Welcome to Biobord!

Sheep help keep the landscape open. At the same time, wool can be produced in an ecologically sustainable way.

Wool production in Finland is challenging. Finnish wool has good properties and is produced sustainable, but it is not profitable for sheep farmers. Spinning mills currently pay the producer so little compensation for raw wool that it does not necessarily cover even the costs of cutting the wool of the sheep, let alone the sorting costs of wool. With a view to further processing of wool, production should be developed in terms of sheep breeding, feeding and care, as well as in terms of barns conditions, wool sorting and logistics. If the raw wool were of high quality, clean and properly sorted, the spinning mills could also cost a better price for the sheep farmers.

We started the discussion of these starting points in a panel discussion organized by the RDI2CluB project (EU Development fund programme Intterg Baltic Sea Region) managed by the Institute of Bioeconomy at JAMK University of Applied Sciences on Tuesday, September 15, 2020 in BioPaavo in Saarijärvi. The panel was attended by sheep farmers Pia Niemeläinen from the Niemelä sheep farm and Maija Suutarinen from the Hakamaa sheep farm, logistics lecturer Ilkka Suur-Uski from JAMK University of Applied Sciences, sheep and goat production expert Milla Alanco-Ollqvist from ProAgria and entrepreneur Eeva Piesala from Piiku. Annemari Sinikorpi from the Institute of Bioeconomy at JAMK University of Applied Sciences was the moderator of the panel discussion.

Finn sheep wool should be better branded

The wool of Finland's most common sheep, Finn sheep, is high-quality and good handicraft wool with many opportunities in the world. Despite its good properties, Finnish sheep wool is not very well known in the world, and there would be a need for its brand. Although Finn sheep's wool is usually almost as high quality as merino wool, its small amount compared to merino makes branding difficult. the discussion revealed question that which organization should do the branding. Based on the discussion, it was concluded that it shouldn't be the responsibility of the wool producer.

The small amount of Finnish wool also means that it cannot compete on price in the world. In small volumes, sales and branding should be based more on individual production sold through storytelling and utilizes domestic strengths. The Finnish wool brand must therefore emphasize its ecology, the pure nature of Finland and the ethics of the wool chain.

The quality of the wool matters

The quality of the wool plays a key role when looking at profitability. Clean, the right length and properly sorted wool makes wool processing easier and faster. The quality is greatly influenced by the conditions in which the animals are kept, such as the drying of the pens, the humidity of the barns indoor air and the vegetation of the pastures. Feeding and arranging it can have a big impact on the quality of wool. It is worth noting that the most efficient and practical feeding method is often not the best option for wool quality. Processing and producing good wool are a long-term task that must be considered throughout the whole life cycle of a sheep.

Besides of the conditions of barns and care, also the sheep breed, breeding and production stage affect the wool quality. As a matter a fact every point of a sheep's life affected wool and it's quality. The cutting and its timing are also important. By timing the cut, the length of the wool is made as desired, but it can also affect the cleanliness of the wool. After cutting, the raw wool should be sorted, stored and packed correctly.

It is already possible to utilize first class wool quite well in Finland, but the potential for productization of second-class wool was highlighted in the discussion. However, wool that is not suitable for handicraft use can be used, for example, as a soil improver, insulation material, filling for blankets or in the care of horses' feet. Except for the dirtiest wools, almost all wool is suitable for some purpose and should be better utilized.

If there isn't logistics there isn't products

Whatever the quality of the wool is, it should be sent for processing soon after cutting and sorting. Transporting the wool to the spinning mill is one of the most expensive point in the entire wool chain. In addition to the kilometers traveled, transport costs are also affected by the weight and volume of the

cargo. Wool is lightweight raw material, so weight often does not pose problems in logistics. The volume can be influenced by tightly packing the wool, for example with a wool press, whereby the volume of the package can be minimized. From a logistics point of view, wool is a good product to transport, because more often the limiting factor in freight is weight, so wool could fill the free transport capacity without exceeding the weight limits.

