IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v122y2021ics1389934120306638.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wood for food: Economic impacts of sustainable use of forest biomass for salmon feed production in Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Solberg, Birger
  • Moiseyev, Alex
  • Hansen, Jon Øvrum
  • Horn, Svein Jarle
  • Øverland, Margareth

Abstract

Aquaculture is the fastest growing animal food producing sector in the world with an annual growth rate of 7%. In Norway alone production of this industry is projected to expand from 1.2 million tons today to 5 million tons by 2050, implying a rapid increase in the demand for sustainable salmon feed alternatives to conventional feed resources such as fish meal and fish oil. Yeast produced from nonfood resources such as wood can serve as a high-quality protein source for farmed fish. In this study we analyze how commercial wood-based feed production in Norway using softwood chips from roundwood and sawmill residues will influence wood fiber prices. Such production will have to compete for wood fiber with wood-based bioenergy in particular, and the analyses were done assuming three main scenarios of expected global consumption of wood for bioenergy. The first scenario (Base) assumes a modest use of wood-based bioenergy reflecting the EU climate mitigation target for 2030. The second (MaxEnergy) and third (MaxEnergyLowRes) scenarios assume using bioenergy at a scale sufficient to fulfill IPCC's 2 °C climate mitigation target, with the only difference that in the MaxBio scenario tree stump utilization is allowed in Europe and USA. The bio-economic global partial equilibrium model EFI-GTM was applied to assess the economic impacts. Yeast production from wood in Norway could be able to pay from 37 to 64 euro/m3 of wood delivered mill site, the large variation depending on the yeast production costs other than wood biomass and the price of alternative fish feed resources. Other factors e.g. improved salmon health due to using wood-based yeast and environmental policy regulations of soya meal productions may increase this paying ability. To get 3 million m3 of wood per year during the period 2020–2030 for producing 330 t yeast it would be necessary to pay about 54, 47 and 55 euro/m3 in the scenarios Base, Bio and BioLowRes, respectively. The wood quantity supplied to the salmon feed production from additional Norwegian harvest will be rather low. If production of wood-based yeast for fish feed proves to be viable in Norway, it is likely to be attractive also in other aquaculture regions like North- and South America and Scotland, implying increased wood demand and higher wood prices than estimated above. Microbial ingredients like yeast produced from non-food biomass such as wood, offer potentials for commercial production. However, the present costs of producing yeast from lignocellulosic biomass may still be too high, and there is a need to develop more efficient processes for economic utilization.

