The purpose of the 1994 ERS 285 Evaluation of Composting Programs on Campus was to evaluate the composting activities at Minota Hagey, WPIRG and the Environmental Studies (ES) Coffee Shop. Questionnaires and interviews were conducted with users and key actors in each composting system. Temperature, moisture, and pH readings were taken over a period of three weeks to determine if the composters were functioning effectively. Using the data gathered, several problem areas were identified. Cold winter temperatures resulted in the freezing of compost piles, which caused the waste to accumulate and fill the composters. Once the composters were full, the collection of compost material was terminated. Poor technical management of the compost piles may have played a role in the low efficiency of the compost system.
More frequent turning, addition of soil or peat, changing the location, and increasing the number of composters from 2 to 4 are recommended for the ES Coffee Shop. The Minota Hagey composters should be moved as well. An increase in the capacity of Minota Hageys composters will also be required if the system is to function over the winter. At present, the WPIRG vermicomposting program is operating well, but there is concern that this may not continue given that no structured management system is in place. A lower maintenance vermicomposting system has been suggested for use at WPIRG.
The association of rats with the composters was of great concern for many people involved with the programs. Although there is no conclusive evidence that composters contribute to rat populations, it is recommended that efforts be taken to rat-proof all outdoor composters.
Due to the difficulties experienced in the operation of the present composting programs, there is an apparent need for better management of the systems. It is recommended that domestic sized composters not be used at locations with greater amounts of food waste than at Minota Hagey Residence. The University should investigate options for a centralized form of food waste diversion for the larger residences and food services outlets. Vermicomposting, or other small scale systems, such as those presently in use, are recommended for areas where a large quantity of food waste is not created, as in administrative offices.
The purpose of Watgreen projects is to work towards sustainability on
campus. Sustainability and sustainable development have been defined in
a variety of ways. A possible definition of sustainability in the
context of the University campus is:
Sustainability is the perpetuity of the campus ecosystem and its
ability to support a diversity of life and functions, the foremost being
education, without compromising the natural dynamics and evolutionary
processes of the earth.
Fundamental to this vision of sustainability is the process of cycling. The campus should be seen as a point where various biotic and abiotic resources, including paper, waste materials, human resources, and information continually cycle. Wherever possible, cycles should be maintained within the campus system, closing the loop, in order to avoid the development of externalities. However, since the campus does not exist in isolation, it is also of fundamental importance to recognise the interface of the campus cycles with the natural and social environments. Whenever cycles extend beyond the campus boundary, it is essential to follow the principles of sustainability.
A practical example of the concept of cycling is the composting of organic material on campus. Composting is a means of closing a portion of our waste stream. Keeping organic wastes on campus reduces waste output, and the organic resource (compost) can be re-used on campus as a soil conditioner in flower beds and lawns. In attempting to map the campus-wide waste system, it was realised that the present composting programs are the only streams where food waste is dealt with on campus. Composting also requires active participation by faculty, staff, and students and can be used as a tool for education on waste issues.
The system on which this project will focus is the University of Waterloos composting program for food wastes, a subsystem within the larger campus waste system. The subsystem consists of three compost programs which are already underway at Minota Hagey Residence, WPIRG, and the Environmental Studies Coffee Shop.
The history of composting on the University campus goes back twenty years, with the composting of leaves by Plant Operations. More recent projects have focused their effort on establishing the composting of food waste. Three WATGREEN projects have been completed to date which are of particular relevance to this study because of their contributions to the establishment and maintenance of composting programs on the UW campus.
These projects are as follows:
The two projects undertaken by Chapman et al. have resulted in a composting program at Minota Hagey residence which is still in operation. The third project (Arsenault et al.) has yet to be implemented, but individuals on staff at St. Jeromes College are currently looking into the possibility of initiating a composting program beginning in the summer of 1994, based on the work of these students (See Appendix A for a more detailed description of these projects).
Students within the Environmental Studies faculty identified a need for a composter at the Coffee Shop in ES1, and a composting program is presently in operation. The office of the Waterloo Public Interest Research Group (WPIRG) is presently using a vermicomposter for the diversion of small amounts of food wastes. This project is the first effort in evaluating the existing programs within the context of a campus-wide composting program.
The University administration has always been very supportive of composting on campus. As stated, Plant Operations has been composting leaves for over twenty years, and when the students involved with the aforementioned Watgreen projects presented their ideas of composting to the administration, they were given full support. The administration is very interested in finding a way to remove food waste from the University waste stream, since it would diminish the amount of waste output and thus reduce the cost from tipping fees. In addition to supporting campus composting programs, the administration has tried to find other ways to eliminate food waste from the system. One possibility that is still being explored is to sell the food waste to a local pig farmer.
The lessons learned in the evaluation of these small-scale pilot projects will aid in the development of a larger campus-wide system. The development of such a system has great potential to significantly reduce our impact on the regional environment, thus enhancing the sustainability of the campus, through the recycling of materials, the reduction of material going into landfill sites, and a reduction in the need for chemical fertilizers. There is also the potential for sizeable economic savings through the reduction of tipping fees paid for the disposal of waste from campus. Most importantly, however at this institution of higher learning, is the opportunity for more members of the UW population to learn to perceive their organic wastes as a potential asset, harbouring valuable nutrients which are essential to the continued cycling of the earths finite resources.
At present, the tipping fees paid by the University are $90.00 per tonne of garbage (including the food waste). Currently, an average of 170 tonnes of garbage is removed each month from campus, and 18.43% (31.33 tonnes) of this mass is food waste (Cook, pers. comm. March 24, 1994). Simple arithmetic reveals that:
When this number is multiplied by 12 (months per year), we discover that the average annual tipping costs for food waste at the University is $33,837.48. In addition to this, a service fee of $4660.00 per month is paid to a waste disposal company, Laidlaw Corp., to empty the 83 garbage hoppers on campus. If the food waste could be composted instead of hauled away to the landfill, there may be a potential for monetary savings by the University.
