waste-to-food in a circular economy approach: the case
WASTE-TO-FOOD IN A CIRCULAR ECONOMY APPROACH: THE CASE STUDY OF THE ANCHOVY CANNING INDUSTRY J. LASO*, M. MARGALLO*, I. GARCIA-HERRERO*, P. FULLANA**, A. BALA**, C. GAZULLA°, I. VAZQUEZ-ROWE°°, A.IRABIEN* AND R. ALDACO* * Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Cantabria, Avda. de los Castros s/n, 39005, Santander, Spain ** UNESCO Chair in Life Cycle and Climate Change, Escola Superior de Comerç International (ESCI-UPF), Pg. Pujades 1, 08003 Barcelona, Spain ° LAVOLA COSOSTENIBILIDAD, Rbla. Catalunya 6, 08007 Barcelona, Spain °° PERUVIAN LCA NETWORK, Department of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Av. Universitaria 1801, San Miguel, Lima, Peru
SUMMARY: food loss (FL) is a major concern from environmental, social and economic point of view. In a world where 800 million people are suffering undernourishment, 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted annually, causing 1055 billion USD of economic cost, it is necessary the implementation of policies to handle this problem. The optimum management of these FL is a key stage of the food systems life cycle. The most common options for treating food waste include anaerobic digestions, composting, incineration and landfilling. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been largely applied to quantify the environmental impacts of FL and of the different management alternatives. This study aims to analyze the energy uses of two management alternatives in the anchovy canning industry: a “food waste-to-energy-to-food” approach and a “food waste-to-food” approach. The former considered the incineration of FL and the use of the energy recovered in the production of fishmeal and in a bass aquaculture system. On the other hand, the latter considered the valorization of FL into fishmeal to bass aquaculture. The energy indicator employed was the FL-EROI. Results showed that a “food waste-to-food” approach was preferable, under a food security point of view, because the valorization of anchovy FL contributed to consumer more amount of energy than the “food waste-to-energy-to-food” approach, 1457.80 MJ versus 188.37 MJ, respectively. However, it is necessary to take into account the primary energy invested to carry out each management alternative. In this case, the “food waste-to-food” approach presented better FL-EROI value (8.97%) compared with the FL-EROI value of the “food waste-to-energy-to-food” approach (8.21%).
1. INTRODUCTION Worldwide, over 1.3 billon metric tons of food human consumption is wasted or lost annually throughout the food supply chain (FSC), which is equivalent to about one-third of the total global food production (FAO, 2011a). These current levels of food waste (FW) lead to significant environmental impacts, as well as to economic and social costs (Manfredi and Cristobal, 2016). That is the emission to the atmosphere of 3.3 Gtonnes of CO2 eq., the consumption of 250 km3 Proceedings Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium/ 2 - 6 October 2017 S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy / © 2017 by CISA Publisher, Italy
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
of surface and groundwater, the occupation of nearly 28% of the world´s agricultural land and 1055 billion USD annually of economic costs (FAO, 2011b). Whereas from a social point of view, about 800 million people on the planet are suffering from chronic undernourishment (FAO, 2014a). The situation in Europe is also disquieting; around 88 million tonnes of food are wasted annually, with costs estimated at 143 billion euros (FUSIONS, 2016). The generation of food losses (FL) covers the entire food life cycle: primary production, transport and storage, food processing, distribution and consumption. Moreover, the end of life of FL generated within the FSC stages is also considered. The terms of FL and FW have been used to reference different kind of losses generated along the FSC. FL is used to describe the losses that occur in the production, post-harvest, processing and distribution stages of the FSC. FW, describes de losses that take place at retail and consumer stages (Parfitt et al. 2010). According to FAO (2014b), FL is “the amount of food intended for human consumption that, for any reason is not destined to its main purpose” along de FSC, considering FW as part of FL. There is a classification that divides the FL in three kinds on losses. Firstly, parts which are not edible are so called “unavoidable FL”. In contrast, if the food is thrown away because it is no longer wanted or its expiration date has gone past, it is denominated “avoidable FL”. The distinction between avoidable and unavoidable FL is not always sharp and the subjectivity in food use, as well as cultural specificity may play an important role (Corrado et al. 2017). Between avoidable and unavoidable FL, WRAP (2009) introduced the intermediate concept of “possibly avoidable FL” which considers the FL as the amount of food that some people eat and others do not, or food that can be eaten when is prepared in some particular way. The reduction of these three kinds of losses should be reached by different kind interventions, focusing in the consumer´s habits, as well as improving the efficiency of the transformation process. The reduction and/or management of the FL is one of the main concerns of the European legislation. In 1999, the European Commission (EC) launched the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC (EC, 1999) which set mandatory target to progressively reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal wastes landfilled. In 2008, the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC (EC, 2008) established a mandatory management principle for municipal waste, the so-called “waste hierarchy”. According to this classification, waste prevention is the most preferable option, while landfilling leads to the last resort waste treatment (Figure 1). However, waste prevention is not always possible. In these cases, the circular economy concept provides a suitable approach, keeping the added value in products, materials and resources for as long as possible and minimizing waste generation (EC, 2014). In this context, this paper aims to analyze the energy use of the management of anchovies residues from canning sector. Previously, Laso et al. (2016) evaluated the environmental performance of several waste management alternatives, such as valorization, incineration and landfilling focused on the anchovy canning industry. The latter was the worst scenario, and thus it was excluded from this analysis. Other authors, such as Cristobal et al. (2016), combined Data Envelopment Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment (DEA+LCA) methodologies to assess and retrofit FW management options considering a comprehensive set of environmental impact categories. This works goes further, taken into account in the analysis the food security approach, which suggest to ensure that everybody is able to access sufficient, affordable and nutritious food (EC, 2010). In this sense, the use of FW as feed for fish or the FW recovery was evaluated under an energy approach, comparing a “food waste-to-food” approach with a “food waste-to-energy-tofood” approach. Energy analysis is a method for accounting direct and indirect usage of energy to produce a product or service (Hall et al., 1986). A large number of energy analyses of agricultural and food production systems was published (Pelletier et al., 2011). These results can be expressed by means of the FL-EROI, which is an energy indicator that facilitates the decision-making process.
