Dmitry Kechasov
Research Scientist
(+47) 404 67 991
dmitry.kechasov@nibio.no
Place
Særheim
Visiting address
Postvegen 213, NO-4353 Klepp stasjon
Authors
Anne Linn Hykkerud Meeri Santikko Michel Verheul Baoru Yang Niina Kelanne Dmitry Kechasov Anita SønstebyAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Oliver Körner Alice Boarino Martina Friuli Dmitry Kechasov Elio Dinuccio Luisella Celi Xingjiang Zhang-SchneiderAbstract
The re-usage of waste can strongly impact the environmental footprints of both the biogas production facility as waste-source and a receiver system as a greenhouse production. The waste product of the biogas-reactors as e.g. liquid and solid fertiliser. In a combined production with heated greenhouse-production both the main product biogas as well as its side products as water and the digestate are valuable compounds for a greenhouse production system. The impact of main and side products on the greenhouse produce depends on location, greenhouse type, and overall composition of the system. We analysed and modelled biogas-production of two biogas-greenhouse scenarios in Italy and Norway with each their specific input and outputs. For the two existing locations in Northern Italy (Trento; 46°04′N LAT) and Southern Norway (Sandefjord; LAT 59°08′N), and for a hypothetical location geographically between them (Berlin, Germany; 52°52′N) we analysed three scenarios of agricultural waste with either apple-juice production waste, waste from husbandry, or a mix of these two wastes; and their impact on environmental foot-prints of a tomato production in greenhouses. Scenarios were simulated with a greenhouse simulator, while simulation data was used as input to a consequential life cycle assessment. Functional unit was 1kg of tomato as gate.
Authors
Marthe Jordbrekk Blikra Tone Mari Rode Annelise Sabine Chapman Marit Gjerstad Dagbjørn Skipnes Danielle Gallagher Oisin Klinkenbergh Dag Einar Finne Florent Govaerts Dmitry Kechasov Dharm KapletiaAbstract
The C-FAARER CSA project was created with the overall aim of supporting marine innovators, entrepreneurs, and other pioneers in the Atlantic and Arctic Sea basin in transitioning towards the use of community-driven sustainable business models for regenerative ocean farming. The project previously defined regenerative ocean farming as “a form of marine venture that gives back more than it takes out, leaving nature in a better state that benefits future generations” (Kapletia et al., 2024). Community-driven regenerative ocean farming was defined as “concerned with creating a sustainable and mutually-beneficial balance between social, economic and environmental interests, providing renewable and systemic benefits to all who hold an interest in the future wealth of marine and coastal life.” This report provides the basis for Deliverable 4.1 within the Valorisation of the regenerative aquaculture products work package (WP4). Processing is a part of this WP, and processing technologies were included as an integral part of regenerative ocean farming since seaweed deteriorates rapidly post-harvest and needs rapid processing to maintain quality. Furthermore, the principles of community-driven regenerative ocean farming, as stated in Deliverable 1.1 (Kapletia et al., 2024), include the following (principle 3): “Farming and processing equipment is low impact, energy efficient, and suited for area/volume and environmental goals.” The objectives of WP4 are to assess the market potential of the downstream value chain and collaboratively identify and analyse potential applications, critically examine the dynamic relationship between production and processing, identify opportunities to increase value and reduce risk, and facilitate and explore the problem-opportunity space, where technological solutions may have a role to play in supporting valorisation. This deliverable presents case studies of members of the Norwegian Seaweed Association (NSA) in the context of their processing practices and product development. Within regenerative aquaculture, “products” include traditional products such as food, feed, and biostimulants. It can also be argued that other alternative revenue streams, like ecosystem services and social services, can also be considered “products”. This report takes a Case Study approach, in which ten semi-structured interviews with ten NSA seaweed businesses preceded follow-up consultations with a select few of these companies. A case study from outside the NSA was included as a comparison.
