7. Composting at U of M
Composting:
The process of converting organic materials (food waste,
yard waste, plants, etc.) into a nutrient-rich soil
amendment
Participating dining halls:
Barbour, Hill Dining Center, Markley, South Quad, West
Quad, East Quad
9. Project Objectives
The client: UMSFP, East Quad Dining
The task: Investigate the feasibility of a composting
program involving East Quad, the Matthaei Botanical
Gardens, and the Campus Farm
The goals:
Create the University’s first closed-loop food waste
composting system
Educate the U of M community about composting and food
waste reduction
Promote collaboration to expand and improve campus
composting operations
10. The Closed Loop
Use compost
at Campus
Farm & Bot
Gardens
Send food to
East Quad
Send food
waste to Bot
Gardens
Convert
food waste
into
compost
14. Operations: Production Capacity
Demand & Capacity (annual) Volume (cubic yards)
Current BG/CF Compost Use 99
Projected BG/CF Needs 167
EQ Food Waste Generation 305
Potential EQ Contribution
(=40% of waste generated)
182
15. Operations: Barriers
Not a strong economic case
Reduced economies of scale
Increased costs
Inconvenience
Loss of efficiency
Not a strong environmental case
Diversion, not reduction
High-risk
Intensive management required
Long turnover time
16. 14% “very familiar” with composting
79% unaware of East Quad composting
62% unaware that Campus Farm exists
82% interested in getting involved in
“Compost Collaborative” in at least one way
Education: Lack of Awareness
17. Education: Lack of Platforms for
Student Engagement
No compost-specific student group
Minimal collaboration between students & dining
20. Phase 1: Student Leadership
Establish a new compost-specific
student group as a member group
of UMSFP to support composting
efforts & facilitate collaboration
21. Student Leadership:
Role of the New Student Group
Form partnerships with
relevant stakeholders
Michigan Dining
Botanical Gardens
Chris Wolff
Work to assess and improve
campus composting
operations
Promote culture of waste
avoidance
Provide opportunities for
student engagement
22. Phase 1: Education Program
Develop a range of educational
materials to display in a variety of
relevant, visible places on campus
to raise community awareness
26. Phase 1: Data Tracking
Implement LeanPath, an
automated food waste tracking
system, in the dining halls to
accumulate valuable data
27. Data Tracking: LeanPath
1. Measure all food waste daily
2. Diagnose problems, set baselines
3. Make appropriate changes
4. Monitor progress
“We manage the things we measure.
“If we don’t track how much
we throw away, how do we
really know what and how to
improve? If we don’t
measure, we are guessing.”
-LeanPath, Inc.
28. Data Tracking: LeanPath
UMass Amherst
25% food waste reduction
$70,000 saved in 4 months
UC Berkeley
33% waste reduction
$83,200 saved in 12 months
University of North Dakota
30% food waste reduction
$115,000 saved in 9 months
32. Potential Evaluation Strategy
Evaluation Metric Option 1a Option 1b Option 2a Option 2b
Minimal risk? X X
Minimal cost? X X
Strong closed-loop? X
Easy to implement? X
Efficient? X X
33. Next Steps
UMSFP – create and recruit members
for new student group to spearhead
and support composting efforts
East Quad & Michigan Dining -
implement educational materials
and LeanPath data tracking
36. Botanical Gardens Compost Use FY 2013 Volume (cu. yd) Price ($) Average Cost ($/cu. yd) Delivery Charge ($) Total Expense ($)
Natural Areas 10 $ 200.00 $ 20.00 $ 150.00 $ 350.00
Bonsai Garden 10 $ 150.00 $ 15.00 $ 55.00 $ 205.00
Unspecified Application 3 $ 60.00 $ 20.00 $ 80.00 $ 140.00
Unspecified Application 8 $ 160.00 $ 20.00 $ 35.00 $ 195.00
Campus Farm 10 $ 225.05 $ 22.51 $ 55.00 $ 280.05
Campus Farm 40 $ 800.00 $ 20.00 $ 300.00 $ 1,100.00
Campus Farm 18 $ 360.00 $ 20.00 $ - $ 360.00
MBGNA Total Expenditures for Compost
Purchases FY 2013 99 $1,955.05 $ 19.64 $ 675.00 $ 2,630.05
The Botanical Gardens spent approximately $2630.05 on compost purchases in fiscal year 2013. Nearly 26% of those expenditures, or
$675.00, covered compost delivery charges. The University of Michigan Campus Farm received at least 68 cubic yards of the 99 cubic yards
of compost purchased.
Botanical Gardens Compost Purchase Volumes, Costs, and Uses (Fiscal Year 2013)
37. WMS Expenses
Costs per week per semester per year
WeCare Drop-Off Fee (Fall) $ 175.97 $ 2,639.55
WeCare Drop-Off Fee (Winter) $ 175.97 $ 2,639.55
WeCare Drop-Off Fee (Spring) $ 58.07 $ 464.56
WeCare Drop-Off Fee (Summer) $ 58.07 $ 464.56
Fuel and Wage Costs for One Driver $ 917.00 - $ 42,182.00
WMS Disbursement Total $ 48,390.21
Botanical Gardens Expenses
Costs per week per semester per year
Campus Farm Purchases Total $ - $ - $ 1,740.05
Botanical Gardens Purchases Total $ - $ - $ 890.00
Botanical Gardens Disbursements Total $ - $ - $ 2,630.05
East Quad Expenses
Costs per week per semester per year
Bin Pick-Up Fee (Fall) $ 473.15 $ 7,097.25
Bin Pick-Up Fee (Winter) $ 473.15 $ 7,097.25
Bin Pick-Up Fee (Spring) $ 156.00 $ 1,248.00
Bin Pick-Up Fee (Summer) $ 156.00 $ 1,248.00
EQ Disbursements Total $ 16,690.50
Note: Per hour, WMS spends $45.85 to run the truck, pay the driver, and cover fuel costs. WMS charges EQ $12.50 per bin for each pick-up. WMS is
charged $38 per ton delivered to the WeCare Organics, LLC site in Ann Arbor, MI.