As mentioned, the University administration was very supportive of the composting initiative at the Minota Hagey residence in 1991. However, the problems related with the present composting systems is cause for concern to the administration. The main mandate of Plant Operations, a division of the University administration, is to keep the campus running smoothly and looking presentable. A composting system which attracted pests, or was aesthetically unpleasant, would not be accepted or allowed to continue.
Bob Elliott, Associate Provost of the University, states that although the University is supportive of composting on campus, it is also concerned about appearance, and Plant Operations will not tolerate composting that is messy (Elliott, pers comm., March 24, 1994) As of yet, Mr. Elliott has not received any complaints about rats or composting problems at his level. However, grounds people do check the composters, and if there is continued evidence that they are not being operated properly, or if there are any complaints made, they will have no choice but to discontinue the program. Mr. Elliott also commented that this would be very unfortunate and embarrassing, since administration has supported the program for over two years now, and it is still not being managed correctly.
Administration is attempting to find a way to remove food waste from the main waste stream. A proposal was made to donate the food waste to a local pig farmer, but it was discovered that a legal barrier was present. Administration is very intent on finding a way to dispose of food waste separately, but thus far, it has been very difficult to find a legal and cost effective way to do so.
The various inputs and outputs into the composting program have been divided into 3 flows: economic; organic; and communication and education. One extraneous flow is the interaction of pests with the composters. This flow is not considered desirable and if the system is running successfully, should not be present.
Another criterion for success is that the running of the system is cost-effective, such that the initial costs and operating costs are covered by the savings created through the reduction of waste sent to the landfill. The efficient decomposition of the food waste into a high quality compost and the use of this compost are other measures of a successful system. The detailed criteria for maintaining an efficient organic flow are outlined in section 3.
In order for the composting systems to function effectively,
participation from the people who generate food waste is required.
Communication and education are necessary to inform people involved with
the program on correct use and maintenance of the system, and to generate
participation. Once participants become involved in a composting
program, it is hoped that they will have greater consideration for waste
issues, and a greater understanding of the potential and importance of
recycling.
The following have been identified as actors or stakeholders in the program:
At the beginning of each term, the Don (supervisor of residence) of the residence holds a house meeting, at which one of the topics is composting. At this meeting, the composting system is explained and students are asked to volunteer as co-ordinators .There is usually a 50% turnout of residents at the meeting.
The co-ordinators post sign-up sheets for emptying the food waste receptacles each week. Volunteers are given instruction sheets with a list of people to contact if the volunteer has questions. At the end of each day, the volunteers empty the contents of the kitchen receptacles into the outside composters and add peat to the mixture. The material in the composters is turned on Sunday and Wednesday each week. There is a compost receptacle in each of the two kitchens and four composters outside the building. Signs are posted above the receptacles to indicate which materials can or cannot be composted. Copies of the original Composting Guide from the Minota Hagey Composting Pilot Project (Chapman et al, 1991) are available to the residents in the kitchens and front entrance.
The four SoilSaver Mark IV® composters were donated to Minota Hagey by Barclay Recycling for the Pilot Project and peat is supplied by Plant Operations through Patti Cook, so the only cost for Minota Hagey are the kitchen receptacles, which must be changed occasionally. The composting program currently operates from the spring thaw until Christmas each year.
The Coffee Shop employs a Waste Management Facilitator who is responsible for managing the composting systems and overseeing the collection of recyclable materials within the ES buildings. During this study, the compost management process involved emptying the receptacles every day and turning the compost approximately once a week. The present salary of the Waste Management Facilitator is $30.00 per week and this figure represents the only expense incurred in the set up and maintenance of the system.
When soil conditioner is available from the composters, it is used in the Dorney Garden outside the ES1 building. This task was last performed in September by Leanne Cratt, the Waste Management Facilitator for the 93/94 academic year.
Education of Coffee Shop patrons with respect to composting and the new system occurred during the initial stages of the program. Posters were placed near the receptacle in the sitting area, announcing the new program and listing compostable waste items. A list of dos and donts still remains above the composter in the eating area.
Location: Organic material will decompose more rapidly when it is warm. Therefore, a composter on the South side of a building, exposed to adequate sunlight would be ideal. The composter should be easily accessible, for the convenience of those that must manage it, but far enough away from buildings to avoid the possibility of pest and odour problems near the buildings.
Design: Composters can be hand-made or purchased ready-made, but in both cases, a good design is essential. The bin should be about 1m square(minimum), and 1 to 1.6m high. It should not be smaller, since the small amount of material may not generate enough heat inside to decompose the material efficiently. If it is too large, the volume may cause the material on the bottom to become compressed, and as a result, the oxygen required will be squeezed out.
Getting Started: One aspect to starting a composting program is to have an estimate of how many people will be using the composting system. This can be determined by surveys in order to decide how many composters will be needed. It is also important to have the bottom of the composter open and dug into the ground to allow for organisms in the soil to aid in the decomposition process. There should be easy access into the composter to be able to turn the material over regularly (i.e., a lid). To begin the composting process, a layer of coarse compost should be added. This includes small branches, straw, or grass cuttings that can go on the bottom of the composter (there should be bricks or two-by-fours at the bottom of the composter to allow air between the compost and the ground). After this layer, soil, rotted manure, or seaweed should be added to initiate the decomposition process. Then, kitchen waste can be added.
Waste that is not acceptable for composters includes plastics, glass, foil or metals. Also, to avoid foul odour and animal visitors, fish, meat, grease and oil, bones, and dairy products should never be added.
For a more complete list of items which cannot be composted see Appendix B.
Once waste is put into the composter, it must be monitored carefully. There should be a combination of green and brown material. Green includes vegetable matter and most kitchen waste, while brown is represented by peat, straw, soil, and even hair. The addition of both these types of material provide the necessary mixture of nitrogen, carbon and phosphorus to keep the decomposition rate high.
