Food Organics Review

Food Organics Processing
Options for New South Wales

2007
Second Edition

Recycled Organics Unit Food organics processing options for New South Wales Page 2
2nd Edition 2007
Recycled Organics Unit
PO Box 6267
The University of New South Wales
Sydney Australia 1466

Internet: http://www.recycledorganics.com

Contact: Angus Campbell

Copyright Recycled Organics Unit, 2001.

Second Edition.
First Published, 2001.

This document is and shall remain the property of the
Recycled Organics Unit. The information contained in
this document is provided by ROU in good faith but
users should be aware that ROU is not responsible or
liable for its use or application. The content is for
information only. It should not be considered as any
advice, warranty, or recommendation to any individual
person or situation.

2nd Edition 2007
Table of Contents
FOOD ORGANICS PROCESSING OPTIONS FOR NEW SOUTH WALES 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 9
1.1 Background................................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Scale of technology reviewed..................................................................................... 10
1.3 Objectives................................................................................................................... 11
1.4 Terminology................................................................................................................ 11
1.5 Food organics material description............................................................................. 11
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC ISSUES CONCERNING THE REPROCESSING
OF FOOD ORGANICS 13
SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSING AND PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS 14
3.1 Licensing issues ......................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Planning issues........................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Siting of facility............................................................................................................ 15
3.4 Environmental issues with regard to food organics processing ................................. 16
SECTION 4 IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING SYSTEMS 18
4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Generic description of technology .............................................................................. 18
4.3 Quality issues relating to the technology.................................................................... 25
4.4 Environmental impacts and licensing requirements................................................... 26
4.5 Economics .................................................................................................................. 26
4.6 List of manufacturers .................................................................................................. 28
SECTION 5 WINDROW-BASED COMPOSTING SYSTEMS 35
5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 35
5.4 Process control and infrastructure upgrades.............................................................. 45
5.6 Economics .................................................................................................................. 45
5.7 List of manufacturers (composting facilities) .............................................................. 46
SECTION 6 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION SYSTEMS 51
6.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 51
6.5 Economics .................................................................................................................. 60
SECTION 7 FOOD ORGANICS USE IN ANIMAL FEED PRODUCTION 67
7.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 67
7.2 Generic description of processes ............................................................................... 67
7.4 Environmental inputs and licensing requirements...................................................... 73
7.5 Economics .................................................................................................................. 74
2nd Edition 2007
SECTION 8 DIRECT SOIL INJECTION OF FOOD ORGANICS 80
8.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 80
8.5 Economics .................................................................................................................. 89
SECTION 9 CONCLUSIONS 94
SECTION 10 REFERENCES 95
SECTION 11 GLOSSARY 99

2nd Edition 2007
Executive Summary
The majority of food organics materials generated in the Greater Sydney Region are sent to landfill
sites. This practice is inconsistent with the principles of the Waste Hierarchy (Waste Minimisation and
Management Act, 1995) and principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) as there are a
range of alternatives that offer improved environmental and resource conservation outcomes.
Diverting food organics from landfill sites will reduce pressures on limited landfill space, while at the
same time diverting valuable resources from landfill to a range of higher resource value applications.
This review identifies a number of commercial scale technologies or systems that can process food
organics and convert these materials into valuable, safe and useful end-products (Table 1).
Technologies considered include, in-vessel aerobic composting, windrow composting, anaerobic
digestion, stock food manufacture, and direct soil injection of food organics. Each system is reviewed
in detail and its associated costs and benefits are highlighted. Please note, this is not a comparative
study; the suitability and associated benefits of these systems is dependent upon regional and site
specific variables.
Table 1 Summary of technologies reviewed.
Technology Technology price range Processing speed
Direct animal feeding Very low, no processing of feedstocks.
Transport costs are perhaps the most
significant expense associated with direct
feeding.

No processing time, as food organics
are fed directly to livestock.
Direct soil injection Very low processing costs. Application
machinery adds considerable establishment
costs to an operation, ranging from $80 000
for tractor drawn injectors to $310 000 for
specialised sludge injection trucks. Other
expenses include tractors, storage tanks and
pumps.

Very little processing time if
feedstock is received in liquid form.
Short processing time for
liquefaction.

Windrow composting $100 000 - $300 000+ depending upon the
equipment purchased (e.g. windrow turners)
and associated infrastructure. Establishment
costs are higher if specialised windrow turning
machinery ($500 000+) is purchased.

3-5 weeks (though some companies
have reported processing times of up
to 4.5 months). Additional processing
time (several weeks) is required if
products are matured.

Processed animal feed Dependent upon the technology used.
Processes can cost up to $1 000 000+
depending upon the processing capacity of a
facility.

Several hours to several days.
In-vessel composting Technologies range in price from $70 000 to
$1 000 000+ depending upon the processing
capacity and number of vessels purchased.

1-3 weeks depending upon the
process used + 2-4 weeks maturation
(if required).
Anaerobic digestion This is the most expensive technology, costing
well above $1000 000+ for most commercial
scale facilities.

10-20 days depending upon the
process used. Additional processing
(several weeks to months) is required
if solid digestate is composted).

2nd Edition 2007
In general, establishment and running costs are related to the processing capacity of a technology and
the level of sophistication employed. Of the recycling approaches reviewed, the direct feeding (to
livestock) of unprocessed food organics is the cheapest technology/approach available for the re-use of
food organics. Of the other processing technologies, direct soil injection, windrow composting and
smaller in-vessel composting systems are the next cheapest option. Larger scale, more complex in-
vessel composting systems and anaerobic digestion systems add considerable expense to the
establishment cost of a facility. However, at the same time, larger systems have greater processing
capacities and better process control than alternative cheaper technologies (Table 2). The adoption of
these technologies may require operator compliance to NSW Acts and Regulations. These are
summarised below.
Table 2. General (generic) comparison of different food organics processing systems. Note: system
suitability is dependent upon regional and site specific factors.
System
1
Infrastructure
cost
2
Additives for
processing
Products Space required
3
Direct animal feeding Very low
Oats; other
cereals
Stock food
(high risk)
Very small
Direct injection Low Generally none
Liquid soil
additive
Very small for storage;
Very large for application
Windrow composting Low Garden organics
Composted
material
Large
In-vessel composting Medium Garden organics
Composted
material
Mediumlarge
Processed animal food Highvery high Generally none Stock food Medium
Anaerobic digestion Very high Garden organics
Electricity,
composted
product
Mediumlarge
1
Systems arranged in order of generic infrastructure cost this arrangement does not indicate quality or suitability
of systems in different situations.
2
Infrastructure cost is dependent upon the scale of an operation these estimates should only be used as a general
guide.
3
The space required for the different systems is dependent upon the amount of feedstock a system processes
estimates of size should only be used as a general guide.

Acts and Regulations
In NSW, the establishment of a food organics re-processing facility/operation requires that the facility
conforms to certain Acts, Regulations and guidelines. Some of these include:
Protection of the Environment Operations Act (1997)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation (2000)
Clean Air (Plant and Equipment) Regulation (1997)

2nd Edition 2007
Other legislation that is relevant to the reprocessing of food organics into stock food include:
Stock Foods Act (1940)
Stock Foods Regulations (1997)
Stock Diseases Act (1923) SECT 20FB
Stock Diseases (General) Regulation (1997).
Although there are no guidelines for the direct injection of food organics to land, companies practicing
direct injection generally follow the biosolids guidelines by the NSW Environment Protection
Authority.
Aerobic in-vessel composting systems
Aerobic in-vessel composting systems range in price from several thousand dollars for a specific
technology to over one million dollars for a large number of composting vessels, or one large
processing system. These technology types are often more space efficient than alternative windrow
composting operations. However, establishment costs can be significantly higher depending upon the
technology used and processing capacity required. In-vessel systems allow for better process control
than windrow composting, and may have fewer labour requirements. In-vessel systems can cater for a
range of food organics, but usually require mixing with other complementary bulking agents in order to
facilitate effective composting. Pasteurised or composted soil conditioners or mulches are the main
products generated by these systems.
Aerobic windrow composting
Windrow composting (turned, aerated or passive) generally requires lower establishment costs than
aerobic in-vessel composting systems, but may have higher labour requirements and higher running
costs. The type of composting operation used (e.g. turned vs forced aerated), will impact upon the
labour requirements and establishment costs. Costs are also dependent upon the size of a facility,
infrastructure and machinery used. Prices range from $60 000-300 000+ for passively or forced aerated
systems to well over $300 000 for systems using specialised machinery such as windrow turners.
These systems also have greater space requirements than in-vessel systems and offer lower levels of
process control. Windrow composting facilities may require improved receival and short term storage
systems for food organics feedstocks to suppress odours. Windrow composting produces similar end-
products to in-vessel systems, but processing times are longer due to the use of less efficient and less
complete methods of composting.
Anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion is perhaps the most expensive technology that can be used to process food
organics. These systems are generally much more complicated that other processing systems and have
greater space requirements than equivalent in-vessel composting systems. Commercial scale facilities
generally cost well in excess of $1 000 000, depending upon the size and complexity of the system
used. Anaerobic systems generate methane, which can be used to produce electricity to run a facility.
Solids are also produced, which are usually composted aerobically to produce soil conditioner
2nd Edition 2007
products. Anaerobic systems therefore do not displace or replace aerobic composting systems. On an
energy budget basis, studies have shown that anaerobic digestion facilities are less energy intensive
than equivalent in-vessel composting systems, due to the generation of methane (and electricity) during
the digestion process.
Stock food
Food organics can be converted into or used as stock food. The level of processing the food organics
undergo ranges from no processing (direct feeding) to considerable processing using processes such as
fermentation. The length of time required to convert food organics into stock food (where processing
is used) ranges from several hours to several days. The quality of stock food produced is dependent
upon the process used and the quality of feedstock. Stock food generated from poor quality or meat
based feedstocks carry the greatest risks, as they may have pathogens or residual chemicals, which are
harmful to livestock. More sophisticated processes (fermentation, pasteurisation, sterilisation etc.) can
be used to address these pathogenic or chemical risks, but processing time and expense will increase.
Some of these processes (e.g. fermentation) cost well in excess of $1 000 000.
Direct soil injection
The direct injection of liquefied food organics in soil has very low processing requirements or costs,
but may require considerable capital expenditure to establish an operation. This form of food organics
recycling may carry some risks (as identified in scientific literature), as the food organics are not
processed, pasteurised or treated in any way. This may contribute to phytotoxic effects on plants and
the contamination of nearby waterways and ground water if the food organics are not applied in
suitable locations or in appropriate quantities. However, if operators follow the environmental
guidelines for biosolids, runoff and contamination issues should be minimised. Research has shown
that the direct soil injection of liquefied food organics (at suitable application rates) increases organic
matter and soil nutrient levels. Applications may also enhance microbial activity in soil, contributing
to improved soil stability.
General
This review provides a basis for increasing knowledge and awareness of food organics processing
options in industry and government, supporting informed decision making within an Environmentally
Sustainable Development (ESD) framework across New South Wales.
It is not within the scope of this review to recommend any of the technologies covered, as their
suitability for application is dependent upon regional and site specific variables. For a more detailed,
situation specific evaluation of food organics processing options, further research is required.
2nd Edition 2007
Section 1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Highly putrescible food organics material makes up a high percentage of the waste stream produced by
the municipal and commercial and industrial sectors (EPA, 1998). Current practices of disposing of
food organics into solid waste class 1 (putrescible) landfill sites (EPA, NSW, 1999b) are inconsistent
with the principles of the Waste Hierarchy (Waste Minimisation and Management Act, 1995), as there
are alternative management strategies which realise a higher net resource value of these materials. The
reprocessing or re-use of food organics will help alleviate increasing pressures on landfill sites, while at
the same time utilising materials that have been considered waste as a resource.
In total, 440 000 tonnes/annum of food organics are produced in the Sydney Metropolitan Area (SMA)
(Waste Enquiry, 2000). The commercial and industrial sector (C&I) currently produces 160 000
tonnes/annum of food organics, whereas the municipal sector produces 280 000 tonnes/annum across
the SMA. Food organics comprise approximately 10% by weight of all waste landfilled by the C&I
sector, whereas this increases to approximately 21% by weight of all waste landfilled by the municipal
sector (Waste Enquiry, 2000).
It is important to note that no new class 1 landfills are planned for putrescible waste generated in the
SMA, and that current putrescible landfill capacity is expected to be exhausted by 2011 based on
current levels of putrescible waste generation and recycling/reprocessing rates (Wright, 2000).
Opportunities for maximising the diversion of food organics from landfill must be secured to conserve
remaining putrescible waste landfill capacity available to the SMA.
Diversion of food organics from landfill not only conserves finite landfill space, but is also associated
with a number of environmental benefits. As food organics are very high in moisture and nutrients,
these materials generate considerable quantities of methane during decomposition, contributing to
global warming. Food organics are the second largest source of methane generated by landfills (EPA,
US, 1997a). The nutrients present in food organics also contribute to the high nutrient loadings in
landfill leachate a major contributor to groundwater and surface water contamination in regions with
unlined landfills (Russel and Higer, 1988; Borden and Yanoschak, 1990; Assmuth and Strandberg,
1993).
At present, only 3.1% of food organics produced by the C&I sector is recycled, while no food organics
collected from municipal sources are recycled (Waste Enquiry, 2000). Although there are a number of
obstacles to be overcome such as collection, transportation, storage and processing (Farrell, 1998)
there are many processing opportunities and technologies currently available to divert these highly
putrescible materials from the waste stream. This review details reprocessing approaches relevant to
the Greater Sydney Region, including the use of in-vessel aerobic composting systems, windrow
systems, anaerobic digesters, animal feed production systems and direct soil injection of food organics.
Each process is described and case studies from within Australia and internationally are presented.
2nd Edition 2007
1.2 Scale of technology reviewed
This review focuses on large-scale technologies/systems capable of processing in excess of 250 kg/day
of food organics (Table 1.1). In some instances, smaller (mid-scale) technologies can be used in series
to process a large-scale quantity of food organics (Rynk, 2000a). Consequently, the division between
mid and large-scale processing technologies may be unclear (Recycled Organics Unit, 2000).
Large-scale processing systems predominantly consist of technologies with the ability to process
between 250 and 5000+ kg of food organics per day. Procedures involved in the management of these
processing systems are usually automated or carried out with industrial machinery (Recycled Organics
Unit, 2000).
Table 1.1 Processing technology options (adapted from Recycled Organics Unit, 2000).
Category
Processing
range (kg d
-1
)
a

Technology options
Technology specific
processing range
per unit (kg/d)
a
(manufacturer data)
Indicative
investment
cost (AUS$)
Mid-scale 20250
In-vessel, induced and/or
forced aeration, continuous-
or batch-flow composting
units,
Windrow composting,
Animal feed production.
20250 $10 000$100 000
In-vessel, forced and/or
induced aeration, batch-
flow, modified roll-off
containerised composting
units,
Windrow composting.

2501000 $100 000$300 000+
Large-scale 2505000+ In-vessel, passive-or forced
aeration, continuous-flow,
batch-flow, vertical loading
composting systems,
Windrow composting,
Anaerobic digestion,
Fermentation processors,
Animal feed production
2505000+ $75 000$1 000 000+
a
Processing range based on a given mass of compostable organics processed seven days a week.

Investment costs associated with the purchase and installation of processing technologies depend upon
the size and complexity of the technology type, and/or whether the system is purchased or leased from
a supplier. Figures quoted in Table 1.1 are indicative only, and they will vary considerably with system
and manufacturer. Investment costs quoted do not include those associated with collection, process
management, labour, site-works (particularly with large-scale on-site systems) and on-going
maintenance. Furthermore, the cost estimates do not include ancillary equipment, such as that
employed for size reduction, blending, screening etc.
2nd Edition 2007
1.3 Objectives
This review has addressed the following objectives:
1.3.1 Primary objective
To inform the identification and subsequent development of appropriate and cost effective food
organics infrastructure and practices by reviewing documented international and national experience.
With this information, relevant bodies can make informed decisions regarding the suitability of
different food organics processing technologies for the GSR.
Briefly, the review consists of:
A (generic and brief) process-based review of food organics processing systems;
Detailed coverage of in-vessel aerobic systems, windrow-based aerobic systems, anaerobic
digestion systems, animal feed processing systems, and direct soil injection;
A listing of current food organics processing facilities and related installations in Australia and
internationally, and
Case studies of current food organics processing facilities and related installations in Australia and
internationally.
1.4 Terminology
The terminology in this package is consistent with that officially adopted by the NSW Waste Boards in
July 2000. That is, compostable organic materials (including garden organics, food organics, wood and
timber) are processed by the recycled organics industry into a range of recycled organics products. The
Recycled Organics Unit has submitted a range of compostable organics material description sub-
categories for inclusion in the Australian Waste Database. These material descriptions have already
been adopted as a standard by the NSW Waste Boards (Recycled Organics Unit, 2000c). Food
organics material (formerly food waste) is defined by its component parts, as detailed in Section 1.5
below.
Terminology used in this report is consistent with that documented in the Recycled Organics Unit
Dictionary and Thesaurus: standard terminology for the NSW recycled organics industry (Recycled
Organics Unit, 2000a). This document has undergone national peer review, and is freely downloadable
from http://www.rolibrary.com
1.5 Food organics material description
Food organics is a generic expression that covers all food residuals regardless of whether they are
derived from domestic or commercial kitchens, special events, or from commercial food processing
operations (Recycled Organics Unit, 2000b).
2nd Edition 2007
Where greater detail in food organics material categorisation is required, the consistent application of
standard (and relevant) sub-categories within composition studies is essential. Standard material
description sub-categories have been developed by the ROU in consultation with recycled organics
industry and waste management sector stakeholders for garden organics, food organics, and for
residual wood and timber. These standard material description sub-categories for food organics
material are detailed in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Range of materials categorised as food organics (Recycled Organics Unit, 2000).
Material description Material description subcategory
Food organics fruit and vegetables
meats and poultry (including bones <15mm),
fats and oils
seafood (including crustaceous seafood material)
recalcitrants (bones >15mm, oyster shells, coconut shells)
dairy products (solid and liquid)
bread, pastry and flours (including rice and corn flours)
food soiled paper products (hand towels, butter wrap)
biodegradeables (cutlery, bags, polymers)
1

contaminants - typically plastic, stainless steel and other cutlery, ceramics,
aluminium foil
1
These are included here for the purpose of auditing, where material description subcategory level of
detail is required. The definition here does not imply that these materials are food based.
2nd Edition 2007
Section 2 Economic issues concerning the
reprocessing of food organics
Although there are many benefits associated with the reuse or reprocessing of food organics, there are
also a number of constraints that may influence the economic feasibility of such practices; these
include:
Cost of collection and transport;
Processing costs;
Marketing costs and market potential, and
Institutional constraints separation, refrigeration, frequency of pick up and storage.
Other issues impacting upon the reprocessing of food organics are feedstock volume and quality. In
some instances, the quantity of food organics may not be sufficient for economic reprocessing (Farrell,
M., 1998). As sources of food organics become smaller or less consistent, costs will increase.
Similarly, as supply per source is less, the cost of collection will increase (Derr and Dhillon, 1997).
These issues must be considered when selecting an appropriate reprocessing approach or technology.
The various sources of food organics, if separated and handled properly, have the potential to reduce
disposal costs and produce valuable end-products. In a review of processing approaches, Derr and
Dhillon, (1997) suggested that composting is the most feasible option for these materials. However, for
some types of food organics, which are generated in sufficient quantity and have a value added
potential, other reprocessing options (e.g. digestion or fermentation) should also be considered.
There are several options available for the processing of food organics that are consistent with the
principles of the waste management hierarchy (EPA, 1997b). These include:
Aerobic in-vessel or windrow composting;
Anaerobic digestion;
Re-use or reprocessing into stock food, and
Direct soil injection.

Reprocessing opportunities produce valuable products from food organics materials. However, if the
cost of processes used to create an end-product are too high, then non-recycled alternatives may be
favoured by the market. This is particularly important in situations where food organics are converted
into animal feed using expensive processing procedures. Alternative products such as grain (e.g. oats
or corn) may be preferred by landholders if they are cheaper (Glen, 1997).

2nd Edition 2007
Section 3 Environmental licensing and planning
requirements
3.1 Licensing issues
The establishment of food processing facilities within NSW may require that they comply with
Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act (1997) (Table 3.1). Proposed
developments that meet any of the conditions listed in Table 3.1 are considered to be scheduled
activities in terms of the Act and require an environment protection licence from NSW Environment
Protection Authority to operate. Note that non-scheduled activities may still require a permit or licence
to operate from a consent authority (usually a local council).
Table 3.1 Extract from Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act (1997).
Conditions that classify a reprocessing activity a scheduled activity
Reprocessing or treatment facilities (including facilities that mulch or ferment
organic residuals, or that are involved in the preparation of mushroom growing
substrate, or in a combination of any such activities) that:
(1) receive over 200 tonnes per year of animal waste, food waste, sludge or
biosolids, or
(2) receive over 5,000 tonnes per year of wood waste, garden waste, or natural
fibrous material, or
(3) receive any organic waste and are located within 500 metres of any
residentially zoned land, or within 250 metres of a school or hospital or a
dwelling not associated with the facility.