We were unable to recover information about the time span of deliveries and pick-ups; driver hours, WMS truck capacities, and the degree
to which maximum capacity was utilized. Estimates based on 20 hour work week and 46 active weeks in academic year.
Disbursements Related to Composting by Facility by Week, Semester, and Academic Year
38. Unit of Measurement Pre-Consumer Food Waste Per Week Post-Consumer Food Waste Per Week
Fall & Winter Term
cubic yards 4.58 3.05
pounds 3,967.61 5,293.82
tons 1.98 2.65
Spring & Summer Term
cubic yards 1.51 1.01
pounds 1,309.31 1,746.96
tons 0.65 0.87
Unit of Measurement Pre-Consumer Food Waste Per Semester Post-Consumer Food Waste Per Semester
Fall & Winter Term
cubic yards 137.38 91.59
pounds 119,028.42 158,814.47
tons 59.51 79.41
Spring & Summer Term
cubic yards 45.34 30.22
pounds 39,279.38 52,408.78
tons 19.64 26.20
Unit of Measurement Pre-Consumer Food Waste per AY Post-Consumer Food Waste Per AY
cubic yards 182.72 121.81
pounds 158,307.80 211,223.25
tons 79.15 105.61
Total Food Waste Generated by EQ per AY (cubic yards) 304.53
Total Food Waste Generated by EQ per AY (tons) 184.76
Note: Assumed pre-consumer food waste density of 866.40 lb/cu yd and post-consumer food waste density of 1734.00 lb/cu yd.
Pre-Consumer and Post-Consumer Food Waste Generated by East Quad per Week, Semester, and Academic Year
40. Pre-Consumer Food Waste (01/2013-12/2013) cubic yards pounds tons % of total listed
Betsy Barbour 8.66 7,507.35 3.75 3.69%
East Quad 41.80 36,217.50 18.12 17.79%
Mary Markley 52.60 45,573.20 22.79 22.38%
Hill Dining Center 60.05 52,023.10 26.01 25.55%
South Quad 29.66 25,696.20 12.85 12.62%
West Quad 42.26 36,612.30 18.31 17.98%
Total 235.03 203629.65 101.83-
Note: Assumed pre-consumer food waste density of 866.4 lb/cu. yd
Note: East Quad and South Quad data based on four months, as both were closed for renovations during part of 2013.
Pre-consumer Food Waste Generated by Participating U of M Dining Halls in 2013
Editor's Notes
to meet student requests for a more visible, participatory food waste reduction system
Immediate goal isn’t food waste reduction; it’s building the infrastructure/community to support and drive food waste reduction in the future
13,508 tons of waste at U of M in 2013
2025 Goals
Reduce waste 40% by 2025
Community Awareness
Composting is one way to address waste
--Food waste during summer months drops drastically questionable reliability
--This will decrease by 40% as it composts, EQ could potentially generate 182 cubic yards from their food waste, which is twice as much as Bot Gardens
time/cost problem for the univeristy, with such a small operation there isnt strong economic/environmental case, only value is in the closed loop
so could be a lack of support
-in addition to WMS losing from this, there is also reluctance because its risky, failed attempt in past;
-recognizing the loss of economy of scale, we looked to expanding operations to other dining halls --> but the data wasn't there; data disjointed, trouble locating it--> in the end unable to really assess how much food waste all dining halls are generating --> can't gauge potential
27% of the 82% = physically working with food waste and/or increasing student awareness
Frame education as a similar problem---because of lack of awareness lack of preparedness/support to implement this closed-loop
Survey data
Lack of compositing knowledge (only 14% considered themselves to be "very familiar" with composting)
Lack of familiarity w campus farm (79%) Interest in volunteering in at least one aspect of proposed “compost collaborative” (82%, 27% wish to be physically working with the food waste and/or working to increase student awareness; )
TAKEAWAYS = lack of awareness (lack of visibility/transparency of system; desire/willingness to get involved
Georgia Tech Sustainable Dining Committee: group of students works with dining services to develop sustainable dining initiatives (meetings, discussions, training, events, etc.)
Based on our findings, it is not presently advisable to implement a composting program between East Quad and the Botanical Gardens, due to the high risk, cost, and uncertainty, among other barriers
However, the educational/informational component of UMSFP’s vision should be implemented now, as it will increase the infrastructural stability and promote longevity of a potential “Compost Collaborative.”
Phase 1 involves establishing student leadership, education, and data tracking, all of which are intended to raise awareness, garner support, and provide clearer insight into composting and other food waste reduction efforts
The second phase builds off of the components of phase 1, and works alongside them to reevaluate composting operations with more thorough and accurate data to improve the sustainability of the system
Using the insight and data gathered in Phase I, and building upon the increased support and collaboration, reevaluate U of M’s composting operations to assess potential for more sustainable reconfiguration
