Identification of key factors and sticking

points for fish by-products up-grading:

Comparison between French and

Spanish situations

Anaïs Penven, Julio Maroto, Jean-Pascal Bergé

Added-value from human sciences

Many biotechnological advances for marine by-

products upgradingIs it applicable or not?

From an approach top-town to an approach bottom-up

Need to do an integrated research melting numerous sciences

Fish by-productsOnly 50% of fish landed is really consumed

Unsold fish at auction

Discards dumped at sea

By-products from fish processing

Fillet : 40- 60 %

Skin : 1- 3 %Pulp : 9- 12 %

Head : 9- 12 %

Eggs-milt Viscera : 12- 18 %

Bone : 9- 15 %

Highly degradable raw material

Must be processed soon after its production to keep all its

organoleptic qualities

Many producers

Auctions Fishmongers Agro-food industries Supermarkets

Fish by-products up-grading potential

Two main kinds of up-grading

Mass exploitation

High-value exploitation

More valuable the sector is more the profits increase…

… but more sorting has to be done to reach specifications…

… and more selective is the market… so nowadays:

French situation

Management of fish by-products centralized and

monopolized

Throughout the French territory, two processing plants share a

major part of the market

CopalisBoulogne sur Mer

Dealing with deposits located in the northern part of France

BiocevalConcarneau

Dealing with deposits located in Normandy, Britanny and all over

the Atlantic coast

French West coast: BiocevalLarge operating scale

From Normandy to Spain border

Around 225 000 tons of fish landed at

auction (2011)

28 auctions and around 400 companies

to deal with

Bretagne is the more important region

15 auctions

More than 60% of fish landed

Placement of Bioceval explanation

Large survey in 2009Identify amounts of by-

products available deposits and their quality

Project Gestion Durable (2008-2011)

Conclusions

Volumes 45 000 T identified by surveys

90 000 T identified by estimations (using CR)Amounts and species

fluctuating from a company to

another

Processing less important in the southern part of

the coast : lower volumes

Scattered in space due

to numerous producers

Price of collection from free to 60€/T depending on many factors as

Volumes collected Kind of species Distance from the treatment site

Lack of quality

Storage depending of management

Not much sorting

60 000 T collected by Bioceval

Boulogne sur Mer: a singular case: Copalis

One operator for fish by-products in a reduced scale: Copalis

Founded in 1960 Cooperative status

French first fishing port

Around 36 000 tons of raw material landed at auction

European net for seafood processing

380 000 tons of raw material are routing to Boulogne sur Mer

every year

140 companies processing seafood products in the

area

Fleet of 150 vessels

Conclusions

Cooperative status

Company directly feed back

Suppliers paid fairly

Collection of 35 000 tons of fish by-products on a reduced scale

Years of presence and negotiations

Specifications and traceability ensured

Integrated process

Residues from high-value recovering are reintroduced in mass process to produce fishmeal, fish oils or

hydrolysates

Global supplier of marine ingredients for the nutraceutical, functional food,

animal nutrition and cosmetics industries

Quality

optimization

Comparison between French situations

2 companies, 2 ways to reach the critical size of production

Bioceval Copalis

Mono-product production Multi-products production

Spanish situation through Galicia case

Fishing in Galicia

90% of the Spanish fishing

Vigo: first European fishing port for human consumption

Vigo Boulogne sur Mer

Vessels 818 123

Fresh fish landings(in T) 84259 36096

Frozen fish landings (in T) 72382 NC

Sea products routed (in T) 621177 380000

Number of companies + de 700 + de 140

23 auctions in Galicia

197 companies which process fish

Including 74 fishmongers at Vigo’s auction

Around 165 000 tons of by-products estimated on the Galician territory (using CR) (87,660 tons of discards) (BIOTECMAR project, 2010)

By-products management

By-products generated in the fishing port of Vigo managed by one company: DILSEA

2264 tons collected in 2012 for all companies

operating in the port

Resale of the products to SARVAL

(SARIA group) located in La

Coruna

Service funded by the Port Authority, not

charged to companies

For other Galician companies

3 treatment plants producing fishmeal and fish oils collect and treat fish by-products (1 company produce fertilizers)

Conclusions

Presence in Galicia

Volumes Close processing companies

Freshness of by-products due to

close distance of the deposits

Researchers and technology transfer centers involved in

projects

Deposits grouped on a smaller territory than Bretagne in

France

Why by-products upgrading does not climb the pyramid?

Comparison with the French case

Explanations

Importance of industrial fishing in Galicia Amount of discards due to on-board

processing

Capture of the market by large groups

DILSEA abandons its activity of chondroitin sulfate producing

because of Bio Iberica competition

Lack of interest from professionals

no data, no cooperation, free service, no pay, no interest

Galician case highlights other factors

Monopoly / Capture of the market

Importance of cooperative system for a better

sharing of economical benefits

General conclusion

Make profits

Reach high-value markets

Optimize quality

Reduce transport

Find biomass on a reduced scaleAdapt critical size of the

treatment plant

Treat all biomass by using integrated

process

Share benefits

Development virtuous circle

Copalis strategy on Boulogne sur Mer territory seems to be the more efficient nowadays

Be competitive for suppliers and on

the market

Thanks for your attention

CONTACTAnaïs Penven

anais.penven@ifremer.fr