Information about licensing and associated costs may be found in Guide to Licensing under the
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, published by the EPA.
3.2 Planning issues
The (Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979) and the (Environmental Planning and
Assessment Regulation, 2000) require developers of new facilities to lodge development applications
to an appropriate consent authority. Facility development proposals will fall into a number of possible
categories under this Act, and may be (Recycled Organics Unit, 2000b):
Local development (refer s. 76A ss. 4);
Advertised development (refer s. 79A);
Integrated development (refer s. 90-93B).
Designated development (refer s. 77A-79 and Schedule 3 of Environmental Planning and
Assessment Regulation, 2000).
State significant development (refer s. 88-89A).
These different categories result in different assessment processes, particularly related to different
levels of public advertising and appeal rights. However, they also affect which level of government has
2nd Edition 2007
the decision-making responsibility and the degree of scrutiny and review by other State Government
authorities such as the Environment Protection Authority (Inner Sydney Waste Board, 2000).
In general, almost all commercial developments require a development application be prepared and
development consent be obtained before any developments can proceed. In some cases, developments
may contravene a local environmental planning instrument (e.g. a local environmental plan, LEP). A
LEP is a legally binding policy document, which sets out a strategic planning framework for a part of,
or for an entire local council area. These documents are made under the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act (1979).
The purpose of an LEP is to:
define zonings, permissible land uses and control development;
reserve land for public purposes;
control advertisements; and
provide for the protection of trees, vegetation, native animals and plants (Farrier et al., 1999).
Where a proposed facility contravenes a LEP, rezoning of an area may need to be performed. The
likelihood of achieving this will depend on the nature of the development and the strategic planning
goals a local council has for a particular area (Recycled Organics Unit, 2000b).
The performance based development process assesses proposals based on their likely impact
sometimes referred to as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The suitability of a particular
proposal is judged not on arbitrary and inflexible legal definitions, but rather on the anticipated impact
the development will have on its built and natural environment and the amenity of its neighbours (Inner
Sydney Waste Board, 2000).
3.3 Siting of facility
During initial site identification, attention must be given to how a facility may affect the environment,
in terms of (Recycled Organics Unit, 2000b):
air quality;
water quality;
soil quality;
transport and traffic;
noise;
energy needs;
social issues;
public health;
visual issues;
flora and fauna;
associated hazards;
heritage issues, and
economic issues (Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, 1996).
Appropriate siting of a facility is, perhaps, the most effective way of dealing with potential negative
impacts on local amenity, followed closely by careful design and selection of process components and
equipment and by good operating techniques, procedures and staff training. While operational and
2nd Edition 2007
market considerations are important factors when selecting sites, a high priority must be given to the
environmental and social characteristics of the location. Appropriate site selection can avoid or reduce
many of the environmental problems inherent with proposals, and (Recycled Organics Unit, 2000b):
reduce the need for technically based environmental mitigation measures and ongoing
management measures;
result in substantial savings in establishment and operation;
reduce levels of public concern, and
avoid potential delays in approval processes (Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, 1996).
3.4 Environmental issues with regard to food organics processing
Through environmental management plans, facilities need to adopt strategies that meet the
environmental performance objectives identified in Table 3.2. These strategies allow the consent
authority and government regulating authorities to consider the likely impacts of a development on the
environment, and whether development consent and an environmental protection licence (if needed)
should be issued to the proponent, subject to conditions if necessary. Proponents should consult the
[draft] Environmental Guidelines: Composting and Related Facilities (EPA, NSW, 2000) for detailed
information on how these performance objectives may be achieved (Recycled Organics Unit, 2000b).
Of the issues identified in Table 3.2, water pollution and air pollution are often identified as the main
issues affecting facilities. These are described in greater detail below.
Table 3.2. Environmental performance objectives required in an environmental management plan (Recycled Organics Unit, 2000b).
Performance Objective Outcome
Prevent water pollution
Surface or underground discharges of leachate and water from the facility must not pollute
groundwater and/or surface waters at or near the processing facility.
Minimise methane gas emissions and
explosion hazards
Minimise emissions of methane to air and ground and the risk of explosions.
Minimise nitrogen oxide and non methane
organic compound emissions
Minimise emissions of nitrogen oxides and non-methane organic compounds whenever using biogas
combustion processes.
Minimise odour emissions Minimise odour emissions.
Minimise bioaerosol emissions Minimise bioaerosol emissions.
Ensure suitability of incoming feedstock Incoming feedstocks must not create negative environmental or amenity impacts.
Ensure environmental quality of reprocessed
products and stabilised wastes
Ensure that the output of products from the facility can be beneficially and sustainably used, and
that any stabilised wastes are suitable for disposal at the facility that receives the waste.
Ensure safe storage and disposal of residual
wastes and contaminated materials
Process residues and contaminated products must be stored appropriately and disposed of lawfully.
Minimise stockpiling
Stockpiles of raw materials and finished products must be kept as small as practicable to avoid
potential negative environmental impacts.
Prevent unauthorised entry Prevent unauthorised entry to the site
Minimise noise emissions Noise emissions must not be intrusive or detract from the local amenity.
Minimise dust emissions Minimise dust emissions from the facility.
Prevent proliferation of pests and vermin
Prevent pests and vermin from proliferating at and/or near the facility to avoid health risks to facility
personnel and the local community.
Prevent proliferation of weeds
Prevent weeds from proliferating to preserve local amenity and to prevent their propagation via
compost, soil conditioner and mulch products.
Minimise litter Litter and site materials are effectively controlled and retained on the facility.
Ensure adequate fire fighting capability
Adequate fire prevention measures are in place and that fire fighting equipment can be accessed and
staff are trained and able to manage fire outbreaks at any part of the processing facility.
2nd Edition 2007
3.4.1 Water pollution
Leachate may be generated from food organics during storage and processing. These leachates can be
acidic (e.g. from anaerobic conditions), and can therefore contribute to the dissolution of metals and
metallic compounds from within the feedstock material. Alkaline leachates can also be formed in
materials with a low carbon to nitrogen ratio under normal aerobic conditions. Consequently,
leachates from food organics processing facilities (regardless of technology type) have the potential to
pollute ground and surface waters. The high nutrient content of these liquids is utilised by bacteria and
other microorganisms, resulting in high biological oxygen demand. In addition, runoff from a facility
may contribute to increased sediment loads in adjacent waterways.
To prevent water pollution, facilities should comply with the design and operating requirements of the
NSW Department of Housing guideline Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction (NSW
Department of Housing, 1998).
3.4.2 Air pollution
The release of excessive quantities of atmospheric pollutants such as bioaerosols, methane and carbon
dioxide and odours (from the ammonia, volatile amines, hydrogen sulphide and volatile organic
compounds) are not acceptable from food organics processing facilities. Process control and the use of
appropriate infrastructure is therefore important to minimise the release of these pollutants. Developers
must comply with NSW Acts, regulations and licensing conditions if food organics processing facilities
are to be established.
Gas emission concentrations from a facility must comply with the limits prescribed in the Clean Air
(Plant and Equipment) Regulation 1997 or specific licence conditions. In addition, the Protection of
the Environment Operations Act 1997 prohibits the emission of offensive odours (as defined in that
Act) from scheduled facilities unless:
the occupier can establish that the emission was identified in the facility licence as a potentially
offensive odour, and
that it was emitted in accordance with licence conditions directed at minimising the odour, or the
only people affected by the odour were facility staff.
Food organics processing facilities will generally be identified as generators of potentially offensive
odours on an EPA licence, and they will therefore have licence conditions directed at minimising the
odour emissions outside the facility.

2nd Edition 2007
Section 4 In-vessel composting systems
4.1 Introduction
Aerobic decomposition is a naturally occurring process involving the biological breakdown of organic
materials in the presence of oxygen. This process encourages the development of colonies of bacteria,
and is characterised by the generation of heat (Gottas, 1956). This decomposition mechanism is used
by aerobic in-vessel technologies to treat different compostable organics material.
In-vessel composting systems differ in their scale of application. Some are designed to compost small
volumes of material from such places as schools, restaurants, cafeterias and local produce markets,
while others are designed to be used in centralised facilities to receive feedstock materials from a
number of sources. Many of these systems are modular, allowing for the addition of individual
containers/units as feedstock volumes increase (Rynk, 2000a). Large scale systems (individual or
modular) can manage feedstocks from multiple generators at a central location. Compared with small
scale systems, large scale systems utilise larger (and/or more) containers, have more sophisticated
processes and incur greater capital expenses (Tardy and Beck, 1996).
4.2 Generic description of technology
Digestion of feedstocks in aerobic in-vessel systems is achieved through careful monitoring and control
of the composting process. Although the specifications for in-vessel systems vary widely, they
commonly comprise fixed augers or agitated beds to promote mixing. Moisture and temperature levels
are closely monitored and most systems use forced aeration technologies (Tardy and Beck, 1996).
These systems are usually:
1. Insulated to retain heat and to provide uniform temperature distribution;
2. Enclosed to prevent pest/vermin access and contain odours, and
3. Designed to contain and/or manage leachate.
A process flow diagram for an in-vessel system is shown in Figure 4.1. More detailed descriptions of
the process stages are described below.
4.2.1.1 Size reduction/initial screening/bulking agents
Most processes may require an initial size reduction and screening phase for the removal of physical
contaminants which may interfere with operations and to facilitate more rapid decomposition and
processing of feedstocks. Although source separated materials should be relatively free of
contaminants, it may still be necessary to screen the feedstock material and size reduce depending upon
the material type (Curzio et al., 1994). The addition of bulking agents to the food organics material is
often necessary to help maintain or increase porosity of the compost mixture and to adjust the carbon to
nitrogen ratio for optimal decomposition. Woodchips or garden organics are typically used for this
purpose.
2nd Edition 2007
4.2.1.2 Composting process
Material is usually fed into the top of a composting vessel. Depending upon the type of process used,
the material in the vessel may be static, turned by mechanical devices or aerated. In aerated systems,
fresh air is drawn into the supply fans and exhaust air is recirculated into the mass when necessary,
either to control temperature or oxygen levels. Temperatures of 50-60C and oxygen levels of >10%
(v/v) are usually maintained in such systems to maximise the rate of decomposition and to minimise
odour production. Use of aeration systems allows for very close control of the composting process,
with minimal temperature variations between the inlets and outlets of vessels (Stentiford, 1996). In
completely enclosed systems, leachate from the vessels is recycled and used to control moisture levels
in the vessels and also to inoculate fresh feedstock material. The composting process lasts for several
days to a number of weeks depending upon the technology used and the desired quality of the
discharged product (See Section 4.2.2).

4.2.1.3 Biofilters
Although most aerated in-vessel processes recycle the air used for process control, there is an amount
of air that is eventually discharged from the system. This air may carry odours and other larger
particulates (bioaerosols). To address this pollution issue, most systems contain a biofilter component,
which is used to clean the air discharged from a composting vessel. Biofilters may be present in a
number of forms, depending upon the manufacturer and processing system used. One type of biofilter
used by containerised in-vessel systems comprises small containers adjacent to larger composting
vessels, containing mixtures of mature compost and wood chips (Block and Farrell, 1998).
Microorganisms within the water film on compost particles breakdown odorous compounds (such as
organic sulfides), rendering the process air relatively odour free (Haug, 1993).
Figure 4.1 In-vessel aerobic composting system flow chart (Adapted from Waste Enquiry, 2000).
Dotted lines indicate a by-product of the main process.

Enclosed
composting
Biofilters
Water
treatment
Food
organics
Screening Compost
Inert residues/
physical
contaminants
Cleaned air for
atmospheric discharge
Odours
Polluted
runoff
Cleaned for
discharge or
re-use
Maturation
Shredding/
screening
Feedstock
blending
with
bulking
agents
2nd Edition 2007
4.2.1.4 Maturation
Although most in-vessel processes effectively pasteurise feedstock materials, the end-product is
usually not fully stabilised and matured. Therefore, in most instances, materials produced by in-vessel
systems require further composting or maturation in windrows or piles under aerobic conditions
following the initial period spent in the container. This stage is required for the production of
composted products as defined in Australian Standard AS 4454 (Standards Australia, 1999). If
composted products are not required or demanded, then the pasteurised product may be sufficient to
meet the minimum standards outlined in AS 4454 (1999).
4.2.2 Range of commercial processes
There are many facilities around the world that have utilised in-vessel composting technologies to treat
food organics. The main processes used are summarised in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Types of in-vessel aerobic composting systems.
Process name Description

Forced aerated
containers (Rynk,
2000a)

Enclosed systems that use fans for aeration and process control without
internal agitation.
Tunnel composters
(Rynk, 2000b)
Aerated tunnel style composting containers, commonly used by the
mushroom industry, but also being considered for on-site composting of
food residuals.

Rotating drum
composters (Rynk,
1992)

Horizontal rotary drum, which mixes, aerates and moves feedstock
material.
Agitated-aerated
containers (Rynk,
2000a)
Feedstock materials are placed in beds contained by long channels with
concrete walls. Feedstocks are agitated periodically by machinery. Air
may be forced through material from the underside of the beds.

Passively aerated bins
(Rynk, 2000a)
Composting feedstocks are contained in narrow wire mesh cages, arranged
in series.

Different processes are used to achieve similar end-results. The above processes may operate on a
batch or continuous flow basis. In addition they may be modular on non-modular in design. Each is
described in greater detail below.
Batch or continuous flow?
In-vessel composting processes may utilise either batch or continuous flow technologies. Batch-flow
type units, such as the Biobox
by Spartel Pty. Ltd. and the Containerized Composting System

developed by Green Mountain Technologies Inc., have feedstocks loaded into the top of the vessel, and
then after a certain period of time (after the last load of material is deposited into the unit), pasteurised
materials are harvested from a door from the bottom in a single batch.
2nd Edition 2007
Other systems, such as the Vertical Composting Unit (VCU), developed by VCU Technology Ltd. or
the Wright Environmental Management Inc. composter, operate on a continuous flow basis, where
material is continually fed into the top of a vessel (at a specified rate for different feedstocks), and is
then removed from the bottom after a certain period of time (dependant upon retention time required to
decompose the feedstock material). In general, batch flow technologies are less efficient than their
continuous flow equivalents, and consequently may not be able to process as much feedstock material.
(a) (b)

Modular or non-modular units?
In-vessel aerobic processes may be of a modular design, allowing commercial facilities to add
additional containers to a system to cater for the amount of feedstock received. Examples of modular
systems include the 10 Cell VCU in New Zealand (J. Kater pers. com.), the Biobox
by Spartel Pty.
Ltd., the Containerised Composting Process developed by Green Mountain Technologies Inc. (P.
Bernard pers. comm.) in the United States and the 13.8 m
3
Stinnes-Enerco Inc. containers in Colchester
County in Canada (Anonymous, 1999a).
Some modular processes are based on roll-off transport containers. These containers are completely
enclosed with stainless steel perforated floors through which air is supplied. These modular designs
give facilities the opportunity to expand processing capacity as feedstock supply increases.
Plate 4.2 Examples of batch-type and modular containerised composters. The photograph on the right
shows how the containers are transported and unloaded, with the assistance of a roll-off truck.
Plate 4.1. The Biobox
batch-type composting unit by Spartel Pty. Ltd. is a modified transport

container that houses a removable vessel which contains the compostable organics. The transport
container is fitted with an aeration fan, biofilter and temperature monitoring unit (Figure 4.1a). Process
control is similar to other systems manufactured in the United States. Figure 4.1b shows how the
internal vessel is positioned inside the transport container with the assistance of a mobile carriage.
2nd Edition 2007
Many of these modular processes are quite mobile and may be of use in situations where a centralised
facility is not viable (Block and Farrell, 1998). Other systems such as the Tunnel Composting System
of Brentwood Recycling Systems or the concrete vessels developed by Natural Recovery Systems Pty.
Ltd. are not designed to be mobile. These processes are fixed at the point of their installation.
4.2.2.1 Forced aerated containers
Large scale aerated containers use control devices, loading equipment and leachate and odour
management processes. Aerated container processes include those developed by Spartel Biobox
;
Green Mountain Technologies Inc. the Containerized Composting Process and others from
NaturTech, Stinnes Enerco Inc. and Ag-Bag Technologies Inc. These systems are similar in concept
and are made from or modelled on steel solid waste roll-off containers. This type of container provides
a durable enclosure that is modular and moveable. These systems have provisions for leachate
collection with the option for leachate reuse. Many containers are served by single central air delivery
systems and comprise process control and biofilter systems. The containers are filled via a door at the
side or top and processed as batch systems (Rynk, 2000a).
A number of 30 m
3
containerised composters from NaturTech are being used in Minnesota, USA to
collect and process food organics from supermarkets, businesses and households. The food organics
feedstocks are mixed with wood chips and cardboard as bulking agents to facilitate the in-vessel
composting process. After mixing the feedstocks, a loader is used to deliver the compost mixtures into
a top-loading door on a NaturTech vessel. Following a 21 day composting cycle, the material is
removed through a swing door on the back of the unit and placed in static curing piles (Riggle, 1997).
Similarly, the University of Massachusetts has a centralised in-vessel composting facility, which
receives food organics from a number of sources including on-campus sources, local businesses and
off-campus organisations. The facility has 7 indoor roll-off containers with 23 m
3
capacity.
Feedstocks are processed in the containers for approximately 18 days and then placed in windrows for
a further 10 days (Chaves, 1998).
As these systems are modular, additional units can be added to the system depending upon the amount
of material processed by a facility. The total throughput of a system is determined by the volume and
number of containers plus retention time (typically within 2-3 weeks) (Rynk, 2000a). In most
instances, the containers are only used for the first stage of a composting process, followed by a second
composting stage in windrows or aerated piles.
Containerised composting units are suitable for the treatment of a wide range of compostable organics
materials, including food organics. Large scale operations, municipalities, universities, large schools
and correctional institutions use containerised composting units for converting compostable organics
into saleable recycled organics products (Goldstein, 1998).
2nd Edition 2007
4.2.2.2 Passively aerated in-vessel systems
Passive aeration involves the natural ventilation of a container of composting material. Air required by
the process occurs by diffusion and convective mechanisms. Examples of passively aerated systems
include the VCU (see Case Study 4.2 for details) and the TEG Environmental PLC silo-cage. The
PLC silo cage contains the composting feedstocks in tall, narrow wire mesh cages, arranged in series
of modular units. A 10 cm gap separates adjacent cages and provides a channel for air flow and
oxygen diffusion. Cages are approximately 4 m high, 6 m long and 1.2 m wide, allowing for the core
of the mass to be at the most 60 cm from the airspace surround the cage. This continuously fed system
has a cycle time of 8 to 24 days depending upon the feedstock used. The manufacturer recommends an
additional 14-21 days for the composting/maturation of the pasteurised product (Rynk, 2000a).
4.2.2.3 Rotating drums and agitated-aerated containers
Aerated rotating drums are manufactured by a number of companies including BW Organics Inc. and
Environmental Products and Technologies Corporation in the United States of America (Rynk, 2000a).
Rotating drum-based processes are applicable at a range of scales, from small on-site situations to large
scale centralised processing facilities. Horizontal rotary drums mix, aerate and move feedstock
material through a system. Drums are usually mounted on large bearings and turned by a bull gear.
Air is supplied through the discharge end and is incorporated into the material is it tumbles.
Decomposition in a drum is rapid, however further composting/maturation is required in windrows. A
number of commercial-scale drums have been developed over recent years that are suitable for
composting food organics and other materials. The largest drums range from 2.5-3 m in diameter and
9-15 m in length (Rynk, 2000a).
Agitated-aerated containers include those developed by Wright Environmental Management Inc. (see
Case Study 4.3 for details), Global Earth Products Inc. and Resource Optimization Technologies Inc.
Agitated containers compost materials contained in long channels with concrete walls (Rynk, 1992). A
turning machine, which travels on top of the beds, agitates and moves the materials. Most, but not all
systems provide forced aeration through the floor of the channel. The agitated bed is usually contained
within a larger facility. Channel length and the turning frequency influence the composting period in
the channel (generally 10-28 days). Channel lengths typically range from about 60-90 m. Most
facilities use multiple channels and a single turning machine. Agitated beds are currently being used to
process large quantities of food organics at a number of prisons in the United States of America (Rynk,
2000a). For example, a correctional facility in Travis County, Texas, USA uses Wright Environmental
Management Inc. technology to process food organics. Using this in-vessel technology, the facility
composts approximately 500 kg of food organics on a daily basis. Wood chips are blended with the
food organics, comprising 40% of the feedstock mix. Following a 28 day processing period, the
compost is placed in windrows to mature for an additional 2 week period. The final compost is used in
the gardens within the correctional facility.
2nd Edition 2007
4.2.2.4 Tunnel composting system
Although tunnel composting systems are predominantly used in the mushroom industry, a number of
facilities are starting to use this technology to compost food organics (Manser and Keeling, 1996;
Rynk, 2000a). Examples include the Natural Recovery Systems Pty. Ltd. facility in Melbourne (see
Case Study 4.1 for details) and Brentwood Recycling Systems. Brentwood Recycling Systems in
Unanderra, New South Wales constructs tunnel composting facilities. They utilise a GICOM
Composting Systems tunnel process to convert a variety of feedstock materials including garden and
food organics into compost. Compostable organic material is fed into a tunnel and then air is
circulated within the tunnel to control temperature, humidity, oxygen content and pressure. Compost
temperature is measured at several points within the tunnel. These systems are similar to forced
aerated containers with a processing period of between 14 to 21 days. Products should be effectively
pasteurised through this process. Further composting/maturation may be required to produce a stable
and matured end-product.
4.2.3 Energy budgets
Curzio et al., (1994) indicated that the use of composting-based technologies to process food organics
resulted in a net energy deficit, as the process itself does not produce energy. This is particularly true
for facilities where forced aeration and turning processes are utilised. The use of other processing
machinery also adds to the overall energy requirements for the production of an end-product.
4.2.4 Input feedstock requirements
In-vessel technologies are capable of processing a wide range of compostable organic materials. Food
organics in particular are easily processed in these systems, as these feedstock types are highly
putrescible. However, it may be necessary to mix other feedstocks with these materials in order to
achieve optimum carbon-nitrogen ratios and to also improve the porosity of the compost mixture (Gies,
1995). The mix is dependent upon the particular food organics used, the process and the material used
as bulking agent in the compost mixture.
In a 1997 survey, Goldstein, (1997) concluded that in terms of food organics, fruit and vegetable
trimmings are by far the most common feedstock composted in the United States of America. In
addition, garden organics are the most frequently used amendments to adjust the physical and chemical
characteristics of the food organics feedstock to produce a suitable compost mixture. Woodchips and
sawdust are also used by many food organics composters (Goldstein, 1997).
4.2.5 Processing capacity and land requirements
Processing facility size varies with the type of technology used and also the number of vessels utilised
in an operation. The additional composting/maturation (e.g. windrowing) required to produce a more
mature product adds to the space requirements of a facility. However, the area required for the
windrowing or maturation of in-vessel composted materials is significantly less than that required in
2nd Edition 2007
facilities where an initial in-vessel composting phase is not used. This occurs because the overall
volume of feedstock material is usually reduced by up to 50 % through the size reduction and in-vessel
composting stages of processing.
The processing capacity of large-scale in-vessel composting technologies ranges from 1-4 m
3
per day
to in-excess of 50 m
3
per day depending upon the type of process and number of modules used (for
modular systems).
4.2.6 Processing time
This is dependent upon the process used and also on the characteristics of the feedstocks. In most
instances, processing time for primary decomposition is quite short for food organics. On average,
processing time ranges from a few days to several weeks. If an additional maturation/composting
phase is implemented by a facility, this will generally add another 2-4 weeks to the total processing
time of food organics depending upon the product quality requirements of the market to which the
products are sold.
4.2.7 Outputs and products
Soil conditioners and mulches are the main products manufactured from in-vessel composting systems.
Although discharged material from these systems is usually pasteurised, it may still be immature and
relatively unstable. In these instances, further maturation via composting in windrows is required in
order to produce higher quality stable and mature products suitable for a wide range of applications.
Such products can then be utilised for various purposes in a range of situations, including:
Potted plants
Home gardens
Commercial landscaping
New housing developments
Parks, gardens, playgrounds and other community open spaces
Roadside applications
Forestry and agricultural applications
Mine site applications
4.3 Quality issues relating to the technology
Although there is no state or federal legislation controlling the quality of material produced by the
processing of food organics using in-vessel composting technologies, manufacturers of compost should
be aware of some relevant Australian Standards that identify minimum quality levels for different
compost based products.
Composts generated from aerobic composting processes should be compliant with the guidelines
described in Australian Standard 4454 (1999). Although in-vessel systems produce pasteurised
products, it may be necessary for a product to be composted/matured in windrows/static piles if a stable
and matured compost is to be manufactured. This will add to the overall processing time of the
2nd Edition 2007
feedstock, but should result in the production of higher value soil conditioner and mulch products.
Products that do not comply with Australian Standards risk spreading weed seeds and plant/animal
pathogens, which can impact on the environmental health of animals and humans. Immature products
can also have phytotoxic effects on plants if applied incorrectly. Such risks are greatly reduced if
mature composted products are used.
4.4 Environmental impacts and licensing requirements
General environmental impacts and licensing requirements are summarised in Section 3. The reader is
directed to this section for relevant details.
Emissions from in-vessel aerobic composting processes are usually limited to carbon dioxide, water
vapour and occasional traces of ammonia. In addition, emissions of volatile organic compounds and
leachate are also possible. In order to minimise such outputs process control is essential. Facilities
operating within NSW must comply with the conditions of their environment protection license in
accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act (1997). Key process control
features required at a facility to minimise impacts on the environment are documented in Establishing
a licensed Composting Facility by the Recycled Organics Unit (2000b).
Some in-vessel composting facilities are established at existing council-owned waste management
centres for processing food organics. As these facilities are licensed, well managed in-vessel
composting facilities can be easily established. The provision of council support for the development
of high performing in-vessel composting facilities at existing waste management centres is a novel
concept, effectively overcoming many of the delays normally experienced in developing a composting
facility. This is currently occurring in the Wingecarribee Shire Council area (south-west of Sydney),
with assistance of Macarthur Waste Board (M. Jackson pers. comm.).
4.5 Economics
In-vessel composting systems are commercial systems, which may be purchased or licensed for use,
and/or specially designed by consultants. They usually carry high capital costs compared with
windrowing (see Section 5), but lower costs than anaerobic digesters (see Section 6). The operation
and maintenance of in-vessel systems generally requires greater expense and a higher level of
knowledge and skill than windrow and aerated pile technologies. In-vessel systems, however, offer
several potential advantages, including reduced labour, fewer weather problems, potentially better
odour control, closer process control, faster composting, reduced land area, and consistent compost
quality (Rynk, 1992).
2nd Edition 2007
Table 4.2 Cost of processes on a capacity basis.
Company Name Capital cost ($ AUD) Volume of in-
vessel chambers
(m
3
)
Capital cost/
chamber capacity
($AUD/m
3
)
VCU Technology Pty. Ltd., 10
chamber
$1 400 000 250

$5600/m
3

VCU Technology Pty. Ltd., 1
chamber
$198 000 25 $7920/m
3

Green Mountain Technologies Inc.,
Earth Tub/CompTainer
$13 000/Earth Tub
$70 000/ CompTainer
2.9

30
$4820/m
3
$2333/m
3

NaturTech, Containerized
Composting Process
$400 000/ container 15

$26 667/m
3

2nd Edition 2007
4.6 List of manufacturers
The Recycled Organics Unit does not endorse any of the manufacturers listed in the Table 4.3. The
generic technology profiles presented in the previous sections (or in the case studies) do not directly
reflect the performance of specific proprietary technologies.
Table 4.3 Manufacturer contact details.
Company Name Contact details
Natural Recovery
Systems
15 Berends Drive
Dandenong, Vic. 3175
Email: chudson@netspace.net.au
Tel: 03 9706 5557
Fax: 03 9706 5559

VCU Technology Pty.
Ltd.
11 Newman St
Newtown
Sydney NSW 2042
E-mail jk@vcutechnology.com
Internet: www.vcutechnology.com
Ph. +61 2 95573487
Fax +61 2 95573453

Wright Environmental
systems Inc.
9050 Yonge Street, Suite 300,
Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada L4C 9S6
Spartel Pty. Ltd. PO Box 1097
Wester Leederville, WA, 6007
Australia
Tel: 08 93606699
Fax: 08 93107334

Global Earth Products
Inc.
R.R. #2
Utopia, ON L0M 1T0
Canada

TEG Environmental
PLC
TEG Environmental PLC
Crescent House, 2-6 Sandy Lane
Leyland, Lancashire
PR5 1EB, United Kingdom
Email: teg@teg-environmental.com
TEL: +44 (0)1772 422220

Stinnes Enerco Inc.
(Canada)
Sheridan Science & Technology Park
2800 Speakman Drive
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5K 2R7
Internet: http://www.stinnesenerco.com

Green Mountain
Technologies Inc.
East Coast Office
PO Box 560
Whitingham,Vermont 05361
Internet: http://www.gmt-organic.com

Brentwood Recycling
Systems
238 Berkeley Rd
Unanderra NSW 2526
Tel: 02 42 717611
Fax: 02 42 729339
2nd Edition 2007
Introduction
The Natural Recovery Systems
in-vessel composting facility is
located in the south-eastern
suburbs of Melbourne at
Dandenong. It is situated in an
industrial area of Dandenong
and is surrounded by a wide
variety of industries. The
closest residential areas/
dwellings are approximately
1500 m from the site. Although
the facility commenced
operations in September 1999, it
was only officially opened on
the 28 March 2001 (C. Hudson
pers. com).
Process description
Currently the facility uses 3 x
200 m
3
vessels constructed of
concrete walls and base. The
base houses a series of plenums
to supply air evenly into the
bottom of the composting bed
through a network of holes in
the floor of the vessel.
The feedstock is loaded into a
concrete vessel by travelling
conveyors. The container is
then hermetically sealed and air
is drawn from within the top of
the vessel via a fan and directed
back into the distribution
chamber at the bottom. The
continual recirculation of air
through the compost bed serves
to equalise temperature and
oxygen and moisture content.
In addition, the constant upflow
of air helps maintain the bed in
a porous state and prevent
excessive compaction.
The in-vessel composting cycle
is controlled by a Citect, System
Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) computer package.
This system controls
temperature, oxygen,
differential pressures, air
velocities, fan motor power
consumption, damper
positioning and cycle times.
Composted material from the
vessels is placed in outdoor
windrows on maturation pads.
The moisture content of the
windrows is monitored during
maturation and water is added
when required. The windrows
are also turned when required.
The Natural
Recovery Systems
in-vessel composting
facility can process
35 000 tonnes of
food organics every
year when operating
at full capacity.

Feedstocks
Source separated fruit and
vegetable material blended
with bulking agents

Facility size
2000 m
2

Process
3 x 200 m
3
in-vessel
containers with a separate
aeration system

Processing time
7 days in-vessel composting
and 2-3 weeks windrow
composting

Outputs
Pasteurised soil conditioner
and mulch

Installations
Melbourne, Victoria

Cost
Information not supplied

Status
Commenced operations

Case study 4.1
Natural Recovery Systems (Melbourne)
In-vessel composting of food organics
Plate 4.3 Concrete vessel used for composting food organics at the
Natural Recovery Systems facility in Dandenong, Victoria. Photo on
the left is an open vessel, and closed on the right.
2nd Edition 2007
Input feedstock requirements
This in-vessel system is capable
of processing a range of
compostable organic materials
from a range of sources
including: supermarket produce,
food processing residuals,
industrial food manufacturing
sludges, out-of-date products,
produce market wastes, fish
wastes, sawdust and shavings,
straw wastes, garden organics,
waste paper fibre and sewage
sludge. However, the primary
feedstock is fruit and vegetable
residuals from supermarket
chains. At present, their main
customer is the Coles
Supermarket group. Food
organics from this supermarket
chain are source separated for
collection.
Drier materials including saw
dust and garden organics are
mixed with the food organics in
order to achieve the optimum
carbon to nitrogen ratio and to
help maintain required porosity
in the compost mixture.
Processing capacity and land
requirements
The facility is designed to
process 35 000 tonnes of food
organics every year. It is
situated on two adjacent
allotments (approximately 0.4
ha each). One allotment has a
2000 m
2
building in which all
feedstock is received, handled
and in-vessel composting
operations are conducted. The
second allotment houses the
compost maturation pad, which
is fully bunded and sealed. The
area is equipped with leachate
collection and recycling
facilities.
Processing time
The compost mixture undergoes
7 days in-vessel composting and
2-3 weeks windrow composting.

Output
This facility produces
pasteurised soil conditioner or
mulch that complies with the
requirements identified in
Australian Standard AS 4454
(1999).
Existing installations
Currently there is only one
facility located in the
Dandenong area of Melbourne.
Costs
Information not provided.
Source
C. Hudson pers. comm.
Contact details
Natural Recovery Systems
15 Berends Drive
Dandenong, Vic. 3175
Email:
chudson@netspace.net.au
Tel: 03 9706 5557
Fax: 03 9706 5559

2nd Edition 2007
Introduction
A 10 module VCU was
purchased by the Waitakere
City Council in Auckland City.
The facility was established at
the councils waste transfer
station, which accepts 7500
tonnes per annum of
municipally collected garden
and food organics.
A single VCU (25 cubic metre
chamber size) was initially used
for a three month trial in mid-
2000. The single unit had a
throughput of 2.4 tonnes per day
(on a 7-day continuous cycle).
At this time tub-ground garden
organics were processed and
pasteurised. VCU Technology
Ltd. expect that a 7-day cycle
with food organics on a
woodchip matrix will increase
processing capacity to between
3.75 and 4 tonnes per day per
chamber.
As a result of this trial,
Waitakere City Council placed
an order for a 10 chamber
system, ie. 250 cubic metres of
chamber space with a capacity
of 24+ tonnes per day. The
throughput can be increased
with shorter cycle periods, but
with an increase in the odour of
the immature pasteurised
product. VCU Technology Ltd.
does not recommend cycle
periods less than 7 days.
Process description
The VCU 250 is a group of two
rows of five 25 m
3
modules fed
by a shared blender feed system.
The VCU is an insulated tower
in-vessel composting system.
Material is fed via elevator and
distribution systems approxi-
mating continuous-flow, with
the harvest of product from the
base of each chamber. Product
is conveyed to one end and
elevated for skip loading.
VCU uses plug-flow movement
of composting material, and is
passively aerated. Air is
passively drawn in via the base
and exits the top of the system.
Exhaust gas is released at the
top of the chamber after
condensing out much of the
moisture. Condensation
combined with an 8 m release
height render most of the odour
undetectable at the base of the
VCU.
Temperatures within each unit
stratify into thermophilic
The VCU Technology
Ltd. 10 module unit is
capable of
processing 20-40
tonnes of material a
day to produce
coarse mulch.

Feedstocks
Food organics, garden
organics

Facility size
The VCU chambers occupy
an area of 132 m
2
. The
complete facility occupies
several hectares

Process
10 chamber Vertical
Composting Unit with a total
volume of 250 m
3
and a
throughput of 20-40
tonnes/day

Processing time
Feedstock is put through a 7
day in-vessel cycle.
Additional time is required
for further composting and
maturation in static piles

Outputs
Pasteurised coarse mulch or
composted coarse mulch if
further composting is
employed

Installations
Australia, New Zealand and
the United Kingdom

Cost
$1.4 million for 10 units
$198 000 for 1 unit

Status
Operational commercial
facility

Case Study 4.2
VCU Technology Ltd. (New Zealand)
10-module Vertical Composting Unit (VCU)
Plate 4.4 The 10-cell vertical composting unit at Waitakere in
New Zealand has the capacity to process 20-40 tonnes per day.
2nd Edition 2007
(lower, 40-50C) and extreme
thermophilic (upper, >70C)
zones with distinct resident
organism groups populating
each temperature zone, and
degrading different substrate
components. Compost is
discharged through a roller grid
onto a conveyor.
Feedstock is shredded through a
hammer mill prior to being
added to a VCU unit. Material
received by the facility is
generally source separated,
allowing for a reduction in
contaminants. Contaminants
are manually removed from
incoming feedstocks prior to
being put through the shredder.
requirements
The 10 chamber VCU can
process between 20 to 40 tonnes
per day of organic material.
The VCU modules occupy an
area of 132 m
2
, while the
complete facility occupies
several hectares.
Processing time
The continuous flow VCU has a
cycle time dependent on the
daily volume fed into the
chambers. Therefore, as the
input volume changes, the cycle
speed (retention time) will vary.
On average, however, a 7 day
cycle is used. Market demand is
used to determine whether
further composting and
maturation is required for the
pasteurised material discharged
from the VCU.
Output
This facility produces
pasteurised coarse mulch or
composted coarse mulch if
further composting and
maturation is applied.

VCU Technology Ltd. has
developed a number of facilities
in Australia and internationally.
Facilities that have been
developed or are in the process
of being developed include:
Lord Howe Island (NSW)
Compaq Computer
(Sydney)
Waitoa rendering plant
(New Zealand)
Unitec (Auckland)
Chemwaste (Auckland)
University of NSW
University of Auckland
(Tamaki) (planned)
Bromley Council in
London (planned)
Sheffield transfer station,
London (planned)
Camden Soil Mix (under
development)
Costs
The cost of the 10 chamber
system in New Zealand is $1.4
million. The cost of a single
chamber unit is $198 000.
Source
J. Kater pers. comm.
Contact details
11 Newman St
Newtown
Sydney NSW 2042
E-mail:
jk@vcutechnology.com
Internet:
www.vcutechnology.com

Ph. +61 2 95573487
Fax +61 2 95573453

2nd Edition 2007
Introduction
Management Inc. have
developed a continuously
loading, fully enclosed, flow-
through process that is used to
convert food organics into
compost in a 14-28 day
period. The end-product is a
pasteurised soil conditioner
suitable for agricultural and
horticultural purposes.
The composting vessel can be
custom designed by Wright
Environmental Management to
handle different feedstock
quantities. A modular stainless
steel construction allows
outdoor operation and
continuously composts from
hundreds of kilograms to
hundreds of tonnes per day.
The unit can be located indoors
or outdoors in any environment,
with only a small shed needed
to contain the loading zone, and
can be used as an on-site or as a
centralised composting facility.
Process description
This system uses computer
control of temperature, oxygen
and moisture.
The in-vessel composter located
at the Ontario Science Centre
presently handles food organics
from seven Provincial
Government facilities. A
schematic of the process is
shown in Figure 4.1.
Food organics are mixed with
an equal volume of amendment
material, including wood chips,
paper sludge and cardboard,
which increase the bulk and
porosity of the compost mixture.
The residuals are mixed with the
bulking agent by a drag chain
mixer, which has two opposed
two-speed augers. The mixture
is then fed into the composter
via a conveyer and enters the
unit through a hydraulic door.
Bacterial activity begins almost
immediately and air is
continuously circulated around
and through the composting
material. As the waste travels
inside the vessel, it passes
through three composting zones
and two mixing zones. The
temperature and humidity levels
are monitored within each zone
and airflow rates are controlled
to optimise composting
conditions.
This Canadian
company uses an in-
vessel, horizontal,
continuous flow
system for
composting a range
of organic materials

Feedstocks
Food organics including:
meats, fats and seafood
pulp sludge
garden organics

Facility size
This technology can process
several hundred kilograms to
several tonnes of food
organics every day.

Process
Completely enclosed
stainless steel modular
construction with odour
control and continuous
loading processes.

Processing time
14-28 days

Outputs
Pasteurised soil
conditioner.

Installations
Several in Canada, the USA
and Britain.

Cost
Cost not available

Status
facility

Case Study 4.3
Wright Environmental Management Inc.
(Canada) In-vessel continuous flow system
Figure 4.1 The composting vessel is a double-walled horizontal
tunnel (stainless steel interior, burnished steel exterior) insulated to
control the heat produced when organic materials decompose.
Temperature and moisture levels inside the vessel's seven air zones
are monitored constantly, and air flow is independently controlled
in the three composting zones (shown) to assure optimum
composting conditions. The mixing zones (between each
composting zone) assure proper mixing and aeration for bacterial
growth.
2nd Edition 2007
Oxygen in the vessel is
maintained at 17%, and the
manufacturer claims that the
process is very water efficient.
In the mixing zones, specially
designed spinners throw the
residuals forward to ensure they
are well mixed and aerated. Air
is continuously drawn out of the
composter in order to maintain a
negative pressure. This prevents
air from escaping from the
vessel and ensures that the
majority of exhausted air is
passed through a biofilter to
remove particulates and odours.
After spending approximately
28 days in the vessel, the
finished compost is removed
from the vessel and filtered on a
shaker screen. Larger pieces are
removed and then recirculated
through the composter as
amendment. The finished
product can be used without
further maturation.
Technology accept all
compostable organics,
including: food organics (e.g.
meats, fats, seafood), pulp
sludge, packing and food
processing facility residuals,
garden organics, and
contaminated soils from
bioremediation projects.
requirements
Depending upon the quantity
and type of material to be
treated, composting units can be
custom designed for capacities
from 136 kg/day to several
tonnes/day; requiring between 7
- 140 m of area for operation.
Facilities using the Wright
technology and their associated
processing capacities are listed
below.
Ontario Science Center
North York, Ontario 1.4
tonnes/day
Department of National
Defence HQ Ottawa,
Ontario 340 kg/day
Ste. Anne des Plaine
Institution Laval, Quebec 9
tonnes/day
Mountain Institute Agassiz,
B.C. 680 kg/day
Atlantic Institute Renous,
N.B. 680 kg/day
Jasper National Park Jasper,
Alberta 900 kg/day
San Francisco State
University California 453
kg/day
Belfast Northern Ireland,
UK 453 kg/day
Processing time
The processing time for the
Wright composting system
ranges from 14 to 28 days
(depending upon the desired
product quality).

Output
This technology can produce
high quality compost, suitable
for marketing in agricultural,
horticultural and other markets.
As identified above, Wright
composting units are installed
throughout North America and
in Europe.
Costs
Cost not available.
Source
Internet:
http://www.oceta.on.ca/profiles/
wright/wright.html
Contact details
Management Inc.
9050 Yonge Street, Suite 300,
Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada
L4C 9S6
Tel: (905) 881-3950
Fax: (905) 881-2334

Plate 4.5 In-vessel composting
units at the Wright
Environmental Technology
facility in Ontario, Canada.
2nd Edition 2007
Section 5 Windrow-based composting systems
5.1 Introduction
Aerobic decomposition occurs when organic material is decomposed in the presence of oxygen. In
aerobic decomposition, living organism which utilise oxygen, feed upon organic matter and develop
cell protoplasm from nitrogen, phosphorus, some carbon, and other nutrients. Much of the carbon
serves as a source of energy for the organisms and is burnt up and respired as carbon dioxide (Gottas,
1956). This is the main process used in windrow composting systems. As with other compostable
organic materials, highly putrescible food organics can usually be processed in windrows.
In brief, a windrow is a pile of organic material subjected to aerobic decomposition. The pile must be
aerated, through forced or passive aeration systems or via mechanical agitation (Manser and Keeling,
1996). Although windrow composting of food organics is not commonly practiced in Australia, it is
commonly used in North America. Facilities such as prisons (Allen, 1994; Allen, 1997; Marion, 2000),
farms (Anonymous, 1999b), colleges (Seif, 1999) and other centralised commercial facilities use
windrow-based composting processes for food organics and other complementary feedstock materials.
Windrow composting utilises different equipment and infrastructure to that used by in-vessel
composting (as described in Section 4). Equipment includes front-end loaders or windrow turning
machines, shredding and screening equipment, perforated piping (for passive and forced aerated
systems), blowers (for forced aerated systems), and bunded pads for windrow placement (Rynk, 1992).
These systems are considerably simpler than other food processing systems such as in-vessel
composters (Section 4), anaerobic digesters (Section 6) or fermentation processors (Section 7).
Consequently, establishment costs for facilities using windrow technology types may, in some
instances, be considerably less than for alternative technology types. The generic stages in a
composting process are identified in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Windrow based aerobic composting flow chart. Dotted lines indicate a by-product of the main
process.

Odours
Polluted runoff to
leachate
management system
Food
organics
Windrow
composting
Product
blending/
formulation
Bulking
agent
Size reduction
and removal of
contaminants
Screening/
removal of
contaminants
Product
maturation
2nd Edition 2007
The main types of windrow composting systems to be reviewed in this section are (see Section 5.2.2
for details):
Turned windrows
Aerated static piles/windrows
Passively aerated piles/windrows
5.2.1.1 Initial odour control, size reduction, removal of contaminants and addition of bulking agent
Food organics may pose considerable odour problems if not properly received and stored by a facility.
In some instances, facilities bury feedstock material directly into woodchip baths in order to suppress
potential odours. More sophisticated (and expensive) approaches involve the storage of material in
negative pressure containers (e.g. the CompTainer by Green Mountain Technologies Inc.), in order
to suppress odours. In these instances, air is drawn from the containers, and filtered prior to release,
reducing or eliminating odours. In other cases, specialised receival bays that are completely enclosed
under negative pressure (with biofiltration of odours) are used to receive and temporarily store food
organics before being blended with bulking agents and then composted.
An initial size reduction process may be used prior to placing feedstock material into a windrow/pile.
Size reduction of feedstocks to between 10 and 30 mm is beneficial to promote the composting process.
This stage also allows for the removal of physical contaminants such as plastic, metal and glass from
the feedstock material. This contaminant removal phase may use mechanised systems with magnets
and metal detectors to remove metal contamination, air blowers to remove plastic, and crushers to
reduce the size of glass. Manual labour is also used for the removal of visual contaminants from
feedstocks.
Bulking agents, such as wood chips or shredded garden organics, are usually added to food organics to
create a compostable mixture of suitable porosity (at least 20 % v/v) and carbon to nitrogen ratios (30-
40:1) that promote the composting process. The ratio of food organics to bulking agent varies
according to the composition of the food organics and the type of bulking agent used.
5.2.1.2 Windrow composting
After the initial mixing process, the compost mixture is formed into piles or windrows using equipment
such as front-end loaders. Windrows are often placed on bunded concrete or asphalt pads (improving
leachate control), but this may not be necessary in all instances. In turned windrow systems, feedstock
material is turned on a regular basis or as required to achieve effective decomposition. This is often
based upon windrow temperatures, moisture content, and the odours from composting material. If
aeration systems (forced or passive) are used, perforated pipes or specialised concrete pads with
aeration channels generally underlie the feedstock material in the windrows. In some instances, wood
chips or similar materials are placed underneath the main feedstock material to act as a sponge to
absorb any leachate. Facilities may have other runoff control infrastructure, such as sloped pads that
redirect leachate to a drain basin or water storage area (Marion, 2000). This leachate is sometimes re-
2nd Edition 2007
used by a facility when mixing fresh feedstock materials in a compostable mixture, and to maintain
moisture levels in compost windrows/piles.
Different levels of labour are required depending upon the process used to maintain a windrow. For
example, if turned windrows are used, regular turning of the composting material is required,
contributing to greater labour requirements. Forced aerated or passive windrow processes do not
require this level of maintenance following the initial establishment process (Manser and Keeling,
1996).
5.2.1.3 Final screening and maturation
Composted products are usually screened with trommels or similar equipment to remove remaining
oversized materials that have not been properly decomposed or to remove any remaining contaminants.
Some facilities re-process the oversized materials by incorporating them into new feedstocks.
Following screening, pasteurised products are often composted/matured for several weeks to several
months, depending upon the process used. This phase helps to produce stable and mature end-products
(Anonymous, 1999b).
5.2.1.4 Covering of windrows/piles
Windrow covers or burial-bath
In some instances composting facilities cover food organics with woodchips or similar materials in
order to suppress the emission of odours from a pile. Other facilities use mature compost or manure to
cover fresh feedstock, suppressing odours and to insulate the composting material. Another approach
is to create a channel in the middle of a woodchip or sawdust pile and place fresh feedstock material
into the bath. The feedstock is then enclosed within the bath by more woodchips or sawdust. Saw
dust is particularly effective for organics of high liquid content (e.g. milk and dairy material).
Plastic covers
Plastic covers over windrows are used to help maintain more consistent temperatures throughout the
feedstock, by reducing heat loss from the outer layers of a windrow/pile. The use of covers also helps
protect composting material from climatic forces such as wind and rain. This is particularly important
if food organics are used, as these materials may become very wet and dense if exposed to rainfall.
These covers are generally used in passively or forced aerated systems, where windrow turning does
not occur. Some cover materials may allow for the diffusion of air from and into the feedstock
material, while suppressing odours.
There are a number of windrow/pile technologies that are available to process food organics. These
technologies include those identified in Table 5.1. In most instances, turned windrows are the favoured
method for processing food organics. However, forced or passively aerated systems are also used, as
they may be more space efficient and less labour intensive than turned windrows.
2nd Edition 2007
(Manser and Keeling, 1996) noted a number of difficulties associated with the use of aerated systems
compared with turned systems. Similarly, in a comparative study in Laem Chabang, Thailand, (Brown
and Chalermwat, 1998) showed that turned windrow composting was more effective than passive
aeration, as there was evidence of anaerobicity in some passively aerated piles. In this study, the turned
windrow systems were also shown to decompose food organics more quickly than the aerated piles.
These findings differ from the experiences of others such as Seif, 1999, where passively aerated
windrows were found to be more suitable for composting food organics than turned windrows due to
better odour control (see Section 5.2.2.3 for details). This is plausible as mechanical turning of piles
often releases odours into the atmosphere.
Table 5.1 Types of processes used in windrow systems.
Process name Description
Mechanically turned
windrows (Rynk, 1992)

The absence of any enclosure, ventilation and odour control characterise
these processes. The simplest facilities may utilise front-end loaders to
pick up residuals. These systems are compatible for use with food
organics.

Aerated static piles
(Manser and Keeling,
1996)
A pile of food organics is placed over a perforated pipe on a prepared base.
Air from a fan is blown or sucked down a pipe, delivering or drawing
oxygen through the material.

Passively aerated
windrows (Rynk, 1992)
A pile of material is positioned over perforated pipes that extend to the
outside of a pile. Outside air then enters the pipe in a natural slow aeration
process. This has lower running costs than forced aeration systems, but
may not be efficient enough to aerate some food organics.

5.2.2.1 Mechanically turned windrows
Windrow composting consists of placing a mixture of raw feedstock materials in long narrow piles or
windrows, which are agitated or turned on a regular basis. They are typically 1 to 3.6 m in height
depending upon the density of the compost mixture. As food organics are of a relatively high density,
windrows incorporating these feedstocks are usually lower in height, averaging 1 to 1.5 m. The width
of windrows varies between 3 to 6 m. The equipment used in the turning process determines the size,
shape and spacing of windrows (Rynk, 1992).
Windrows are aerated by natural or passive air movement (convection and gaseous diffusion) between
turnings. The rate of air exchange depends on the porosity of the windrow. Therefore, the size of a
windrow that can be effectively aerated is determined by its porosity. A low density windrow (e.g.
comprising coarsely shredded garden organics), can be much larger than a wet dense windrow
containing food organics. If a windrow is too large, anaerobic zones may result near its centre, which
release odours when the windrow is turned. At the same time, small windrows lose heat quickly, and
may not achieve required thermophilic temperatures to effectively pasteurise composting material
(Rynk, 1992). Consequently, a balance must be reached in order to optimise composting conditions.

2nd Edition 2007
The turning procedures used in mechanically turned windrows help:
mix the feedstock materials;
rebuild the porosity of the windrow, and
release trapped heat, water vapour and gases.
An important effect of the turning process is to rebuild windrow porosity, which in turn improves
passive air exchange. The turning process exchanges the material at the windrows surface with
material from the interior. This exposes all material equally to the air at the outer surface and to the
high temperatures inside the windrow, helping materials to decompose evenly while eliminating most
weed seeds and pathogens (Rynk, 1992).
A food organics processing facility was established at a correctional centre in Connecticut, USA using
windrow turning processes. The facility processes in excess of 1 tonne of food organics every day.
The food organics materials comprise bread, fruits, vegetables and pastas, which are bulked with
garden organics to form a compost mixture. The compost-mix is formed into windrows on a covered
concrete pad using a small front-end loader. Feedstocks are composted for a period of 5-6 weeks, and
turned when required. Following composting, the product is screened to remove woodchips, which are
then mixed with new feedstocks and reprocessed. The screened compost is placed in maturation
windrows on asphalt pads and are covered and left to cure until the material is deemed mature. The
finished compost is used as mulch and soil conditioner on the prison grounds (Anonymous, 1997).
Other facilities, such as Seacoast Farms Compost Products Inc. process their food and garden organics
mixes for 4.5 months, with additional maturation periods of 6 weeks (Anonymous, 1999b) (see Case
Study 5.1 for details).
Turning equipment
For smaller scale operations (processing 1-2 tonnes/day), turning can be accomplished with a front-end
loader or a bucket loader on a tractor (e.g. Anonymous, 1997). However, for larger operations,
specialised machines for turning windrows may be necessary. These machines greatly reduce the
processing time and labour requirements, size reducing and mixing feedstocks thoroughly to produce a
Plate 5.1 Front-end loader used for turning windrows in smaller scale commercial operations.
2nd Edition 2007
more uniform compost, but require significant capital expenditures (Rynk, 1992). Importantly,
effective turning processes may be difficult to achieve using less specialised equipment, contributing to
incomplete composting/pasteurisation of some feedstock material.
The California Waste Recovery Systems Inc. composting facility in Lodi, California use a mechanical
agitator, which travels along rows and lifts the compost mixture. Aerated material is then dropped onto
a discharge conveyor and restacked approximately 5 m to the left of its original location. This facility
composts on average 110 tonnes of food and garden organics every day (Masoud et al., 1996).
Prices for turning equipment are dependent upon the type of technology used and the processing
capacity of the equipment (Table 5.2). General prices range from over $100 000 to over $500 000 for
the different types of windrow turners.
Table 5.2 Approximate costs associated in purchasing windrow turners with a range of capacities.
Equipment Capacity Cost (Australian Dollars)
Mobile self-propelled windrow
turner
(m
3
/hour data not available)
9.5 m width
$540 000
turner
(m
3
7 m width
$360 000
turner
(m
3
3.5 m width
$146 000
Tractor with loader (m
3
1.4 m
3
bucket
$130 000

5.2.2.2 Aerated static piles
Aerated static piles use a similar piping system to that used in passively aerated windrows. In their
simplest form, these systems comprise a pile of compostable materials placed over a perforated pipe on
a prepared base. Air from a fan (blower) is blown or sucked down the pipe, delivering air or drawing
Plate 5.2 Specialised (straddle) self-propelled windrow turner used for processing large volumes of
material.
2nd Edition 2007
air through the composting material (Manser and Keeling, 1996). The blower provides direct control of
the process and gives an operator the flexibility to use larger piles than in passively aerated windrows
(see Section 5.2.2.3). No turning or agitation of composting materials occurs once the pile is formed.
Depending upon the feedstock characteristics, the active composting period is usually completed in 3 to
5 weeks (Rynk, 1992).
These systems suffer from a number of practical disadvantages, such as the need for a power supply for
fans and a control system to regulate the operation of the fans. In addition, harvesting of composted
product is complicated by the presence of the air pipes, and processing can sometimes be erratic.
However, this can be simplified if a permanent concrete slab with aeration channels is used.
Drawbacks include (Manser and Keeling, 1996):
Piles drying out too quickly due to rising warm air;
Excessive settlement of feedstock (due to a lack of mechanical agitation), which creates voids and
fissures allowing air to pass through channels without penetrating the majority of the feedstock;
Inadequate aeration leading to pockets of anaerobicity (as was the case in the Brown and
Chalermwat, (1998) study);
Feedstocks on the outer surface may not reach pasteurising temperatures, meaning that weed seeds
and pathogens may survive and carry-over into the finished product, and
Material near the ground may never be aerated, simply because the heat in a pile tends to make the
air from pipes rise away.
An example of a facility using aerated static piles to process food organics is Ithaca College in New
York, USA. This facility processes food organics from on-campus sources. The food organics
materials are bulked with wood chips and formed into 1.8 m high static piles. Fans are used to blow air
through perforated pipes into the piles when required. In this instance, the composted product is left to
cure for a very long period (2 years) (Anonymous, 2000a), though this is generally not required.
Plate 5.3 Aerated static piles using blowers to force air through the feedstock material.
2nd Edition 2007
5.2.2.3 Passively aerated windrows
Passively aerated windrow systems eliminate the need for turning by supplying air to the composting
materials through perforated pipes embedded within each windrow. The pipe ends are open, allowing
air to flow into them and through the windrow. Windrows should be 90-120 cm in height, with a
covered top of matured compost, wood chips or some other material to absorb moisture, odours,
ammonia and to insulate the windrow (Rynk, 1992). These systems have similar if not more
pronounced problems to those identified in aerated static pile systems. The diffusion of air in passively
aerated windrows is significantly less efficient than in equivalent aerated static pile systems. In
particular, the use of these systems for food organics may be inappropriate due to the moisture content
and density of food organics feedstocks.
Although there are appear to be a number of disadvantages or difficulties associated with the use of
passively aerated systems to process food organics, the Middlebury College, Vermont, USA utilise this
technology to process approximately 1 tonne/day of food organics. Their success is attributable to the
use of a large number of perforated pipes and the establishment of low pile heights (see Plate 5.4). The
college collects food organics from on-campus food halls, dining facilities, a golf course and ski area, a
satellite campus, and from special events (note that significant physical contaminant removal is
required). The feedstock material is then stored in a Green Mountain Technologies Inc. CompTainer
until the container is full. The material is then emptied onto a concrete pad and the food organics are
mixed with wood chips and manure. The compost mixture is then placed on a bed of manure and wood
chips, which act as a sponge to absorb any moisture leakages from the bottom of the piles. The
compost pile is formed over numerous perforated pipes and a 15 cm layer of dry manure is then placed
on top of the feedstock in order to seal the odours in a 1 m high pile. The composting period runs for
12 to 16 weeks, followed by a number of weeks in 3.6 m high maturation piles. The finished product is
used as soil conditioner for on-campus landscaping purposes (Seif, 1999).
Plate 5.4 Passively aerated windrow in Vermont, USA. Open ended perforated pipes are placed at
regular intervals perpendicular to the windrow to aerate the food organics feedstock. Although the
operator claims that this is a well managed facility, the photograph shows that it is not a good example
of a well managed passively aerated pile composting process. Note the numerous plastic contaminants
in the feedstock material.
2nd Edition 2007
Whilst almost any compostable organic material can be windrowed, many materials, including food
organics, need to be mixed with complementary bulking materials to form a suitable compostable
mixture. Due to the moisture, chemical and physical attributes of food organics, it is necessary to mix
them with wood chips or other bulking agents to facilitate the composting process. Work in Northern
America indicates that the addition of bulking agents at a ratio of 2 parts bulking agent to 1 part food
organics (by volume) gives a reasonable mixture for aerobic decomposition to occur (Brown and
Chalermwat, 1998). However, different mix proportions are used depending upon the process and the
facility in question. The addition of bulking agents is necessary to maintain feedstock porosity and
aeration during the composting process.
5.2.4 Advantages and disadvantages of these systems
Turned windrows
The turned windrow method is more common in areas where space is not the primary limiting factor,
e.g. farms. Turning processes used in turned windrows help to mix, pulverise and aerate the
composting material. This produces a more uniform compost and reduces the need for further
processing such as, screening and grinding. A major disadvantage of turned windrow composting is
that it is at the mercy of the weather, as most facilities are outdoors. Paved surfaces and open-sided
buildings have been used to better cope with adverse weather, but add to the overall establishment cost
of a facility (Rynk, 1992). Turning often releases odours, so the appropriate siting of facilities that
intend to process food organics is important to minimise impacts on surrounding environments and
land uses. Further details regarding the siting and establishment of composting facilities can be seen in
Establishing a Licensed Composting Facility by the (Recycled Organics Unit, 2000b).
Aerated static piles
In general, aerated static piles provide for a more concentrated (space efficient) method of composting.
Higher, broader piles can be used than in either turned or passively aerated windrows. This makes it
easier to cover these processes with a roof or to enclose them within a building. Forced aeration makes
automation easier, permits closer process control and shortens the composting period. In addition, the
insulating layer of compost and the larger pile size reduce temperature variations. This improves
conditions for destroying pathogens and weed seeds. The insulation layer and lack of turnings
conserve nitrogen and limit the release of odours. Nearly all the nitrogen can be conserved within
aerated static piles, whereas over one-third may be lost in windrow composting (Rynk, 1992).
Passively aerated windrows
Passively aerated windrows share features of both turned windrows and aerated static piles. Like the
turned windrow method, it is more land-intensive. Unlike aerated static piles, passively aerated
windrows do not require electricity for running aeration fans, and therefore have lower running costs.
2nd Edition 2007
As with aerated static piles, passively aerated windrows conserve nitrogen, maintain even temperatures
and minimise the release of odours (Rynk, 1992). However, if aeration is not sufficient (not enough
perforated pipes or piles that are too high) all material may not be effectively composted or pasteurised.
Processing time ranges from 3 to 16 weeks depending upon the type of process used and also the
composition of the feedstock. An additional period of 2 to 3 weeks is often used by facilities to mature
and stabilise their composted product.
Products manufactured from windrow systems are similar to those generated from in-vessel aerated
composting systems (i.e. soil conditioners and mulches are produced). If correct procedures are
followed, the feedstock material should be pasteurised. For stable and mature products, additional
maturation is required.
Windrow facilities face similar issues to those identified in Section 4 for in-vessel aerated composting
systems. These issues are described below.
5.3.1 Australian standards
Although no state or federal legislation controls the quality of end-products produced by
windrow composting, manufacturers should be aware of some relevant Australian
Standards that identify minimum quality levels for different compost-based products.
Composts generated from composting processes should be compliant with guidelines set
out in Australian Standard 4454 (1999). For compliance to be achieved, it is necessary for the end-
product to be pasteurised. If a composted product is to be produced, additional processing is required
for a mature end-product. Products that do not comply with this Australian Standard risk spreading
weed seeds and plant/animal pathogens.
5.3.2 Pasteurisation
If pasteurisation is to be achieved during the windrow/static pile composting, feedstocks should be
subjected to thermophilic temperatures for the minimum period specified in Australian Standard AS
4454 (1999). Thermophilic temperatures are achieved when feedstock is exposed to temperatures in
excess of 55C. All windrow-based systems risk incomplete pasteurisation of feedstock material due to
intrinsic difficulties associated with turning and making sure all the material is exposed to pasteurising
temperatures. Therefore, greater risks may be associated with end products originating from windrow
composting, due to less process control compared with in-vessel composting systems. The use of
specialised windrow turning equipment reduces the risk of incomplete or inconsistent pasteurisation of
feedstocks. This, however, will add to the establishment cost of an operation.
2nd Edition 2007
5.4 Process control and infrastructure upgrades
To facilitate the transition from composting garden organics to composting food organics, it may be
necessary for a facility to adopt one or a number of the following changes (depending upon the nature
of the feedstock material, existing processes and infrastructure, and site specific issues):
Efficient and well designed receivals process:
Enclosed receivals area delivery vehicles enter a dock area that is enclosed and held under
negative pressure (the food organics material is unloaded directly into the receivals area and
exhaust air is treated through biofilters to remove odours);
Establishing a receival system in which food organics are placed directly into enclosed food
organics storage infrastructure (e.g. Biobox
) and/or immediate incorporation to address

odour, vermin and leachate issues;
Immediate incorporation - mixing food organics with bulking agents immediately upon
receival prior to completing compost mixture and forming windrow;
Immediate formation of windrow (e.g. incorporation into a woodchip bath)
Improved blending practices to account for the different physical and chemical properties of food
organics (e.g. creating compost mixes with higher proportions of bulking agents comprising high
carbon contents, low bulk densities and low moisture contents);
Improved aeration to facilitate effective composting;
Use of specialised windrow turners for improved size reduction of food organics;
Use of specialised windrow turners for more effective aeration of food organics;
Lower windrow heights (3 m or less) to account for the denser nature of food organics
compared with garden organics;
Improved leachate control on composting pads;
Use of windrow covers for improved moisture control, and
It will be necessary for a facility to apply for a variation of their environment protection license, as
food organics.
directed to this section for relevant details. Environmental protection licences are specific to the
feedstock type received by a facility. If facilities are currently processing class 1 feedstocks (e.g.
garden organics) and want to process food organics (class 2/3), they will need to upgrade their site and
operating license (EPA, 2000). In some instances, facilities cannot be upgraded to process food
organics due to site limitations and related licensing requirements. The only other strategy in such
situations may be to use in-vessel technologies to store and process food organics.
5.6 Economics
Operating and establishment costs for windrow-based facilities are dependent upon many variables.
These include, machinery requirements (e.g. windrow turners, front-end loaders, aeration fans),
methods in which the feedstock material is stored (e.g. use of containers, covered pads, sheds),
infrastructure housing the composting material (e.g. covered enclosures), surfacing used for windrows
and static piles (e.g. cement, asphalt), and other control measures used to minimise leachate loss from a
facility. In general, turned windrow composting is more labour-intensive than equivalent aerated pile
composting, requiring some activity to be performed on a site almost daily. By contrast, aerated static
2nd Edition 2007
piles and passively aerated windrows have labour peaks that occur when piles are constructed and
removed. Although aerated windrows have reduced machinery requirements, operational costs may
still be high due to increased electricity requirements.
General cost estimates for a number of systems reviewed by Marion, (2000) are summarised in Table
5.3. These figures can vary significantly if processing capacities are changed. For example, if
specialised equipment is purchased for windrow turning, a facility will be able to process more material
more effectively over a shorter period of time, reducing operating costs.
Table 5.3 Costs associated with the establishment of different facilities and processes in the United
States (adapted from Marion, 2000). Note prices will vary markedly depending upon the type and
processing capacity of equipment used by a facility, site lining, site office, sheds/technologies used for
receival and storage and other processing equipment used (e.g trommel screens).
Process type Capacity(tonnes/day
food organics)
Establishment cost ($AUD) Processing
cost/tonne
Turned windrow 3 $192 000 (excludes the price
of a dedicated windrow turner)
$12
Passively aerated
windrows (covered)
2 $356 000 $24
Covered aerated static pile 1 $344 000 $72
5.7
5.7 List of manufacturers (composting facilities)
Table 5.4 presents a list of composting facilities that utilise a number of the food organics processing
methods identified in this section. The Recycled Organics Unit does not endorse the systematic
operation of any of the facilities listed in the Table 5.4 as being replicable and appropriate within the
NSW context. The equipment referred to in this section is readily available through many suppliers,
advertising in industry journals such as BioCycle (http://www.biocycle.com )
Table 5.4 Facility contact details.
Company Name Contact details
Seacoast farms compost products
turned windrow
59 COLUMBUS AVE, EXETER,
NH 03833, United States of America
Phone: +(603)772-6490

Middlebury college
passive aeration
HANCOCK, VT 05748, United States of America
Phone: +(802)388-4356

Adirondack Correctional Facility
aerated static piles
Box 110
Ray Brook, New York 12977-0110
+(518) 891-1343

Ithaca College
aerated static piles
ITHACA, NY 14850, United States of America
Phone: +(607)255-2000
2nd Edition 2007
Introduction
Seacoast Farms diversified their
original wood recycling
business into a windrow
composting operation in 1995.
Process description
Seacoast Farms collects and
composts food and garden
organics that are generated
locally. At their source, the
food organics are placed in 280
litre wheeled carts, which are
then collected by a Seacoast
Farm truck.
Currently, the facility uses a
front-end loader to turn their
windrows, to blend food
organics with garden organics,
to load a screener and to load
trucks with finished composted
product. However, the facility
owners plan to purchase
specialised windrow turning
equipment in the near future.
On average the facility
composts food and garden
organics in ten windrows,
averaging 2-3 m in height. The
windrows are formed using a
front-end loader.
Once established, windrows are
turned using the front-end
loader on average once a week,
or when required. The
composting process proceeds
for a period of 4.5 months, with
an additional maturation period
of six weeks.
The facility uses a large
trommel screen to remove wood
and plastic contaminants from
the final composted product.
Seacoast farms process a total of
30 000 m
3
of food and garden
organics every year. The food
organics originate from a local
college, a hospital and local
businesses including delis,
bakeries and a number of
supermarkets. Seacoast farms
process garden organics from
towns in central and eastern
New Hampshire.
In general, compost windrows
are a mixture of food organics
and garden organics. Horse and
cow manure is also composted
by this facility.
requirements
Seacoast Farms can process in
excess of 30 000 m
3
of food and
garden organics every year.
Seacoast Farms
process in excess of
30 000 m
3
of food
and garden organics
every year

Feedstocks
organics, horse and cow
manure

Facility size
1.5 ha

Process
Turned windrows

Processing time
4.5 months in windrows and
6 weeks maturation

Outputs
Soil conditioner and mulch

Installations
Exeter, New Hampshire,
USA

Cost
Not available

Status
facility

Case study 5.1
Seacoast Farms Compost Products Inc., USA
turned windrow process
Plate 5.5 Unloading food residuals at the Seacoast Farms composting
facility in New Hampshire, USA.
2nd Edition 2007
This process is achieved on a
1.5 ha block of land.
Processing time
This facility processes its
feedstocks for a period of 4.5
months in windrows. An
additional period of 6 weeks is
used to mature and stabilise the
composted product.
Output
The facility produces compost
that can be used as soil
conditioner or mulch. The
material is usually sold in bulk
to local nurseries.
The Seacoast farms facility is
located on a farm in Exeter,
New Hampshire, USA.
Costs
Not available
Source
Anonymous, 1999b.

Contact details
59 COLUMBUS AVE,
EXETER, NH 03833, United
States of America
Phone: +(603)772-6490

Plate 5.6 Using a front-end loader to turn windrows are the Seacoast Farms
composting facility in New Hampshire, USA.
2nd Edition 2007
Introduction
A composting operation located
within the Adirondack Forest
Preserve, USA was established
to receive food organics
feedstocks from the Adirondack
Correctional facility. The site
was developed in response to an
initiative by the New York State
Department to divert organic
residuals from landfill sites.
In order to meet park
regulations, site limitations and
be in close proximity to the
security compound, an aerated
static bay design was used.
Process description
The facility comprises a 700 m
2

structure over a concrete pad.
Integrated within this structure
is a bulking agent bunker, where
food organics are mixed with
chipped garden organics. The
bunker is also used to store
materials in the short term and
to minimise the release of odour
from the fresh feedstock.
The facility has a trommel
screen, curing area and
stationary agricultural mixer.
The concrete pad is drained
directly to the municipal
wastewater system.
The facility handles materials
with a 75 HP skid steer loader.
The structure has a covered
concrete access ramp, which
allows unloading of food
organics from trucks directly
into the mixer.
The 2.5 by 3 m compost bays
are aerated by individual wall
mounted blowers through 10 cm
perforated PVC pipes. An
electronic timer control allows
automated blower intervals for
each bay.
Following composting, the end-
product is put through a
trommel screen to remove any
remaining contaminants and
oversized materials. The
screened product is then
matured for several weeks in the
curing area of the building.
This facility receives food
organics from the Adirondack
Correctional facility on a daily
The Adirondack
Correctional facility
diverts one tonne/day
of food organics to its
composting operation
within Adirondack
Forest Preserve

Feedstocks
organics

Facility size
Aerated static bay occupies
an area of 700 m
2

Process
Forced aeration- aerated
static piles

Processing time
5 weeks + several weeks
maturation

Outputs
Soil conditioner and mulch

Installations
Adirondack, USA

Cost
$344 000

Status
facility

Plate 5.7 The 20 by 35 m pole structure at the Adirondack
Correctional facility houses aerated static piles, a bulking agent
bunker, trommel screen, curing area and stationary agricultural mixer.
Case study 5.2
The Adirondack Correctional facility, USA
covered aerated static piles
2nd Edition 2007
basis. These food organics are
mixed with garden organics to
facilitate the composting
process.
requirements
The composting facility
processes 1 tonne of food
organics per day. The
composting structure occupies a
20 by 35 m area.
Processing time
Feedstocks are processed in the
composting bays for a period of
5 weeks. The pasteurised
product is then matured for
several more weeks in a curing
area within the structure.
Output
The facility produces compost
that can be used as soil
conditioner or mulch.
Only one facility is currently
operational within the
Adirondack Forest Preserve,
USA.
Costs
Capital construction and
equipment expenditure was
$344 000.
Source
Marion, 2000.
Contact details
Adirondack Correctional
Facility Box 110 Ray Brook,
New York 12977-0110
United States of America
Phone: +(518) 891-1343
2nd Edition 2007
Section 6 Anaerobic digestion systems
6.1 Introduction
In the absence of oxygen, the conversion of complex organic materials by bacteria to simple stable end-
products forms the basis of all anaerobic digestion systems (Davies et al., 1997). Although the bacteria
used in these systems are similar to those in aerobic systems, the process does not generate as much
heat (Manser and Keeling, 1996) and may require heating to facilitate digestion (Mata-Alvarez et al.,
2000). Food organics materials are readily digested in anaerobic processes to produce methane
(biogas) for electricity generation or substitute natural gas, and solid residues for use as fertiliser or soil
conditioner (after further processing e.g. composting ) (Goldstein, 2000).
Although anaerobic technology has traditionally been used in the waste water industry to treat liquid
wastes (Manser and Keeling, 1996) and dilute slurries of organic materials (Davies et al., 1997), it is
also used to treat garden organics and food organics (Goldstein, 2000). A large number of facilities
have been established in Europe and Northern America for the treatment of residuals from municipal
sources using anaerobic digestion technologies. In fact, Mata-Alvarez et al., (2000) identified that
there were over 36 000 anaerobic digestion facilities in Europe in 2000 processing a range of materials
(including food organics). In Australia, there is only one facility specifically being used to process
food organics, the Atlas Group Inc. plant in Stirling, Western Australia (see Case Study 1 for details).
This plant is currently closed, but is expected to re-open in the near future. Another anaerobic
digestion facility is currently being constructed by EarthPower Technologies Pty. Ltd. at Camellia in
Western Sydney (see Case Study 2 for details).
6.2.1 Process description
Anaerobic digestion is a controlled process in which organic materials are degraded by a large number
of bacteria in the absence of oxygen. The digestion process is described by the following equation:
Organic material Stable organic material
(s)
+ CO
2(g)
+ CH
4(g)
+ traces of H
2
S
(g)
+ H
2(g)
Where CO
2(g)
is carbon dioxide; CH
4(g)
is methane gas; H
2
S
(g)
is hydrogen sulfide; and H
2(g)
is
hydrogen.
The anaerobic digestion process produces a number of by-products including methane, carbon dioxide,
trace amounts of hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide and solid organic residues (Malina and Pohland, 1992)
(Figure 6.1). Anaerobic living organisms break down the organic compounds in digestion vessels by a
process of reduction. As in aerobic processes, the organisms use nitrogen, phosphorus, and other
nutrients in developing cell protoplasm, and reduce the organic nitrogen to organic acids and ammonia
(Malina and Pohland, 1992). The carbon from the organic compounds, which is not utilised in the cell
protein, is released mainly in the form of reduced methane and carbon dioxide (Gottas, 1956).
2nd Edition 2007

1. Removal of contaminants
Organic material utilised by a digester should consist predominantly of easily biodegradable material
and be free of contaminants. To achieve this objective, facilities require effective pre-sorting systems
to remove contaminants. This is particularly important if the feedstock material (e.g. food organics) is
not source separated. Even if the feedstock is source separated, contaminants may still be present in
the material. For example, the Atlas Group Pty. Ltd. facility in Western Australia uses automated
machinery to separate organic materials from non-organic contaminants in source separated food
organics. Other companies such as Canada Composting Inc. use a patented process called
hydropulping to achieve a similar end result. This process separates organics from contaminants
(plastic, glass, and metals) in mixed residuals or source separated organic residuals, producing an
organic suspension in water. Canada Composting Inc. use an additional patented process
hydrodynamic de-gritting to remove any shards of glass, small stones or sand remaining in the
organic suspension.
Both the Atlas Group Pty. Ltd. (Davies et al., 1997) and Canada Composting Inc. (Goldstein, 2000a)
redirect contaminants to recycling markets after further sorting or to landfill for materials that cannot
be recycled.
2. Addition of feedstock to digestion tanks
The next stage of the process is the addition of the feedstock to digestion tanks in a facility. Depending
upon the process used, these tanks may be stirred (see Table 6.1 for the range of technology types

Feedstock
preparation/
contaminant
removal
Biofilters
Inert residues
Food
organics
Anaerobic
digestion
Digestate
dewatering
Cleaned air
for discharge
Water treatment
Heat, electricity,
vehicle fuel, or natural
gas substitute.
Water for
discharge
Biogas (Methane,
carbon dioxide,
hydrogen and
hydrogen sulfide)
Methane
purification
Solids/
biosolids
Composting
Soil
conditioner
Figure 6.1 Generic anaerobic digestion system flow chart (adapted from Curzio et al., 1994). Dotted lines
indicate a by-product of the main process.
Digester heating
2nd Edition 2007
used). In general, this equipment is of a batch design. However, in some instances continuous flow
digesters are used (e.g. the Atlas Group Pty. Ltd. facility in Western Australia see Case Study 6.1 for
details). Some processes use co-digestion processes to help increase bacterial activity in the digesters
and increase the processing speed. Co-digestion processes involve mixing of highly degradable
feedstock (e.g. food organics) with feedstock that is not as easily degraded (e.g. sewage sludge) (Mata-
Alvarez et al., 2000). Water is usually added to the feedstocks to increase moisture content, and in
some instances, the feedstock material may be inoculated with bacteria to facilitate the digestion
process (Curzio et al., 1994). Feedstocks are processed in the digestion tanks for between 10-20 days,
depending upon the technology used. Biogas is usually drawn directly from the digestion tanks during
digestion process (see case Study 6.2 for details).
3. Purification of biogas
The biogas (~60 %methane and ~30-40% carbon dioxide) produced during a digestion process can
have a number of applications (See Section 6.2.6). Depending upon the application, this by-product of
the digestion process may need to undergo purification procedures. In some instances, biogas can be
used with little or no purification (e.g. for heat generation purposes-combustion), or may require
significant purification, (e.g. electricity generation), to upgrade the gas to pipeline quality or for use as
a substitute for natural gas. Where purification is required, contaminants such as water, hydrogen
sulphide, and carbon dioxide are removed. This improves the calorific or heating value of the biogas,
making it a more effective combustive heat source. Some existing biogas cleaning technologies
include (Curzio et al., 1994):
i) Absorption in water, methanol or an amine solution;
ii) Membrane permeation;
iii) Absorption on zeolites, and
iv) Methane-enrichment digestion (involves carbon dioxide absorption/desorption using the
digesting liquid as the carrierused for pipeline quality gas).
4. Dewatering of digestate (solids) and composting processes
Anaerobic digestion systems have dewatering phases where water is drained from digester effluent.
After draining, digested material is dewatered using centrifuges and/or filters. The waste water is often
reused for feedstock preparation and/or digestion. Dewatering the digester effluent and recycling the
resulting filtrate helps to preserve water, heat, nutrients, inoculum and alkalinity (Curzio et al., 1994).
In some instances, e.g. EarthPower Technologies Pty. Ltd., the treated residual water is sold as a liquid
ammonium or nitrogen-based fertiliser.
Solid organic materials remaining after anaerobic digestion are usually contaminated with plant
phytotoxins (e.g. unstable fatty acids) and with methane and hydrogen sulfide residues. Before these
materials can be used in the environment to improve plant growth and soil conditions, they must be
dried and/or matured (usually for a number of months) to permit the breakdown of the phytotoxins
(Manser and Keeling, 1996). To address this issue, windrow composting procedures are used by the
2nd Edition 2007
Atlas Group Inc. in Western Australia to produce soil conditioner that complies with Australian
Standard AS 4454 (1999) (See Case Study 6.1 for details).
The Ellert Inc. facility in Germany sends digestate to a nearby aerobic composting facility, where it is
mixed with bulking agent (e.g. garden organics). This material is then placed in enclosed drums, and
composted for a period of 7 days. After this, the material is removed from the drums and cured in a
covered area. The end-product is sold as high quality soil conditioner (Anonymous, 2000).
High solids versus low solids systems
There are a large number of anaerobic digestion systems that have been developed for different waste
streams (solid and liquid) (Table 6.1). These may be either low-solids based processes or high-solids
systems (Manser and Keeling, 1996).
Low-solids systems usually treat sewage effluent, comprising 10% or less total solids. In these
processes the organic mass is suspended in water and may be digested in enclosed vessels or in ponds
fitted with some means of continuous stirring. For enclosed vessels, it is common to provide some
heating to maintain the mixture at either a mesophilic (15-35C) or thermophilic (45-60C) temperature
range (Manser and Keeling, 1996).
High-solids systems have only recently been developed in the past 20 years (Converti et al., 1999). It
has been suggested that high solids systems can process a maximum practical solids concentration of
approximately 40%, although the rate of digestion begins to decrease at concentrations above 32.5 %
(Manser and Keeling, 1996). This is perhaps due to the fact that high-solids systems have less free
water, thereby reducing the rate of anaerobic bacterial colonisation of the solid feedstock materials.
Multistage systems versus single stage systems
Single stage systems involve no pre-treatment (e.g. hydropulping, see Case Study 6.2 for details) of
feedstock prior to digestion. Multistage systems, by contrast, may involve the physical or chemical
treatment of feedstock prior to the main digestion process. Following the initial physical or chemical
treatment, feedstocks in multistage systems undergo hydrolytic processes and anaerobic decomposition
in digestion tanks. Multistage treatments increase the volatile solids content of organic residuals,
which results in the production of more biogas, making the process more efficient than single stage
processes (without the pre-treatment of feedstocks) (Mata-Alvarez et al., 2000). For example, woody
materials comprised mainly of cellulose breakdown slowly. When this material is physically broken
down by shredding anaerobic bacteria can gain better access to the cellulose and covert this partly
to methane. Manser and Keeling, (1996) suggest that the end product of multistage systems is also
likely to be more suitable for use as a soil ameliorant, being [less contaminated with] glass, metals and
plastics. Although multistage systems have advantages over older single stage processes, the pre-
treatment of feedstocks, either chemical or physical, adds cost and energy consumption to the process.
2nd Edition 2007
The additional cost can only be justified if it also boosts methane production and/or adds considerable
value to the end-product.
Table 6.1 Anaerobic digestion processes and descriptions.
Technology Description
Pond (lagoon) based
systems (uncovered
or covered)
(Goldstein, 2000)
This is the simplest form of anaerobic digestion, which usually does not
involve any mixing. Covered systems (i.e. floating covers) may be utilised for
the collection of biogas (methane) for the generation of electricity. Uncovered
lagoons are normally not used, as the methane cannot be captured.
Completely-mixed
stirred tank systems
(Anonymous, 1996)
Contains a mixer to maintain good contact between biomass (containing
anaerobic bacteria) and the organic material to be digested. This system has a
post clarification step with biomass re-use to ensure a steady quantity of mixed
liquid suspended in a solids reactor. Clarification is a primary waste water
treatment process to remove suspended solids by settling.
Anaerobic filter
(Anonymous, 1996)
Relies on a media substrate to retain the biomass within the reactor vessel.
Different types of substrate material can be utilised for this purpose. Generally
only used for liquid feedstocks.
Upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket
(Anonymous, 1996)
This technology combines the mixing attributes of the Completely-mixed
stirred tank system with an internal gas separation and clarification
mechanism. The mixing within the reactor results from the gassing which
occurs as the organic components are distributed within the biomass bed at the
bottom. The reactor contains no mechanical components, but does have
mechanisms, which separate the gas, liquid and solid phases.
Upflow fluidised bed
(Anonymous, 1996)
These processes reduce feedstock loading rates and reactor sizes. The reactor
maintains a fluidised or expanded bed to facilitate biomass contact.
Dry continuous
digestion
(Anonymous, 1996)
Involves a continuously fed digestion vessel with a digestate (feedstock) dry
matter content of 20 to 40%. These systems rely on the external recycling of a
proportion of the outgoing digestate to inoculate incoming raw feedstock. As
this process type only requires minimal water additions, feedstock material
generally reaches thermophilic digestion temperatures.
Dry batch digestion
(Mata-Alvarez et al.,
2000)
In this process, feedstock added to containment vessels is inoculated with
digestate from another reactor. It is then sealed and left to digest naturally.
During this closure period, leachate from the base of the vessel is recirculated
to maintain a uniform moisture content and to redistribute soluble substrates
(volatile fatty acids) and methane bacteria throughout the mass of feedstock
within the vessel.
Leach-bed processes
(Mata-Alvarez et al.,
2000)
Similar to dry batch digestion, except that the leachate from the base is
exchanged between established and new batches to facilitate the inoculation
and removal of volatile acids in the active reactor.
Wet continuous
digestion
(Anonymous, 1996)
Involves mixing with a large proportion of water to provide a dilute feedstock
than can be fed into a conventional completely-mixed stirred tank system.
Effective removal of physical contaminants (glass and stones) is required in the
feed preparation stages to prevent their rapid accumulation in the bottom of
digestion tanks. Involves a continuously fed digestion vessel with a digestate
(feedstock) dry matter content of 10 to 15%.
Multistage wet
digestion (Manser
and Keeling, 1996)
Includes a range of proprietary multistage wet digestion processes where
feedstocks are mixed with water (fresh or recycled) and fermented with
hydrolytic and fermentative bacteria to release volatile fatty acids which are
then converted to biogas in a specialist high rate industrial anaerobic digester.