There would be much room for improvement in farm logistics in Finland. Often, wools would be transport by the return loads of trucks if driven organizer would know when, what, how much, and where it should be transported. Logistics was found to be not only the transfer of goods but also the transfer of information, and it is precisely that information that should be made to flow better between the various parties. The lack of a unified system was perceived as a problem for data transfer. An efficient operation would require an information system that would transfer the information on outgoing batches of wool would be made available to transport operators. In that way driven organizer could take the wools into account in their route planning.

From the perspective of an individual farm it would be worthwhile to pack the wool to transport at the same truck that brings other goods, such as feed loads, arrive at the farm. In this case, the wool load would go from the farm to the terminal, where it would be easier to arrange its onward transport to the right destination. This would increase the efficiency of both, the animal farm and the transport companies. However, the operation would require agreements between different actors.

A bigger role for the spinning mills?

The debate also raised the idea that spinning mills would take over the collection of wools, making operations more systematic. Through the spinning mills, the information would transfer to transport operators, which could plan their routes according to their needs. The activity could also combine common wool sorting or packing points, where farmers could bring their wool for packing. With the points, the wool would be pressed into tight packaging, thus would minimize the need for space. This function requires some author to perform it. It remained unclear what would be the right author for this.

The collection of wool was also proposed to be arranged by the spinning mills. The spinning mills could sell a service where a person they hired would go around the farms cutting, sorting, packing and picking up the wool. However, cutting is seasonal and this would require more than one or two teams to operate. However, the operation would be good option for those farms which use cutting services.

The capacity of Finnish spinning mills also sparked debate. There are several spinning mills in Finland, but still the sheep farmers must wait a long time to get their wool spun. The discussion highlighted the efficiency of the operation of the spinning mills. Could the spinning mills improve their efficiency? If a new spinning mill is planned, the activity could be identified for a different purpose than the production of traditional yarn. It was generally hoped that unused spinning mills machines would be better placed on the market to be put into service if they are not currently in use.

Profitably would rise with better quality and cooperation

The branding of Finnish wool should be increased and co-operation in its production should be improved. Cooperation would require good communication and information flow in order to work. With a better flow of information and a smooth co-operation, Finnish wool and wool products could be exported to the world where good markets were seen. In Finland, almost everyone knows how to make handicrafts, so their appreciation is not in the same category as abroad. The purity of Finnish nature, northern exotics, the ecology of wool products, the ethics of the production chain and the traceability of wool should be utilized in marketing.

Cooperation would require some author to organize activities and the flow of information. Cooperation should also be cross-professional, so that the strengths of different sectors could be harnessed for the use of the wool chain. When considering the profitability of Finnish wool, all factors should consider. For example, support policy with animal welfare compensation, can improve the profitability of wool. It must also be remembered that poor quality wool is not well compensated. When wool is made of better quality, its demand increases, and the price paid for it is higher. It is therefore hoped that the authors of wool chain will have open minds, big and maybe even crazy ideas and cooperation, as well as the courage to go beyond Finland's borders.

Results of the panel discussion: challenging Finnish wool production

Wool production in Finland is challenging. Finnish wool has good properties and is produced sustainable, but it is not profitable for sheep farmers. Spinning mills currently pay the producer so little compensation for raw wool that it does not necessarily cover even the costs of cutting the wool of the sheep, let alone the sorting costs of wool. With a view to further processing of wool, production should be developed in terms of sheep breeding, feeding and care, as well as in terms of barns conditions, wool sorting and logistics. If the raw wool were of high quality, clean and properly sorted, the spinning mills could also cost a better price for the sheep farmers.