Maintenance: If the composter is maintained properly, the speed of decomposition can be rapid (approximately two to four weeks). Proper maintenance includes turning the material regularly, removing finished compost, and maintaining ideal moisture and temperature conditions.
It is important to turn the compost regularly. This should be done with a pitchfork or shovel every two or three days to keep it aerated and cooking evenly. The compost should also be turned as much as possible when adding new layers. The finished product should be removed promptly to allow for new compost to form.
The speed of decomposition depends on how much air and moisture gets into the bin. If the compost material is cooking properly, it will give off steam and heat, thus providing its own moisture. This, however, should still be monitored since more water might be needed. If the compost is too wet, the bin will smell and dry grass, leaves or straw should be added. If the composter is too dry, it will not decompose very quickly, and water should be added.
A good indicator as to whether things are working properly is by temperature. Once the composter is well started, the temperature inside (about 25 to 30 cm down from the top) should rise from 40°C to between 60 and 70°C, as decomposition starts the compost cooking. It is ready for use when the temperature falls back to about 40 to 45°C.
A common problem cited with composters is odour, which can be compounded by the insects and animals which odours may attract. Remedies to alleviate odours are suggested in Appendix B. However, if composters are maintained properly (i.e. all steps above are carried out), there should not be a problem with odour. If there is no problem with odour then there should not be any means to attract animals and pests.
Rats, squirrels and other creatures may accidentally stumble upon the composter, but if it is being turned regularly, they will not nest, and they will move on. Methods of discouraging animal visitors are discussed in Appendix B.
The amount of food waste being diverted to the compost system, by weight, was measured at both the ES Coffee Shop and WPIRG. (No food waste is presently being composted at Minota Hagey.) At the ES Coffee Shop, the compostables were weighed three times a week for three weeks. Measurements were taken using the receptacles and a fish scale. The weight of the receptacle was then subtracted from the overall weight. At WPIRG, the amount of food waste was small enough that the total amount collected over the study period was weighed at the completion of the study period. These weights were used to estimate the economic savings resulting from composting efforts at these locations.
Qualitative observations at the composters were made at the same time as the above quantitative measurements. In particular, contents of the composters, evidence of animal visitation, odour, and local weather conditions were noted.
Q.1 Please check the term which applies to you: (Faculty, Staff,
Student, Other)
This question was asked to determine who the potential, and
actual users of the composters are. If further education is required,
knowing to whom it should be directed would be an essential component of
its success.
Q.2 How long have you been frequenting the ES Coffee Shop? (less than
6 months, more than 6 months, less than 1 year, more than 1 year, more
than 2 years)
How long have you been living at Minota Hagey Residence? (...)
This question was intended to provide information which would
enable us to determine whether or not the length of time an individual
had been at one of the composting locations affected their knowledge and
awareness of the system. This however was not possible given the narrow
distribution of respondents between categories, an analysis of this type
would not have been valid.
Q.3 How often do you eat in the ES Coffee Shop? (Number of times per
week; Never, 1-3, 4-5, 5-7, More than 7)
How often do you prepare meals in the kitchens at Minota Hagey?
( )
This question, combined with question 6, provided information
regarding the frequency of use, or potential use of the composters. A
better understanding of the use of the flows of people through these
areas will be beneficial in adapting the composting system to each
location.
Q.4 Are you aware that there is a composting program at the ES Coffee
Shop? (no, yes)
Are you aware that there is a composting program at Minota Hagey?
(no, yes)
This question was asked to gauge the general awareness of respondents. Various levels of awareness were gauged to determine if education on particular aspects of the systems were required.
Q.5 Do you know where the compost receptacle is located (ie.. where
to put your compostable food waste)? If yes please specify.
As in question 4, question 5 gauges the awareness of participants
but at a more specific level. Respondents were asked to specify where
the receptacle was in order to determine whether respondents were correct
or not.
Q.6 If you use the Coffee Shop food composter, how often? (always, often, occasionally, rarely, never) If you use the Minota Hagey composter, how often? (...) See question 3.
Q.7 Out of the following materials please check all items which you
think are compostable. (egg shells, meat scraps, gum, dairy
products, hair, lobster shells, peanut butter and jelly sandwich,
cooking oil, coffee filters, coffee grounds, peach pit, carrot
peelings, chicken bones )
Again this question was used to asses the knowledge of the
respondents regarding the composting systems except that here the
emphasis was on determining whether respondents knew ÔhowÕ to separate
compostables from non-compostables. The knowledge of what can be
composted is important because the only role of the majority of
participants is depositing compostables in the receptacle.
Q. 8 Please explain briefly why you do or do not compost.
Question 8 was used to assess participant awareness of the
benefits of composting. This could have implications for the degree of
motivation which can be maintained not only to compost but to do it well.
Q.9 Do you know what the finished product (compost) from the ES
Coffee Shop composter is used for? If yes, please specify. (no/yes)
Do you know what the finished product (compost) from Minota Hagey
composters is used for? If yes, please specify. (no/yes)
As in question 8, this question was intended to gauge the level
of awareness of the benefits of composting except that this question
focused on the use of the end product to show whether or not participants
were aware of the full cycle of the process. Awareness of the cycle is
important both in material terms (i.e. the organic flow) and in terms of
fostering non-linear thinking patterns. One of the educational benefits
of composting should be an awareness of the cyclical (or least
non-linear) nature of natural processes.
Q.10 Do you know who oversees the ES Coffee Shop composting program
and/or who you should go to if you have questions or concerns? If yes
please specify who they are. (no/yes)
Do you know who oversees the Minota Hagey composting program
and/or who you should go to if you have questions or concerns? If yes
please specify who they are. (no/yes)
This question is also about participant awareness and to
determine whether more efforts should be made to let participants know
where they can direct their questions. It is important that participants
know where they can go if they have questions in order to ensure that the
program is used properly. Again, respondents were asked to specify who
this person is in order to ensure that they were correct.
Q.11 Have you composted, or are you presently composting somewhere
other than the ES Coffee Shop? If yes where?
