In 2011, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released its Food Wastage Footprint and Climate Change report that assessed the amount of global food losses and waste and its effect on the world. The 2011 assessment found that about one-third of all the food produced in the world goes to waste. This is equivalent to about 1.3 billion tons of food, a large enough amount to feed the global undernourished population. The FAO also estimates that this amount of food waste is responsible for about 8% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and has an equal contribution to global warming as global road transport emissions. The FAO report declares that if food wastage were a country, it would be the third largest emitting country in the world (“Food Wastage Footprint and Climate Change”, 2011). These humanitarian and environmental consequences of food waste from the FAO’s report have inspired movements to reduce global food waste. Since 2011, the FAO has established Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) that target “halving the per capita global food waste at retail and consumer levels by 2030, as well as reducing food losses along the production and supply chains” (“Food Loss and Food Waste”, n.d.). To achieve this and improve the global food diversion rate, or amount of food diverted from landfills, the FAO has conducted educational outreach programs to influence consumers and change their individual attitudes, habits, and food-related consumption.
Similar to the FAO’s food waste goals, Lafayette College has aimed to increase its on campus diversion rates. This began when former president Daniel Weiss signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment in 2008. After calculating its emissions and conducting a campus-wide energy audit, Lafayette College created its first Climate Action Plan. After reevaluating its emissions in 2019, Lafayette College edited its original plan and approved the Climate Action Plan 2.0. The Climate Action Plan 2.0 provides a comprehensive framework for how Lafayette will achieve carbon neutrality by 2035. This framework includes several milestones for various areas such as building and facilities energy use, minimizing waste, and transportation emissions. Concerning diversion rate milestones, this revised plan calls for a 5% increase in the current diversion rate of 14% by 2020, an overall diversion rate of 40% by 2021-2025, and finally a diversion rate above 60% by 2026-2035 (“Climate-Action-Plan-2.0”, n.d.). A more in depth description of the goals laid out in the Climate Action Plan 2.0 can be seen in Figure 1. Our report addresses these goals from the Climate Action Plan and analyzes three different alternatives Lafayette College could use to achieve these diversion rates in the future. Specifically, this report focuses on methods to divert a greater portion of Lafayette’s food waste from landfills.
Thus far, Lafayette has managed to create an on-campus composting program that, when operating at full capacity, can deal with about half of the plate waste from one of the main dining halls on campus. The current program consists of a pulper at each dining hall and two Earth Tubs. The two types of equipment involved in the process are pictured in Figure 2 and 3 respectively. Lafayette installed this equipment in 2010 after receiving funds from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PaDEP) Composting Infrastructure Development Grant (Luker, 2008).
Dining services uses the pulpers to break the food waste into smaller pieces and increase the amount of compostable waste. The end product falls into buckets that are brought to loading docks behind the dining halls. Members from the Office of Sustainability, including five student compost managers, collect the buckets and bring them to the Earth Tubs located on Bushkill Commons as shown in Figure 4. The student compost managers then operate the Earth Tubs and create compost that is transported and used at LaFarm. The compost can be used directly as mulch or can be cured for thirty days before being used as a soil amendment. The goal of this process is to have a closed loop food system in which food waste is composted and used at LaFarm to grow food for the dining halls.
There are several issues with the current system described above. The Earth Tubs can only handle about half of the food waste from Upper Farinon when operating at full capacity. At Marquis alone, there is about 1,090 pounds of student plate waste per week that does not go through the Lafayette composting process (Christopher Brown, personal communication, October 31, 2019). In a 30 week academic year, this equates to 32,700 pounds of plate waste per year going to landfills rather than being composted. Furthermore, the loading docks at each dining hall are often full with pulped food waste and cannot handle all of the pulped product produced (Lisa Miskelly, personal communication, November 7, 2019). All of these issues point to a need for an expanded composting program that can deal with the amount of food waste from Upper and Marquis. This expansion could take the form of one or a combination of three alternatives: investing in more digesters (like the Earth Tubs), using windrow composting at LaFarm, or outsourcing the excess food waste to a third party for composting. By improving Lafayette’s ability to compost its food waste, these alternatives could help the college reach its diversion rate targets for the future.