We started the discussion of these starting points in a panel discussion organized by the RDI2CluB project managed by the Institute of Bioeconomy at JAMK University of Applied Sciences on Tuesday, September 15, 2020 in BioPaavo in Saarijärvi. The panel was attended by sheep farmers Pia Niemeläinen from the Niemelä sheep farm and Maija Suutarinen from the Hakamaa sheep farm, logistics lecturer Ilkka Suur-Uski from JAMK University of Applied Sciences, sheep and goat production expert Milla Alanco-Ollqvist from ProAgria and entrepreneur Eeva Piesala from Piiku. Annemari Sinikorpi from the Institute of Bioeconomy at JAMK University of Applied Sciences was the moderator of the panel discussion.

Biobord platform offers a transnational discussion group for sheep farmers and other stakeholders related to sheep industry. Join the discussion!

https://forum.biobord.eu/t/results-of-the-panel-discussion-challenging-finnish-wool-production/1744?u=riikkakumpulainen

Aija Hytönen, JAMK University of Applied Sciences - Institute of Bioeconomy

Since October 2020, the ConnectedByBiobord project partners have been collaborating to develop new technological approaches for monitoring of large-bodied wild animals and free-ranging live-stock. As a part of this process, the partners reviewed existing capabilities of various remote sensing technologies and assessed their potential for monitoring of large-bodied wild animals, free-ranging livestock and their habitat.

The partners explored existing and future challenges of wildlife monitoring and management in the Baltic Sea Region context; reviewed and assessed currently used approaches and methods for monitoring of wild animals, free ranging livestock and their habitats; collected and conducted analysis of stakeholder needs in every partner country, identified opportunities for the development of innovative, technology-based solutions for monitoring of large-bodied wild animals, free-ranging livestock and their habitats.

The study focused on dominant, large-bodied ungulate species in the countries of Baltic Sea Region and Norway, including elk (Alces alces), red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), and wild boar (Sus scrofa); free-ranging livestock and semi-domestic reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), and effective and remote data acquisition technologies with minimal human involvement from a data acquisition perspective.

The Technological Report will be further exploited to design and conduct technological piloting and demonstration activities in Latvia, Norway and Finland with a purpose to test the application of various technologies and tools in practice.

The full report is available here.

For more information about the ConnectedByBiobord project and innovation activities please refer to the Open Forum of Biobord platform - https://forum.biobord.eu/c/open-forum/29

As a part of the ConnectedByBiobord project, we are in the process of upgrading the Biobord platform and defining our network activities for the term 2021-2027. The aim is to establish a sustainable operating model for our network activities. Guiding principles for the upgrading include ‘keeping it simple’ as well as targeting information separately to network partners and other users.

Ongoing upgrades of the platform include improvements in navigation and user guidance. We now offer quick access to messages and preferences for the registered users. The quick access is added to your login list that you can access from the site’s head banner under your profile name. The Terms of Service and Privacy Policy are also available via the login list.

For targeted guidance, visit our ‘About’ page and you will find updated information for Biobord users and for our network partners. We are also in the process of defining information package for the new users and aspiring partners. Our final user guides and guides for network partners will be published by the end of June. However, you are already able to study the drafts via the ‘About’ page.

More updates are coming up soon as we will also upgrade our Network map to feature the network partners. New updated map will include search features to study the network partners.

Food Hack by Biobord - international on-line food innovation development workshop and competition - took place 11.03. - 12.03.2021, for two days gathering 6 experts and 13 companies from Sweden, Latvia, Finland, and Estonia to address several specific challenges and develop new products in the field of alternative proteins and functional foods by working in international teams.