Have you composted, or are you presently composting somewhere other
than at Minota Hagey Residence? If yes where?
The intent of question 11 was to determine whether the knowledge
of participants regarding composting processes was a result of their
exposure to UW composting programs. Also, it was determined that the
value of a UW composting education would be of greater importance if this
was the only place where participants were exposed to this experience.
Q.12 General Comments: (i.e. problems encountered, do you like the
program, etc.)
The purpose of this question was to allow the respondents an
opportunity to add their own comments and feedback on the composting
programs.
The questionnaires were distributed to every person who entered either of the two kitchen areas within the residence. Willing participants were handed a questionnaire and asked to fill it out while they cooked, or before leaving the kitchen/dining area. The surveyors collected the completed questionnaires from the participants.
This process was completed in one session on March 22, from 5:00 pm until 7:30 pm. The sample was taken at dinner time, so that an adequate number of participants could be found. During this time the necessary 33 questionnaires were completed.
This process was completed in one session on March 22, beginning at 9:30 am and continuing until 1:30 pm. A total of 63 responses were collected.
Participants of the WPIRG composting system were also asked to indicate on the record sheet whether it was the first time they had used the composter since the beginning of the study (Appendix F). Using this information, it was possible to determine how many different people had used the composter over the course of the study period.
The users of the Minota Hagey composters are all graduate students, as these are the only residents of the building. There was a wide range of responses to Question 2, regarding the length of time which the respondent had been living at the residence. Five people responded that they had been at the residence for 6 months or less, which may mean that they had not been at Minota Hagey while the composting program was operational.
The level of use of the composters (when in operation) appears to be quite high, with 29 out of 33 of the respondents indicating in question 3 that they prepare food in the Minota Hagey kitchens once to twice a day and 26 people responding in question 6 that they use the composter either always or often.
In general, the level of knowledge regarding the composting program was quite good. All but one person indicated that they were aware that there is a composting program and knew where the composting receptacle was located (questions 4 and 5). Results of question 7 show that knowledge of which materials can or cannot be composted at Minota Hagey was fair with a mean score of 9.9 materials correctly identified out of 13. A comparison between the scores of respondents who have not composted elsewhere and those who have, showed a surprising result. People who have only composted at Minota Hagey had an average score of 10.27 while those with experience composting at home or elsewhere had a lower average score, at 9.27. Incorrect responses were more often due to an unawareness that certain materials (i.e. hair, lobster shells) could be composted, rather than a belief that non-compostables (i.e. meat scraps) should be composted. However, comments on the questionnaires suggested that there is a problem with plastics and food contaminants being put into the compost receptacles.
Twenty-two of the 33 respondents indicated in question 9 that they did not know what the finished product (compost) is used for. Eleven residents responded in question 10 that they were not aware of who the overseers of the program are, or who they could approach with questions. Finally, 22 of the respondents indicated in question 11 that they had not composted elsewhere.
Regarding question 8, varying responses were given as to why or
why not the residents choose to compost. Please see Figures 2 and 3 for
a breakdown of these reasons.
General comments regarding the program at Minota Hagey were mixed but
were predominantly positive. Please refer to Table 1 for a summary of
the comments made.
The problem of pests is one which Ms. Vardy addressed. She has never observed any rats near the composter but she has seen animal tracks in the area and found that an animal had entered the side door of the composter and burrowed a tunnel through the compost material. Last year, a groundsperson saw a rat near the composter, although later accounts revealed that about twenty rats were seen. Many skunks have been seen recently around the building. About once every two years, cockroaches are found in the kitchens. All these events may or may not be related to the composters and the residents are becoming concerned about the potential problem. In any case, Sheila Vardy recommends that the composters be animal-proofed and moved away from the buildings. She also suggests that items such as bread, which attract animals, be discouraged.
According to Sheila Vardy, there are no problems of odour unless the volunteers forget to empty the receptacles, or on hot summer days. Peat alleviates the odour problem in the composters. There are no problems of overflowing, although Ms. Vardy feels there would be if the residence composted in winter. The composters are of an appropriate size and number, but Sheila Vardy would consider alternative designs, if they were more efficient and cost-effective.
Overall, the residents are quite enthusiastic about the composting program and are disappointed to see it disappear in the winter. Almost everyone who uses the kitchen uses the composters and this is reflected by the fact that not many compostables are found in the garbage bins.
The possible presence of pests at the Minota Hagey composters is a reasonable cause of concern. Although it is questionable whether there is an actual pest problem, it is imperative that caution be exercised and the composters be animal-proofed immediately. This may be accomplished by following the suggestion in section 8.2, and as has been recommended, the composters should be moved away from the doors.
The fact that errors made in identifying compostable materials were more often made Ôon the side of cautionÕ indicates that although some compostable materials may be entering the waste stream, there should not be many contaminants in the composters. From the comments made by Sheila Vardy and by some of the residents, however, it appears that there is a large problem with incorrect materials being placed in the composters. This may be due to the fact that the list of compostables which is presented to the students is unclear and many have difficulty understanding it. This may be remedied by a better system of classification and explanation of compostables, or reducing what can enter the composters to simple materials. In any case, it appears that some education may be necessary. It is also possible, of course, that the students are aware of what can and cannot be composted but are too apathetic or lazy to take the time to sort their waste properly.
It is interesting that the majority of respondents to the questionnaire did not know what the finished compost was used for and this may be the reason for a certain degree of apathy towards the system. If residents were confident that their efforts were resulting in a good end product, and that this end product was being used on campus, they might be more careful to use the composter appropriately.
Given that the composting system was not in operation at the time
of the survey, due to winter cancellation, the results obtained in this
survey may differ somewhat from those that would be obtained at another
time of year, when residents would be actively participating in the
program. There may also be a slight bias in the results as the five
respondents who have lived at Minota Hagey for less than 6 months may not
yet have been exposed to the composting program and their responses would
therefore be irrelevant to Minota Hagey operations.