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
Figure 1. Food and drink material hierarchy. 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Case study: the anchovy canning industry The fish canning industry is an important activity that generates large amounts of wastes (Laso et al. 2016). Spain is the top European producer of canned food with more than 343,000 t/year of product, valued at 1,500 million euros (FAO, 2015). Among the different types of fishes, anchovy is the fifth most popular in Spain. In particular, in Cantabria (Northern Spain), the quality and prestige of canned anchovies are of particular relevance. Consumers consider this product as a “gourmet” food due to its handmade and traditional manufacture. However, throughout the canning process, large amounts of anchovy residues are generated, which must be managed in a sustainable way. In the canning factory, the fish is beheaded and placed in layers with a bed of salt between each layer of fish for 6 months. After curing, the skin is removed by means of cold and hot water (scalding), and each anchovy is cut and filleted by hand. The anchovy fillets are packed in cans filled with olive oil. Finally, the cans are sealed, washed, codified and packed. Throughout this process, approximately 60% of the anchovy weight is lost. The management of two specific types of wastes must be highlighted: heads and spines, and anchovy remaining. Heads and spines could be considered as “unavoidable FL” because they are parts of the fish that are not edible for the canned product. Nevertheless, head and spines can be recovered in another industrial process or may be treated as a waste with the potential recovery of resources or energy. So, we considered them as “possibly avoidable FL”. On the other hand, anchovy remaining are composed by broken anchovies and rest of anchovies that are not marketable as canned anchovy, but they are edible parts of the anchovy. Therefore, we considered them as “avoidable FL”. Previous studies assessed the environmental performance of several management alternatives of anchovy FL: valorization, incineration and landfilling (Laso et al. 2016). Landfilling was the least environmentally-friendly alternative, presenting a higher global warming impact than incineration and valorization alternatives. The valorization of the anchovy FL into fishmeal and anchovy paste was the most favorable management option. However, the recovery of energy from the incineration process is a promising alternative, because this energy can be
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
employed in manufacturing new food products. Therefore, in this study, both valorization and incineration scenarios were evaluated under an energy use approach. 2.2 Energy analysis: management of FL in the anchovy canning process The objective of an energy analysis (sometimes called embodied energy or gross energy requirement) is to quantify the fossil energy required directly or indirectly to allow a system to produce a given output (Markussen and Ostergard 2013). This study aims to quantify the energy use in the different alternatives to manage the anchovy residues. To conduct the energy analysis is necessary to define a functional unit (FU) that serves as a basis for quantifying the energy use. The FU chosen was the management of 1 t of FL generated in the canning process described in the Section 2.1. 2.2.1 System boundaries Figure 2 displays the scenarios under study. Two systems, scenario a and scenario b, were evaluated (Figure 2): Scenario a (food waste-to-energy-to-food) includes the generation of energy by means of the incineration of anchovy residues. This energy was employed in the production of fishmeal and in an aquaculture system to obtain bass. On the other hand, Scenario b (food waste-to-food) comprises the transformation of the anchovy residues into fishmeal, which was used as feed in an aquaculture system to obtain bass. Regarding Scenario a, the waste-to-energy (WtE) plant, that starts up in 2006, is composed of one incineration line with a capacity of 12.0 t/h, treating waste with a low heating value (LHV) of about 2,800 kcal/kg. The combustion is conducted in a roller grate system reaching 1025°C. Flue gases are treated by means of a selective non-catalytic reduction system (for NOx), bag filter (dust, dioxins, etc.) and semidry scrubbers (acid gases). The main solid residues are fly and bottom ashes. The latter is subjected to magnetic separation to recover the ferrous materials; the inert materials are sent to the landfill close to the WtE plant. Fly ashes, classified as hazardous material, are stabilized and sent to an inert landfill (Margallo et al. 2014). The electricity recovered from the incineration process was transformed into its equivalent amount of primary energy and employed in the production of fishmeal in a reduction plant and in a bass aquaculture plant. The reduction plant with a yield of 21%, processed 9600 t/year of fish residues to produce fishmeal (Fréon et al. 2017). The aquaculture system consists of an inland farm specialized in intensive rearing of sea bass with a global production capacity of 2,500 tonnes per year. The growing stage was conducted according to traditional raceway (TR) (Jerbi et al. 2012). In Scenario b, part of the anchovy residues (87,5%) composed by heads and spines, were sent to a reduction plant located next to the canning plant. It was considered that fishmeal arriving from anchovy residues was mixed with other feed components. The proportion fishmeal from anchovy residues was roughly 20% of the total (Vázquez-Rowe et al. 2014). The fishmeal was transported by road to an aquaculture plant situated 100 km from the reduction plant. The fishmeal was used to feed the bass raised in the aquaculture plant. The rest of the anchovy residues (12.5%), composed by anchovy remaining, were transformed in the canning plant into anchovy paste. The transportation of fishmeal to the aquaculture plant was carried out considering a Euro 4 truck with a maximum total capacity of 28 t, which circulated on a motorway over a longer distance.
