TwinTucks Biosciences

The problem we work on

Processing waste accounts for 40 to 60% of whole fish weight. At a harbour handling hundreds of tonnes of landings a day, that is a very large quantity of organic material. Much of it is discarded on the shoreline, where it decays and generates methane, or diverted into low-value meal.

India's national fisheries policy explicitly targets reducing post-harvest loss from 20–25% down to 10%. Converting by-product into food-grade and feed-grade materials sits directly inside that objective.

WasteDiverted from shoreline disposal into productive use
ValueHigher value extracted from every landing
JobsEmployment across collection, processing and quality control
EffluentMineral recovery designed in, rather than discharged
Blue economy

A blue economy business, not a marine extraction one

India's blue economy policy rests on using ocean resources for growth while keeping the resource base intact. Most marine ventures take something out of the sea. We take nothing.

Every kilogram we process comes from fish that was already caught, already landed and already sold for food. We add no fishing effort, no vessel time and no pressure on any stock. Our raw material begins its life with us at the moment it would otherwise have been thrown away.

That places the venture in the circular part of the blue economy rather than the extractive part — recovering value from what the existing fishery already produces, rather than asking the sea for more.

Where this sits in policy

  • PMMSY — targets reducing post-harvest loss from 20-25% to 10%
  • India's Blue Economy framework — sustainable use of marine resources for growth and livelihoods
  • SDG 14, Life Below Water — no incremental fishing pressure
  • SDG 12, Responsible Production — waste valorisation over disposal
  • Circular bioeconomy — by-product as feedstock, not as effluent
Resource use

What marine sourcing actually changes

Collagen is extracted from an animal, and buyers reasonably ask what that animal cost the planet. The honest answer is more interesting than a bar chart.

Why there is no comparison chart here. You will see marine collagen suppliers publish charts comparing the carbon footprint of beef against fish. Those charts are not valid, and we will not use one. Bovine collagen comes from hide and bone, porcine from skin — every commercial collagen is a by-product of an animal raised for meat. Charging cattle's full footprint to bovine collagen while claiming by-product status for our own would be arguing both sides of the same point. How footprint should be allocated between a carcass and its by-products is a genuinely unresolved question in life-cycle assessment, and anyone presenting it as settled is selling something.

What we can say without qualification

No land, no freshwater, no feed

Cattle and pigs require grazing or cropland, irrigation and feed. Aquaculture requires ponds, water exchange and formulated feed. Our raw material requires none of these. It arrives at a harbour as a consequence of a fishery that already exists for food.

No incremental fishing effort

We buy nothing that causes an additional net to be set. Every kilogram we process comes from fish already caught, landed and sold to be eaten. Our demand does not signal back to the vessel.

A genuinely wasted stream, here

This is where marine differs from bovine in India specifically. Hide and bone are already collected and used — leather and gelatin industries have taken them for a century. Fish scale at Indian landing centres is not. Much of it is discarded on the shoreline, where it decomposes. The material we divert is genuinely unused today.

Decomposition avoided

Organic material left on a shoreline breaks down anaerobically and generates methane, a greenhouse gas with far greater short-term warming effect than carbon dioxide. Removing that material has a real benefit, separate from anything the finished ingredient does.

What we will publish, and when. When we have an independently conducted life-cycle assessment of our own process — covering collection, drying, demineralisation, hydrolysis, filtration and drying — we will publish the number it produces, whatever it says. Until then we will describe what is true about our sourcing rather than assign ourselves a figure we have not measured. A buyer's ESG team can work with the first; the second falls apart under audit.
1,076 kilometres of coastline

The waste is already on the beach. The only question is what happens next.

Tamil Nadu lands nearly six lakh tonnes of marine fish a year. Forty to sixty per cent of that weight never reaches a plate.

Local impact

Value that stays on the coast

The collectors and small processors who currently sell mixed waste at commodity prices are the same people who can supply segregated, labelled feedstock. That work is worth more, and we intend the difference to be visible in what they are paid.

Our supplier approach is built on multi-year agreements, a clear premium for segregation and handling discipline, and prompt payment — not on extracting the lowest possible price from an informal supply chain.

Commitments

  • Supplier code of conduct across our collection network
  • Fair and prompt payment, documented
  • Process designed for mineral recovery, not discharge
  • Employment weighted toward local processing and laboratory roles

Whatever the sea gives us, we use completely.

Request a quote Start a conversation