Fifty five of the 63 respondents, 87%, were students. Of the
other respondents, 5 were staff (8%), 2 faculty (3%), and one post
doctorate fellow. Seventy seven percent of the respondents had been
frequenting the ES Coffee Shop for more than one year and 22% had been
frequenting the Coffee Shop for less than one year. Slightly less then
half, 46%, of the respondents were found to use the Coffee Shop once to
three times per week and 48% of the respondents use the Coffee Shop more
than three times per week.
Participation of respondents in the compost programs was found to
be quite low. Fifty percent of respondents answered that they never used
the composter, and another 14% rarely used the composter. The 38 reasons
cited for not composting were categorized into five groups and are
presented in Figure 4. The principal reason cited was that people did
not have compostable waste to compost. Many people only come through the
Coffee Shop to buy coffee and snacks which produce little compostable
waste, except for wax muffin wrappers. Lack of facilities within
Environmental Studies and at individual residences was the second most
cited reason for not composting.
A total of 39 reasons to compost were categorized and are presented in
Figure 5. Reducing waste was the most common response. The use of
compost as a soil conditioner was second and includes reasons such as Òis
good for the gardenÓ, and Òproduces humusÓ.
Despite the low participation in the ES composting program,
general awareness of the program was found to be high with 87% of
respondents answering yes to Question 4: Are you aware that there is a
composting program in place at the ES Coffee Shop? Question 7 on the
survey asked respondents to identify items which could be composted from
a list of 13. The average score was found to be 9.5 of a possible 13.
Common items which were incorrectly identified as compostable were:
peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and meat scraps. Compostable items
which were commonly missed included hair, and lobster shells.
The level of knowledge about composting can in part be attributed
to participation of respondents in composting at other locations. Thirty
three of 60 respondents, 55%, composted at home. The average score on
question 7, which required that the participant identify compostable
materials, was 10.1 correct responses out of 13, 1.5 points higher than
the average for respondents who did not compost elsewhere.
The level of specific knowledge of the program was found to be
much lower than the general awareness. For example, only 76% of
respondents could specify where the receptacle for compostables was
located. Awareness of the complete system and how the final product is
used was very low. Eighteen people were able to provide an answer, but
10 of these answers were very general, i.e.. as fertilizer. Of the 8
people that identified the Dorney Garden (not all by name), 6 were
guessing, as indicated by question marks or phrases such as ÒI would
guess...Ó or ÒIÕm assuming...Ó. Even fewer people, 4 of 59 respondents,
were able to identify the people responsible for the maintenance and
management of the program.
The final question of the survey solicited general comments from
respondents. Thirty five people made comments, and because some made
several, a total of 48 comments were received. Two distinct categories
with numerous comments were found; comments requesting more information
or increased visibility of the program, and general positive comments.
There were 19, or 54% of all comments made, which were of the first
category. 16 comments were made which were general positive comments,
these include ÒI like itÓ, ÒGood programÓ, etc. Three comments were
received regarding expansion of composting to other areas on campus. The
complete list of comments is given in Table 3, with the frequency of each
comment.
In the opinion of Ms. Cratt, the composting system is widely
supported and has a good participation rate. She noted that the
management and staff of the Coffee Shop were particularly supportive of
the program. Although Leanne Cratt felt patron participation was good,
she suggested that Òit could be betterÓ. A more prominent location for
the receptacle was suggested as a means to improve participation.
Posters announcing the program and a list of compostables had been posted
initially but have since been removed.
In the process of moving the composters from the Dorney Garden to
the north west corner of ES2, the presence of rats within one of the
composters was observed. On this occasion, 3 rats were noticed, as were
tracks around the composters. This was the first occasion on which
Leanne Cratt saw rats at or in the composter, although she had noticed
them in the garden previously. Since moving the composter, no signs of
animals have been reported.
The lack of space and a slow or absent rate of decomposition were
also identified as serious problems. Over the winter, the material
placed within the compost did not degrade and by the time of the
interview, the composters were filled to capacity. It was decided that
collection of compostable waste would be stopped until an additional
composter could be found and started correctly, along with moving the
existing composters from their present location.
Hindering the efficiency of the composters is their location on
the north side of ES2. The composters are not exposed to adequate
sunlight, and as heat is an essential part of the composting process,
this could slow the rate of decomposition, particularly during the colder
months. A suitable location must be found that is exposed to sunlight,
yet protected from harsh winds and excessive moisture (Campbell, 1975).
Another reason contributing to poor rate of decomposition is the
lack of aeration. It is suggested that turning the pile be done every 3
days in order to maintain proper oxygen levels for aerobic decomposition.
The composters must be moved from their present location. An
alternative site that the composters could be moved to is the south side
of the building where there is more sunlight and less human traffic.
When moved, the composters must be dug approximately 6Ó into the ground.
The addition of a bulking agent, and the turning of each heap should
occur at least three times a week. The necessary materials could be
acquired from Plant Operations through Patti Cook and from the remainders
in the garbage pail beside the composters.
Given that the composters are now at capacity, without the
addition of soil, peat or leaves, there is a definite need for more
composters to increase capacity. Two additional composters would provide
adequate space to store compostables over the winter if the heaps were to
freeze.
Once the technical aspects of the ES Coffee Shop composting
program are mastered, a greater effort towards informing users and
potential users is needed to fulfil the educational component of the
system. General awareness about the system is sufficient, but specific
information regarding the workings of the program (i.e. who is in charge
and what is done with the final product) is required. Although many of
the Coffee Shop patrons compost, or have composted elsewhere, for 40% of
the patrons questioned, the ES composting program is the only exposure to
composting. For this reason, it is important that accurate, useful
information be posted regarding the program and composting, so as to
encourage people to try composting at the Coffee Shop and elsewhere.
The people responsible for managing the composters should
set up a system or schedule to encourage high levels of participation in
the composting system and to ensure that proper maintenance regimes, are
adhered to. This would make the composting much easier and more
efficient. In some cases, this will require the time and efforts of a
crew of dedicated volunteers. However, the educational and environmental
rewards warrant such dedication.