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
Figure 2. System boundaries of the scenarios under study. The dotted lines represents energy flows, while continuous lines represents material flows. Grey processes and lines represent system expansions.
2.2.2 Allocations The waste treatment involved the generation of energy (in Scenario a) and the production of anchovy paste (in Scenario b), providing the system with additional functions (Figure 3). This situation was handle through system expansion by subtracting the function of the alternative system (energy and anchovy paste production) from the system under study. In this study, the Spanish electric power mix of 2016 included in the PE GaBi database and the production of tuna pâté (Laso et al. 2016) were selected as the technologies replaced in the system expansion.
Figure 3. Scheme of the system expansion
2.2.3 Data acquisition The life cycle inventory was based on data from literature. Data on the incineration process of the WtE plant in Cantabria Region were taken from Margallo et al. (2014). The production of fishmeal from anchovy residues was collected from Fréon et al. (2017), which analyzed three different types of Peruvian fishmeal plants. Data for bass aquaculture were retrieved from Jerbi et al. (2012). Regarding the energy analysis, the protein and energy content of bass was obtained from the
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
database developed by the School of Resources and Environmental Studies (SRES) at Dalhousie University (Peter Tyedmers, personal communication). Data on the production of tuna pâté, used in the system expansion, was taken from Iribarren et al. (2010). Finally, background processes, were taken from the Ecoinvent and PE database (Frischknecht et al. 2007; PE International, 2014).
2.2.4 FL-EROI The results from the energy analysis may be expressed as food energy returned to consumer on direct and indirect fossil energy invested (FL-EROI). FL-EROI was calculated as the ratio of the output of food measured in food energy (bass protein value) to energy use for the anchovy residues management system (Eq.1).
(Eq.1) Where the output energy represented the energy provided to consumer based on the protein content of the bass and, the input energy presents the fossil energy invested in the management of the FL. The software Gabi 6.0 (PE International, 2014) was used to estimate the fossil energy required in different management alternatives under study.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 collects the results obtained from the energy balance of the scenarios under study. The incineration of 1 t of anchovy FL (Scenario a) required 159 MJ of primary energy. This process recovered 937 MJ of energy which can be considered as electric energy. The 14.3% of this energy (134 MJ) was recirculated to the WtE plant and the remaining (803 MJ) was employed in the production of fishmeal to be used in a bass aquaculture system. The Spanish electric mix of 2016 was used to transform the electricity recovered (803 MJ) into primary energy (2134.64 MJ). This amount of primary energy allowed the production of 78.19 kg of bass. On the other hand, the valorization of anchovy residues (Scenario b) generated 605.12 kg of bass. The yield of the valorization was influenced by the little amount of anchovy FL (12.5%) that was destined to anchovy paste, and the yield of the reduction plant that was 21%. These amounts of bass can be translated into energy to consumers by means of the bass protein content. It was considered that bass produces 16.73 MJ per kg of protein. Scenario a produced 188.37 MJ while Scenario b generated 1457.80 MJ. Scenario a presented 11.26 kg of fish protein, whereas Scenario 2 produced 87.14 kg. Therefore, under a food security point of view and considering a consumer approach, the food waste-to-food scenario (Scenario b) seemed to be the most preferable option, because it provided more energy to the consumers. Moreover, the total primary energy invested in Scenario a was 2293.64, which was the sum of the energy required in the incineration process (159 MJ) and the energy invested in the production of bass (2134.64 MJ). On the other hand, Scenario 2 invested 16256.35 MJ to manage 1 t of anchovy FL. The most of the primary energy required in Scenario a came from the production of fishmeal from fresh anchovy due to the consumption of diesel in the anchovy
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
extraction. The incineration process only required 159 MJ. On the other hand, in Scenario b, the 80% of fishmeal produced from fresh anchovy (the other 20% come from anchovy FL as mentioned in Section 2.2.1) represented the 70% of the total primary energy employed in this scenario. These results highlighted that the extraction of the anchovy resource required the highest amount of primary energy, and that the circular economy reduced this needed, improving the energy use of the Scenario b. Finally, the energy indicator FL-EROI was calculated. Scenario b presented higher FL-EROI (8.97%) than Scenario a (8.21%), although this values were very similar. A higher value of FLEROI represented a higher ratio of energy provided to consumer compared to the energy invested. Table 1. Results obtained from the energy balance of the scenarios under study. Mass of bass Protein Energy provided Primary energy produced content to consumer invested (kg) (kg) (MJ) (MJ) Scenario a 78.19 11.26 188.37 2293.64 Scenario b 605.12 87.14 1457.80 16256.35
FLEROI (%) 8.21 8.97
4. CONCLUSIONS In this study, authors aim to go further than the conventional LCA analysis and evaluate, under an energy point of view, two alternatives for the management of FL in the anchovy canning sector. These alternatives were based on the circular economy concept: a “food wasteto-energy-to-food” approach, in which anchovy FL were incinerated and the energy recovered was employed in a bass aquaculture plant; and a “food waste-to-food” perspective, in which anchovy FL were valorized into fishmeal that was used to feed bass in an aquaculture plant. Two indicators were considered: the energy provided to consumer based on the protein content of the bass, which was important under a food security point of view, and the FL-EROI index, which compiles the food energy returned on direct and indirect fossil energy invested. Results showed that a “food waste-to-food” approach was the best alternative according to a food security perspective, because it provided the highest energy content to consumers. Moreover, the value of the FL-EROI was more favorable in case of “food waste-to-food” approach, considering both energy provided to consumer from anchovy FL and the energy invested in the management of these FL. It should be highlighted that, in addition to improve the environmental and economic results, the implementation of circular economy in the FL management also enhanced the relationship between the energy provided to consumer and the energy invested.
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of the Spanish Government for their financial support via the projects GeSAC-Conserva: Sustainable Management of the Cantabrian Anchovies (CTM2013-43539-R). Authors thank Julia Celaya for her technical support. Jara Laso thanks the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spanish Government for their financial support via the research fellowship BES-2014-069368.
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
REFERENCES EC. (2010). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – An EU policy framework to assist developing countries in the addressing food security challenges. Brussels, 31.3.2010 COM (2010) 127 final. EC. (2014). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe. European Commission. Brussels, 7.2.2014 COM (2014) 398 final. FAO. (2011a). Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. FAO. (2011b). Food wastage footprint, impacts on natural resources. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf. Accessed May 2017. FAO. (2014a). The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Natations. Rome. FAO. (2014b). Working Paper – Definitional framework of food loss. SAVE FOOD: Global Initiative of Food Loss and Waste Reduction. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. FAO. (2015). Globefish. The canned seafood sector in Spain. Available at: http://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/fishery-information/resource-detail/es/c/338172/. Accessed May 2017. Fréon P., Durand H., Avadí A., Huaranca S., and Orozco-Moreyra R. (2017). Life cycle assessment of three Peruvian fishmeal plants: toward a cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 145, 50-63. Frischknecht R., Jungbluth N., Althaus H.J., Doka G., Heck T., Hellweg S., Hischier R., Nemecek T., Rebitzer G., Spielmann M., and Wernet G. (2007). Overview and Methodology. Ecoinvent Report No.1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. FUSIONS. (2016). Estimates of European food waste levels. Reducing food waste through social innovation. Available at: http://www.eufusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20waste%20l evels.pdf. Accessed May 2017. Hall C.A.S., Cleveland C.J., and Kaufmann R., (1986). Energy and Resource Quality: The Ecology of the Economic Process. Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1-577. Iribarren D., Moreira M.T., and Feijoo G. (2010). Implementing by-product management into the life cycle Assessment of the mussel sector. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 54, 12191230. Jerbi M.A., Aubin J., Garnaoui K., Achour L., and Kacem A. (2012). Life cycle Assessment (LCA) of two rearing techniques of seas bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Aquaculture Engineering, 46, 1-9. Laso J., Margallo M., Celaya J., Fullana P., Bala A., Gazulla C., Irabien A., and Aldaco R. (2016). Waste management under a life cycle approach as a tool for a circular economy in the canned anchovy industry. Waste Management & Research, 34 (8), 724-733. Manfredi S., and Cristobal J. (2016). Towards more sustainable management of European food waste: Methodological approach and numerical application. Waste Management & Research, 34 (9), 957-968. Margallo M., Aldaco R., Irabien A., Carrillo V., Fischer M., Bala A., and Fullana P. (2014). Life cycle assessment modelling of waste-to-energy incineration in Spain and Portugal. Waste Management & Research, 32 (6), 492-499.
