Beyond animal feed? 121
Brewers often mentioned such economic factors in combination with production variables, specifically an insufficiency of equipment or storage space, and
several brewers (e.g. 18, 32) stated that they lacked the equipment to dry the
spent grain and store it for longer periods. Moreover, EU and national regulations on fodder production require safe storage of spent grain, as emphasised
by brewery 18. Yet it is noteworthy that many medium- sized and large breweries (6, 10, 22, 27, 28, 30 and 31) did not perceive production variables,
including transport, to be a barrier to implementing new options, or as a negative aspect of current operations.
Securing the investment finances needed to upgrade or replace the equipment that would enable alternative uses of spent grain was also seen as a
barrier. Brewery 2 noted that it had run trials to dry and burn the spent grain
for energy production, but that it would need to invest in new equipment to
do so on a large scale. Brewery 4 observed that its brewing equipment was
old and therefore resource inefficient. In particular, the vessel that separates
the wort from the spent grain is crucial for the efficient use of malt and water
and hence for reducing the amount of spent grain per volume of beer produced. However, investment in such equipment had so far been outcompeted
by more customer- focused investments, most recently a new bottling line.
Some respondents (7, 25) noted that the expected low returns from investments in alternative uses of spent grain made it difficult to access finance from
within the firm, while others (e.g. 1) emphasised the importance of having a
good business case, including for ‘green’ projects. Indeed, many mentioned
the need for cost efficiencies in all parts of an operation and this was related
to the strong competition and low- value nature of beer (2). In this regard,
one brewery (32) observed that getting approval for a project with a payback
time of more than two or three years depended on the size of the investment
and how well it compared to competing projects. As mentioned above,
brewery 4 had recently invested in new, expensive bottling or filling lines,
requiring significant financial resources.
Firm size also influenced a firm’s ability and willingness to invest. Several
breweries (5, 7, 23, 24 and 28) observed that their small size reduced their
ability to pursue alternative spent grain options, and brewery 24 noted ‘we
are too small, and the alternatives are too complicated and costly’.
Given the above considerations, the opportunities to implement greener
products and techniques may well be greatest in situations where core
brewing activities are undergoing significant changes, such as when production capacity is expanded (31) or the brewery is relocated to a new site (17).
Regarding CSR as a factor for spent grain usage, one important regulatory
barrier mentioned (by brewery 1) was the lack of a system whereby the
brewery could receive carbon credits for the biogas produced ‘off- site’ by
other companies from its spent grain. This limited the CSR benefits of selling
spent grain to third- party biogas producers.
Brewers often mentioned such economic factors in combination with production variables, specifically an insufficiency of equipment or storage space, and
several brewers (e.g. 18, 32) stated that they lacked the equipment to dry the
spent grain and store it for longer periods. Moreover, EU and national regulations on fodder production require safe storage of spent grain, as emphasised
by brewery 18. Yet it is noteworthy that many medium- sized and large breweries (6, 10, 22, 27, 28, 30 and 31) did not perceive production variables,
including transport, to be a barrier to implementing new options, or as a negative aspect of current operations.
Securing the investment finances needed to upgrade or replace the equipment that would enable alternative uses of spent grain was also seen as a
barrier. Brewery 2 noted that it had run trials to dry and burn the spent grain
for energy production, but that it would need to invest in new equipment to
do so on a large scale. Brewery 4 observed that its brewing equipment was
old and therefore resource inefficient. In particular, the vessel that separates
the wort from the spent grain is crucial for the efficient use of malt and water
and hence for reducing the amount of spent grain per volume of beer produced. However, investment in such equipment had so far been outcompeted
by more customer- focused investments, most recently a new bottling line.
Some respondents (7, 25) noted that the expected low returns from investments in alternative uses of spent grain made it difficult to access finance from
within the firm, while others (e.g. 1) emphasised the importance of having a
good business case, including for ‘green’ projects. Indeed, many mentioned
the need for cost efficiencies in all parts of an operation and this was related
to the strong competition and low- value nature of beer (2). In this regard,
one brewery (32) observed that getting approval for a project with a payback
time of more than two or three years depended on the size of the investment
and how well it compared to competing projects. As mentioned above,
brewery 4 had recently invested in new, expensive bottling or filling lines,
requiring significant financial resources.
Firm size also influenced a firm’s ability and willingness to invest. Several
breweries (5, 7, 23, 24 and 28) observed that their small size reduced their
ability to pursue alternative spent grain options, and brewery 24 noted ‘we
are too small, and the alternatives are too complicated and costly’.
Given the above considerations, the opportunities to implement greener
products and techniques may well be greatest in situations where core
brewing activities are undergoing significant changes, such as when production capacity is expanded (31) or the brewery is relocated to a new site (17).
Regarding CSR as a factor for spent grain usage, one important regulatory
barrier mentioned (by brewery 1) was the lack of a system whereby the
brewery could receive carbon credits for the biogas produced ‘off- site’ by
other companies from its spent grain. This limited the CSR benefits of selling
spent grain to third- party biogas producers.