Underutilised Biomass Resources
As the global population continues to grow, so does the demand for food, energy, and other essential resources. This has intensified activities in the primary sectors as well as in the food industry. Unfortunately, these activities generate vast amounts of organic by-products such as crop residues, food waste, animal manure, fishery waste, forest and woody residues, which are commonly treat as waste.
In our previous blog, “Biomass Waste in the Primary Sector,” we highlighted that the EU generates around 425 million tonnes of waste biomass each year. But the real problem is not just the volume, it’s what happens to it. A staggering 98% of it is not recycled or recovered. It ends up in landfills, incinerators or in the open, releasing pollutants that harm the environment and public health.
Negative impacts
The inefficient waste management of biomass waste has severe consequences. But what are the real impacts of this? Here’s a closer look at them.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
When organic matter incinerates or decomposes in landfills or agricultural fields, it releases methane (CH₄), a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO₂), significantly accelerating global warming. [1] Additionally, air pollution from open burning further exacerbates environmental damage, releasing CO₂, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), fine particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), dioxins, ash and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). [2]
Soil Degradation and Water Contamination
Biomass waste mismanagement it can leach harmful substances into the soil and water systems. Decomposed organic matter can lead to nutrient imbalances, reducing soil fertility and increasing the need for synthetic fertilizers. [3] Additionally, their leachates can contaminate groundwater and surface water, affecting drinking water quality and aquatic ecosystems.
Health Risks
Exposure to airborne pollutants from open burning and landfill emissions can lead to respiratory diseases, cardiovascular problems, and other health issues, particularly in communities near waste disposal sites. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) is especially dangerous, [4] as it can penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream. Additionally, the presence of organic waste in open areas can attract pests and disease vectors, increasing the risk of outbreaks.
Economic Losses
Waste mismanagement not only damages the environment and public health but also leads to significant economic losses. Instead of being discarded, biomass could be transformed into valuable resources. Meanwhile, the costs of landfill maintenance, pollution control, and healthcare due to poor air quality place a heavy financial burden on governments and taxpayers. [5]
Biomass Waste by the Primary Sector
Let’s explore the specific types of biomass waste generated by the primary sector that contribute to these environmental, health and economic risks.
Agriculture
The agricultural residues production comes predominantly from cereals (73%) and to a lesser extent from oilseeds (17%) by 2023. Regarding crops, wheat and maize are the major contributors to agricultural biomass and for both crops, the biomass from residues exceeds the economic component. [6] Additionally, agricultural waste includes agro-forestry activities, which contribute approximately 350 million tons of biomass annually [7], much of which is either landfilled or incinerated.
Forestry
Forest residues primarily come from three sources. The first is slash from final fellings (cutting them down), which includes branches and treetops left behind after trees are harvested. [8] The second source consists of slash and small trees removed during thinning and cleaning processes, which are essential for maintaining forest health and growth. The third source is unmarketable wood, which refers to timber that does not meet commercial quality standards.
However, a key issue is that this waste is often incinerated without control or gas capture, which, as we have previously discussed, leads to significant GHG emissions and contributes to air pollution. Hence, finding alternative ways to manage and utilize these residues more sustainably is crucial to reducing their environmental impact.
Fisheries
Following the growth of the global population and the subsequent rapid increase in urbanization and industrialization, fisheries and aquaculture production has seen a massive increase driven mainly by the development of fishing technologies.
Over 70% of the fish caught is processed before reaching the market, leading to significant amounts of waste, ranging from 20% to 80%, depending on the type of processing (such as gutting, scaling, or filleting) and the species. Each species produces unique waste due to its size, shape, and chemical composition. The discarded materials typically include muscle trimmings (15-20%), skin and fins (1-3%), bones (9-15%), heads (9-12%), viscera (12-18%), and scales (5%). [9] Fish processing is an important need for large fish companies both to reduce the costs related to transport of inedible parts of the fish and to increase stability and quality of products, removing parts, such as the viscera, that might contain bacteria and enzymes, which represent a risk for processing and storage of the fish. Therefore, exploring alternative management solutions is essential.
Conclusion
The wide range of waste types presents many challenges, but these materials can be valorised. Initiatives like the PRIMED project are exploring diverse solutions to transform waste into valuable resources, which is essential for a sustainable future and a circular economy. In our next post, we will take a closer look at the valorisation process and how these solutions are opening the way to a more sustainable approach to waste management.
Stay tuned!
References
Cover and featured image by Emmet from Pexels
[1] Balcombe, P., Speirs, J.F., Brandon, N.P., Hawkes, A.D., 2018. Methane emissions: Choosing the right climate metric and time horizon. Environ. Sci. Process Impacts 20, 1323–1339.
[2] Meo, S. A., Salih, M. A., Al-Hussain, F., Alkhalifah, J. M., Meo, A. S., & Akram, A. (2024). Environmental pollutants PM2. 5, PM10, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, 28, 789-796.
[3] Bodor, A., Feigl, G., Kolossa, B., Mészáros, E., Laczi, K., Kovács, E., … & Rákhely, G. (2024). Soils in distress: The impacts and ecological risks of (micro) plastic pollution in the terrestrial environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 269, 115807.
[4] Hamanaka, R. B., & Mutlu, G. M. (2018). Particulate matter air pollution: effects on the cardiovascular system. Frontiers in endocrinology, 9, 680.
[5] https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/economic-instruments-and-separate-collection
[6] https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC133505
[7] Gupta, J., Kumari, M., Mishra, A., Akram, M., & Thakur, I. S. (2022). Agro-forestry waste management-A review. Chemosphere, 287, 132321.
[8] https://www.eubia.org/cms/wiki-biomass/biomass-resources/challenges-related-to-biomass/recovery-of-forest-residues/
[9] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7923225/#:~:text=More%20than%2070%25%20of%20the,each%20species%20has%20a%20specific