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
Parfitt J., Barthel M., and Macnaughton S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 3065-3081. PE International, 2014. GaBi 6 Software and Database on Life Cycle Assessment. LeinfeldenEchterdingen (Germany). Pelletier N., Audsley E., Brodt S., Garnett T., Henrinksson P., Kendall A., Kramer K.J., Murphy D., Nemecek T., and Troell M., (2011). Energy intensity of the agriculture and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 223-246. Vázquez-Rowe I., Villanueva-Rey P., Hospido A., Moreira M.T., and Feijoo G. (2014). Life cycle assessment of European pilchard (Sardinia pilchardus) consumption. A case study for Galicia (NW Spain). Science of the Total Environment, 475, 48-60. WRAP. (2009). Household food and drink waste in the UK – Final report. Available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Household_food_and_drink_waste_in_the_UK__report.pdf. Accessed May 2017.
SUMMARY: food loss (FL) is a major concern from environmental, social and economic point of view. In a world where 800 million people are suffering undernourishment, 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted annually, causing 1055 billion USD of economic cost, it is necessary the implementation of policies to handle this problem. The optimum management of these FL is a key stage of the food systems life cycle. The most common options for treating food waste include anaerobic digestions, composting, incineration and landfilling. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been largely applied to quantify the environmental impacts of FL and of the different management alternatives. This study aims to analyze the energy uses of two management alternatives in the anchovy canning industry: a “food waste-to-energy-to-food” approach and a “food waste-to-food” approach. The former considered the incineration of FL and the use of the energy recovered in the production of fishmeal and in a bass aquaculture system. On the other hand, the latter considered the valorization of FL into fishmeal to bass aquaculture. The energy indicator employed was the FL-EROI. Results showed that a “food waste-to-food” approach was preferable, under a food security point of view, because the valorization of anchovy FL contributed to consumer more amount of energy than the “food waste-to-energy-to-food” approach, 1457.80 MJ versus 188.37 MJ, respectively. However, it is necessary to take into account the primary energy invested to carry out each management alternative. In this case, the “food waste-to-food” approach presented better FL-EROI value (8.97%) compared with the FL-EROI value of the “food waste-to-energy-to-food” approach (8.21%).
1. INTRODUCTION Worldwide, over 1.3 billon metric tons of food human consumption is wasted or lost annually throughout the food supply chain (FSC), which is equivalent to about one-third of the total global food production (FAO, 2011a). These current levels of food waste (FW) lead to significant environmental impacts, as well as to economic and social costs (Manfredi and Cristobal, 2016). That is the emission to the atmosphere of 3.3 Gtonnes of CO2 eq., the consumption of 250 km3 Proceedings Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium/ 2 - 6 October 2017 S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy / © 2017 by CISA Publisher, Italy
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
of surface and groundwater, the occupation of nearly 28% of the world´s agricultural land and 1055 billion USD annually of economic costs (FAO, 2011b). Whereas from a social point of view, about 800 million people on the planet are suffering from chronic undernourishment (FAO, 2014a). The situation in Europe is also disquieting; around 88 million tonnes of food are wasted annually, with costs estimated at 143 billion euros (FUSIONS, 2016). The generation of food losses (FL) covers the entire food life cycle: primary production, transport and storage, food processing, distribution and consumption. Moreover, the end of life of FL generated within the FSC stages is also considered. The terms of FL and FW have been used to reference different kind of losses generated along the FSC. FL is used to describe the losses that occur in the production, post-harvest, processing and distribution stages of the FSC. FW, describes de losses that take place at retail and consumer stages (Parfitt et al. 2010). According to FAO (2014b), FL is “the amount of food intended for human consumption that, for any reason is not destined to its main purpose” along de FSC, considering FW as part of FL. There is a classification that divides the FL in three kinds on losses. Firstly, parts which are not edible are so called “unavoidable FL”. In contrast, if the food is thrown away because it is no longer wanted or its expiration date has gone past, it is denominated “avoidable FL”. The distinction between avoidable and unavoidable FL is not always sharp and the subjectivity in food use, as well as cultural specificity may play an important role (Corrado et al. 2017). Between avoidable and unavoidable FL, WRAP (2009) introduced the intermediate concept of “possibly avoidable FL” which considers the FL as the amount of food that some people eat and others do not, or food that can be eaten when is prepared in some particular way. The reduction of these three kinds of losses should be reached by different kind interventions, focusing in the consumer´s habits, as well as improving the efficiency of the transformation process. The reduction and/or management of the FL is one of the main concerns of the European legislation. In 1999, the European Commission (EC) launched the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC (EC, 1999) which set mandatory target to progressively reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal wastes landfilled. In 2008, the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC (EC, 2008) established a mandatory management principle for municipal waste, the so-called “waste hierarchy”. According to this classification, waste prevention is the most preferable option, while landfilling leads to the last resort waste treatment (Figure 1). However, waste prevention is not always possible. In these cases, the circular economy concept provides a suitable approach, keeping the added value in products, materials and resources for as long as possible and minimizing waste generation (EC, 2014). In this context, this paper aims to analyze the energy use of the management of anchovies residues from canning sector. Previously, Laso et al. (2016) evaluated the environmental performance of several waste management alternatives, such as valorization, incineration and landfilling focused on the anchovy canning industry. The latter was the worst scenario, and thus it was excluded from this analysis. Other authors, such as Cristobal et al. (2016), combined Data Envelopment Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment (DEA+LCA) methodologies to assess and retrofit FW management options considering a comprehensive set of environmental impact categories. This works goes further, taken into account in the analysis the food security approach, which suggest to ensure that everybody is able to access sufficient, affordable and nutritious food (EC, 2010). In this sense, the use of FW as feed for fish or the FW recovery was evaluated under an energy approach, comparing a “food waste-to-food” approach with a “food waste-to-energy-tofood” approach. Energy analysis is a method for accounting direct and indirect usage of energy to produce a product or service (Hall et al., 1986). A large number of energy analyses of agricultural and food production systems was published (Pelletier et al., 2011). These results can be expressed by means of the FL-EROI, which is an energy indicator that facilitates the decision-making process.