Lafitte-Trouque and Forster, (1999) looked at the co-digestion of sewage sludge and confectionary
residuals in dual anaerobic digestion systems. In this study, it was found that the dual system operating
at thermophilic temperatures in the first stage and mesophilic temperatures during the second stage was
2nd Edition 2007
significantly more efficient at processing the combined feedstock that the use of a single phase
digestion process.
Thermophilic versus mesophilic
Research indicates that in general, thermophilic anaerobic digestion results in more rapid digestion and
an increase in methane production than equivalent mesophilic digestion. For example, Converti et al.,
(1999) compared the efficiency of thermophilic to mesophilic anaerobic digestion processes for the
vegetable fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW). This work suggested that moving from mesophilic
to thermophilic digestion conditions was responsible for a dramatic increase in both methane yield and
methane content (60%) of biogas. As most anaerobic digestion processes (excluding dry batch
digestion) do not naturally operate at thermophilic temperatures, additional energy is required to
increase digestate temperature to the thermophilic temperature range. This will add to the operating
cost of a facility and also to the cost of the end-product. However, this is often achieved by using some
of the methane produced by the system for digestion heating. This reduces the amount of methane
available for sale.
Traditionally, anaerobic digestion systems were designed to process sewage and waste water (Mata-
Alvarez et al., 2000). The use of such technologies to process solid residuals including garden and
food organics has only recently been considered an option. Depending upon the type of process used
by a facility and the type of feedstock received, feedstock materials may need to be treated in different
ways. In all cases, inorganic contaminants need to be removed from feedstock material. In most
instances, to facilitate the digestion process, water (new and/or recycled) needs to be added to the
feedstock. This water is used to facilitate the digestion process, by preserving heat, nutrients, inoculum
Plate 6.1 Canada Composting Inc. anaerobic digestion facility in Newmarket, Canada. This facility
processes 150 000 m
3
of food organics per year on a 2.2 ha site. The food organics are processed for
14-16 days in the facilitys anaerobic digestion tanks. The facility generates 60 000 tonnes of compost
and 5000 kW of electricity every year.
2nd Edition 2007
and digestate alkalinity (Curzio et al., 1994). The amount of water used is dependent upon the process
utilised, however, even dry digestion processes use water. In general, all anaerobic digesters capable
of processing solid residuals can treat food organics feedstocks. In fact, as food organics naturally
contain a high percentage of water (approximately 80%), they are a more suitable feedstock than other
compostable organic materials (such as garden organics) or paper.
These processes usually require considerably larger areas than equivalent in-vessel aerobic processes.
This is related to larger digestion tanks requirements compared with those used by aerobic composting
facilities. In addition, they may require space for the aerobic composting and maturation of the solid
digestate produced by the anaerobic digestion process. Depending upon the number of digestion tanks
used and the size of digestion tanks, facilities may range in size from several thousand square metres
(e.g. the Atlas Group Inc. facility in Western Australia) (Davies et al., 1997) to many hectares (e.g. the
Hyperion Inc. digester complex in Los Angeles, United States) (Haug et al., 2000).
Total processing time for anaerobic digesters is usually longer than that for aerobic processing systems,
as solid digestate usually requires additional aerobic composting and maturation before it can be used
as a composted product. This will add to the overall cost of the end product. The digestion processing
cycle can run from approximately 10-20 days (Anonymous, 2000) or longer (e.g. for ponded systems).
6.2.6.1 Electricity generation
Electricity may be generated from refined biogas produced during anaerobic digestion (Goldstein,
2000). The gas is usually combusted in a generator or turbine to produce electricity and heat (Plate
6.2). The electricity and heat may then be used to run a facility and to promote the digestion process.
Research indicates that electricity produced from conventional sewage-based feedstocks is usually
sufficient to make a contribution to the overall electricity requirements of a facility. In most instances,
additional sources of electricity are, however, still required to run a facility (Riggle, 1996). This is
related to the low energy output of biogas compared with more traditional fuels such as natural gas or
coal (Manser and Keeling, 1996). For example, the calorific value of biogas is approximately 20.5
MJ/m
3
compared with 3743 MJ/m
3
for natural gas and 2630 MJ/kg for coal. The deficiency in
electricity generation is also related to the relatively small amount of biogas produced by sewage
sludge. Nevertheless, even though biogas has a lower calorific value than coal or natural gas, it is a
clean burning fuel, producing only carbon dioxide as a by-product. In addition, the use of biogas as a
source of electricity reduces pressures on our limited natural resources.
2nd Edition 2007
The production of biogas from food organics has been shown to be up to 10 times higher than that
obtained from sewage sludge (Jewell, 1999). This should compensate for the low calorific value of
biogas to some extent, allowing for the production of more electricity by facilities using food organics
than those using traditional sewage-based feedstocks (Chandler et al., 1980). Some facilities such the
Atlas Pty. Ltd. facility in Western Australia (See Case Study 6.1 for details) and Canada Composting
Inc. (Goldstein, 2000a) claim that their digestion processes can generate enough electricity to run the
facility, in addition to producing surplus electricity. This is related to the high proportion of food
organics received by these facilities, thus allowing them to generate more methane per tonne of
feedstock used. Research indicates that approximately 150 m
3
of biogas is generated from every (wet)
tonne of food organics processed.
6.2.6.2 Compost
The anaerobic digestion process creates solid by-products, which, given further processing, can be of
value as an organic fertiliser or soil amendment. Anaerobic digestion residues are generally not
suitable for direct application onto land, as they are too wet and/or contain a significant amount of
volatile fatty acids (cause phytotoxic effects to plants). Moreover, if digestion has not occurred within
the thermophilic range of temperatures, these products will not be pasteurised. Therefore, post-
treatment after anaerobic digestion is required to obtain a high quality finished product that is not
contaminated with weed seeds or contains microbial pathogens, which can impact on human and
animal health (Mata-Alvarez et al., 2000).
The amount, quality and nature of these products largely depends upon the quality of the feedstock
used, the method of digestion (thermophilic or mesophilic) and the extent/type of the post-treatment
refining processes used. The main product of a digestion process is a solid digestate, which can be
matured into a composted product. Unlike most aerobic composting systems, the ammonia from the
anaerobic feedstock may not be completely volatilised in an anaerobic digestion process. This may
Plate 6.2 Photograph of an 820 kW cogeneration engine installed at the Canada Composting Inc.
Newmarket facility. The generator can produce almost 5 mW of electrical power from
150 000 tonnes of food organics every year. The facility uses 2 mW of electricity and sells the surplus
3 mW to the electricity grid, which is enough for the annual electrical needs of approximately 3,000
homes.
2nd Edition 2007
give the final product a higher nitrogen content compared with aerobic composts (Riggle, 1996).
Similarly, this may contribute to phytotoxic effects if the final product is not properly matured or is
inappropriately used.
6.2.6.3 Solid fuel
Work at the University of California suggests that in high solids digestion systems (e.g. dry batch
digesters), the final dry residual product can have a calorific value of up to 14.8 MJ/kg, and can
potentially be used as a solid or granulated fuel following drying (Manser and Keeling, 1996).
Unfortunately the process to convert the solid digestate into a suitable fuel is time consuming and
requires the addition of heat or an additional aerobic digestion phase for the removal of excess water.
On a dry solids basis, it has been estimated that the combined calorific value of both solid residue and
methane gas could be as high as 31 MJ/kg of feedstock material (Manser and Keeling, 1996).
6.2.6.4 Methane for vehicle fuel
In an analysis and comparison of recycling methods, Sonesson et al., (1999) suggested that the use of
biogas as bus fuel has certain advantages when compared with diesel. This would require considerable
refinement of the biogas to produce methane, but would have the added advantage of decreasing
vehicle emissions and reducing demand for non-renewable fossil fuels. The combustion process is
described by the following:
CH
4(g)
+ 2O
2(g)
CO
2(g)
+ 2H
2
O
where CH
4
is methane; O
2
is oxygen; CO
2
is carbon dioxide; H
2
O is water; and is heat.
6.2.6.5 Pipeline quality gas
In the United States and Europe, biogas is upgraded to pipeline quality gas (substitute natural gas) by
removing contaminants such as carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, existing gas cleanup processes are
expensive and energy-intensive. In addition, they may also be associated with significant methane loss
(up to 10%) (Curzio et al., 1994). However, this may be a viable option for facilities located near gas
distribution systems. In Australia, the EarthPower Technologies Pty. Ltd. Camellia plant (when
completed) should generate pipeline quality gas for use at a nearby food processing facility.
The quality of material generated from anaerobic digestion processes is dependent upon the quality of
feedstock used and the level/type of processing it is subjected to. Solid recycled organics products
such as soil amendments or conditioners should comply with relevant Australian Standards (see
below).
6.3.1 Relevant Australian Standards
Although there is no state or federal legislation controlling the quality of recycled organics products
manufactured from anaerobic digestion systems, manufacturers should be aware of some relevant
2nd Edition 2007
Australian Standards (e.g. Australian Standard 4454, 1999) that identify minimum quality levels for
different compost-based products. It should be recognised that the adoption of a relevant Australian
Standard is on a voluntary basis.
Composts generated from anaerobic composting processes should be compliant with guidelines set out
in Australian Standard 4454 (1999) to minimise risks associated with use in the environment and to
maximise market value. To comply, it may be necessary for the solid residue/digestate to be aerobically
composted and matured. This will add to the overall processing time of the feedstock, but should result
in the production of high-value composted products. Importantly, products that do not comply with a
minimum quality standard (such as AS 4454, 1999) risk spreading weed seeds and plant/animal
pathogens, which can have deleterious effects on the environment and on animal/human health.
6.3.2 Pasteurisation
Depending upon the process used to anaerobically digest food organics (thermophilic or mesophilic),
the final product may not be pasteurised and hence free of weed seeds and plant/animal pathogens. If a
product has not been processed at a thermophilic temperature for the minimum period specified in
Australian Standard AS 4454 (1999), or if a product is not composted/matured followed digestion, then
the end product may not comply with the Standard and may have detrimental effects on soil, plants,
animals and humans. To avoid problems, facilities such as the Ellert Inc. plant in Germany pasteurise
their solid digestate at temperatures greater than 70C for a period of two hours. The facility owners
consider the material to be pathogen free following this period (Anonymous, 2000). Other facilities,
such as the Atlas Group Pty. Ltd. plant in Western Australia, aerobically compost their solid digestate
in windrows following anaerobic digestion (Davies et al., 1997).
Modern anaerobic digestion facilities generally have little to no environmental impacts associated with
odour, noise, and leachate, as they are tightly controlled processes.
To gain approval for development, large facilities such as the EarthPower Technologies Pty. Ltd.
facility in Camellia are required to submit Environmental Impact Statements to a relevant consent
authority (usually the local council). In addition, anaerobic digestion facilities may require Dangerous
Goods Licenses for the storage of chemicals on site. Other permits such as a tradewaste permit from
Sydney Water are also required for the discharge of wastewater.
6.5 Economics
Mata-Alvarez, J. et al., (1999) suggested that the overall investment cost of anaerobic digestion may be
1.2 to 1.5 times higher than that for equivalent aerobic composting. In brief, the operating expenses of
2nd Edition 2007
an anaerobic digestion facility may include, labour, operation and maintenance, residue/ash landfilling,
and debt service. Revenue elements include: the sale of electricity, gas, compost, recyclables and gate
fees (Curzio et al., 1994).
An anaerobic process requires larger and structurally stronger digesters than those used for aerobic
composting. While most basic designs do not require an aeration plant, they do need gas cleaning and
compressing equipment if the biogas is to be used for production of electricity. They also require
sludge de-watering plants to restore the residues to a manageable condition and large maturing areas if
solid digestate is to be processed into a soil conditioner. All these components add to the initial capital
cost of a facility and also to the running costs. (Manser and Keeling, 1996).
Table 6.2 Cost of facility on a processing capacity basis.
Facility Cost ($AUD) Processing capacity
Cost of facility per
processing capacity
($AUD/m
3
)
EarthPower Technologies,
Camelia plant

$19 000 000 4 x 4500 m
3
digestion
tanks
(82 000 tonnes/year)

$1056

Canada Composting Inc
- Newmarket facility

$50 000 000 (150 000
*

tonnes/year)
$217
Atlas Pty. Ltd Not available 3 x 1500 m
3
digestion
tanks

Not available
Hyperion $250 000 000 38 x 9600 m
3

digestion tanks
$685

* Assuming the bulk density of food organics received is ~650 kg/m
3
, annual processing of food
organics is estimated to be ~ 230 770 m
3
.
Anaerobic facilities recover at least some (if not all) energy used, whereas aerobic composting facilities
are net energy consumers. However, at the same time, anaerobic technology requires larger capital
investments, highly engineered capital infrastructure, and more complex operations (Mata-Alvarez et
al., 2000), all of which contain significant embodied energy.
The Recycled Organics Unit does not endorse any of the manufacturers listed in the table below. The
generic technology profiles presented in the previous sections do not directly reflect the performance of
specific proprietary technologies.
2nd Edition 2007
Table 6.3 Company contact details.
Facility Contact details
EarthPower
Technologies Pty. Ltd.
35 Grand Avenue, Camellia

Mr Ron Mendelsohn,
EarthPower Technologies Sydney Pty Ltd,
Ph. (03) 9654 6799
Email: ronm@cmr.com.au

Atlas Group Pty. Ltd.
(digestion plant is
temporarily closed)
Stirling, Western Australia

Ph. (08) 9249 1422
Fax (08) 9249 3575

Web: http://www.atlas-group.com.au

Canada Composting
Inc
Canada Composting In.
390 Davis Drive, Suite 301
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 7T8

Ph. (0011) 905 830 1160
Fax (0011) 905 830 0416

Kevin Matthews, President
Email: ccikevin@attglobal.net
Web: http://www.canadacomposting.com/

2nd Edition 2007
Introduction
In 1996, the Atlas Group Pty.
Ltd. constructed a materials
recovery facility (MRF) and
anaerobic digestion plant at
their landfill site near Stirling
(Western Australia). This plant
can process up to 60 000 tonnes
per year of MSW (municipal
solid waste) from the 186,000
residents of Stirling. The plant
is currently closed, but is
expected to open again in the
near future.
Process description
The anaerobic digestion plant is
designed to process
compostable organics in three
enclosed, vertical cylindrical
digesters. MSW entering the
MRF is mechanically sorted to
recover recyclable materials
and to separate the organic
fraction of the waste stream for
processing in the digester
vessels. As hand sorting is not
required in this separation
process, direct exposure of staff
to the MSW is kept to a
minimum.
The Atlas Group Pty. Ltd.
digesters operate in the
thermophilic range of
temperature scale. However,
unlike aerobic composting,
anaerobic processes are only
weakly exothermic, so the
digesters must be heated and
also insulated to minimise heat
loss.
Compostable organics are
conveyed to the top of the
sealed reactor vessels and
removed from the bottom after
a digestion period of 20 days.
The fermentation process
within the digesters stabilises
the solids to produce biogas
(60% methane and 40% carbon
dioxide) and solid digestate.
The solid digestate is dewatered
and the excess water re-used in
the digestion vessels. The
digestate is then transported to
a nearby aerobic composting
facility (also owned by Atlas
Group Pty. Ltd.) to manufacture
composted soil conditioner in
aerobic windrows. The
digestate is combined with
other complimentary feedstock
materials to form a compostable
mixture and is composted for a
period of 10-12 weeks.
facility receives MSW from
The Atlas Group Pty.
Ltd. MRF processes
up to 60 000 tonnes
of MSW per year
from the city of
Stirling in Western
Australia separating
and processing the
organic fraction via
an anaerobic
digestion plant

Feedstocks
Compostable organic
material (food organics and
garden organics) separated
post collection from mixed
MSW collection

Facility size
3000 m
2
+ additional space
for aerobic composting
facility

Process
3 continuously fed 1500 m
3

anaerobic digester tanks;
multistage technology +
aerobic windrow composting
of solid digestate

Processing time
20 days

Outputs
Electricity and soil
conditioner

Installations
Stirling, Western Australia

Cost
No information

Status
Currently closed expected
to open again in the near
future

Case study 6.1
Atlas Group Pty. Ltd. (Perth) Thermophilic
anaerobic digestion of food and garden organics
Plate 6.3 Model of the Atlas Group Pty Ltd plant in Stirling,
Western Australia. This facility processes source separated MSW in
three continuously fed anaerobic digestion tanks to produce
electricity and soil conditioner.
2nd Edition 2007
municipal Mobile Garbage Bin
(MGB) collections in Stirling.
The material is then
mechanically sorted to separate
the organic fraction (including
food organics and garden
organics) from the mixed solid
waste stream.
The sorting system developed
by the Atlas Group Pty. Ltd.
uses soft sorting technologies,
which are designed to non-
violently size reduce MSW
material so that anaerobic
process contaminants can be
separated effectively from the
organic fraction.
requirements
The organic fraction is digested
in 3 x 1500 m
3
digester tanks.
anaerobic digestion facility
occupies an area of 3000 m
3
.
Additional space is occupied by
the aerobic composting facility.
Processing time
The MRF facility can receive
up to 60 000 tonnes/year of
municipal solid waste,
operating 5 days per week. The
anaerobic digestion process for
the organic fraction takes
approximately 20 days. The
de-watered digestate is
composted for 10-12 weeks.
Outputs and products
Electricity and soil conditioner
products are produced. The
electricity is used to power the
facility.
This company claims that its
soil conditioner fully complies
with AS 4454 (1999).
The Atlas Group Pty. Ltd. has a
facility located near the city of
Stirling in Western Australia.
Costs
Information not provided.
Sources
Davies et al., 1997
http://www.atlas-group.com.au
Contact details
Ph. (08) 9249 1422
Fax (08) 9249 3575

Web:
http://www.atlas-group.com.au

Plate 6.4 Pelletised soil conditioner produced from anaerobic
digestion and aerobic composting processes at the Atlas Pty. Ltd.
facility in Western Australia.
2nd Edition 2007
Case study 6.2
EarthPower Technologies Pty. Ltd., Camellia
Anaerobic digestion of food organics
Introduction
EarthPower Technologies is in
the process of developing an
anaerobic digestion facility in
Camellia, western Sydney. The
facility will use BTA digestion
technologies (a European-based
company). Similar plants have
been constructed in Europe and
Northern America.
Process description
The western Sydney facility
will consist of four main
operations, including biomass
reception and preparation,
anaerobic digestion, sludge
dewatering, fertiliser drying and
steam generation.
When construction of the
facility is completed, food
organics materials will be
unloaded into a below ground
160 m
3
bunker. From here the
material will be mechanically
fed into a screw feeder for size
reduction.
The size reduced food organics
will then be mixed with water
and anaerobically digested. A
series of anaerobic digesters
process the material for a
period of 10-12 days or more if
required. As the operating
temperature of this system is
mesophilic (33-37C), a boiler
will be used to provide heat to
the digesters.
Solid digestate is dewatered and
further processed to produce a
liquid fertiliser and a pelletised
solid fertiliser.
The liquid from the dewatering
process will contain a high
amount of nitrogen. This water
is directed to a reverse osmosis
process, where two materials,
one clean water and the other
containing 12% ammonia liquid
fertiliser will be produced.
Both products will be sold,
making the process zero
discharge.
The dewatered solids are sent
to a fertiliser drier to further
reduce the moisture content to
20% and to sterilise the
product. This product can then
be sold as a nitrogen rich
organic fertiliser.
The gas produced by the
digestion process leaves the
digester via a 200m
3
capacity
When completed the
EarthPower
Technologies Pty.
Ltd. Camellia plant
will process in excess
of 82 000
tonnes/year of food
organics

Feedstocks
Food organics

Facility size
13 000 m
2

Process
BTU anaerobic digestion
process- multistage
technology. 2-4 x 4500 m
2

digestion tanks

Processing time
20 days

Outputs
Methane, organic fertiliser,
liquid inorganic fertiliser

Installations
Camellia, western Sydney

Cost
$19 000 000

Status
Currently being built

Plate 6.5 Overhead view of the proposed EarthPower Technologies
anaerobic digestion facility to be constructed in Camellia, Sydney.
2nd Edition 2007
gas bladder, which is required
to deliver gas at a constant
pressure via pipeline to a
nearby (800m) food processing
company, where it will be used
for fuel.
When operational, the Camellia
facility will process food
organics, which are
predominantly generated in the
Western Sydney region.
requirements
It is expected that the first stage
of the facility will process up to
82 000 tonnes/annum of food
organics.
Processing time
Digestion processing time
ranges from 10-12 days, but can
be extended if required.
Output
It is anticipated that this facility
will produce approximately
10 000 tonnes/year of organic
fertiliser, 12.4 million m
3
/year
of biogas (60% methane), 4000
tonnes/year of liquid inorganic
fertiliser, and reusable clean
water 310 m
3
/day.
The BTU technology used at
this facility has been used in
several facilities in Europe and
Northern America. EarthPower
will construct one facility in
Camellia, western Sydney.
Costs
The cost of this facility is $19
million.
Contact details
35 Grand Avenue, Camellia

EarthPower Technologies
Sydney Pty Ltd,
Ph. (03) 9654 6799
Email: ronm@cmr.com.au
2nd Edition 2007
Section 7 Food organics use in animal feed
production
7.1 Introduction
Livestock have the ability to eat plant materials or foodstuffs that humans cannot consume. Because of
this capability, source separated food organics (processed or unprocessed) can be used as animal food
(Westendorf and Zirkle, 1997). Importantly, however, the level of preparation food organics receive
may directly limit the type of animal that can consume the food. For example, chickens have strict
dietary requirements, which limits their ability to consume unprocessed food organics due to the high
moisture content (in excess of 80%) and variability of these products. By contrast, if food organics are
processed in an appropriate manner, and the end product is of an acceptable moisture and nutrient
content, then food organics may be suitable for consumption by animal types with more specific dietary
requirements. Alternatively, animals with less stringent dietary requirements may be receptive to less
processed food organics. However, due to the lack of pasteurisation or sterilisation, the use of
unprocessed food organics may carry risks such as pathogen transfer, which can significantly affect
animal production systems.
There are several problems relating to the production and use of quality animal feed from food
organics. These include:
Regulatory issues
Collection methods
Procuring adequate quantities of food organics
Minimising variability in product quality, toxicity, composition and characteristics
Competing with traditional disposal methods
Competing with non-recycled stock food equivalents (e.g. oats, formulated dry feeds etc.)
Food safety and risk
Processing facilities must address these issues as a means of establishing viable operations.

