence the margins. But with our SAF production, we're also -- that also gives us more confidence.

Perfect. And sometimes DAR doesn't get enough credit for the kind of innovation you bring to the market. So recently, you have launched some products to control blood sugar. And you also have an attractive pipeline of projects and products you do plan to bring to the market. Can you help us walk us through some parts of that business, which I think remains somewhat underappreciated.

So this is Bob. I think you're referring to Rousselot and our Collagen business. and you point out, I mean, EBITDA increased pretty significantly this quarter versus a year ago and last quarter. We are bringing some very innovative products to the market. I think we've advertised as loudly as we can. The Nextida portfolio of products and the Nextida the glucose control product that is currently on the market and undergoing additional trials to really get this out in a larger way. We love talking about collagen and our ability to innovate through collagen and put together peptide profiles that have targeted health benefits and really do amazing things for people. What's exciting from the business standpoint is that margins are significantly higher in those products. And so as we continue to develop the Nextida GC product and other products in the Nextida portfolio, we look to see earnings in that particular segment increase quite a bit.

Our next question comes from the line of Tom Palmer with Citi Group.

I guess just first, I wanted to clarify on the guidance. You noted the expectation that in the relative near term, we could get some resolution on the RVO. It sounded like 5.25 billion gallons for biomass-based diesel was your expectation. I know it might be hard to be overly precise, but I just want to understand how much of this is baked into how you're thinking about the year versus if it does come through with this 5.25 billion level that would be kind of upside versus how you're thinking about the year?

Yes. This is Randy, Tom. Great question in the sense. I mean obviously, coming off of last year, we're a little bit snake bitten and we're being with a pretty conservative view. I mean, D.C. is a bit hard to handicap right now. We've spent a lot of time there recently with our colleagues across the agriculture and energy. It feels like we have alignment on the 5.25 billion gallons. I mean, clearly, the White House needs some wins here. And I think the American farmer has been singled out as somebody that the Trump administration gets and understands and wants to support. And so I think we're going to ride that momentum, and that's very positive. Now the good news is that the 5.25 billion gallons is that's a lot of demand that hasn't been there in the past. That gets friendly feedstocks whether your soybean oil or whether you're animal fats and waste fats. So it's bullish the base business. That is not baked in yet. Because remember, that doesn't start until '26. So that's number one. Number two, if you start moving feedstocks up unless you're going to get help out of RINs, if you're going to get help out of LCFS, there's still no margin in this. Until at the end of the day, those are going to have to move in order to fulfill the RIN. What I'm going to call the RIN deficit that is building out there right now. So we're setting up right now for what I'm going to call the fantastic finish in the back half of the year here as this thing becomes a little more clear, Bob, do you want to add anything?

Yes, just one thing, I think that it's interesting that what we're hearing is talk about a gallon mandate when historically, it's really been referred to as RINs. And so I think there's quite a lot of confusion actually between RINs and gallons. The reality is a 5.25 billion gallon D4 mandate would effectively increase RIN demand by about $3 billion in 2026 versus 2025. So it's -- that would be a substantial increase. We're not really baking that into this forward guidance. I think if that were to be clarified, we'd probably see a pretty interesting market unfold.

I mean you've seen, Tom, you've seen RINs move from $0.61 at the start of the year to $1.05, but capacity, especially in the biomass-based diesel or biodiesel industry is still fairly -- is idle to negative. So something's got to give. What the situation we're in right now is not sustainable. What we know is we have the 2 lowest cost operating assets in the best place in the world and they're profitable. And we know that as we were giving that guidance in Q2 here. So -- but in order to restart the industry and to fulfill the existing mandate before the new mandate, you've got to bring back profitability. There just isn't enough capacity to fill the RVO even as it stands today at the margins that exist.

Maybe I could just follow up quickly on kind of the last point you noted. At least on regeneration year-to-date, it is tracking below this year's mandate. What do you think is driving this at this point? And I guess any view on what might cause kind of a change other than, obviously, this RVO announcement for '26, maybe making people more concerned about the RIN bank.