Inspiring presentations from experienced experts

The event was filled with inspirational presentations from multiple experts. “Is food only food when you eat it?” by the eating designer Marije Vogelzang (NL) gave several innovative examples of how food can be seen from multiple, more irrational angles, making the experience of food consumption different for each one of us by changing the narrative of different products. Reetta Kivelä, Professor of Practice in University of Helsinki (FI), raised the question “Are we living in a protein boom?”. “Green, blue and red. Exploring alternative proteins and novel foods” was presented by Viktoria Olsson, Senior lecturer, Food & Meal Science at Kristianstad University (SE). Eila Järvenpää, Senior Scientist in Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) gave an insight on diversifying protein sources and their benefits on each of us and our planet. Mari Jaakkola, Project Manager at University of Oulu, Kajaani University Consortium, Unit of Measurement Technology (MITY) (FI), introduced several alternative ways of Lingonberry utilization, as well as fermentation, protein research and special sample treatment techniques. “Global market trends in organic functional proteins and ingredients” was presented by Erkki Pöytäniemi, CEO of Kurmakka Organic Food Ltd. (FI)

The hacking process and results

The teams had a rather difficult task – to solve the challenges and come up with new ideas in the field of alternative proteins and functional foods. Each group were given a possibility to receive a 30-minute consultation from the external experts/coaches, to better understand the right direction towards a solution which was then evaluated by a team of jury.

The challenge “Finding new and different strategies for marketing healthy and nutritious food” was solved by representatives from Aloja-Starkelsen (LV), the largest producer of potato starch in the Baltic states, as well as one of the largest producers of organic potato starch on a global scale; Felici (LV), developers of functional muesli, hot cereal and quick meal of high nutritional value, Ferla (EE), producer of fermented vegetable drink, The Kefir guy (FI), kefir producer and MTÜ Roheliselt Värske Elu (EE), promoters of organic production from small local farmers. The solution provided was based on the step-by-step changes by addressing the society on the benefits gained by plant-based diet.

To solve the challenge “Changing the perception of plant-based protein”, the second team, Suomen Hampputuotteet Oy (FI), investors in pure Finnish raw materials, Lipasu Oy/Härtelö (FI), producers of a new, sustainable base ingredient combined with beloved traditions, Aloja-Starkelsen and Felici, suggested showing the society how to easily cook tasty warm meals that replace animal-based meals and developing superior plant-based snacks by using urban advertising. “Changing the perception of plant-based proteins as an alternative to meat products is achieved through complex activities – the real product to offer, like Hemp-burger, brown pea chunks and fava bean ice cream as well as public education activities.”

The third team represented by GreenBite (EE), the first company in Estonia producing food from insects, BugBox (EE), producers of high-quality ecological and sustainable protein powder in large quantities as alternative to existing animal protein, and Tebrito (SE), sustainable and innovative insect product producers, worked on the challenge “Transforming the attitude towards new products including protein from insects and food”. The innovation of this group consisted of making a fun educational program “WISH to taste a bug?!” which would create interest to taking the first bite resulting in the insects as a regular and normal food.

The challenge “Exploration of new protein resources” gathered companies Lupinta (SE), producers of lupin-based products, MILZU! (LV), producer of a healthy cereal, which turns rye into a special meal, Fagraslätt (SE), organic food producers, Aloja-Starkelsen and Felici. The main factors in making their innovation were the challenges of increasing food waste, and fast-moving lifestyle which motivated the team in making an actual product prototype - plant based vegan pancake DIY, mix, consisting of beer leftovers, brown pea and fava bean protein called “Morning Heaven Magic Mix”. The benefits of this product would be convenient use and production, richness of organic plant-based protein and use of beer processing side-stream ingredients which decreases food waste and develops a more sustainable environment. The first actual product prototype was already developed during the hackathon.

When evaluating each team’s work, several jury criteria regarding the solution vs challenge, process, market potential, level of innovation and sustainability were taken into consideration. “We selected the winner based on the excellent and practical team-work and the process of utilizing all of the groups’ knowledge and local side-streams,” said the jury member when announcing the winner – group number four – developers of Morning Heaven Magic Mix product concept!

What happens next?

The follow-up workshop of the hackathon will take place on the 28th of April 2021 when Lupinta, MILZU!, Fagraslätt, Aloja-Starkelsen and Felici will have a chance to meet more experts and receive consultations to take their product innovation even further. Not only that, but the open part of the workshop will also include new key notes and great international networking possibilities.