7.2 Generic description of processes
Food organics can be either processed or unprocessed depending upon the targeted animal group the
food is to be consumed by. As processing levels become more complicated, establishment costs,
operating costs and the cost of the end product will also increase.
Some methods used for processing food organics include:
Pressing/compaction
Shredding/grinding/screen separation
Dehydration
Activated sludge processes
Sodium hydroxide treatments (Glen, 1997)
Organic acids treatment with as propionic or formic acid (Glen, 1997)
Fermentation processes

2nd Edition 2007
7.2.1.1 Unprocessed animal feeds (direct feeding)
At a very basic level, all that is required to recover food organics as animal feed is a source of
uncontaminated material, a truck and a farm (Figure 7.1) (Glen, 1997). Market Management Services
in the United States of America transport 55 tonnes of unprocessed fruit and vegetables to a farm in
New Jersey every day- where they are mixed with other feeds and given to cattle. Similar approaches
are used by Organics Recycling Systems (OCR) to divert pre-consumer food organics from grocery
stores and institutions to nearby farms (Anonymous, 1999). 80% of the materials received by OCR
comprise of green vegetable material. The material is stored in 230760 litre containers at supplier
locations. Collected material is taken to nearby farms and mixed with silage and fed to heifers. The
majority of this material is unprocessed, and comprises of vegetable and fruit materials. Meat and
other animal materials are usually avoided or limited.

7.2.2 Processed animal feeds
Fermentation/sterilisation/dehydration procedures
The development of new technologies to process food organics into drier, less variable products and
using them as components of commercial stock diets is gaining wider acceptance in the United States
and Europe. To reduce variability, processing systems may involve the size reduction or shredding of
food organics followed by pasteurisation or sterilisation processes, which involve the application of
heat to remove pathogenic organisms.
Some processes involve the controlled fermentation of liquefied food organics in insulated vessels.
This process generates heat through microbial activity, and can pasteurise the liquefied food organics.
Fermentation processes allow for a variety of food organics to be used from vegetables and fruits to
grease trap waste (Anonymous, 1999). The food organics treated by these systems may also be
dehydrated and pelletised for use as feed in chicken batteries or piggeries.
BW Feeds Inc. in Portland, United States uses dehydration processes to produce pelletised stock food.
The company collects approximately 40 000 tonnes of source separated bakery residuals on an annual

Odours/leachate
Selected/sorted
food organics
collection systems
Transport to
nearby farms
Mixing with other
feedstocks- e.g.
grain
Product given to
animals
Figure 7.1 Non-processed stock food flow chart. Dotted lines indicate a by-product of the main
process.
2nd Edition 2007
basis. They pulverise material and then remove any shredded plastic and paper contaminants. Air is
used to blow off the lighter plastic fraction, and the crushed food is separated from the paper with a
screen. After separation, the material is put through a 12 m rotary dehydrator. The material is then
pelletised using two types of binding agents- lignin and water (Anonymous, 1999).
Australian Dehydration Technologies (ADT) Pty. Ltd. in Toowoomba, Queensland uses dehydration
technologies to create stock food from food organics. The company claims that its process produces
products that are free from such diseases as bovine spongiform encephalophathy (BSE) and Salmonella
spp. (see Section 7.3.2 for details). The ADT process uses a hydrolytic reaction to breakdown the
primary structure of organic compounds, including the prion proteins responsible for BSE. This
approach uses desiccants to sterilise the feedstock material at relatively low temperatures.

Liquefaction
The liquefaction of food organics for use a liquid pig feed is still prevalent in many parts of the world.
Food organics that are simply liquefied undergo minimal processing and present many quality
problems, as there may be pathogenic and other chemical problems with the end product (see Section
7.3). The use of liquefied food organics without additional heat treatment is not permitted in many
areas, including the United States of America and Britain.
Food organics that are utilised as stock food originate from a number of sources and may be exposed to
different levels of processing (Table 7.1). Feedstock type and processing systems constrain the
potential end-use of animal food products. In general, pre-consumer food organics are used for the
manufacture of stock feed. This is required to maintain feedstock consistency and quality and to
minimise physical and chemical contaminant levels.
In the United States of America and Europe, food organics residuals from the food processing industry
have been a source of stock food particularly in grain based food processing. Food organics processors
often locate themselves near cereal, snack or baked food producers (Anonymous, 1999).

Selected/sorted
food organics
collection system
Size reduction
with macerator
type equipment
Dehydration,
Fermentation,
other processes
Product given to
animals
Removal of
contaminants
Figure 7.2 Processed stock food flow chart (adapted from Waste Enquiry, 2000) Dotted lines
indicate a by-product of the main process.
2nd Edition 2007
Table 7.1 Stock food feedstock sources and technology types.
Material description Processing or
technologies used
Feedstock sources
Bakery (bread,
pastry, flour)
Fruit
Vegetables
Meat
No processing
Shredding
Compaction
Dehydration
Fermentation
Acids or hydroxide

Supermarkets
restaurants
Fruit and vegetable
outlets
Bakeries
Food processing and
manufacturing facilities
*Columns are independent of one another.
Size of facilities and equipment are dependent upon the amount of feedstock to be processed and the
processing technologies used. For example, the Lammas Resources Ltd. facility processes up to 50
tonnes of food organics every day in two 20 000 litre digestion tanks (see Case Study 7.1 for details).
By contrast Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. builds facilities that can process in excess of 1200 tons
per day (see Case Study 7.2 for details). However these large Thermo Tech Technologies Inc.
facilities are significantly more expensive and have greater space requirements than the Lammas
Resources Ltd. facility. Land area occupied by facilities is dependent upon the number and size of
digestion tanks used, water storage tank requirements, and feedstock stock pile/containment areas used.
In general facilities occupy an area of several thousand metres squared.

This is dependent upon the technology used. Processing times can range from 1-2 hours if material is
simply boiled, to 48 hours for some fermentation procedures.
Dry or wet stock foods can be generated by the processes described in Section 7.2. The application of
these stock foods is dependent upon the requirements of the animals consuming the food.
Plate 7.1 Example of a smaller scale fermentation facility build by Thermo Tech Technologies Inc.
in Corinth, New York, United States of America.
2nd Edition 2007
There are important quality issues that may impact upon the production and application of stock food
generated from food organics. These issues are outlined below.
7.3.1 Nutritional value
Westendorf and Zirkle, (1997) suggested that food residuals from a number of different sources [in the
United States] have excellent nutritional quality. Food organics usually comprise in excess of 20%
protein and 20% fat, with a mixture of vitamins and minerals. When compared on a moisture free
basis, food organics derived stock food contains nutrients that should give nutritional values similar to
many non-recycled foodstuffs fed to animals. Similarly, Myer et al., (1999) found that dehydrated
food organics from restaurants have potential to produce a nutritious feedstuff for pigs while offering
a viable solid waste disposal option. In this study, food organics (60 to 75 % moisture) from
restaurants were blended and mixed with dry feedstock (soy hulls and wheat flour), resulting in a blend
with approximately 40% moisture. The blend was then pelleted and dried at temperatures of between
150-200C for 4 to 7 minutes, giving a final moisture content of 8.4-11.4%. The study found that the
average fat content (amongst other parameters) of pigs eating the food organics-based stock food was
the same as those eating standard pig feed. Although these findings suggest that food organics are
beneficial to pig production, stock food for livestock will only be of significant value to intensive
animal production systems if the nutritional content of the food is known and within desirable
nutritional parameters.
For unprocessed stock food, the high moisture content (in excess of 80%) and variability in nutrient
content is a major limiting factor affecting stock food value and quality. The high moisture content
limits the shelf life of a product to only a few days, and product variability makes these products
difficult to use as stock food in any intensive animal production system. Even if a product is dried
(moisture content 10-15%), there are potential problems with product variability (Glen, 1997). A
highly variable product in terms of chemical composition may not meet the specifications required
for commercial stock diets. In many instances, this has limited the use of food organics in the United
States to pigs (Westendorf and Zirkle, 1997). In NSW, however, limitations also extend to pigs, as
unprocessed food organics cannot be fed to cattle or pigs under any circumstances (L. Cook pers.
comm.) (see Section 7.4). The risks are related to the transference of viruses (e.g. foot and mouth
disease). Only sterilised (i.e. rendered) food organics may be fed to pigs.
7.3.2 Food born animal pathogens
7.3.2.1 Protein based diseases
Diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalophathy (BSE) in meat and bonemeal material can
potentially be transferred to other animals if the material has not been effectively sterilised. BSE is a
degenerative infection of the brain that affects cattle, sheep and in some instances people. Studies have
shown that standard heat-based sterilisation or pasteurisation procedures are not sufficient to eliminate
2nd Edition 2007
this disease. This occurs because proteinaceous infectious particles (prions), thought to be responsible
for BSE, are extremely resistant to heat and chemicals. Prions are misfolded versions of a protein
(known as the cellular prion protein) that cells make all of the time. When present in a brain, prions
alter the way normal cellular prion proteins fold, so that they too become misshapen. If enough
misshapen proteins form, the infected subject dies (Anonymous, 1998). Although some companies
claim to have processes that eliminate prions, there is still little scientific evidence suggesting that this
will work 100 % of the time.
7.3.2.2 Other microorganism, bacterial and viral diseases
Other diseases such as foot and mouth, E. coli, Salmonella typie, Cysts and tapeworms also present
significant health risks in the application of food organics. Some companies claim to eliminate these
pathogens using hydrolytic processes, but solid scientific evidence is still required.
Recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in Europe may be linked to the presence of meat in animal
feed. The dangers of this disease in unprocessed meat products have been recognised for some time.
For example, (Cole, 1979) suggested that foot and mouth disease is present in uncooked or partially
cooked meat from infected animals, which allows it to be easily transmitted from one country unto
another if, for example, the meat eventually finds its way into feed for pigs.
To address these problems, it may be necessary for processing technologies to pasteurise food organics
feedstocks or even sterilise the product to eliminate more virulent varieties of pathogens. In the United
States, there are strict Federal regulations that require food residuals containing meat be boiled to a
temperature of 100C for at least 30 minutes prior to being fed to animals such as pigs (Westendorf and
Zirkle, 1997). Although such requirements do not exist in New South Wales, there are regulations
regarding the composition of stock food that must be adhered to (see Section 7.4).
7.3.3 Residual chemicals on food organics
In many instances, the leaves and other outer surfaces of fruit and vegetables may be contaminated
with herbicide or pesticide residues. Stock foods containing a disproportionate concentration of such
residues may comprise unacceptable or inappropriate levels of chemicals for feeding to livestock and
can be a stock contamination risk (Blackwood and Byrne, 2000). Chemical residue contamination of
food organics originates from (Blackwood and Byrne, 2000):
Chemicals from pre-planting to harvest
Chemicals used for insect control in storage
Storage facilities previously treated with organocholorine pesticides
Spray drift from neighbouring crops
Other accidental contamination during storage or transport
Inappropriately applied chemicals
These residue-related risks apply to unprocessed and processed stock foods. However, some
manufactured stock foods are supported by chemical residue quality assurance programs for raw
2nd Edition 2007
product purchases. These aim to minimise the risk of acquiring raw ingredients which exceed the
maximum residue limit (Blackwood and Byrne, 2000).
Continued consumption of stock food contaminated with residual chemicals may contribute to an
accumulation of these chemicals in the animals over time. This accumulation can have an adverse
effect upon the health of the animals, or make the animals unfit for human consumption. It is therefore
important that residual chemical levels be monitored in stock food products in order to avoid possible
health problems. The use of more extensive processing procedures such as fermentation may also help
with the biological breakdown of these chemicals. However, if feedstock material undergoes little or
no processing, then the risks associated with using such materials as stock food will be significant.
Knowing the source of the food organics materials will help identify and minimise chemical
contamination risks if sources of contamination are avoided.
7.4 Environmental inputs and licensing requirements
7.4.1 NSW State Acts and Regulations
Producers and users of stock foods should be aware of the Stock Foods Act (1940), Stock Foods
Regulations (1997), and the Stock Diseases Act (1923) s.20FB. These Acts and Regulations provide
legal requirements for stock food composition, application, labelling, packaging and testing. The NSW
Department of Agriculture enforces these Acts and Regulations by way of an on-going audit program
(L. Cook pers. comm.).
The Stock Foods Act and Regulations only apply to stock foods that have undergone a manufacturing
process (e.g. products manufactured by Australian Dehydration Technologies Pty. Ltd.), are identified
as stock food, and are in a form to be fed directly to livestock. Due to current definitions of stock food
in the NSW legislation, residual food organics that are supplied in either raw or processed form and are
not specifically identified as stock food are not covered by this legislation (Cook, 2000).
7.4.1.1 Packaging and labelling
Section 6A of the Stock Foods Act (1940) states that a person who supplies stock food in bulk must at
the time of delivery provide a written statement about the product that complies with the relevant
regulations about the stock food. If the stock food is not sold in bulk and is packaged, then the package
must be clearly labelled according the relevant regulations within the Stock Foods Act. The written
statement or package label needs to make it clear that the food contains mammalian material (meat
meal) and that it may not be fed to ruminants. In the case of mammalian material, an alternative
statement should indicate that the animal feed (must be sterilised see Section 7.3.1) must only be fed
to non-ruminants such as pigs and poultry (Cook, 2000).
2nd Edition 2007
7.4.1.2 Foreign ingredients
Manufactured stock food must comply with the Schedule 1 of the Stock Foods Regulations (1997).
This regulation prescribes the proportion or amount of any foreign ingredient that may be contained in
stock food. A detailed list of foreign ingredients that are either prohibited or can only be present in
limited amounts is given. In some instances, the limitations are animal specific and may not apply to
all livestock. Relevant limitations for the production of stock foods from food organics include (see the
Schedule 1 of the Stock Foods Regulations (1997) for a complete list):
1. Prohibited substances
Hormones of any kind, natural or synthetic, including dienoestrol diacetate, diethylstilboest
rol, medroxyprogester one acetate, trenbolone, zeranol;
Mammalian material manufactured stock food for ruminants. Note: this is currently being
changed to all animal or bird material, including fish and feather meals (L. Cook pers. comm.).
2. Toxic compounds
Aflatoxin B1 peanut meal, linseed meal, lupin meal, pea meal, rapeseed meal, safflower meal,
soybean meal, sunflower meal is limited to 0.1 grams per tonne;
Varying low levels of aflatoxin B1 (produced by moulds on decaying vegetation) for different
stock types are allowed;
DDT (1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis-(p-chlorophenyl)ethane), TDE (1,1'-(2,2-dichloroethylidene)
bis(4-chloro)-benzene) and DDE(1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene) in
manufactured stock foods are limited to 0.05 grams per tonne;
Dieldrin in manufactured stock foods is limited to 0.01 grams per tonne;
Mercury fish meal for pigs or poultry is limited to 0.4 grams per tonne.
3. Antioxidants
Ethoxyquin blood meal, meat meal, meat and bone meal, bone and meat meal or fish meal are
limited to 800 grams per tonne;
Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), Isopropyl gallate or
Lauryl gallate blood meal, meat meal, meat and bone meal, bone and meat meal or fish meal
200 grams per tonne.
Section 20FB of the Stock Diseases Act (1923) places some responsibility on the buyer of stock food to
be aware of prohibited/limited-content substances and not use inappropriate products accordingly. It is
illegal to feed mammalian (soon to be restricted animal) material to ruminants, and labels/dockets
must say if it does or does not contain such material. In addition, it is illegal to feed (raw, pasteurised
or sterilised) food organics/swill to pigs under any circumstances. Any products that may contain meat
in any form is illegal to feed to pigs (and will soon be for cattle and other livestock) (L. Cook pers.
comm.).
7.5 Economics
As with other technologies, the costs associated with stock food generation from food organics is
dependent upon the technology used, the processing capacity of the technology and the type of
2nd Edition 2007
feedstock used. Low technology options, where feedstocks undergo limited or no processing cost the
least amount of money. In these instances, the main costs will be transport from the source to the user,
possible liquefaction of feedstocks and heating (pasteurisation and sterilisation) followed by mixing
with other feedstocks. More sophisticated technologies (e.g. fermentation processes), which
significantly reduce the risks of feeding contaminated food organics to animals cost considerably more
(see case studies for details).
The recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and BSE in Europe highlight the risks associated with
food organics that are not properly processed. Therefore, although low technology options are cheaper
than fermentation procedures for example, it may be necessary for facilities to adopt some kind of
sterilisation procedure. This of course will add to running costs and the overall establishment cost of a
facility. Notably, even with sterilisation procedures in place, there are still risks associated with using
meat to produce stock food.
The Recycled Organics Unit does not endorse any of the manufacturers listed in Table 7.2. The
Table 7.2 Company contact details.
Australian
Dehydration
Technologies
PO Box 123
Toowoomba Qld 4350

Tel: 617 46679123
Fax: 617 46679178

Internet: http://www.adtpl.com.au

Lammas Resources
Limited
Maylan Road
Earltrees Industrial Estate
Corby, Northlands NN17 4DR,
Unit Kingdom

Tel: 01536443998
Fax: 01536 206640

Internet: http://www.lammasresources.co.uk
Thermo Tech
Technologies Inc.
Corporate Head Office:
Thermo Tech Technologies Inc.
204 - 195 County Court Blvd
Brampton, Ontario
Canada L6W 4P7

Tel: (905) 451-5522
Fax: (905) 451-5833
Internet: http://www.ttrif.com/
2nd Edition 2007
Introduction
Lammas Resources Ltd. uses a
patented aerobic fermentation
system (Biotel) to produce
liquid pig feed from surplus
vegetable and fruit matter
produced by local supermarket
chains.
Process description
The raw materials used to make
the liquid pig feed are size
reduced using a large macerator.
The pulp is then transferred to
digestion tanks, where it is
inoculated with thermophilic
bacteria to facilitate feedstock
breakdown. Heat released by
bacteria during the breakdown
process causes temperatures to
rise above 65C. The feedstock
is maintained at temperatures
above 60C for a period of 12
hours. This is presumed to be
sufficient time to pasteurise the
material.
Although this company claims
that this is sufficient to remove
pathogens by heat
deactivation different
feedstocks may require longer
processing times to eliminate
more resilient
contaminants/pathogens.
The Biotel process is
designed, built, erected and
operated by Lammas Resources
Ltd. They are responsible for
the day to day running of a
licenced facility. This company
has constructed a pilot size
Biotel test facility at Corby,
alongside another full-size
commercial Biotel Facility.
The Biotel test facility offers
companies that generate food
organics the opportunity to have
representative samples of their
organic residuals bio-processed
to determine their suitability as
feedstock material for the
Biotel system.
In addition to identifying the
suitability of a material to the
Biotel process, Lammas
provides clients with cost
information and associated
benefits of recycling their
material for use as animal feed.
Lammas Resources Ltd. makes
a number of claims regarding
the benefits of the Biotel
processing system. These
include: disease control; weed
control; hazardous waste
control; odour control and
health risk control. The
feedstock type affects the full
effectiveness of these processes,
Lammas Resources
Ltd. uses
thermophilic
fermentation
processing
technology to convert
food organics into
liquid pig feed.

Feedstocks
Vegetable and fruit material

Facility size
This facility can process up
to 50 tonnes/day of food
organics, using two 20 000
litre digester tanks

Process
Fermentation

Processing time
16 hour fermentation
process

Outputs
Liquid pig feed

Installations
Corby, United Kingdom

Cost
No information

Status
Commercial facility
Case study 7.1
Bio-digestion of food organics into liquid pig
feed: Lammas Resources Ltd. (United Kingdom)
Plate 7.2 Digesters used in the Lammas Resources Ltd. Biotel
processing system in the United Kingdom.
2nd Edition 2007
and therefore processing
regimes are sometimes altered
to produce safe stock food
products. This is particularly
important given the outbreak of
such diseases as bovine
spongiform encephalophathy
(BSE) and foot and mouth
disease in Europe.
Feedstock types
Appropriate feedstocks utilised
in the Biotel process include
cabbage and cabbage cores,
peppers, coleslaw, potatoes,
onions, kiwi fruit and apples.
The company claims that all
food organics used can be traced
to their source. No meat is
processed in this system.
Size and area requirement
This facility uses two 20 000
litre digester tanks. The facility
occupies an area of 3000 m
2
.
Processing time and
throughput
Lammas Resources Ltd. claims
that the complete processing
time, from source of feedstock
to pig is 48 hours. Feedstock is
processed for a period of 16
hours during the fermentation
process, and the facility is
capable of processing up to 50
tonnes/day of food organics.
Currently Lammas Resources
Ltd. has a prototype and a full
working facility in Corby,
United Kingdom.
Costs
Cost of facility is dependent
upon number and size of
digesters.
Sources
R. Dwyer pers. comm.
www.lammasresources.co.uk

Contact details
Lammas Resources Limited
Maylan Road
Earltrees Industrial Estate
Corby, Northlands NN17 4DR,
Unit Kingdom
Tel: 01536443998
Fax: 01536 206640
www.lammasresources.co.uk
Plate 7.3 Transporting the liquid
pig feed end-product following
fermentation at the Lammas facility.
The facility uses a patented Biotel
technology, which pasteurises fruit
and vegetable feedstocks during a
16-hour thermophilic fermentation
process.
2nd Edition 2007
Introduction
The Canadian based Thermo
Tech Technologies Inc.
company uses similar
thermophilic fermentation
processes to those used by
Lammas Resources Ltd. in the
United Kingdom.
Process description
Initially, material entering a
facility is inspected and then
processed using a
hydropulper. Packaged food
is put through a shredder and a
crusher that separates the food
from the packaging. After the
feedstock is ground, the
resulting slurry is stored in raw
material tanks. From these
tanks, the material is fed into
continuous twostage
fermenting units, where it is
maintained under aerobic
conditions and reaches
temperatures of 73 C.
Thermo Tech Technologies
Inc. claims that the fermenting
process provides a number of
benefits, including increasing
the protein content of a product
to about 20 percent. In addition,
they suggest that the fermenting
process does not require as
much energy as other systems
since it produces its own heat.
It is also claimed that the
fermenting process helps to
predigest some of the fats,
making the resulting product
more valuable as feed.
After fermentation, the resulting
slurry is sent to a holding tank
and then into a centrifuge where
the moisture content is reduced
from 85 to 60%. The extracted
liquid is directed back to a
receiving area where it is reused
in the process. The moisture
reduced product is put through a
final drying and extrusion
process and formed into pellets.
Air from a plant is contained
within a facility and exits only
after scrubbing (removes small
particulates) and treatment with
a thermal oxidiser, which
destroys odours.
Feedstock requirements
A large range of food organics
can be processed by the Thermo
Tech Technologies Inc.
system, including: residuals
from bakeries, restaurants,
grocery stores and food
Thermo Tech
Technologies Inc.
processes food
organics using
thermophilic
fermentation
technologies.
Facilities using their
technology have
been licensed around
the world.