Yes. And we'll -- the three of us vessel tag team this one because there isn't any different views at the table. Remember, the obligated party has all year. And Bob has always said, it's really not a futures market that anticipates the S&D here. So the obligated parties are still sitting here trying to figure out what's going on in D.C. Are there going to be SREs? Is there going to be a bigger RVO? I can tell you that our colleagues in San Antonio, we see a tightness in RINs building very rapidly here. So we've got a universal view on this right now. But there's just so much noise. It's -- if you think about it, $0.61 to $1.05 is a big move already. And -- but it's not enough to restart the industry. But there's very limited liquidity, if you will, if you wanted to go out there and said, let's go get long RINs today. There's very limited liquidity. And the obligated parties just until they get more transparency, I don't know what you think, Bob? Matt?

I think that's right. I think for some of the obligated parties who don't have an immediate penalty for lack of compliance, they're looking at a pretty significantly increased RIN price and they're sitting on the sidelines. But as time goes on, that's going to be harder and harder to do.

Tom, I would just say there's really -- there's 2 things to watch for it. Number one is just the margin in terms of what the renewable diesel and the biodiesel margin is. It would help -- will dictate the production and therefore, the RIN generation. And then the other is imports, whether it's on importing on biofuel. So those 2 things I would watch for as indicators to look for direction on RIN market.

Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Todd with Piper Sandler.

Maybe a question. First of all, you mentioned a little bit earlier in your comments, but I know there are a lot of moving pieces and volatility. As it stands right now, can you talk through the impacts to the current tariff regime on the various aspects of your business?

Look, at a high level, talking about the core business. it's probably a slight net positive for Darling. One thing with tariffs coming in the United States, it limits availability of waste fats. And so that's been supportive to the North American waste fat prices. So that's generally good. I think the one area where it's not entirely positive is in selling protein products to China, but that's less of like a tariff hit. And it just takes a market that was available that needs to be redirected somewhere else, but the net-net really isn't a negative for Darling's core business. The question really is more about how does it affect the renewable fuel industry in the United States and tariffs on feedstocks. And as we kind of reengineer supply chains, we're just finding ways around those things. So we don't see it as a really negative thing for our business, fortunately.

Okay. And then maybe shifting to SAF. Can you maybe provide a little more color in terms of what you said -- I mean, you said the demand pull has been reasonable so far, like -- can you walk through what sort of demand pull are you seeing? Is that mostly coming from mandated markets? Or is it also the voluntary market? And what would you need to see at this point to think about moving forward with the second SAF project?

So this is Matt. So we have a mix between whether it's the demand, whether it's the obligated or the markets or the voluntary markets. It's pretty well balanced on that. We're running at an optimal rate to maximize the margins that we have. And our SAF sales book started more than a year ago as we were contracting SAF. So we've got a fair bit of a book on already. I'd tell you quite a strong book as a matter of fact, through the whole year. And so we're delivering on those contracts. And so to your question on the second SAF line, I think right now, we need to let some of the storm clear on all of these market dynamics that are going on to make a final call on that. It's something that is on the table, and we've done some of the engineering work on that, but we're holding off for the time being to have more clarity on what the future holds. The other reality is that as the market evolves in the credit scenario, what we're seeing more and more interest in is the book and claim process. And so it's not necessarily contracts with airlines and the distributors, but there is a book and claim process that we're -- some of the tech high-energy users are buying the Scope 3 credits.

Our next question comes from the line of Pooran Sharma with Stephen.

Just wanted to get a sense of capital allocation priorities from here. It looks like you did do a little bit of deleveraging also with the share repurchases. But just wanted to talk about something you said on the last call. I think you mentioned your target is 2.5x. I wanted to get a sense of when you think we could get there and what the pace of deleveraging investors can expect going forward?

Yes. This is Bob. That's correct. I mean, first, I'd just say that our plan hasn't changed. We are focused on continuing to pay down debt and delever our balance sheet. We've made a lot of progress to that end. Recently, and we will continue through the rest of the year. We'll get pretty close to that 2.5x by the end of the year. We may not quite get there, but we'll -- it will happen early 2026, if it doesn't happen by the end of the year. That's really what we're seeing.

Okay. I appreciate that. And just really wanted to -- I think everybody has asked good questions about DGD. Maybe I could focus in on the Food segment here. Really good margins, much higher than anticipated. You kind of spoke to some of the strength here, but wondering if you could share some incremental color? And do you think that this is a level of gross margin performance that you can sustain here? I think last time on the last call, you said you were working with CPG customers to help them better educate their customers on this product. So was just wondering if you could just give us an overview on Food and Nextida there?

Yes. This is Bob again. So I appreciate you bringing this segment up. It's an exciting one for us here. I think on a high level, what we've seen is an industry that has really gotten a little bit more healthy here as low -- let's say, high-cost production around the world has stopped making product, and they've begun to destock inventories. We've seen some announcements that some of the higher cost areas of the world have decided to shut production down. And that's just led to an overall better health in the gelatin market and the collagen market. So we think that we're in a pretty good spot as we go forward. As far as Nextida, we do have a product on the market under a brand called Codeage, C-O-D-E-A-G-E, and the Nextida glucose control product is inside that product. We are going through some trials that we should finish this summer, and that's with a much larger sample size that would allow the larger CPG companies to be comfortable taking this product to market. So really, what we're expecting is to get through that process. go through some commercial activities to be able to see this product in much higher volume as we kind of get near the end of 2025.

Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Strelzik with BMO.

My first one is just on the comment you made that we could get the preliminary RVO in the next couple of days. I guess what informs that view? Do you have some visibility to that? It sounds like there's -- based on your comments, still some uncertainty around maybe the SREs. So could we get a preliminary number without a resolution around that? Just curious about that comment specifically.

Well, let me -- if I did say next couple of days, I guess I wouldn't try to be that exact on that. I really -- we did say next couple of days. Next few days. Okay. Well, I think in the coming days is probably a better description of that, and I apologize if I came out too soon on that. But we are optimistic on that. We but in terms of having special insight or anything that gives us any confidence more than what other people who are industry participants, I would say we don't have any extra knowledge in that regard, but we do have -- we remain optimistic about the volume as well as the timing.

Yes, Andrew. The discussions are clearly happening in D.C. We're part of them with a larger group. There is a -- the first time in my career since 2007 that we have absolute alignment amongst high majority, if not 90% of the trade groups in this on what should happen here. And we have a President that also has now realizes that the American farmer is important. So my view is that I think you'll see something out of D.C. here, somewhere in the next 45, 60 days, maybe sooner, but they're all working on it. And it's just a lot of different moving parts there, but everybody at least is reading off of the same song sheet right now.

Got it. Okay. That makes sense. And I appreciate you clarifying that. My second question, I feel like we felt like the runway was there for -- with all these drivers and better performance. For the last couple of quarters. And so I guess I'm just curious kind of how you handicap the risk, I know most of this is kind of industry-related and macro related. But as you sit here today and taking the March and just kind of extrapolating that makes a lot of sense. How do you handicap the risks or what you're paying attention to on the risks around the guidance?

Look, this is Bob. I think guidance around the core business is the risks are relatively low. The market that we're seeing today, certainly, things could change. But typically, these are sort of momentum-driven markets and they're pointed in the right direction. So I think it'd be pretty low there. As it relates to biofuels, there's certainly -- there's going to be more uncertainty there just because it's so influenced by policy and there's so much going on behind the scenes. We give guidance today based on what we're seeing and all the things that we've explained but that's one that could be affected more by things outside of our control than our core business.

Next question comes from the line of Matthew Blair with TPH.

So regarding the new LCFS standards in California, I think the comment period just ended a few days ago, and we're waiting for CARB to resubmit the new targets to the OAL. Is that your understanding as well? And then perhaps more importantly, do you have a view on the implementation timing for these new targets? Do you think they'll be backdated to January 1, 2025 or is an implementation date in 2026 more reasonable at this point?

Matthew, I would say that particular to your question on the timing. The -- yes, the comment period ended on Monday. And we understand there's 30 working days to provide some analysis that's going to -- they have to go through a process in order to address the comments. We understand that's ongoing. And we remain optimistic that the -- this is on track, and we're going to see something come out definitively in the reasonably near future. I don't want to get too [indiscernible]. Yes, we think that's on track. And so whether that is going to be retroactive or effective in sometime midyear or first year, that's a question we continue to ask. I think we're prepared no matter what. But I think in my view, a worst-case scenario would be January 1 of '26, but there is a chance from what we understand of having something there.

Great. And then for DGD, you reported Q1 EBITDA was quite a bit different than what your partner reported. It sounds like there is at least some 45Z contribution in your number, which may not be in your partner's reported number. But could I also clarify, is there any LCM impact in your Q1 DGD EBITDA? And if so, how much?

Matt, this is Bob. Yes, I mean, we're we see a pretty big difference there. I think one thing I just want to make really clear is that none of the difference has anything to do with recognition of 45Z. Historically, we have shown -- we report LCM differently. So I think that's the way to look at it. In particular, the first quarter had a lot of volatility in both LIFO and LCM. The big difference between our number and what Valero is showing is with the LCM.