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
Figure 1. Food and drink material hierarchy. 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Case study: the anchovy canning industry The fish canning industry is an important activity that generates large amounts of wastes (Laso et al. 2016). Spain is the top European producer of canned food with more than 343,000 t/year of product, valued at 1,500 million euros (FAO, 2015). Among the different types of fishes, anchovy is the fifth most popular in Spain. In particular, in Cantabria (Northern Spain), the quality and prestige of canned anchovies are of particular relevance. Consumers consider this product as a “gourmet” food due to its handmade and traditional manufacture. However, throughout the canning process, large amounts of anchovy residues are generated, which must be managed in a sustainable way. In the canning factory, the fish is beheaded and placed in layers with a bed of salt between each layer of fish for 6 months. After curing, the skin is removed by means of cold and hot water (scalding), and each anchovy is cut and filleted by hand. The anchovy fillets are packed in cans filled with olive oil. Finally, the cans are sealed, washed, codified and packed. Throughout this process, approximately 60% of the anchovy weight is lost. The management of two specific types of wastes must be highlighted: heads and spines, and anchovy remaining. Heads and spines could be considered as “unavoidable FL” because they are parts of the fish that are not edible for the canned product. Nevertheless, head and spines can be recovered in another industrial process or may be treated as a waste with the potential recovery of resources or energy. So, we considered them as “possibly avoidable FL”. On the other hand, anchovy remaining are composed by broken anchovies and rest of anchovies that are not marketable as canned anchovy, but they are edible parts of the anchovy. Therefore, we considered them as “avoidable FL”. Previous studies assessed the environmental performance of several management alternatives of anchovy FL: valorization, incineration and landfilling (Laso et al. 2016). Landfilling was the least environmentally-friendly alternative, presenting a higher global warming impact than incineration and valorization alternatives. The valorization of the anchovy FL into fishmeal and anchovy paste was the most favorable management option. However, the recovery of energy from the incineration process is a promising alternative, because this energy can be
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
employed in manufacturing new food products. Therefore, in this study, both valorization and incineration scenarios were evaluated under an energy use approach. 2.2 Energy analysis: management of FL in the anchovy canning process The objective of an energy analysis (sometimes called embodied energy or gross energy requirement) is to quantify the fossil energy required directly or indirectly to allow a system to produce a given output (Markussen and Ostergard 2013). This study aims to quantify the energy use in the different alternatives to manage the anchovy residues. To conduct the energy analysis is necessary to define a functional unit (FU) that serves as a basis for quantifying the energy use. The FU chosen was the management of 1 t of FL generated in the canning process described in the Section 2.1. 2.2.1 System boundaries Figure 2 displays the scenarios under study. Two systems, scenario a and scenario b, were evaluated (Figure 2): Scenario a (food waste-to-energy-to-food) includes the generation of energy by means of the incineration of anchovy residues. This energy was employed in the production of fishmeal and in an aquaculture system to obtain bass. On the other hand, Scenario b (food waste-to-food) comprises the transformation of the anchovy residues into fishmeal, which was used as feed in an aquaculture system to obtain bass. Regarding Scenario a, the waste-to-energy (WtE) plant, that starts up in 2006, is composed of one incineration line with a capacity of 12.0 t/h, treating waste with a low heating value (LHV) of about 2,800 kcal/kg. The combustion is conducted in a roller grate system reaching 1025°C. Flue gases are treated by means of a selective non-catalytic reduction system (for NOx), bag filter (dust, dioxins, etc.) and semidry scrubbers (acid gases). The main solid residues are fly and bottom ashes. The latter is subjected to magnetic separation to recover the ferrous materials; the inert materials are sent to the landfill close to the WtE plant. Fly ashes, classified as hazardous material, are stabilized and sent to an inert landfill (Margallo et al. 2014). The electricity recovered from the incineration process was transformed into its equivalent amount of primary energy and employed in the production of fishmeal in a reduction plant and in a bass aquaculture plant. The reduction plant with a yield of 21%, processed 9600 t/year of fish residues to produce fishmeal (Fréon et al. 2017). The aquaculture system consists of an inland farm specialized in intensive rearing of sea bass with a global production capacity of 2,500 tonnes per year. The growing stage was conducted according to traditional raceway (TR) (Jerbi et al. 2012). In Scenario b, part of the anchovy residues (87,5%) composed by heads and spines, were sent to a reduction plant located next to the canning plant. It was considered that fishmeal arriving from anchovy residues was mixed with other feed components. The proportion fishmeal from anchovy residues was roughly 20% of the total (Vázquez-Rowe et al. 2014). The fishmeal was transported by road to an aquaculture plant situated 100 km from the reduction plant. The fishmeal was used to feed the bass raised in the aquaculture plant. The rest of the anchovy residues (12.5%), composed by anchovy remaining, were transformed in the canning plant into anchovy paste. The transportation of fishmeal to the aquaculture plant was carried out considering a Euro 4 truck with a maximum total capacity of 28 t, which circulated on a motorway over a longer distance.
