Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-criteria assessment of the viability of valorising vegetable by-products from the distribution as secondary raw material for animal feed

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Approximately 33% of food produced around the world is wasted. In the distribution sector, erroneous orders or demand predictions result in products that cannot be sold before the expiration date. Despite its enormous potential, a low percentage of this food wastage is valorised causing negative social, economic and environmental impacts. Vegetable food waste has potential as raw material for animal feed. However, the profitability of its valorisation depends on several key factors and there is a risk of underestimating any of them making this valorisation technically, economically or environmentally unfeasible. Moreover, the geographical dispersion requires selecting the appropriate location for the processing plant and optimising the logistics routes to collect and transport them from the origin points to the processing plant. GISWASTE tool, which combines Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method with ArcGIS, has been used to simulate the viability of this valorisation alternative from a holistic point of view. In addition, a sensitivity analysis in the economic modelling has been carried out to determine the economic viability factors with more influence in the global profitability. The valorisation of vegetable food waste from distribution and retailing sector for animal feed has been considered feasible in the case study region: Basque Country (Spain). However, there are some economic uncertainties for the return of the investment. The variable with more influence over the profitability is by far the incomes from waste management (81.4%).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AHP:

analytic hierarchy process

BCA:

benefit-cost analysis

EAA:

European Environment Agency

EBB:

European Environmental Bureau

EBITDA:

Earnings Before Interests, Taxes, Depreciations and Amortizations

EFFPA:

European Former Foodstuff Processors Association

ESRI:

Environmental Systems Research Institute

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations

FCI:

fixed capital investment

GHG:

greenhouse gases

GIS:

geographic information system

IPCC:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IRR:

internal return rate

LCA:

life cycle analysis

MCDA:

Multi-criteria decision analysis

NPV:

net present value

PBT:

payback period time

VBA:

Visual Basic for Applications

References

  • Abdullah A (2012) Techno-economic analysis of electricity and heat generation from farm-scale biogas plant: Çiçekdağı case study. Energy J 44(1):381–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Weshah RA, Yihdego Y (2018) Multi-criteria decision approach for evaluation, ranking, and selection of remediation options: case of polluted groundwater, Kuwait. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3723-2

  • Albizzati PF, Tonini D, Chammard CB, Astrup TF (2019) Valorisation of surplus food in the French retail sector: environmental and economic impacts. Waste Manag 90:141–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arunraj N, Ahrens D, Fernandes M, Müller M (2014) Time series sales forecasting to reduce food waste in retail industry. Conference paper. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4829.1607

  • Babalola MA (2018) Application of GIS-based multi-criteria decision technique in exploration of suitable site options for anaerobic digestion of food and biodegradable waste in Oita City, Japan. Environments 5(7):77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordas R, Gallardo A, Bovea MD (2016) Implementación de una herramienta basada en tecnología SIG y técnicas de decisión multi-criterio para la obtención de mapas de orientación a la ubicación de instalaciones de gestión de residuos. Mapping 107:32–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodie M, Chernov M, Sunderasan S (2007) Optimal debt and equity value in the presence of chapter 7 and chapter 11. J Financ 62(3):1341–1377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro-Santos L, Diaz-Casas V (2015) Sensitivity analysis of floating offshore wind farms. Energy Convers Manag 101:271–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COM (2005) 666. Taking sustainable use of resources forward: a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste. From European Commission (2005) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/Progess%20report.pdf Accessed 03 September 2020

  • Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C (2001) Section 24.3: “Dijkstra’s algorithm”. Introduction to algorithms (Second ed.). MIT Press and McGraw–Hill: 595–601

  • De Mena F, Dietershagen J, Loubiere M, Vittuari M (2018) Life cycle costing of food waste: a review of methodological approaches. Waste Manag 73:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (EEA) (2015) The European environment—state and outlook 2015: synthesis report. https://www.kowi.de/Portaldata/2/Resources/horizon2020/coop/SOER-Synthesis-2015-EN.pdf Accessed 03 September 2020

  • European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (2015) Advancing resource efficiency in Europe. Indicators and waste policy scenarios to deliver a resource efficient and sustainable Europe. https://makeresourcescount.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/FINAL_Advancing-Resource-Efficiency-in-Europe_PUBL.pdf Accessed 03 September 2020

  • European Former Foodstuff Processors Association (EFFPA) (2016) Reducing food waste. http://www.effpa.eu/reducing-food-waste/ Accessed 03 September 2020

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2011) World Livestock 2011–livestock in food security. http://www.fao.org/3/i2373e/i2373e.pdf Accessed 03 September 2020

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2019) The state of food and agriculture. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf Accessed 03 September 2020

  • Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Arthur B, Norbert E, Gabi H (2009) Swiss ecological scarcity method: the new version 2006

  • Garrone P, Melacini M, Perego A (2011) Feed the hungry. Surplus food as an opportunity. Milano, Italy: EXPO Milano

  • Garrone P, Melacini M, Perego A (2014) Opening the black box of food waste reduction. Food Policy 46:129–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gdoura K, Anane M, Jellali S (2015) Geospatial and AHP-multicriteria analyses to locate and rank suitable sites for groundwater recharge with reclaimed water. Resour Conserv Recycl 104:19–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U (2011) Global food losses and food waste–extent, causes and prevention. FAO, Rome, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira MDM, Hollander A, Van Zelm R (2016) ReCiPe2016: a harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. RIVM Report, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, pp 2016–0104

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasapidou E, Sossidou E, Mitlianga P (2015) Fruit and vegetable co-products as functional feed ingredients in farm animal nutrition for improved product quality. Agriculture 5:1020–1034