Our next question comes from the line of Betty Zhang with Scotiabank.

I'm sorry to go back to this, but I was wondering for the PTC that was recognized in the first quarter. Can you share how much of it was recorded?

I think we would sort of roughly say that we -- so we'll show this in more clarity in the 10-Q, which will come out in a couple of weeks. But we were roughly able to realize PTC on about 1/3 of the volume that we had in the quarter.

Great. And for my follow-up, so we saw there were some buybacks and you also paid down some debt. I'm wondering, going forward, how do you see that split? How do you view allocation going forward?

So it's Bob again. We're focused on paying down debt. I mean we'll opportunistically look at buying shares back when we can, we want to buy back our dilution. So we did some of that in the first quarter. But the lion's share of the capital we spent that way was towards debt pay down, and we'll continue to focus more on that.

Our next question comes from the line of Jason Gabelman with TD Securities.

I was one of the people who thought there was a different PTC booking versus LCM with your DGD partners. So I appreciate that clarification. The first question is on the PTC monetization. And I guess, it seems like some of, if not all of the distribution from DGD that you booked in 1Q was related -- most likely to timing of blenders tax credit, cash inflows. So as we look forward, I would suspect the distributions are tied to monetizing the producer tax credit. So with that in mind, I was hoping you could provide a little more context on the steps involved and what we should be looking out for in terms of progressing the ability to monetize that?

Yes, Jason, this is Bob again. So just to kind of touch on something. You said the distributions from DGD, I mean, certainly, the PTC realization, monetization of PTC is one source of revenue that we will realize. But whether it's bigger or smaller than distributions for DGD, ultimately, it's going to depend on the size of renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel margins. I wouldn't rule that out that we get more that way, but we'll see how that plays out. As far as the process around monetizing the PTC, it's moving forward, I would say, very efficiently as our -- as it is with these types of processes, there are a number of steps, brokerage firms involved, lining up counterparties, getting contracts kind of ironed out terms -- legal terms ironed out. And we're going through that process to be able to set up for let's call it, some sort of an auction to be able to sell those credits and monetize those in the latter half of the second quarter.

But we don't need any further guidance or anything from the -- yes.

No. No.

And going forward, we would expect to capture 100% of the qualified feedstock PTC.

Got it. Great. My follow-up is just on the strength in feed prices and I understand that it's a benefit to the feed business. You have the sensitivity of $0.01 per pound is worth $15 million of EBITDA. But I would imagine all else equal, those feed prices moving higher or actually a headwind to the DGD business that outweighs the Feed business. So is that correct? And then further to that point, can you just talk about what exactly is driving the waste oil strength? It seems like their pricing above their carbon intensity difference to vegetable oil. So if they're at kind of a sustainable premium to vegetable oil or if they need to come down a bit?

That's a great question. There's an inherent premium in the waste fat compared to soybean oil that in the -- you can even see it in the CI scores. And so that's reflected in the pricing. And so that's the simple answer to that question. The other reality is there's only a certain amount of U.S. produced animal fats that's available in the market. And so it's in demand right now for good reason. And so that's also part of the price differentiation that we're seeing between that and soybean oil.

Yes. And this is Bob. Just one of the other reasons is crop oils aren't eligible for all types of biofuels. So there is that element as well, where I used cooking oil, verified used cooking oil, certified used cooking oil is eligible for pretty much any type of fuel, whether it's biodiesel, renewable diesel, sustainable aviation fuel regardless of the destination. So some feedstocks just do have more versatility and then they, therefore, may trade above their carbon intensity adjusted value.

Our next question comes from the line of Ben Kallo with Baird.

If Randy, if everything stayed the same today, how would the core business be in Q2? I'm just trying to figure out the cadence of EBITDA for the core business, not DGD.

Ben, this is Bob. I think what I would probably do is I would just say that we don't expect quarter 2 to look a lot different from quarters 3 and 4. And so if you just take quarter 1, subtract that from the guidance, that's probably the best way to do the math on that.

That concludes our Q&A portion for today. I would now like to pass the conference back to the management for closing remarks.

All right. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, Victoria. Thank you for your questions today. If you have any other questions, please reach out to Suann. Thanks for taking the time to be with us today. Stay safe, and have a great day, and talk to you here next quarter.

That concludes today's call. Thank you for your participation, and have a wonderful rest of your day.