Beyond animal feed? 119
fees (e.g. 5, 11 and 15). A case in point was brewery 1, whose strategy was to
sell the spent grain at the ‘highest price and with the least trouble’.
The waste disposal costs avoided due to the practice of farmers collecting
the spent grain at the brewery gate are significant. In Denmark, one company
specialising in the collection and treatment of food waste for subsequent use
in biogas production was charging from C44 to C59 per ton plus transport
costs, depending on the stability and volume of the waste, although large and
stable volumes could attract a lower price (personal communication with
company). In Norway, one brewery (32) paid around C101 per ton to
dispose of its spent grain.
In this context, it is noteworthy that many brewers underlined the importance of having long- term agreements with reliable buyers or takers of the
spent grain as a way to manage this production risk. Some brewers (e.g. 6,
32) found it difficult to get farmers to collect the spent grain year- round.
Production variables, and in particular logistical issues related to the geographical location of the brewery, also influenced spent grain management. In
Norway, several small breweries were located far away from cattle farms, and
the spent grain was therefore not used as feed. One brewery in northern
Norway (32) had experienced reduced demand from farmers in recent years,
especially during the summer, because of changes in feeding practices and
fewer farm units. This meant that some of the spent grain was disposed of as
waste, incurring the brewery costs in the order of C15,195 (NOK 150,000)
per year. On the island of Svalbard, restrictions on waste disposal forced the
brewery to ship the spent grain to the mainland, where it was disposed of as
waste (21). As a solution, the brewery engaged in energy production on Svalbard replaced coal with a mixture of spent grain and demolition wood chips.
Hence distance, combined with the volume of by- product, also determined
whether brewers could sell the spent grain to livestock feed producers.
CSR motivated current spent grain management for some small breweries.
For example, one brewery making certified biodynamic beer composted the
spent grain and applied it to its own barley field to comply with the Demeter
standard (8). Combatting climate change is a central part of the CSR brewery
policy (1), and the company carries out CO 2 accounting across all its plants;
however, spent grain management does not feature strongly in its CSR
policy.
6.6.2 Opportunities
‘Opportunities’ refers to alternative ways of handling spent grain, which the
brewers showed an interest in during interviews; some had concrete plans to
adopt these in the future. Several alternatives to the current usage were mentioned. Many discussed the possibility of selling or using spent grain as a
biogas substrate. Other alternatives were inputs on their own farms for composting or as animal feed, or selling to feed producers. Some brewers made
general statements such as that they were ‘interested in alternative ways of
fees (e.g. 5, 11 and 15). A case in point was brewery 1, whose strategy was to
sell the spent grain at the ‘highest price and with the least trouble’.
The waste disposal costs avoided due to the practice of farmers collecting
the spent grain at the brewery gate are significant. In Denmark, one company
specialising in the collection and treatment of food waste for subsequent use
in biogas production was charging from C44 to C59 per ton plus transport
costs, depending on the stability and volume of the waste, although large and
stable volumes could attract a lower price (personal communication with
company). In Norway, one brewery (32) paid around C101 per ton to
dispose of its spent grain.
In this context, it is noteworthy that many brewers underlined the importance of having long- term agreements with reliable buyers or takers of the
spent grain as a way to manage this production risk. Some brewers (e.g. 6,
32) found it difficult to get farmers to collect the spent grain year- round.
Production variables, and in particular logistical issues related to the geographical location of the brewery, also influenced spent grain management. In
Norway, several small breweries were located far away from cattle farms, and
the spent grain was therefore not used as feed. One brewery in northern
Norway (32) had experienced reduced demand from farmers in recent years,
especially during the summer, because of changes in feeding practices and
fewer farm units. This meant that some of the spent grain was disposed of as
waste, incurring the brewery costs in the order of C15,195 (NOK 150,000)
per year. On the island of Svalbard, restrictions on waste disposal forced the
brewery to ship the spent grain to the mainland, where it was disposed of as
waste (21). As a solution, the brewery engaged in energy production on Svalbard replaced coal with a mixture of spent grain and demolition wood chips.
Hence distance, combined with the volume of by- product, also determined
whether brewers could sell the spent grain to livestock feed producers.
CSR motivated current spent grain management for some small breweries.
For example, one brewery making certified biodynamic beer composted the
spent grain and applied it to its own barley field to comply with the Demeter
standard (8). Combatting climate change is a central part of the CSR brewery
policy (1), and the company carries out CO 2 accounting across all its plants;
however, spent grain management does not feature strongly in its CSR
policy.
6.6.2 Opportunities
‘Opportunities’ refers to alternative ways of handling spent grain, which the
brewers showed an interest in during interviews; some had concrete plans to
adopt these in the future. Several alternatives to the current usage were mentioned. Many discussed the possibility of selling or using spent grain as a
biogas substrate. Other alternatives were inputs on their own farms for composting or as animal feed, or selling to feed producers. Some brewers made
general statements such as that they were ‘interested in alternative ways of