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
Figure 2. System boundaries of the scenarios under study. The dotted lines represents energy flows, while continuous lines represents material flows. Grey processes and lines represent system expansions.
2.2.2 Allocations The waste treatment involved the generation of energy (in Scenario a) and the production of anchovy paste (in Scenario b), providing the system with additional functions (Figure 3). This situation was handle through system expansion by subtracting the function of the alternative system (energy and anchovy paste production) from the system under study. In this study, the Spanish electric power mix of 2016 included in the PE GaBi database and the production of tuna pâté (Laso et al. 2016) were selected as the technologies replaced in the system expansion.
Figure 3. Scheme of the system expansion
2.2.3 Data acquisition The life cycle inventory was based on data from literature. Data on the incineration process of the WtE plant in Cantabria Region were taken from Margallo et al. (2014). The production of fishmeal from anchovy residues was collected from Fréon et al. (2017), which analyzed three different types of Peruvian fishmeal plants. Data for bass aquaculture were retrieved from Jerbi et al. (2012). Regarding the energy analysis, the protein and energy content of bass was obtained from the
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
database developed by the School of Resources and Environmental Studies (SRES) at Dalhousie University (Peter Tyedmers, personal communication). Data on the production of tuna pâté, used in the system expansion, was taken from Iribarren et al. (2010). Finally, background processes, were taken from the Ecoinvent and PE database (Frischknecht et al. 2007; PE International, 2014).
2.2.4 FL-EROI The results from the energy analysis may be expressed as food energy returned to consumer on direct and indirect fossil energy invested (FL-EROI). FL-EROI was calculated as the ratio of the output of food measured in food energy (bass protein value) to energy use for the anchovy residues management system (Eq.1).
(Eq.1) Where the output energy represented the energy provided to consumer based on the protein content of the bass and, the input energy presents the fossil energy invested in the management of the FL. The software Gabi 6.0 (PE International, 2014) was used to estimate the fossil energy required in different management alternatives under study.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 collects the results obtained from the energy balance of the scenarios under study. The incineration of 1 t of anchovy FL (Scenario a) required 159 MJ of primary energy. This process recovered 937 MJ of energy which can be considered as electric energy. The 14.3% of this energy (134 MJ) was recirculated to the WtE plant and the remaining (803 MJ) was employed in the production of fishmeal to be used in a bass aquaculture system. The Spanish electric mix of 2016 was used to transform the electricity recovered (803 MJ) into primary energy (2134.64 MJ). This amount of primary energy allowed the production of 78.19 kg of bass. On the other hand, the valorization of anchovy residues (Scenario b) generated 605.12 kg of bass. The yield of the valorization was influenced by the little amount of anchovy FL (12.5%) that was destined to anchovy paste, and the yield of the reduction plant that was 21%. These amounts of bass can be translated into energy to consumers by means of the bass protein content. It was considered that bass produces 16.73 MJ per kg of protein. Scenario a produced 188.37 MJ while Scenario b generated 1457.80 MJ. Scenario a presented 11.26 kg of fish protein, whereas Scenario 2 produced 87.14 kg. Therefore, under a food security point of view and considering a consumer approach, the food waste-to-food scenario (Scenario b) seemed to be the most preferable option, because it provided more energy to the consumers. Moreover, the total primary energy invested in Scenario a was 2293.64, which was the sum of the energy required in the incineration process (159 MJ) and the energy invested in the production of bass (2134.64 MJ). On the other hand, Scenario 2 invested 16256.35 MJ to manage 1 t of anchovy FL. The most of the primary energy required in Scenario a came from the production of fishmeal from fresh anchovy due to the consumption of diesel in the anchovy
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
extraction. The incineration process only required 159 MJ. On the other hand, in Scenario b, the 80% of fishmeal produced from fresh anchovy (the other 20% come from anchovy FL as mentioned in Section 2.2.1) represented the 70% of the total primary energy employed in this scenario. These results highlighted that the extraction of the anchovy resource required the highest amount of primary energy, and that the circular economy reduced this needed, improving the energy use of the Scenario b. Finally, the energy indicator FL-EROI was calculated. Scenario b presented higher FL-EROI (8.97%) than Scenario a (8.21%), although this values were very similar. A higher value of FLEROI represented a higher ratio of energy provided to consumer compared to the energy invested. Table 1. Results obtained from the energy balance of the scenarios under study. Mass of bass Protein Energy provided Primary energy produced content to consumer invested (kg) (kg) (MJ) (MJ) Scenario a 78.19 11.26 188.37 2293.64 Scenario b 605.12 87.14 1457.80 16256.35
FLEROI (%) 8.21 8.97
4. CONCLUSIONS In this study, authors aim to go further than the conventional LCA analysis and evaluate, under an energy point of view, two alternatives for the management of FL in the anchovy canning sector. These alternatives were based on the circular economy concept: a “food wasteto-energy-to-food” approach, in which anchovy FL were incinerated and the energy recovered was employed in a bass aquaculture plant; and a “food waste-to-food” perspective, in which anchovy FL were valorized into fishmeal that was used to feed bass in an aquaculture plant. Two indicators were considered: the energy provided to consumer based on the protein content of the bass, which was important under a food security point of view, and the FL-EROI index, which compiles the food energy returned on direct and indirect fossil energy invested. Results showed that a “food waste-to-food” approach was the best alternative according to a food security perspective, because it provided the highest energy content to consumers. Moreover, the value of the FL-EROI was more favorable in case of “food waste-to-food” approach, considering both energy provided to consumer from anchovy FL and the energy invested in the management of these FL. It should be highlighted that, in addition to improve the environmental and economic results, the implementation of circular economy in the FL management also enhanced the relationship between the energy provided to consumer and the energy invested.