Suggested Citation

  • Solberg, Birger & Moiseyev, Alex & Hansen, Jon Øvrum & Horn, Svein Jarle & Øverland, Margareth, 2021. "Wood for food: Economic impacts of sustainable use of forest biomass for salmon feed production in Norway," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:122:y:2021:i:c:s1389934120306638
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102337
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934120306638
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102337?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moiseyev, Alexander & Solberg, Birger & Kallio, A. Maarit I., 2014. "The impact of subsidies and carbon pricing on the wood biomass use for energy in the EU," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 161-167.
    2. Lauri, Pekka & Forsell, Nicklas & Gusti, Mykola & Havlík, Petr & Obersteiner, Michael, 2019. "Global Woody Biomass Harvest Volumes and Forest Area Use Under Different SSP-RCP Scenarios," Journal of Forest Economics, now publishers, vol. 34(3-4), pages 285-309, November.
    3. Solberg, Birger & Moiseyev, Alexander & Kallio, A. Maarit I., 2003. "Economic impacts of accelerating forest growth in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 157-171, July.
    4. Elmar Kriegler & Jae Edmonds & Stéphane Hallegatte & Kristie Ebi & Tom Kram & Keywan Riahi & Harald Winkler & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 401-414, February.
    5. Kallio, A. Maarit I. & Solberg, Birger & Käär, Liisa & Päivinen, Risto, 2018. "Economic impacts of setting reference levels for the forest carbon sinks in the EU on the European forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 193-201.
    6. Detlef Vuuren & Elmar Kriegler & Brian O’Neill & Kristie Ebi & Keywan Riahi & Timothy Carter & Jae Edmonds & Stephane Hallegatte & Tom Kram & Ritu Mathur & Harald Winkler, 2014. "A new scenario framework for Climate Change Research: scenario matrix architecture," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 373-386, February.
    7. Brian O’Neill & Elmar Kriegler & Keywan Riahi & Kristie Ebi & Stephane Hallegatte & Timothy Carter & Ritu Mathur & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 387-400, February.
    8. Kristie Ebi & Stephane Hallegatte & Tom Kram & Nigel Arnell & Timothy Carter & Jae Edmonds & Elmar Kriegler & Ritu Mathur & Brian O’Neill & Keywan Riahi & Harald Winkler & Detlef Vuuren & Timm Zwickel, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and future directions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 363-372, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kallio, A. Maarit I., 2021. "Wood-based textile fibre market as part of the global forest-based bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    2. Vergarechea, M. & Astrup, R. & Fischer, C. & Øistad, K. & Blattert, C. & Hartikainen, M. & Eyvindson, K. & Di Fulvio, F. & Forsell, N. & Burgas, D. & Toraño-Caicoya, A. & Mönkkönen, M. & Antón-Fernánd, 2023. "Future wood demands and ecosystem services trade-offs: A policy analysis in Norway," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daigneault, Adam & Favero, Alice, 2021. "Global forest management, carbon sequestration and bioenergy supply under alternative shared socioeconomic pathways," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    2. Lanzi, Elisa & Dellink, Rob & Chateau, Jean, 2018. "The sectoral and regional economic consequences of outdoor air pollution to 2060," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 89-113.
    3. McManamay, Ryan A. & DeRolph, Christopher R. & Surendran-Nair, Sujithkumar & Allen-Dumas, Melissa, 2019. "Spatially explicit land-energy-water future scenarios for cities: Guiding infrastructure transitions for urban sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 880-900.
    4. Richard Taylor & Ruth Butterfield & Tiago Capela Lourenço & Adis Dzebo & Henrik Carlsen & Richard J. T. Klein, 2020. "Surveying perceptions and practices of high-end climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 65-87, July.
    5. Roberto Roson & Richard Damania, 2016. "Simulating the Macroeconomic Impact of Future Water Scarcity: an Assessment of Alternative Scenarios," IEFE Working Papers 84, IEFE, Center for Research on Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    6. Enrica De Cian & Ian Sue Wing, 2016. "Global Energy Demand in a Warming Climate," Working Papers 2016.16, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    7. Tom Wilson & Irina Grossman & Monica Alexander & Phil Rees & Jeromey Temple, 2022. "Methods for Small Area Population Forecasts: State-of-the-Art and Research Needs," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 865-898, June.
    8. Victor Nechifor & Matthew Winning, 2017. "The impacts of higher CO2 concentrations over global crop production and irrigation water requirements," EcoMod2017 10487, EcoMod.
    9. Dugan, Anna & Mayer, Jakob & Thaller, Annina & Bachner, Gabriel & Steininger, Karl W., 2022. "Developing policy packages for low-carbon passenger transport: A mixed methods analysis of trade-offs and synergies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    10. Carl-Friedrich Schleussner & Joeri Rogelj & Michiel Schaeffer & Tabea Lissner & Rachel Licker & Erich M. Fischer & Reto Knutti & Anders Levermann & Katja Frieler & William Hare, 2016. "Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(9), pages 827-835, September.
    11. D. J. Rasmussen & Scott Kulp & Robert E. Kopp & Michael Oppenheimer & Benjamin H. Strauss, 2022. "Popular extreme sea level metrics can better communicate impacts," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Hongliang Zhang & Jianhong E. Mu & Bruce A. McCarl & Jialing Yu, 2022. "The impact of climate change on global energy use," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 1-19, January.
    13. Francesco Lamperti & Valentina Bosetti & Andrea Roventini & Massimo Tavoni, 2019. "The public costs of climate-induced financial instability," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(11), pages 829-833, November.
    14. Julien CALAS & Antoine GODIN & Julie MAURIN (AFD) & and Etienne ESPAGNE (World Bank), 2022. "Global biodiversity scenarios: what do they tell us for biodiversity-related socioeconomic impacts?," Working Paper 1a39419b-ef1d-4b82-a7be-d, Agence française de développement.
    15. Juliette N. Rooney-Varga & Florian Kapmeier & John D. Sterman & Andrew P. Jones & Michele Putko & Kenneth Rath, 2020. "The Climate Action Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(2), pages 114-140, April.
    16. Moyer, Jonathan D. & Hedden, Steve, 2020. "Are we on the right path to achieve the sustainable development goals?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    17. Jerome Dumortier & Miguel Carriquiry & Amani Elobeid, 2021. "Impact of climate change on global agricultural markets under different shared socioeconomic pathways," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 963-984, November.
    18. Ansari, Dawud & Holz, Franziska & Al-Kuhlani, Hashem, 2020. "Energy Outlooks Compared: Global and Regional Insights," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 9(1), pages 21-42.
    19. Kemp-Benedict, Eric & Carlsen, Henrik & Kartha, Sivan, 2019. "Large-scale scenarios as ‘boundary conditions’: A cross-impact balance simulated annealing (CIBSA) approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 55-63.
    20. Spalding-Fecher, Randall. & Senatla, Mamahloko & Yamba, Francis & Lukwesa, Biness & Himunzowa, Grayson & Heaps, Charles & Chapman, Arthur & Mahumane, Gilberto & Tembo, Bernard & Nyambe, Imasiku, 2017. "Electricity supply and demand scenarios for the Southern African power pool," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 403-414.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:122:y:2021:i:c:s1389934120306638. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.