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kim M, Jang Y, Lee S (2013) Application of Delphi-AHP methods to select the priorities of WEEE for recycling in a waste management decision-making tool. J Environ Manag 128:941–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthra S, Mangla S, Xu L, Diabat A (2016) Using AHP to evaluate barriers in adopting sustainable consumption and production initiatives in a supply chain. Int J Prod Econ 181, Part B: 342–349

  • Martinez ZN, Menacho PZ, Pachón-Ariza F (2014) Food loss in a hungry world, a problem? Agron Colomb 32(2):283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myer R, Brendemuhl JH, Johnson DD (2007) Evaluation of dehydrated restaurant food waste products as feedstuffs for finishing pigs. J Anim Sci 77:658–692

    Google Scholar 

  • Özkan B, Özceylan E, Sarıçiçek İ (2019) GIS-based MCDM modeling for landfill site suitability analysis: a comprehensive review of the literature. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06298-1

  • Perpina C, Martinez-Llario JC, Perez-Navarro A (2013) Multicriteria assessment in GIS environments for siting biomass plants. Land Use Policy 31:326–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry R H, Green D W (2008) Process Economics Chapter 9. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, New York, USA (2008): McGraw-Hill

  • Reich MC (2005) Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems—case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). J Clean Prod 13:253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M, Crist E, Mahmoud MI, Laurance WF (2017) 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries; world scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice. J Biosci. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125

  • Saaty T (1980) The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • San Martin D, Ramos S, Zufía J (2016) Valorisation of food waste to produce new raw materials for animal feed. Food Chem 198:68–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • San Martin D, Orive M, Martínez E, Iñarra B, Ramos S, González N, Guinea de Salas A, Vázquez L, Zufía J (2017) Decision making supporting tool combining AHP method with GIS for implementing food waste valorisation strategies. Waste Biomass Valori 8:1555–1567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • San Martin D, Bald C, Cebrian M, Iñarra B, Orive M, Ramos S, Zufía J (2018) Principles for developing a safe and sustainable valorisation of food waste for animal feed: second generation feedstuff. In: Preedy VR, Patel VB. (Eds.) Handbook of famine, starvation, and nutrient deprivation. From Biology to Policy. United Kingdom: Springer International Publishing AG

  • Sener S, Erhan S, Nas B, Karagüzel R (2010) Combining AHP with GIS for landfill site selection: a case study in the Lake Beysehir catchment area (Konya, Turkey). J Waste Manag 30:2037–2046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sliz-Szkliniarz B, Vogt J (2012) A GIS-based approach for evaluating the potential of biogas production from livestock manure and crops at a regional scale: a case study for the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship. Revew Sust Energ Rev 16:752–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Bustamante M (2014) Mitigation of climate change. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press

  • Stefanović G, Milutinović B, Vučićević B, Denčić-Mihajlov K, Turanjanin V (2015) A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and the analysis and synthesis of parameters under information deficiency method for assessing the sustainability of waste management scenarios. J Clean Prod 130:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Stocker T F, Qin D, Plattner G K, Tignor M, Allen S K, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley P M (2013) Climate Change 2013. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC

  • Thomsen M, Seghetta M, Mikkelsen MH, Gyldenkærne S, Becker T, Caro D, Frederiksen P (2017) Comparative life cycle assessment of biowaste to resource management systems–a Danish case study. J Clean Prod 142:4050–4058

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vasiljević T, Srdjević Z, Bajčetić R, Vojinović MM (2011) GIS and the Analytic hierarchy process for regional landfill site selection in transitional countries: a case study from Serbia. Environ Manag 49:445–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Jing Y, Zhang C, Zhao J (2009) Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13(9):2263–2278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westendorf ML, Dong ZC, Schoknecht PA (1998) Recycled cafeteria food waste as a feed for swine: nutrient content digestibility, growth, and meat quality. J Anim Sci 76:2976–2983

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Westendorf ML (2000) Food waste as animal feed: an introduction. Iowa State University Press Ames 3-16:69–90

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is contribution n° 1008 from AZTI, Food Research, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA).

Funding

The main funding of this research has been provided by EU LIFE+ Programme under Environment Policy & Governance (LIFE I2 ENV/ES/000406) and Basque Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AZTI, Food Research, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia, Astondo Bidea, Edificio 609, 48160, Derio, Bizkaia, Spain

    David San Martin, Mikel Orive, Ekaitz Martínez, Bruno Iñarra, Saioa Ramos & Jaime Zufía

  2. GEOGRAMA, Clemente Arráiz Margolariaren Kalea 3, E-01008, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

    Nagore González & Alejandro Guinea de Salas

  3. LKS, Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia, Laida bidea 207C, planta -1, E-48170, Zamudio, Spain

    Luis Alberto Vázquez

Authors
  1. David San Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mikel Orive
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ekaitz Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bruno Iñarra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Saioa Ramos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nagore González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alejandro Guinea de Salas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Luis Alberto Vázquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jaime Zufía
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

D.S.M conceived the presented idea and contributed to the original draft preparation and writing, review and editing. L.A.V. and J.Z. performed the data collection of the scenario under study. D.S.M., M.O. and B.I. focused on technical and economic assessment, as well as on the sensitive analysis. S.R. carried out the environmental assessment. N.G. and A.G.S conducted the geographical assessment. E.M. programmed the tool. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David San Martin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Ta Yeong Wu

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

San Martin, D., Orive, M., Martínez, E. et al. Multi-criteria assessment of the viability of valorising vegetable by-products from the distribution as secondary raw material for animal feed. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 15716–15730 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11752-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11752-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation