Utilization of Fish Processing Waste: A Waste to Wealth Approach

Utilization of Fish Processing Waste: A Waste to Wealth Approach

Vikas Kumar, Armaan U. Muzaddadi, Sandeep Mann, Renu Balakrishnan, K. Bembem and Yogesh Kalnar
ICAR-CIPHET, Ludhiana-141004, Punjab
With increasing global fish production, a large quantity of material is available for processing and thereby increasing
the amount of waste generated. These byproducts or waste in the form of non-edible tissues like bones, skin/scales,
swim bladders, fins, intestines, blood, roes, liver etc. are rich source of valuable components such as protein, lipid,
enzymes bioactive peptides, pigments, flavours, vitamins and minerals. Therefore, it is imperative to recycle these
wastes into marketable products so as to add value to this waste and minimize environmental threat of pollution.
Globally, 20 million tonnes (approx., 12 % of total fish production, 171 MT) is used for non-food purposes. Out of
which, 15 MT is reduced to fishmeal and fish oil and the rest 5 MT is largely utilized as material for animal feed, as
bait, in pharmaceutical uses and for ornamental purposes. Though the classical approach utilizes these wastes for the
production of fish meal, fish oil, pet foods silage or fertilizer, the recent advances in biotechnology and processing
techniques changes the traditional approach and introduces new approach to produce high value components such as
collagen and gelatin, enzymes etc. Therefore, we advocate the utilization of fish processing waste for turning it into
wealth.
Introduction
Fish is a broad term that includes any aquatic organisms harvested for commercial purposes, whether caught in
wild fisheries or harvested from aquaculture or fish farming. The term fish (whether of freshwater, estuarine/
brackish water or marine/ salt water) include finfish, crustaceans (cray fish, crab, prawn/shrimp, lobster) and mollusks
(bivalves such as mussel, oyster, scallop and univalves like abalone, snail, conch and cephalopods such as squid
cuttlefish, octopus) (Sachindra and Mahendrakar, 2015). Seafood, synonymously used for marine fish, generally
refers to a group of biologically divergent edible animals (excluding mammals) consisting not only of fish (finfish),
whether of freshwater, estuarine, or marine habitats, but also of shellfish (Suresh and Prabhu, 2012). It seafood
includes a diverse range of aquatic animals and therefore the non-edible part generated varies greatly in composition
and amount (Suresh and Prabhu, 2012). In 2015, fish accounted for about 17 percent of animal protein, and 7 percent
of all proteins, consumed by the global population. Fish provided about 3.2 billion people with almost 20 percent of
their average per capita intake of animal protein (SOFIA, 2018). Globally fish and fish products provide an average
of 34 calories per capita per day. Fish has also significant dietary contribution in terms of high quality, easily digested
proteins especially in fighting micronutrient deficiencies.
Generally the yield calculated by the fish processing industry is based on a gutted fish with head-on, that is
typically 40% on an average (Marsh and Bechtel, 2012). Fish processing generates 35-40% edible meat and the
remaining non-edible tissues are bones, skin/scales, swim bladders, intestines, roes, liver, blood etc. (Sachindra and
Mahendrakar, 2015). The demand for RTE and other value added product that requires skinless, boneless fillets
further increases the amount of waste generated. Many species are inadvertently caught while harvesting fish and
crustaceans and that are not processed for human consumption also adds to the waste (Marsh and Bechtel, 2012).
Processing of finfishes generates 10–50% of the total weight as non-edible parts, which includes head, gut (viscera),
skin, bone, and flesh remaining on the bone. Shellfishes, especially crustaceans, generate up to 85% of raw material
as non-edible parts, which include head, shell (carapace), viscera, and appendages (Suresh and Prabhu, 2012). Fish
processing discards usually accounts for 3/4th of total weight of catch. Discards are generally dumped in-land or
hauled into the ocean. Meal and silage has also the potential of waste utilization. Recently, the focus is on the
potential utilization of tongue, cheek, stomach, liver, fish skin, chitnous material, caroteniod pigments, flavourants, gut
enzymes, anti-freezing proteins etc. (Shahidi, F., 1994). Filleting generates discards up to 75%. Entire offals from cod
fishery may be used as a feed component, silage or fish meal. Protein value of offals is usually estimated by protein
efficiency ratio (PER) and Amino Acid Score. Shahidi, F. (1994) found the quality of shrimp proteins (PER value
2.79-2.88) to be superior to that of crab shells (PER value, 2.30-2.42).

Emerging Post-Harvest Engineering and Techological Interventions for Enhancing Farmer's Income 127
Vikas Kumar et al.

Large portion of these by-products are underutilized or wasted or discarded (Sachindra and Mahendrakar,
2015). Dumping of these byproducts not only results in loss of large amount of bioactive rich materials but also leads
to pollution problems. Recycling of these by-products into marketable products can be a solid waste management
strategy. Treated fish waste can have multiple applications such as ingredient in animal feed, for the production of
biodiesel/biogas, cosmetics (collagen), enzyme isolation and soil fertilizer (Sachindra and Mahendrakar, 2015). Fish
waste (byproduct) can be utilized for human consumption (e.g. mince, roe, fish heads, nutraceuticals), agricultural or
allied uses (fish hydrolysate, fertilizer, compost) and non-nutritional uses (biodiesel and fuel, chitin and chitosan,
caroteniods pigments, leather and gelatin) (Marsh and Bechtel, 2012).
Fish Production
Total global fish production in 2016 was 171 million tonnes (MT) (marine capture fisheries: 79.3 MT + freshwater
capture fisheries: 11.6 MT + aquaculture: 80 MT). Out of which 151.2 MT was directly consumed by humans as
food. Amount of production lost to spoilage or thrown away after landing and prior to consumption was 46.17 MT (27
% of all landings). In 2016, 20 million tonnes (approx., 12 % of total fish production, 171 MT) was used for non-food
purposes globally. Out of which, 15 MT is reduced to fishmeal and fish oil and the rest 5 MT is largely utilized as
material for animal feed, as bait, in pharmaceutical uses and for ornamental purposes (SOFIA, 2018). Today, Norway
has developed modern processing facilities to manage over 0.65MT of seafood by-products each year and the
Norwegian Atlantic salmon industry utilizes around 90% of its byproducts. In Vietnam, Pangasius by-products are
well separated and directed to specific industries for value addition (Stevens, et.al. 2018). Stevens, et.al. (2018) also
advocated the strategic utilization of aquaculture by-products using Fish In: Fish Out (FI:FO) concept. A responsible
and sustainable use of fish resources, whether from capture fisheries or from aquaculture, foresees an efficient
utilization of the whole fish including the use of the various by-products generated throughout the processing stage”.
Fishery By-products
“By-product” indicates something that is not regarded as an ordinary saleable product but can be used after
treatment and the term “waste” refers to products that cannot be used for feed or food but have to be composted or
destroyed (Suresh and Prabhu, 2012).EC regulation on animal byproducts (EC No.1774/2002) defines animal byproducts
as whole or parts of animals or products that is not fit for and intended for human consumption. Though co-products,
co-streams, discrads or waste are synonymously used, the term waste seems to mean the material has no value
(Sachindra and Mahendrakar, 2015). There are different terms such as “by-product,” “co-product,” “fish waste,”
“fish offal,” “fish visceral mass,” “fish discards,” and so on that are applied to describe the non-edible parts of
seafood processing (Suresh and Prabhu, 2012). Stevens, et.al.(2018) defined the term by-products as all the materials,
edible or nonedible, left over following the preparation of main products. For finfishes, typical byproducts include
trimmings, skins, heads, frames (bones with attached flesh), viscera (guts) and blood. Stevens, et.al.(2018) reported
the fractions of byproduct as percentage of total wet weight of atlantic salmon: Viscera (12.5%), Heads (10%),
Frames (10%), Skins (3.5%), Blood (2%), Trimming (2%), Belly flap (1.5%). Moreover, table 1 shows the percentage
of finfish processing by-product fraction out of total weight of fish (Suresh and Prabhu, 2012).
Potential Use of Fish Waste or Byproducts
Very recently, biotechnological processes such as biocatalytic and fermentation processes have emerged as an
integral part of seafood processing; they serve not only as an attractive alternative to chemical, physical, and mechanical
methods in the processing of seafood by-products, but also as tools for recovering various valuable components
(Suresh and Prabhu, 2012). Biotechnological processes are well recognized as eco-friendly processes which provide
a possibility to recover additional useful components other than the target component from the raw materials (Suresh
and Prabhu, 2012). Various other valuable components extracted from fish waste and their application have tabulated
in Table 1. Table 3 shows Potential Bioactive/ Valuable Components from Processing By-Products of Finfish.
Shellfish Processing By-Products with their potential Valuable/Bioactive Components have been detailed in Table 4
and table 5.

128 Emerging Post-Harvest Engineering and Techological Interventions for Enhancing Farmer's Income
 Utilization of Fish Processing Waste: A Waste to Wealth Approach

Table 1: Percentage of finfish processing by-product fraction out of total weight of fish
(Suresh and Prabhu, 2012)

By-products Head Gut Skin Bones Trimming

Percentage of by-products 14–20 15–20 1–3 10–16 1–5

Table 2: Valuable components and the utilization of fish by-products (Stevens, et.al. 2018)

By-Product Valuable components Utilized as

Heads Proteins, peptides, lipids, collagen, gelatine, minerals Food, fish meal, fish oil, food grade hydrolysates, animal
including calcium, flavour grade hydrolysates, pet food, nutraceuticals, cosmetics
Frames (bones, Proteins, peptides, lipids, collagen, gelatine, minerals Food, fish meal, fish oil, food grade hydrolysates, animal
flesh, fins) including calcium, flavour grade hydrolysates, pet food, nutraceuticals, cosmetics
Trimmings Proteins, peptides, lipids Food, fish meal, fish oil, food grade hydrolysates, animal
grade hydrolysates, pet food
Viscera Proteins, peptides, lipids, enzymes such as lipases Food grade hydrolysates, animal grade hydrolysates, fish
meal, fish oil, fuel, fertilisers
Skin (with Collagen, gelatine, lipids, proteins, peptides, minerals, Fish meal, fish oil, cosmetics, food, fish meal, nutraceuticals,
belly flap) flavour cosmetics, leather, fuel,fertilisers
Blood Proteins, peptides, lipids, thrombin & fibrin Fuel, fertiliser, therapeutants

Table 3: Potential Bioactive/ Valuable Components from Processing By-Products of Finfish

(Suresh and Prabhu, 2012)

Category Bioactive components By-products

Enzymes Proteolytic Fish gut

Collagenolytic Fish gut
Lipases Fish gut
Flavors Finfish flavor Gut, head, frame
Functional ingredients Cartilage Head, fin, and skeleton of shark
Chondroitin sulfate Shark cartilage
Fish bone Fish frames and bones
Fish oil and lipid Gut and head
Collagen and gelatin Head, skin, fin, scales, bones, cartilages
Micronutrients Calcium Fish bones
Other minerals Fish bones
Vitamin Fish oil
Nutraceutical Lipid Gut and head
Omega-3 oil Fish oil and lipid
Biopeptides Various by-products,protein hydrolysates
Cartilage Head, fin, and skeleton of shark
Chondroitin sulfate Shark cartilage
Squalene Shark liver oil
Collagen and gelatin Head, skin, fin, scales, bones, cartilages
Active pharmaceutical ingredients Omega-3 oil Fish oil and lipid
Chondroitin sulfate Shark cartilage
Squalene Shark liver oil
Biofuel Biodiesel Fish oil, gut, head
Biogas Gut, head
Biomaterial/biopolymer Chondroitin sulfate Shark cartilage
Collagen and gelatin Head, skin, fin, scales, bones, cartilages

Emerging Post-Harvest Engineering and Techological Interventions for Enhancing Farmer's Income 129
Vikas Kumar et al.

Table 4: Shellfish Processing By-Products with their potential Valuable/Bioactive Components

(Suresh and Prabhu, 2012)

Sources By-products Percentage of byproducts Valuable bioactive components

Crustacean Shrimp/prawn Head, shell 65–85 Chitin, chitosan, N-acetyl chitooligosaccharides,

chitosan oligosaccharides, N-acetyl-d-glucosamine, d-
glucosamine, pigment protein, protein hydrolysate,
enzymes, flavor
Crab Back shell, viscera, 60–70 Chitin, pigment
gills, claws shell
Lobster Head, shell Up to 60 Chitin, pigment, flavor
Krill Head, shell 71–74 Chitin, pigment, protein, hydrolysate, oil
Crayfish Head, shell Up to 85 Chitin, pigment, oil, flavor
Molluscs Scallop, clam, Shell, nonedible 60–80 Protein hydrolysate, enzyme, flavor
including oyster, mussel, body part
cephalopods etc.
Squid Ink bag, gladius or pen, 25–32 Chitin, enzymes, bioactive peptides, collagen, gelatin
liver, other organs
Octopus Intestine, mouth 10–20 Collagen, gelatin
apparatus, eyes
Coelenterate Sea urchin Shell, viscera Collagen, gelatin
and echinoderm Sea cucumber — — Protein hydrolysate, bioactive, collagen, gelatin
Jelly fish — — Protein hydrolysate, collagen, gelatin