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of the Spanish Government for their financial support via the projects GeSAC-Conserva: Sustainable Management of the Cantabrian Anchovies (CTM2013-43539-R). Authors thank Julia Celaya for her technical support. Jara Laso thanks the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spanish Government for their financial support via the research fellowship BES-2014-069368.
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
REFERENCES EC. (2010). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – An EU policy framework to assist developing countries in the addressing food security challenges. Brussels, 31.3.2010 COM (2010) 127 final. EC. (2014). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe. European Commission. Brussels, 7.2.2014 COM (2014) 398 final. FAO. (2011a). Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. FAO. (2011b). Food wastage footprint, impacts on natural resources. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf. Accessed May 2017. FAO. (2014a). The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Natations. Rome. FAO. (2014b). Working Paper – Definitional framework of food loss. SAVE FOOD: Global Initiative of Food Loss and Waste Reduction. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. FAO. (2015). Globefish. The canned seafood sector in Spain. Available at: http://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/fishery-information/resource-detail/es/c/338172/. Accessed May 2017. Fréon P., Durand H., Avadí A., Huaranca S., and Orozco-Moreyra R. (2017). Life cycle assessment of three Peruvian fishmeal plants: toward a cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 145, 50-63. Frischknecht R., Jungbluth N., Althaus H.J., Doka G., Heck T., Hellweg S., Hischier R., Nemecek T., Rebitzer G., Spielmann M., and Wernet G. (2007). Overview and Methodology. Ecoinvent Report No.1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. FUSIONS. (2016). Estimates of European food waste levels. Reducing food waste through social innovation. Available at: http://www.eufusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20waste%20l evels.pdf. Accessed May 2017. Hall C.A.S., Cleveland C.J., and Kaufmann R., (1986). Energy and Resource Quality: The Ecology of the Economic Process. Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1-577. Iribarren D., Moreira M.T., and Feijoo G. (2010). Implementing by-product management into the life cycle Assessment of the mussel sector. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 54, 12191230. Jerbi M.A., Aubin J., Garnaoui K., Achour L., and Kacem A. (2012). Life cycle Assessment (LCA) of two rearing techniques of seas bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Aquaculture Engineering, 46, 1-9. Laso J., Margallo M., Celaya J., Fullana P., Bala A., Gazulla C., Irabien A., and Aldaco R. (2016). Waste management under a life cycle approach as a tool for a circular economy in the canned anchovy industry. Waste Management & Research, 34 (8), 724-733. Manfredi S., and Cristobal J. (2016). Towards more sustainable management of European food waste: Methodological approach and numerical application. Waste Management & Research, 34 (9), 957-968. Margallo M., Aldaco R., Irabien A., Carrillo V., Fischer M., Bala A., and Fullana P. (2014). Life cycle assessment modelling of waste-to-energy incineration in Spain and Portugal. Waste Management & Research, 32 (6), 492-499.
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
Parfitt J., Barthel M., and Macnaughton S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 3065-3081. PE International, 2014. GaBi 6 Software and Database on Life Cycle Assessment. LeinfeldenEchterdingen (Germany). Pelletier N., Audsley E., Brodt S., Garnett T., Henrinksson P., Kendall A., Kramer K.J., Murphy D., Nemecek T., and Troell M., (2011). Energy intensity of the agriculture and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 223-246. Vázquez-Rowe I., Villanueva-Rey P., Hospido A., Moreira M.T., and Feijoo G. (2014). Life cycle assessment of European pilchard (Sardinia pilchardus) consumption. A case study for Galicia (NW Spain). Science of the Total Environment, 475, 48-60. WRAP. (2009). Household food and drink waste in the UK – Final report. Available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Household_food_and_drink_waste_in_the_UK__report.pdf. Accessed May 2017.