The first alternative is to purchase more digesters similar to the Earth Tubs. This alternative is an attractive option because there is already a process in place for this method of composting. The challenging part of this option is actually finding a digester that would satisfy the needs described above. Unfortunately, Earth Tubs have been discontinued so the college would have to purchase other digesters from either the same company or a different company (Green Mountain Technologies, 2018). Moreover, any product that can handle the amount of food waste Lafayette students produce will be a significant cost to the school and will probably require another grant. To help guide Lafayette’s selection process for digesters, this report provides cost estimates and capacity comparisons for two digesters that can handle Lafayette’s food waste. Another important factor for this alternative is a location for a new digester. Currently, the two Earth Tubs are located at Bushkill Commons. Considering the size of digesters required for the volume of Lafayette’s food waste and the size of Bushkill Commons, Lafayette will have to designate a new area for the digesters. Finally, the Office of Sustainability will either have to invest in more labor to operate the added digesters, or they might reduce the need for labor if the new system is automated.
The second alternative for expanding the composting program is to implement a windrow composting system at LaFarm. Windrow composting is a composting method that piles organic matter into long rows. With this option, since windrow composting takes more organic material, Lafayette could divert more of its food waste from landfills. There are multiple challenges associated with a windrow composting system. The Office of Sustainability would have to expand its staff to meet the labor demands of windrow composting. The food waste would also have to be transported to LaFarm rather than to the Earth Tubs. Additionally, conducting the composting process at LaFarm might draw push back from Forks Township because of zoning ordinances and the smell. Windrow composting also requires equipment that the college would either need to purchase or rent. The college does own enough space at LaFarm to use windrow composting and could use this new composting method as an educational tool for its students.
The final alternative is to outsource the excess food waste to a composter in Easton. This would require Lafayette to work out a deal with a third party and establish a price and transportation plans for the food waste. Lafayette has had talks with an outside composter, American Biosoils, about taking food waste in the past. Communication between the two parties were inconsistent, however, and Lafayette’s composting program had not been fully established yet (Lisa Miskelly, personal communication, November 7, 2019). Based on pricing from American Biosoils, $55 per pickup and $50 per ton collected (“American Biosoils & Compost”, n.d.), this alternative could be a cheap option for Lafayette that does not require any costs for expanding the on-campus program. The college may have to adapt its waste process, though, as some composters, including American Biosoils, do not accept pulped food waste due to contamination risks. That would mean Lafayette would either have to set some food waste aside for outsourcing or completely eliminate the use of the pulpers altogether. By shifting the composting process off campus, Lafayette would also have to consider that outsourcing could eliminate the educational aspect of having an on-campus composting program. This would be a significant consequence given that the educational aspect was the driving force behind the establishment of the on-campus composting program. With respect to achieving Lafayette’s diversion rate goals, outsourcing could be especially effective in diverting all of the college’s excess food waste from landfills as long as the outside composter has the capacity to take this amount of organic material.
Overall, one of these three options would most likely be the best decision for Lafayette. Any sort of change would require the creation of a position or office solely responsible for composting on campus. Control over the composting program has mainly fallen on the Assistant Director of Food and Farm, Lisa Miskelly, by default, so the focus has been on maintaining the composting process rather than improving it. A position for just the composting program would free up resources and allow for more attention towards expanding the program. Any expansion would also require increased funds from the Office of Sustainability for increased labor costs, transportation costs, or any other costs specific to the alternative. If Lafayette wants to reach a diversion rate of 60% by 2035, then the current culture surrounding food waste on campus, the views of faculty and staff involved in campus composting, the physical process of composting, and the economic and technical feasibility of changing current composting practices must be accounted for.
In the next section we analyze the social context of increasing food waste diversion rates.