Due to the destructive nature of rats (to wires, buildings, etc.)
and their potential for rapid population growth, the administration
insists that the rats must be controlled. Larry Lamb has stated that
once the rats are eliminated, or trapped and relocated, they will not
return (Lamb, pers. comm. March 17, 1994). Once the rats are removed
from the area, however, it will be very important to make the composters
Òrodent resistantÓ, to prevent rats or any other animals from regaining
entry into the composters. The most appropriate way to make a
composter Òrodent resistantÓ, is to line the inside of the composter with
a heavy gauge wire mesh. The most appropriate is 16 gauge (Abell Pest
Control, pers. comm. April 13, 1994). Paul Taylor, President of Compost
Management of Elora, (Ontario) gives a step-by-step process of how to
make a composter rodent resistant:
Another suggestion to make the composters rodent resistant is to
change the design of the composters altogether. The new design could be
that of the Rotating Barrel Composter (see Appendix M). This type of
composter is ideal for the size of the ES Coffee Shop and Minota Hagey
waste output. This composter is raised off the ground, which may make it
more difficult for animals to get into. It is easier to maintain because
of its unique turning mechanism, and it is simple and inexpensive to
build. A final option for rodent control that was suggested at a meeting
regarding the rat problem on campus on January 26, 1994, is to set up
speakers around the composters and Dorney Garden that produce a certain
radio frequency, which is undesirable to rats. This idea is still being
tested to determine if it will have any effect on the other animals on
campus.
One solution to this problem might be to have more composters
available in the winter time, in which food waste could be stored until
the spring thaw. This is the method currently employed at Trent
University where ÔreserveÕ composters are set up specifically to store
organic materials over the winter. These composters are then left to
ÔcookÕ over the spring and summer months and are emptied again before the
next winter (Smith, pers. comm. March 23, 1994)
Another suggestion is the use of larger composting vessels which
can generate enough heat to prevent winter freezing. The Rotating Barrel
design, as discussed above, could also help to fight the winter freeze.
Despite this fact, St. JeromeÕs College has plans to begin a
composting program using several SoilSavers¨. This may be a result of
the conclusions made by the feasibility study conducted in 1992
(Arsenault et al.). There are, however, serious flaws within this study
which drastically underestimate the number of composters required, and
hence the effort necessary to maintain the system. The study found that
St. JeromeÕs generated approximately 289 litres of food waste a week and
a SoilSaver¨ only holds 170 litres. In less then two weeks the two
composters recommended for St. JeromeÕs would be beyond capacity. The
study also neglected to consider the problems associated with winter
composting and the capacity required to do so was not considered. This
is not to say that composting at St. JeromeÕs is not feasible but only
that it will require a much larger composting unit, such as a three bin
system, and far more effort put into maintenance than was initially
suggested.
A large three bin system would not provide enough capacity for
the larger residences, or the many food service outlets. Campus-wide
composting, therefore, requires an alternative system. One of the
concepts that was developed as an option for a campus-wide composting
program is centralised composting. This would demand that the University
engage the services of either a waste management company which is willing
and able to handle organic waste, or a separate body set up by the
University to do so, since it would be such a large task and too
time-consuming for University Plant Operations. Under a centralised
composting system, all of the compostable food waste would be collected
by the individual cafeterias and residences on campus. This would then
be picked up and transported to the central composting area by the
designated body.
The central composting area itself should consist of industrial
sized composters. Due to their large size, decomposition would produce
high temperatures and composting could be done with equal efficiency
through the winter. Large amounts of compost would be produced, which
ideally would replace the fertilizer that is presently used on the campus
grounds by Plant Operations.
Centralised composting is an advantage, since all of the
composting is done in one area, allowing for the processes to be closely
monitored and maintained. It ensures that composting is carried out
properly and regularly, since staff members would monitor the process,
and a schedule would be in place. Furthermore, a centralised composting
system could make people more aware of issues concerning food waste,
since they would be required to throw away their food waste in separate
containers. An educational element is implicit in this endeavour, since
the entire University population would be involved in the new system.
Finally, the University itself could gain a great deal of publicity for
its commitment to such a large-scale environmental endeavour.
The disadvantage to such a system is the elimination of small,
hands-on composting projects. Although students would likely be aware of
the centralised composting system, they would not have the opportunity to
observe the whole decomposition process, in which their own food waste is
transformed into valuable soil conditioner. If centralised composting is
implemented, any small-scale composting programs which are working well
should be strongly encouraged to keep their composting operations,
however, the rest of the campus without composting initiatives already in
place should be expected to use the centralised system.
Other suggestions for operating an effective centralised
composting system are as follows:
The following is a summary of the most pressing changes that must
be made as soon as possible in order for the outdoor composting programs
to continue operating;
6.0 ES Coffee Shop
6.1 Results
General observations at the site revealed animal tracks belonging
to the local squirrels. The material in the composters at this site was
not decomposing, due to the freezing temperatures and lack of proper
maintenance. This resulted in a spilling-over of the material, creating
an unsightly display (see Appendix K). The average weight of material
emptied into the composters per day, over the three week study period was
7.7 kg (see Table 2). Multiplied over the 20 days a month the Coffee
Shop is open, the monthly average is 154 kg. With the cost of waste
disposal at $0.23 per kg., including the proportion of LaidlawÕs service
fee, the monthly savings are $35.42
6.1.1 Surveys
On March 22, 1994, a survey of people entering the ES Coffee Shop
was conducted. Seventy questionnaires were distributed, following the
methodology outlined in section 4.2.2. Sixty three of these
questionnaires were returned, giving a return rate of 90% (The complete
data for the survey can be found in Appendix H).
DIAGRAM HERE!!!!
DIAGRAM HERE!!!
