Beyond animal feed? 117
the grain away. In a few cases, an intermediary firm organised the collection
of the spent grain on behalf of the farmers; in Denmark this was the case with
brewery 2 among others, while the farmer buying grain from brewery 4
resold some of it to other farmers.
The price obtained for spent grain fluctuated depending on conditions in
the feed market, including the price of substitute feed. The price also
depended on the dry matter content, which partly depends on the brewing
equipment. One large brewery (2) in Denmark received C16 (DKK 120) per
ton from an intermediary, another C8 (DKK 60) per ton (3) from a farmer,
while a third (4) received C134 (DKK 1,000) per ton from a local farmer
acting as an intermediary. In Norway, one large brewery (32) could not obtain
any payment from farmers for its spent grain, which was also the case for
nearly all the small breweries (e.g. 5, 11 and 15). These significant price variations over time and space suggest a poorly functioning market for spent grain.
In a few cases, spent grain had other uses alongside or instead of simply
being given to farmers. These were feed for the brewery’s own livestock (5,
12), feed in high- quality wagyu beef production (30), compost on the brewery’s own farm (8, 14 and 26), collection by a local biogas plant for a fee paid
by the brewery (15), being sold or given occasionally to a local bakery (5, 22)
and being disposed of as waste (21, 32). Two of these uses, as wagyu feed and
as a baking ingredient, represent an improved use of spent grain compared to
animal feed in terms of value added.
6.6 Why don’t the breweries invest in alternative
options?
This section analyses the interview data in more detail with a view to understanding what motivates current spent grain management, what brewers perceive as alternative management options and what hinders them in pursuing
them. The last part of the section focuses on brewers’ engagement in R&D
projects in relation to these aspects.
Table 6.3 quantifies the interview statements of thirty- two brewers regarding
the factors that influence aspects of spent grain management – i.e. current activities as well as opportunities for and barriers to alternative management options.
Overall, economy (i.e. cost reduction) was clearly the dominant factor, with
seventy- five statements, followed by production (47) and CSR (27). Brewers
mentioned product (17) and regulation (8) less often. When considering activities only, economy is again the dominant factor, followed by production and
CSR. The same pattern applies to opportunities. It is interesting to note that
brewers considered production issues to be the main barrier to implementing
spent grain management alternatives, followed by economy.
The interviews also produced qualitative data on the factors involved in
spent grain management in terms of how they were seen to affect current
activities, opportunities and barriers. The analysis below focuses on the
dominant factors of economy, production and CSR.
the grain away. In a few cases, an intermediary firm organised the collection
of the spent grain on behalf of the farmers; in Denmark this was the case with
brewery 2 among others, while the farmer buying grain from brewery 4
resold some of it to other farmers.
The price obtained for spent grain fluctuated depending on conditions in
the feed market, including the price of substitute feed. The price also
depended on the dry matter content, which partly depends on the brewing
equipment. One large brewery (2) in Denmark received C16 (DKK 120) per
ton from an intermediary, another C8 (DKK 60) per ton (3) from a farmer,
while a third (4) received C134 (DKK 1,000) per ton from a local farmer
acting as an intermediary. In Norway, one large brewery (32) could not obtain
any payment from farmers for its spent grain, which was also the case for
nearly all the small breweries (e.g. 5, 11 and 15). These significant price variations over time and space suggest a poorly functioning market for spent grain.
In a few cases, spent grain had other uses alongside or instead of simply
being given to farmers. These were feed for the brewery’s own livestock (5,
12), feed in high- quality wagyu beef production (30), compost on the brewery’s own farm (8, 14 and 26), collection by a local biogas plant for a fee paid
by the brewery (15), being sold or given occasionally to a local bakery (5, 22)
and being disposed of as waste (21, 32). Two of these uses, as wagyu feed and
as a baking ingredient, represent an improved use of spent grain compared to
animal feed in terms of value added.
6.6 Why don’t the breweries invest in alternative
options?
This section analyses the interview data in more detail with a view to understanding what motivates current spent grain management, what brewers perceive as alternative management options and what hinders them in pursuing
them. The last part of the section focuses on brewers’ engagement in R&D
projects in relation to these aspects.
Table 6.3 quantifies the interview statements of thirty- two brewers regarding
the factors that influence aspects of spent grain management – i.e. current activities as well as opportunities for and barriers to alternative management options.
Overall, economy (i.e. cost reduction) was clearly the dominant factor, with
seventy- five statements, followed by production (47) and CSR (27). Brewers
mentioned product (17) and regulation (8) less often. When considering activities only, economy is again the dominant factor, followed by production and
CSR. The same pattern applies to opportunities. It is interesting to note that
brewers considered production issues to be the main barrier to implementing
spent grain management alternatives, followed by economy.
The interviews also produced qualitative data on the factors involved in
spent grain management in terms of how they were seen to affect current
activities, opportunities and barriers. The analysis below focuses on the
dominant factors of economy, production and CSR.