120 S. Bolwig et al.
using the spent grain’ (23, 24 and 25) without specifying the kind of alternative, suggesting limited knowledge of or interest in alternative uses.
Economy and production, followed by CSR, were the factors mentioned
most often that could induce a switch in spent grain usage away from animal
feed and disposal. Regarding economy, many mentioned the prospect of
earning more revenue from the side- stream, often combined with technical
and logistical measures. New equipment was sometimes mentioned (e.g. 32) as
a key factor in changing the use of spent grain, especially equipment for dewatering the spent grain to increase its storability and reduce transport costs.
Some emphasised the high quality of spent grain as an animal feed and the
potential economic benefits of its nutritional value. One brewer asserted that
spent grain ‘contains a lot of vitamins and minerals [of benefit to humans], but
these are currently not properly utilised’ (18), and another that spent grain ‘is
quite sought after because it is good for the digestive system of animals’ and
this can improve the quality of meat for human consumption (19).
The most common incentives mentioned under CSR were the environmental benefits in terms of improved waste handling or recycling, sustainable
sourcing and to a lesser extent climate mitigation. Sustainable sourcing was
expressed in ‘circularity’ terms such as ‘closed cycle’ (10) and as an example of
‘responsible thinking’ (21). These incentives were often expressed as an aspect
of other incentives such as improved product. One brewery believed that the
reuse of spent grain in production would have simultaneous economic,
environmental and product- quality benefits that could be exploited in marketing and consumer communication (22), as shown by the example of the
Sierra Nevada brewery in the USA.
Finally, some brewers connected an alternative use of spent grain to certification, either regarding product and food safety, or as part of a broader
environmental responsibility certification. In this regard, brewery (21)
emphasised its comprehensive view on sustainability, which it planned to
express and implement through Environment Lighthouse certification the
following year.
6.6.3 Barriers
Barriers are the perceived obstacles to switching to an alternative use of spent
grain. Economic and production factors were the barriers most often mentioned by brewers. In terms of economics, many expressed an unwillingness to
invest time and effort in changing their management of spent grain due to the
indirect costs involved in terms of staff time (e.g. 9, 10, 14 and 23). One
brewery (10), for example, considered that implementing changes to install
such a system was ‘too difficult and too much work’, especially in light of its
lack of storage facilities and the limits imposed by regulations. Another
brewer (14) was interested in selling the spent grain to bakeries, but time was
the main constraint to developing this option, and like other alternative
options it remained at the experimental level.
using the spent grain’ (23, 24 and 25) without specifying the kind of alternative, suggesting limited knowledge of or interest in alternative uses.
Economy and production, followed by CSR, were the factors mentioned
most often that could induce a switch in spent grain usage away from animal
feed and disposal. Regarding economy, many mentioned the prospect of
earning more revenue from the side- stream, often combined with technical
and logistical measures. New equipment was sometimes mentioned (e.g. 32) as
a key factor in changing the use of spent grain, especially equipment for dewatering the spent grain to increase its storability and reduce transport costs.
Some emphasised the high quality of spent grain as an animal feed and the
potential economic benefits of its nutritional value. One brewer asserted that
spent grain ‘contains a lot of vitamins and minerals [of benefit to humans], but
these are currently not properly utilised’ (18), and another that spent grain ‘is
quite sought after because it is good for the digestive system of animals’ and
this can improve the quality of meat for human consumption (19).
The most common incentives mentioned under CSR were the environmental benefits in terms of improved waste handling or recycling, sustainable
sourcing and to a lesser extent climate mitigation. Sustainable sourcing was
expressed in ‘circularity’ terms such as ‘closed cycle’ (10) and as an example of
‘responsible thinking’ (21). These incentives were often expressed as an aspect
of other incentives such as improved product. One brewery believed that the
reuse of spent grain in production would have simultaneous economic,
environmental and product- quality benefits that could be exploited in marketing and consumer communication (22), as shown by the example of the
Sierra Nevada brewery in the USA.
Finally, some brewers connected an alternative use of spent grain to certification, either regarding product and food safety, or as part of a broader
environmental responsibility certification. In this regard, brewery (21)
emphasised its comprehensive view on sustainability, which it planned to
express and implement through Environment Lighthouse certification the
following year.
6.6.3 Barriers
Barriers are the perceived obstacles to switching to an alternative use of spent
grain. Economic and production factors were the barriers most often mentioned by brewers. In terms of economics, many expressed an unwillingness to
invest time and effort in changing their management of spent grain due to the
indirect costs involved in terms of staff time (e.g. 9, 10, 14 and 23). One
brewery (10), for example, considered that implementing changes to install
such a system was ‘too difficult and too much work’, especially in light of its
lack of storage facilities and the limits imposed by regulations. Another
brewer (14) was interested in selling the spent grain to bakeries, but time was
the main constraint to developing this option, and like other alternative
options it remained at the experimental level.