6.1.2 Personal Interview with Leanne Cratt
On Thursday, March 14, 1994, an informal interview was conducted
with Leanne Cratt, a fourth year Environment and Resource Studies student
with the position of Waste Management Facilitator for the Faculty of
Environmental Studies. Initial contact with Ms. Cratt had been
established earlier in the year, and this interview was used to clarify
and expand upon certain aspects of the program. Some of the information
gathered in this interview regarding the functioning of the system has
been incorporated into earlier sections of this report. The subjective
analysis of the program by Leanne Cratt is presented in the following text.
6.2 Discussion
The ES Coffee Shop composting program has been actively
maintained since itÕs establishment in the fall of 1993. However,
several problems have been identified which must be addressed for the
program to continue functioning. The most pressing of these problems are
technical in nature, relating to the processes of composting. Other
problems include low participation and lack of knowledge regarding the
functioning of the system. The technical problems must be given priority
since without a properly functioning system, educational benefits can not
occur.
6.2.1 Aesthetics
The most apparent of these problems is the fact that despite
relatively low participation in the program, the composters are full and
the collection of compostable waste has been halted temporarily. The
excessive amount of material in the composters has resulted in
uncomposted material spilling over from the top and bottom creating an
unsightly mess. Not only does there need to be more space to allow the
continued collection of compostable waste but the overflowing composters
threatens to label composting as messy and dirty. This perception could
threaten the present and future composting programs as campus aesthetics
is a major concern of the University administration. It has been
suggested that in their present location and condition, the ES composters
are at risk of being removed (Bob Elliott, pers. comm., March 24, 1994).
6.2.2 Efficiency
Contributing to the amount of undecomposed material in the
composters is the observed slow rate of decomposition. This is primarily
due to the cold winter temperatures prior to the study, however, several
technical weaknesses with the present system are contributing to the
problem. Although decomposition will occur, even with very little
maintenance, the large volume of materials in the composters requires
that the system be operating at the maximum possible efficiency.
6.2.3 Ingredients
A problem unique to the Coffee Shop is the enormous amount of
coffee grounds added to the composter. These coffee grounds cause the
compost heap to be slightly acidic. Adding a buffer such as lime would
neutralize the acidity. Adding a simple bulking agent such as leaves,
peat moss or soil would also decrease the effect of low pH. The addition
of one or a combination of these is recommended as the part of any
composting system, in order to introduce micro-organisms which aid in the
decomposition process and prevent the heap from compacting. At present,
no such material is being added to the ES composters.
6.2.4 Pests
The presence of rats within the composters brings about another
technical problem which must be addressed. Although rats have been
present outside the ES buildings for at least 15 years, long before the
composting program began, the composters are providing shelter and a new
food source. Removing the composters from their present location near
the Dorney Garden, where the rats find shelter and food from the bird
feeder, will decrease the likelihood of rats entering the composters. To
ensure that this does not occur, the other steps outlined in section 8.2
should be followed.
6.2.5 Solutions
To address these technical problems, a number of changes must be
made to the present system and should be done as soon as the ground
thaws, so that composting can continue without any further delay.
7.0 WPIRG
7.1 Results
Upon completion of testing it was noted that the composted
material was of a rich, dark nature, and was ready for use. On March 27,
the vermicomposter was emptied and new bedding was set for the worms.
Excellent, black soil was produced and will be used by volunteers of
WPIRG. Since the worms had bred and reproduced, some of worms were
separated and are being used to set up new vermicomposters for use by
staff and volunteers in their homes. Altogether, the mass of material
composted during the study period weighed less than 150 grams. The
amount of money to be saved by this composting program is negligible, but
this is outweighed by the educational value of the program for WPIRG.
7.1.1 Survey
The results of the WPIRG study show that in 3 weeks, 8 different
people reported depositing food into the compost receptacle and all of
these materials were compostable. Table 4 lists the items which were
composted during the study period, as indicated by the people who
deposited them.
DIAGRaM HERE!!!
7.1.2 Personal Interview with Linda Vieregge
Linda Vieregge, research co-ordinator of WPIRG, expressed concern
that the vermicomposter is not being properly maintained or monitored.
Although it was initially decided that members of the Board of Directors
of WPIRG would oversee the operation of the vermicomposter, experience
has shown that this is impractical. The Board members are volunteers and
most are also full-time students, so it is difficult for them to be in
the office for a sufficient amount of time to observe how the composter
is being used and when it requires maintenance. Currently, staff,
volunteers and visitors at the WPIRG add their compostables to the
vermicomposter on an ad hoc basis. Often, the composter contains too
much food and the worms are unable to digest it all. If someone (usually
Linda) notices this, a sign is posted and people are asked to deposit
their compostables in ice cream tubs, which are located next to the
composter. When the worms have digested most of the material in the
composter, materials from the ice cream tub are added. However, the
material in the ice cream tubs often turns mouldy before the worms are
ready to digest it and there is some uncertainty as to whether or not
mouldy materials are harmful to the worms.7.2 Discussion
7.2.1 Efficiency
The vermicomposter at WPIRG is fairly successful and has produced
its first batch of rich organic soil. However, as worms are living
organisms, the lack of maintenance of the vermicomposter is a valid
concern. The offices of the Region of Peel have a vermicomposting system
in place which requires very low maintenance and is proving to be quite
successful. Janet Joynt, who is currently employed by the Region of
Peel, explained that they use four vermicomposters in their offices,
rotating them every 3-4 days so that only two composters are being used
at one time. Once a sufficient amount of food has been deposited in
those two composters, they are left undisturbed for a few days so that
the worms can find and digest the food. In the meantime, the two other
composters are put out in the main office to collect food wastes (Janet
Joynt, pers. comm. March 18, 1994). This system could be modified to
serve WPIRGÕs needs by using two vermicomposting bins and alternating
them in a manner similar to that used in the Peel offices. This was
recommended to Linda Vieregge at WPIRG and it is likely that a second
vermicomposter will be added to the system within the month.