Table 5: Potential Bioactive/Valuable Components from Processing By-Products of Shellfish

Category Bioactive components By-products

Enzymes Chitinases Prawn liver, shrimp processing waste water

Lipase Shellfish by-products
Transglutaminase Shellfish by-products
Polyphenoloxidase Shellfish by-products
Alkaline phosphatase Shrimp by-products, shrimp processing waste water
Lysozyme Scallop by-products
Chlamysin Clam viscera
Hyaluronidase Shrimp processing waste water
Pigment Carotenoid (astaxanthin) Crustacean by-products
Flavors Shellfish flavor Lobster/crab/crayfish/clam by-products
Functional ingredients Chitin and chitosan Crustacean head and shell, squid pen
Chitin and chitosan oligomers Crustacean head and shell, squid pen
N-Acetyl-d-glucosamine and d-glucosamine Crustacean head and shell, squid pen
Collagen and gelatin Outer skin and cartilaginous tissues of cuttlefish,
octopus, and squid
Exumbrella and mesogela
Shell of sea urchin
Micronutrients Calcium Exoskeleton of various shellfish
Biopeptides Protein hydrolysates
Collagen and gelatin Outer skin and cartilaginous tissues of cuttlefish,
octopus, and squid;
Exumbrella and mesogela
Shell of sea urchin
Active pharmaceutical Carotenoid Crustacean shell
ingredients N-Acetyl-d-glucosamine Crustacean shell
Collagen and gelatin Outer skin and cartilaginous tissues of cuttlefish,
octopus, and squid;
Exumbrella and mesogela
Shell of sea urchin

130 Emerging Post-Harvest Engineering and Techological Interventions for Enhancing Farmer's Income
 Utilization of Fish Processing Waste: A Waste to Wealth Approach

Future
There is an increased demand for complete utilization of the abundant fish processing by-products not only as
untapped sources of bioactive molecules but also to minimize the related environmental issues (Suresh and Prabhu,
2012) and thereby the future of fish processing waste for its utilization and bioconversion is promising with the right
state of mind and interest. The fish processing industry and related stakeholders can intervene and make progress in
future in terms of resource mobilization, value addition, product diversification and sustainable growth.
Conclusion
Fish processing waste or by-products have vast potential for their utilization. It is possible to recover the bioactive
components and molecules using appropriate technologies and recent technological advances. Presently, the utilization
of biomolecules have come a long way and have received an increased interest from many researchers across the
globe. Literatures are available for the process which can be applied for easier processing and recovery of bioactive
components and biomolecules from some of the prospective fish processing by-products or waste. However, the
technical feasibility does not necessarily translate into economical feasibility and therefore, a fish processor should
critically review by-product utilization options before committing to a specific process.
References
Balachandran, K. K. (2001). Post-harvest technology of fish and fish products. Daya Books, Delhi.
Cardoso, Carlos and Nunes, Maria Leonor. (2013). Improved Utilization of Fish Waste, Discrads, and By-products and Low-
value Fish towards Food and Health Products. In: Utilization of fish waste (Gálvez, R. P., & Bergé, J. P., Eds.). CRC
Press.Chapter-2, p-26-51.
Gopakumar, K. (2002). Textbook of fish processing technology.ICAR, New Delhi.
Marsh, L., and Bechtel, P. J. (2012). Waste (By Product) Utilization. The Seafood Industry: Species, Products, Processing, and
Safety, 128-135.
Sachindra, M. M., and Mahendrakar, M. S. (2015). Fish processing by-products: quality assessment and applications.
Sen, D. P. (2005). Advances in fish processing technology(Vol. 1). Allied Publishers.
Shahidi, F. (1994). Seafood processing by-products. In Seafoods: Chemistry, processing technology and quality (pp. 320-334).
Springer, Boston, MA.
Stevens, J. R., Newton, R. W., Tlusty, M., & Little, D. C. (2018). The rise of aquaculture by-products: Increasing food production,
value, and sustainability through strategic utilisation. Marine Policy, 90, 115-124.
Suresh, P.V. and Prabhu, G.N. (2012). Seafood. In: Valorization of food processing by-products (Chandrasekaran, M., Ed.). CRC
Press. Chapter-23, p-685-736.

Emerging Post-Harvest Engineering and Techological Interventions for Enhancing Farmer's Income 131