Organic waste in farming of salmon 157
Capabilities
With respect to the waste pyramid (see Chapter 3), current waste management strategies in land- based production include recycling (through transfer
to wastewater recycling centres) and re- use (through transfer to agriculture,
biogas production and cement industries). However, from the point of view
of the fish firms, it harkens more towards disposal, since the firms are paying
other actors to come and collect the waste and currently they have little
interest in its fate. To move up on this pyramid will require more active
coordination between actors, particularly between agriculture and aquaculture
firms. Prevention is theoretically possible through integrated aquaponics
systems, although there are limited capabilities and expertise in the respective
industries. On- site algae production is also a possibility for waste prevention,
though similar limitations in expertise exist here.
Networks
In their current state, the agricultural producers and land- based fisheries are
too disparate to merge in joint production (i.e. aquaponics), yet the biogas
represents a key intermediary that brings different actors together into a
network. The biogas production also produces residues and there is a need to
create a market for this as well (the bio- residue can be used as a soil conditioner; see Chapter 5). Thus, alternative use of the by- products, like biogas
production, needs collaboration with other suppliers and users of biomass.
Good collaboration requires co- location of the fish farm, the agricultural
biomass producers and the biogas facility.
Industries such as cement firms utilising the waste in clinker production
and energy suppliers are also emerging networks for salmon farms. However,
these end- uses do not benefit from the high nutrient content of the waste;
they are lower on the cascading use (see Chapter 3). Therefore, the valorisation potentials from these pathways are likely to be more limited.
A linkage that could emerge in the future could come between the RAS
technology providers and key end- use actors. This would promote technology development in waste recovery: sludge dewatering, processing and handling targeted to specific ends in order to incorporate potential waste re- use
and valorisation into the technology design.
Infrastructures
Because of co- location issues, infrastructure development is challenging. For
example, expanding the use of organic waste from aquaculture in biogas production is a developing opportunity that potentially utilises both the nutrients
and energy content of the waste. While this is performed in Denmark, it is
performed in Norway to a lower degree, largely because the infrastructure is
currently lacking.
Capabilities
With respect to the waste pyramid (see Chapter 3), current waste management strategies in land- based production include recycling (through transfer
to wastewater recycling centres) and re- use (through transfer to agriculture,
biogas production and cement industries). However, from the point of view
of the fish firms, it harkens more towards disposal, since the firms are paying
other actors to come and collect the waste and currently they have little
interest in its fate. To move up on this pyramid will require more active
coordination between actors, particularly between agriculture and aquaculture
firms. Prevention is theoretically possible through integrated aquaponics
systems, although there are limited capabilities and expertise in the respective
industries. On- site algae production is also a possibility for waste prevention,
though similar limitations in expertise exist here.
Networks
In their current state, the agricultural producers and land- based fisheries are
too disparate to merge in joint production (i.e. aquaponics), yet the biogas
represents a key intermediary that brings different actors together into a
network. The biogas production also produces residues and there is a need to
create a market for this as well (the bio- residue can be used as a soil conditioner; see Chapter 5). Thus, alternative use of the by- products, like biogas
production, needs collaboration with other suppliers and users of biomass.
Good collaboration requires co- location of the fish farm, the agricultural
biomass producers and the biogas facility.
Industries such as cement firms utilising the waste in clinker production
and energy suppliers are also emerging networks for salmon farms. However,
these end- uses do not benefit from the high nutrient content of the waste;
they are lower on the cascading use (see Chapter 3). Therefore, the valorisation potentials from these pathways are likely to be more limited.
A linkage that could emerge in the future could come between the RAS
technology providers and key end- use actors. This would promote technology development in waste recovery: sludge dewatering, processing and handling targeted to specific ends in order to incorporate potential waste re- use
and valorisation into the technology design.
Infrastructures
Because of co- location issues, infrastructure development is challenging. For
example, expanding the use of organic waste from aquaculture in biogas production is a developing opportunity that potentially utilises both the nutrients
and energy content of the waste. While this is performed in Denmark, it is
performed in Norway to a lower degree, largely because the infrastructure is
currently lacking.