7.2.2 Communication and Education
Once a second vermicomposter is brought on stream, WPIRG should
make some attempts to inform people that a composting system is in place,
and invite them to Ôfeed the wormsÕ. The vermicomposting system could
prove to be an excellent educational tool for WPIRG visitors and
volunteers, demonstrating how the nutrients contained in organic wastes
can be cycled back into living systems. Since one of the mandates of
WPIRG is to encourage education about environmental issues, this would be
a logical progression in the development of their composting system.
8.0 General Discussion
The most significant finding of this study is that there is a
notable difference between perceived and real problems with the
composting programs on campus. This project was initiated primarily
because of a concern that rats were infesting the composters and that the
composters therefore required rat-proofing. However, this study has
revealed that this and other current difficulties are merely symptoms of
more fundamental weaknesses in the composting systems at UW. The
existing programs are incomplete, lacking adequate arrangements for the
collection and use of finished compost; an effective means of educating
participants about the benefits derived from their efforts; and perhaps
most significantly, suitable maintenance practices. A more systematic,
cyclical approach to composting is imperative to ensure that the multiple
benefits of composting are not jeopardized.
8.1 Maintenance Systems
After three weeks of testing and monitoring the campus composting
programs, several problems were identified which were a result of
improper or inadequate maintenance and monitoring. At the time of
testing and monitoring, most of the composters were frozen, which made
the testing very difficult. However, through observation and interviews
with those who maintain the composters, there is evidence of neglect
regarding several factors of composter maintenance including: regular
turning of the contents of the composters; addition of bulking agents;
periodically emptying the composter of finished soil conditioner; and
careful monitoring of the program so that problems are avoided or
addressed.
8.2 Deterring Pests
According to sources around the University, including Larry Lamb,
Ecology Lab Technician in Environmental Studies, rats have been on campus
for at least fifteen to twenty years (Lamb, pers. comm., March 17,
1994). However, since the initiation of composting programs, there has
been a plentiful, available food source, and rats may have become more
abundant and more visible. Students and staff have spotted rats around
the ES building, near the bird feeder in the Dorney Garden and around all
of the outdoor composters. If administration of the University receives
complaints of a rat problem, they claim that there would be no choice but
to shut the composting programs down. The composters are probably not
the cause of rats on campus, but because of the poor upkeep of the
composters, the rats have been able to get into them to eat and nest.
If the composters are maintained properly, none of these efforts
should be necessary, since there will be no attracting odour, and if the
material is turned often enough, animals will not enter to nest. As
stated, however, to remain on the side of caution, the composters should
be animal-proofed.
8.3 Winter Composting
One problem, which was identified at both of the outdoor
composters, is that the contents of the composters freeze in the winter,
resulting in the cancellation of composting efforts during these months.
Although difficulties do exist, composting is possible in the winter.
The decomposition rate decreases considerably in the colder weather,
however, food waste can still be disposed of in the composters.
According to Paul Taylor, the composting system set up at Minota Hagey
and ES is a Òprimitive systemÓ, and composting efficiently in winter is
not feasible (Paul Taylor, pers. comm., March 17, 1994) Due to the small
size of the SoilSaver¨ composters currently in use, there is not enough
heat generated from the decomposition process in the winter to prevent it
from freezing. In addition, as there is no one available to turn the
compost during the Christmas holidays, they inevitably freeze and it is
very difficult to get them back into operation before the spring.
8.4 Potential for Expansion
The outdoor composters involved in this evaluation were SoilSaver
Mark IV¨ composters, manufactured by Barclay Recycling Inc. These
composters are small and intended for residential or other small-capacity
use. They are not practical to use for locations with large quantities
of food waste.
9.0 Summary of Recommendations
The problems that exist with the present composting system are
mainly due to improper maintenance of the composters. Given the present
state of the ES and Minota Hagey composters, it is understandable that UW
Administration is concerned. If people wish to continue composting, it
is essential that they commit to doing it well. Participants and
overseers, whether employed or volunteer, must accept responsibility for
the maintenance of the program. They must become more aware of how to
compost properly, how to use the end product and how to monitor the
health of the program. A schedule is recommended to ensure that the
tasks are carried out regularly and correctly.
REFERENCES
Abell Pest Control, pers. comm., April 13, 1994.
Applehof, Mary. Worms Eat My Garbage. Flower Press: Kalamazoo, Michigan,
1982.
Arsenault, S. Lyle, Tracy Berglind, Derek Berkhout, Marc Johnson, Rosanne
Karith, Alexandra McManus. Feasibility Study of Composting at St.
JeromeÕs and St. PaulÕs Colleges. University of Waterloo: Waterloo, 1992.
Cambell, Stu,. Let it Rot! The Home GardenerÕs Guide to Composting.
Storey Communications Inc.: Pownal, Vermont, 1975.
Chapman, Lisa, Lora Flaherty, Shawn Hetherington, Odette Pinho, Andrew
Spezowka. Minota Hagey Composting Pilot Project. University of
Waterloo: Waterloo, 1991.
Chapman, Lisa, Lora Flaherty, Shawn Hetherington, Odette Pinho, Andrew
Spezowka. Feasibility Study For A Composting Pilot Project At the
University of Waterloo. University of Waterloo: Waterloo, 1990.
Cook, Patti, pers. comm, March 24, 1994.
Cratt, Leanne, pers. comm., March 14, 1994.
Elliott, Bob, pers. comm., March 24, 1994.
Ferguson, Matt, pers. comm., February 16, 1994.
Joynt, Janet, pers. comm., March 18, 1994.
Lamb, Larry, pers. comm., March 17, 1994.
Pollution Probe, The Canadian Green ConsumerÕs Guide, Pollution Probe
Inc., Toronto, 1989.
Smith, Kevin, pers. comm., March 23, 1994.
Taylor, Paul, pers. comm., March 17, 1994.
Vardy, Sheila, pers. comm., March 29, 1994.
Vieregge, Linda, pers. comm., March 10, 1994.
This project was converted to HTML by Jason W. King on May 24th,
1995.