Shredding vs Baling Tyres: Comparing the Two Main Processing Methods

By:     Conor Murphy

Shredding vs Baling Tyres: Two Routes, Different Outcomes

Every used tyre that enters a recycling facility faces a processing route decision. The two most common options, shredding to produce crumb rubber and baling to produce PAS 108 civil engineering bales, are fundamentally different in their approach, their capital requirements, their operating costs, and their commercial outcomes.

Shredding breaks the tyre down. The rubber, steel, and fibre are separated and sold as distinct commodities. The tyre as a manufactured object ceases to exist; its components become raw materials for other industries. Baling preserves the tyre. The rubber, steel, and fibre remain together in the bale, and the tyre’s physical properties as a whole object are what give the bale its engineering value. The tyre still exists, just in a compressed, stacked form that serves a civil engineering purpose.

This fundamental difference in approach produces different economics, different market relationships, different capital requirements, and different suitability profiles for different tyre types. Understanding the comparison in depth is necessary for anyone planning a tyre recycling facility, expanding an existing operation, or making the route-routing decision for a specific tyre stream.

Gradeall International manufactures tyre baling equipment and the front-end processing equipment that serves both shredding and baling routes. The MKII tyre baler for the baling route and the sidewall cutting and rim separation equipment that feeds both routes are manufactured from Gradeall’s Dungannon, Northern Ireland facility. With nearly 40 years of manufacturing experience and equipment in over 100 countries, Gradeall’s perspective on the shredding vs. baling comparison is grounded in long operational experience across both routes.

Capital Cost Comparison

Tyre baling. A complete tyre baling operation requires: a tyre baler (MKII or equivalent), a rim separator for any tyres arriving on wheels, a conveyor system for efficient tyre loading, a bale storage area (hardstanding), and a geotextile wrapping station. The capital cost of a MKII tyre baler is a fraction of the cost of a crumb rubber shredding line of comparable throughput. Total equipment investment for a complete baling operation entry is accessible to small and medium-sized businesses in a way that shredding lines are not.

Tyre shredding. A complete crumb rubber production line includes primary shredder, magnetic separators, secondary granulator, tertiary mill, aspiration system, screening equipment, and product storage. The capital cost of a shredding line capable of processing 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes per year is multiple millions of pounds, requiring significant financial backing that limits entry to well-capitalised businesses.

Verdict on capital cost. Baling has substantially lower entry capital cost. For businesses starting tyre recycling or adding tyre processing to an existing waste management operation, baling is the more accessible entry point.

Operating Cost Comparison

Energy consumption. A tyre baler uses significantly less energy per tyre processed than a shredding and granulation line. The baling process compresses tyres without breaking down their material composition; shredding involves the mechanical energy cost of liberating steel from rubber, reducing particle size through multiple milling stages, and driving aspiration systems. Energy is a major variable cost in crumb rubber production; it is a modest cost in tyre baling.

Labour. A tyre baling operation with conveyor-assisted loading requires relatively modest labour input per tonne of output. A crumb rubber shredding line requires supervision of multiple processing stages, maintenance of complex interlocked equipment, quality control of output grades, and management of steel and fibre by-products. Labour cost per tonne of output is generally higher in shredding than baling.

Maintenance and wear parts. Shredding equipment experiences significant wear from the abrasive rubber and steel content of tyres. Shredder blades, granulator inserts, and aspiration components all require regular replacement. Wear part costs in shredding are a significant and variable operating cost item. A tyre baler’s wear profile is less intensive: the main hydraulic system, the chamber wear surfaces, and the wire tying mechanism are the primary maintenance items, with less dramatic wear rates than shredding equipment.

Verdict on operating cost. Baling has materially lower energy, labour, and maintenance costs per tyre processed than shredding. The operating cost advantage of baling is consistent and persistent across market conditions.

Output Value Comparison

Tyre Baling output: PAS 108 bales. The commercial value of a PAS 108 bale depends on civil engineering project demand, regional availability of projects, and the delivered cost of conventional fill alternatives the bale is displacing. In periods of active civil engineering demand, bale prices are positive and the economics are attractive. In quiet periods for civil engineering activity, bale inventory accumulates and the storage cost of unsold bales is a real burden. The baling market is project-driven and can be lumpy.

Tyre Shredding output: Crumb rubber. Crumb rubber prices track commodity markets with their own supply and demand dynamics. The largest end market, artificial turf infill, is under regulatory review. Road surfacing with rubber-modified asphalt is growing. The crumb rubber market is more continuous in demand than the civil engineering bale market but subject to price volatility driven by global commodity factors.

Steel by-product. Both routes generate steel as a by-product, though it arises differently. In shredding, steel wire is separated from the shredded rubber. In baling, steel arises from the rim separation step for any rim-on tyres. The volume of steel from baling is lower per tyre than from shredding (the bale retains the belt steel within the bale rather than recovering it separately).

Verdict on output value. Neither route dominates consistently across all market conditions. When civil engineering demand is strong and crumb rubber markets are soft, baling is more profitable per tyre. When crumb rubber markets are strong and civil engineering project demand is quiet, shredding wins. Operations with access to both routes can direct tyres to whichever is more profitable at any given time.

Suitability by Tyre Type

The clearest guidance: passenger car tyres in good condition are ideal for PAS 108 baling and should be directed to baling if civil engineering demand exists. All other tyre types are better suited to shredding or specialist processing routes.

Operational Flexibility: Which Route Is Easier to Scale

A tyre baling operation scales by adding shifts, adding baling capacity (a second MKII baler), or improving feed efficiency through conveyor automation. The scaling steps are relatively modest in capital terms and can be added incrementally as volume grows.

A tyre shredding operation scales less flexibly: the shredding line has a defined throughput, and adding capacity typically requires a parallel line investment that is a major capital commitment. Operating a shredding line well below its rated capacity is inefficient; the fixed costs of the line are the same regardless of throughput.

For businesses whose tyre volumes are growing from a modest starting point, the incremental scalability of baling equipment is an advantage. A business starting with a single MKII baler and a basic conveyor can add a second baler and improved handling equipment as volume justifies it, without the step-change capital requirement of a shredding line expansion.

“The comparison between shredding and baling is ultimately about matching the investment to the volume, the market, and the tyre type mix,” says Conor Murphy, Director of Gradeall International. “We’ve helped businesses design operations across both routes. For most businesses entering tyre recycling for the first time, baling offers the better risk-adjusted return because the entry cost is lower, the operating cost is lower, and the output value is competitive when civil engineering demand is there. The key is building the buyer relationships alongside the equipment investment.”

Contact Gradeall International for tyre baling equipment specification and to discuss the shredding vs baling tyres decision for your specific tyre stream and market context.

Frequently Asked Questions

← Back to news