Feedstocks
All food organics

Facility size
Variable

Process
Fermentation

Processing time
48 hours

Outputs
Dry animal feed

Installations
North America, Europe and
South-East Asia

Cost
$2 000 000 license fee +
cost of installation

Status
Commercial facility
Case study 7.2
Two stage aerobic fermentation process- dry stock
food: Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. (Canada)
Plate 7.4 Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. food organics
fermentation facility. This facility processes a variety of food
organics (including grease trap waste) from several sources in
Canada. The fermentation and dehydration process used produces
dry animal feed, which should be free of pathogens.
2nd Edition 2007
processing facilities. The
system can also process grease
trap waste.
Size and area requirement
Facility sizes vary according to
the processing requirements.
Processing time and
throughput
Inc. facilities can process up to
1100 tonnes/day. The entire
process takes approximately 48
hours.
For every 270 tonnes of material
received, a facility can produce
approximately 40 tonnes of
animal feed, with 10% moisture
content.
Inc. has facilities in Canada, the
United States, Europe and South
East Asia. It is in the process of
licensing facilities in New
Zealand.
Costs
Inc. licenses its technology for
use in Thermo Master plants.
The company also enters into
master license agreements with
other parties that are ready to
open facilities around the world.
Each requires a one time licence
fee of $2 000 000. Thereafter,
the company receives a royalty
of 5% on gross revenue plus a
further royalty of 10% on the
net income generated by a plant.
Sources
Glen, (1997)
Contact
Corporate Head Office:
Inc.
204 - 195 County Court Blvd
Brampton, Ontario
Canada L6W 4P7

Tel: (905) 451-5522
Fax: (905) 451-5833
Plate 7.5 Food organics based stock food pellets produced by
Thermo Tech using fermentation and drying processes.
2nd Edition 2007
Section 8 Direct soil injection of food organics
8.1 Introduction
Direct soil injection practices involve the application of liquefied food organics beneath the soil
surface. Research indicates that this process helps increase soil organic matter and the availability of
nutrients in soil and may also increase soil microbial activity. However, as the food materials are not
pasteurised or processed in any way, there is potential for the transfer of pathogens to plants and
animals, and for phytotoxic effects to plants and/or the attraction of flies and vermin to application
sites.
At present, most research describes the application of wastewater solids or biosolids to land.
Therefore, where appropriate, some of the information in this section has been derived from research
on the land application of wastewater solids or biosolids.
Although there are no direct guidelines or legislation controlling the land application of food organics,
companies in New South Wales follow the biosolids guidelines for land application, as identified in
Environmental Guidelines: Use and Disposal of Biosolids Products (EPA, NSW, 1997). Licensing
requirements for applying food organics to land are contained in Schedule 1 of the Protection of the
Environment Operations Act (1997).
The generic process involved in the direct soil injection of food organics is summarised in Figure 8.1.
Food organics that are used for land application undergo minimal processing prior to being applied to
land. In most instances, facilities receive food organics that are already in liquid form (e.g. ice cream
and chicken manufacturing sludge). If materials are not in a liquid form to begin, operators may
liquefy the food organics (e.g. macerate and mix feedstock with water) prior to injecting them into soil.
This, however, may add considerable expense and processing time to an operation.
Following delivery, material is usually stored in sealed containers in order to contain odours. However,
for smaller operations, the material may be pumped directly into liquid sludge injection vehicles or
similar equipment. In some instances the material is passed through a metal grate to remove metal and
plastic contaminants. Storage of the food organics material is usually quite short due to their
putrescible nature. Therefore, the material is usually applied to soil at the time it is received or within
1-2 days of being received.
Liquefied material is transferred to agricultural injection machinery (e.g. sludge injection vehicles,
tractor drawn injectors or vacuum trucks) and applied directly to soil. The material is usually
incorporated into the soil at the time of application with tines, discs or similar equipment. However, if
the injection machinery does not have tines or discs attached, operators may have to pass over the
treated soil a second time with a tractor and appropriate tillage equipment to facilitate incorporation.
2nd Edition 2007
Following application, the material is simply left to decompose in the soil. The site is usually left in
fallow for a minimum period of 1 week prior to being used for cropping purposes. For beef and dairy
cattle grazing, treated soil is left for 30 and 90 days respectively, as specified in Environmental
Guidelines: Use and Disposal of Biosolids Products by the Environment Protection Authority of
NSW.
In some instances, non-liquid food organics are added to soil. For example, farmers in New Jersey,
USA apply food organics from food processors directly to their land. The food organics are usually
transported to farms in a raw form and then loaded onto manure spreaders and applied to soil surfaces
directly without any further processing (Anonymous, 1997a) (Plate 8.1). Application of solid food
organics to soil surfaces is unlikely to meet EPA approval due to the environmental and public health
risks associated with odour and attraction of pests (Plante and Voroney, 1998).

Odours
Polluted
runoff
Food organics
Storage, and
liquefaction if
required
Soil injection/land
application
Breakdown of
waste by soil
bacteria
Some runoff
Physical contaminants/
Phytotoxicity
Figure 8.1 Generic process used in the land application food organics. Dotted lines indicate a by-product
of the main process.
Plate 8.1 Example of a manure spreader (attached to a tractor) used for the direct application of solid
food organics to soil
2nd Edition 2007

Operators such as L.V. Rawlinson and Associates (Appin, Australia) accept liquid food organics from a
number of food processing companies in NSW (See Case Study 8.1 for details). After a short storage
period in sealed metal containers, the unprocessed food organics are injected directly into soil using an
AgChem 11 000 litre capacity sludge injection vehicle. L.V. Rawlinson and Associates also use a
14 000 litre capacity tractor drawn Marston sludge injector (Plate 8.2). The AgChem vehicle was
imported from the United States of America, while the Marston sludge injection was imported from
the United Kingdom. Although the food organics material applied by L.V. Rawlinson and Associates
generates considerable odour, they do not consider it to be a major problem as the storage tanks and
application sites are usually located in isolated areas without residential housing (L. Rawlinson pers.
comm.).
A farm in Toronto, Canada, stores its liquid food organics in concrete manure storage tanks. Prior to
application, a mixing prop attached to a tractor is used to stir the food organics to homogenise the
material, as it separates into layers during storage. The material is then transferred to a vacuum truck
and broadcast onto the soil surface. Immediately after application, the oily food organics are
incorporated into the soil using a disc plough. The operator claims that there are only minimal odour
problems during storage. However, once the material in the storage tank is stirred, odour problems
become more apparent. The incorporation process after application of the food organics to the soil
helps reduce odours and the attraction of pests (e.g. flies, mice, birds etc.) (Plante and Voroney, 1998).
Plate 8.2 Photograph of the tractor drawn Marston sludge injector used for the direct injection of
liquid food organics into soil. Note the tines at the rear of the machinery are used to incorporate the
food organics to a depth of 15-20 cm.
2nd Edition 2007
Food organics used in direct soil injection operations include: fermentation residues from food
processing operations, chicken sludge, ice cream, grease trap waste and other residual fruit and
vegetable material. Although these food organics are directly injected/applied to soil, they are in some
instances combined with other materials e.g. garden organics or lime to suppress odours. For example,
L.V. Rawlinson and Associates sometimes combine their grease trap waste with lime in order to
suppress odours (L. Rawlinson pers. comm.). This material is then land applied with a manure
spreader and incorporated into the soil.
The processing capacity of these systems is related to the number and capacity of storage tanks used by
a facility. In addition, the processing capacity is related to the capacity of the machinery used during
an operation and the rate at which the food organics can be applied to soil, and the area of land
available for direct injection applications. As there is very little or no processing involved, direct
injection infrastructure has minimal land requirements, requiring only space for food organics storage
tanks and application machinery.
As food organics materials received by facilities operating in NSW for direct land application are in a
liquid form no processing time is required, as the liquid is directly injected into the soil.
The direct injection process does not produce any products. The raw liquid food organics are applied
directly as liquid soil amendments, which can increase soil organic matter and nutrient levels and
improve soil structural stability. These benefits are particularly important in the Australian context due
to weathered and nutrient deficient nature of many of our soils. Improving soil nutrient and organic
matter levels through direct soil injection may translate to such benefits as improved crop growth and
emergence, fertility, increased soil porosity and water holding capacity, decreased bulk density and
increased soil stability.
As the food organics in direct injection operations are untreated, the decomposition of this feedstock
material could contribute to plant phytotoxicity in some instances. In addition, food organics risk
spreading weed seeds and pathogens due to their unpasteurised condition, as well as attracting flies and
vermin if materials are not properly incorporated into the soil. Phytotoxicity and pasteurisation issues
are addressed in previous sections. The reader is directed to Sections 4.3, 5.3 and 6.3 for further
information.
2nd Edition 2007
Although the direct application of food organics material presents many potential benefits, the
management of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus is important to avoid water contamination
problems (from surface and subsurface water movement) (Epstein, 1998). Applications of organic
wastes to soils in excessive quantities can cause potential ground water pollution with nitrate (Chang et
al., 1973). Therefore, rates of application must be carefully assessed to obtain the desired soil benefits
from the added nitrogen and yet prevent excessive leaching of nitrate to ground waters (Wright, 1978).
Other relevant issues pertaining to the direct injection of food organics include: the release of
bioaerosols and contamination from other toxic compounds (Epstein, 1998).
8.4.1 Licensing requirements
directed to this section for relevant details. The licensing requirements for applying food organics to
land are contained in Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act (1997). For the
purposes of this Schedule, food organics can be applied to land for agricultural purposes only if:
(a) the agricultural purpose is the dominant purpose of applying the waste, and
(b) the application of the waste supplies nutriment (whether directly or indirectly) to the land and so
maintains or improves (and is not likely to harm) the productivity, quality, development or
reproductive capacity of vegetation on the land, and
(c) the application of the waste (taking into account the manner of its application) does not, and is not
likely to, result in the deterioration of the land (for example, through soil structure degradation,
salinisation, waterlogging, erosion or the build-up of heavy metals or other contaminants), and
(d) the application of the waste does not, and is not likely to, constitute a risk to public health.
Similarly, food organics are applied to land for environmental rehabilitation purposes only if:
(a) the environmental rehabilitation purpose is the dominant purpose of applying the waste, and
(b) the application of the waste improves the ability of the soil to sustain vegetation on the land by
directly or indirectly improving soil characteristics, and
(c) the application of the waste (taking into account the manner of its application) does not, and is not
likely to, result in the deterioration of the land (for example, through soil structure degradation,
salinisation, waterlogging, erosion or the build-up of heavy metals or other contaminants), and
(d) the application of the waste does not, and is not likely to, constitute a risk to public health.
In most instances an Environmental Protection License will be required by a operator (see Section 3 for
details.
8.4.2 Environmental effects
A field and laboratory scale experiment by Plante and Voroney, (1998) in Toronto, Canada, examined
the decomposition of oily food organics applied to agricultural land. This study found that soil
2nd Edition 2007
microbial biomass carbon in the field increased by up to five fold compared with control plots. The
aggregate stability of the soil also increased following the addition of food organics and was
maintained over the course of the growing season.
Laboratory incubation studies examining the biodegradation of rapeseed oil and oily food organics
showed that the oily fraction of the material was not rate limiting. Both substrates degraded rapidly
with initial decomposition half-lives of 40-45 hours and 70-94 hours for rape oil and oily food organics
respectively (Plante and Voroney, 1998). The longer lasting binding abilities of microbial products and
bodies are the major contributing factors for the increased soil aggregation. This study concluded that
the land application of oily food waste is agronomically beneficial by increasing soil microbial activity,
and in turn improving soil structure through increased aggregate stability. Similar results were
obtained by Smith, (1974) in a study examining the decomposition in soil of waste cooking oils from
potato processing facilities. Application rates examined ranged from 2.2 tonnes/ha to 112 tonnes/ha.
The food organics were found to decompose at a rate of between 2.5 and 8 tonnes/ha/week depending
upon the initial quantity of food organics applied. It was concluded that there was no evidence for
toxicity to the decomposition systems with the high application of oil and no evidence that difficulty
would develop with land disposal of wastes containing edible cooking oils.
Other studies by Brown et al., (1998) and Lehrsh et al., (1994) examined the effects of incorporating
cottage cheese whey into soil. These studies found that erosion was reduced on treated soils, and
infiltration rate of water into the soil was also increased. As with the findings of Plante and Voroney,
(1998), Lehrsh et al., (1994) found that the aggregate stability of the soil improved following the
incorporation of cottage cheese whey. Interestingly, work by Lehrsch and Robbins, (1996) indicates
that when the cottage cheese whey is not incorporated into the soil (i.e. surface applied), soil infiltration
rates do not increase.
Although studies such as Plante and Voroney, (1998) indicate that food organics can have beneficial
effects upon soils, other work highlights potential problems. For example, in a field study, Cockborne
et al., (1999) identified the environmental risks and the main biochemical processes involved when
apple residuals were applied to farmland in France. It was found that soil pH decreased significantly
and nitrate depletion in the soil was noted. The deficiency in nitrate was attributed to nitrogen
immobilisation and denitrification (i.e. the conversion of soil nitrogen (nitrate) required for plant
growth to gaseous nitrogen gas). This process occurs under low oxygen (anaerobic) conditions by
some soil bacteria. The creation of anaerobic conditions (which leads to denitrification) is caused by
the consumption of soil oxygen by bacteria when they break down the food organics. This could be
due to excessive food application and/or lack of air exchange within the soil injection zone and the
atmosphere.
Similar denitrification effects where found by Rice et al., (1988) examining the decomposition of soil
injected fermentation residues. These studies highlight the possible negative impacts different types of
food organics or excessive application rates could have on soil chemical and physical properties.
2nd Edition 2007
8.4.3 Biosolids guidelines
Currently there is no direct legislation in NSW controlling the direct injection of food organics into
soil. However, commercial companies involved in the direct injection of food organics contacted in the
preparation of this report follow the guidelines described in Environmental Guidelines: Use and
Disposal of Biosolids Products (EPA, NSW, 1997) by the NSW Environmental Protection Authority.
In most instances, food organics are applied to agricultural lands. Therefore classification and
application issues identified for agricultural applications in the guidelines are described below.
Biosolids (and hence food organics) are given a number of classifications according to their
contamination potential and stability. The contaminant grade describes the quality of a biosolids
product based on the concentration of its constituent contaminants (e.g. heavy metals and chlorinated
hydrocarbons). Grades are assigned from A (high quality) to E (low quality). The stabilisation grade is
based on product pathogen reduction, vector attraction reduction and odour reduction. Stabilisation
grades are assigned from A (high quality) to C (low quality). Based upon these parameters, a product
is given an overall classification that provides guidelines for the application of the product in different
situations (Table 8.1). In most instances, food organics feedstocks fall into the unrestricted
classification or restricted use 1 and 2 classifications (L. Rawlinson pers. comm.). In instances where
restrictions apply, operators should follow the application guidelines for restricted use (Table 8.2).
The biosolids guidelines also provide information about the maximum allowable soil contaminant
concentrations for agricultural land after the application of a product (Table 8.3). It is therefore
important for operators to determine initial soil properties and the composition of the food organics
used, as this will help them determine maximum amounts of food organics that can be applied to soil
without increasing soil contaminant concentrations above prescribed levels.
For Restricted Use 1 and 2 biosolids, operators should comply with the management practices for
restricted use biosolids products in agriculture as identified in the biosolids guidelines. Operators need
to consider storage issues such as: site drainage; odour impacts on neighbours, and storage period of
the feedstock. Other issues to consider include
Incorporation of biosolids: biosolids (hence food organics) should be incorporated into soil within
36 hours of spreading;
Frequency of application (applies if feedstock is not Contaminant Grade A);
Soil pH adjustment [use of a liming agent if feedstock reduces soil pH (in CaCl
2
solution) to below
5.5] (applies if feedstock is not Contaminant Grade A), and
Water sampling may be required where application rates exceed 1200 kg total nitrogen/ha
2nd Edition 2007
Table 8.1. Classification of biosolids products, these guidelines also apply to liquefied food organics
subject to soil injection (EPA, NSW, 1997).
Biosolids
classification
Allowable land application
use
Minimum quality grades
Contaminant
grade
Stabilisation
grade
Unrestricted use i) Home lawns and gardens
ii) Public contact sites
iii) Urban landscaping
iv) Agriculture
v) Forestry
vi) Soil and site rehabilitation
vii) Landfill disposal
viii) Surface land disposal
2

A A
Restricted use 1 i) Public contact sites
ii) Urban landscaping
iii) Agriculture
iv) Forestry
v) Soil and site rehabilitation
vi) Landfill disposal
vii) Surface land disposal
2

B A
Restricted use 2 i) Agriculture
ii) Forestry
iii) Soil and site rehabilitation
iv) Landfill disposal
v) Surface land disposal
2

C B
Restricted use 3 i) Forestry
ii) Soil and site rehabilitation
iii) Landfill disposal
iv) Surface land disposal
2

D B
Not suitable for use i) Landfill disposal
ii) Surface land disposal
2

E
1
C
1

Notes:
1. Biosolids products which are not contaminant or stabilisation graded are automatically
classified Not suitable for use.
2. To be applied within the boundaries of sewage treatment plant site.
2nd Edition 2007
Table 8.2 Site characteristics of agricultural land where Restricted Uses 1 and 2 biosolids application
should be avoided (EPA, NSW, 1997).
Site Characteristics Restrictions:
Maximum slope Land with a slope in excess of 10% (6)
Areas of undesirable
drainage
characteristics
Waterlogged soils
slowly permeable soils
Highly permeable soils
Depth to bedrock Land where depth to bedrock is less than 60 cm
Surface rock outcrop Land with >10% rock outcrop
Vegetation Native forests and significant native vegetation
Buffer zones
1
Land within the following buffer zones:
Protected areas Minimum width of buffer zones (m)
Flat
(<3% or <2)
Downslope
2

(>3% or >2)
Upslope
2
Surface waters 50 100 5
Farm dams 20 30 5
Drinking water
bores
3

250 250 250
Other bores 50 50 50
Farm driveways
and fence lines
5 5 5
Native forests and
other significant
vegetation types
10 10 5
Animal enclosures 25 50 25
Occupied dwelling 50 100 50
Residential zones 250 500 250
Notes:
1. All buffer zones must be stable and covered with suitable vegetation to limit the transfer of
biosolids from the application area to neighbouring areas.
2. Downslope refers to the situation where the Protected Area is below the biosolids application area.
Upslope refers to the situation where the Protected Area is above the biosolids application area.
3. The depth to watertable can either be assessed by a suitably qualified professional using standard
hydrogeological techniques (soils, geology, topography, local information and the States
Groundwater Database) or, if insufficient information exists, a shallow drill hole will be required.

2nd Edition 2007
Table 8.3 Maximum allowable soil contaminant concentrations for agricultural land following
biosolids application.
Contaminant Maximum allowable (mean) soil contaminant
concentration (mg/kg weight of soil)
Arsenic 20
Cadmium 1
Chromium 100
Copper 100
Lead 150
Mercury 1
Nickel 60
Selenium 5
Zinc 200

DDT/DDD/DDE 0.5

Aldrin 0.02
Dieldrin 0.02
Chlordane 0.02
Heptachlor and Heptachlor epoxide 0.02
Hexachlorobenzene 0.02
Lindane 0.02
Benzene hexachloride 0.02
PCBs 0.3

8.5 Economics
As the food organics feedstocks in these systems require very little processing, most of the expenses
associated with this method of food organics recycling comes from the initial capital expense of
purchasing application machinery such as sludge injectors, storage tanks, pumps and tractors. In
general, costs could range from $80 000 for tractor drawn sludge injectors to over $300 000 for
specialised sludge injecting machinery. The overall cost of a facility is dependent upon the number of
injectors and storage tanks used (Table 8.4). There may be additional costs associated with
constructing a bunded pad for storage of the liquid food organics.
Table 8.4 Capital cost and processing capacity of direct soil injection operations in NSW.
Facility Capital cost Processing capacity
L.V Rawlinson and Associates $700 000 40 000 tonnes/year
Applied Soil Technology Pty.
Ltd.
Information not provided 52 000 tonnes/year

The Recycled Organics Unit does not endorse any of the manufacturers listed in Table 8.5. The
2nd Edition 2007
Table 8.5 The following companies direct inject food organics in New South Wales. Note: they do
not necessarily supply equipment related to the establishment of such operations. This list does not
represent all soil injectors across New South Wales.
L V Rawlinson and
Associates Pty. Ltd.
Lisa Rawlinson
PO Box 255
Berry NSW 2535
Australia

Tel: 02 4464 1657
Fax: 02 4464 2248

E-mail: berrybio@ozemail.com.au

Applied Soil
Technology Pty. Ltd.
Simon Leake
Scientific Director
Applied Soil Technology
Agricultural Division Shannongrove
Silverdale NSW 2752
Australia

Tel: 61-2-9980 6554
Fax: 61-2-9484 2427

E-mail: sesl@sesl.com.au
Internet: http://sesl.com.au

2nd Edition 2007
Introduction
Case Study 8.1
L. V. Rawlinson and Associates
Direct injection of liquid food organics
2nd Edition 2007
L. V. Rawlinson and Associates
lease several properties in the
Appin area. These properties
are used as their base for the
direct soil injection of liquid
food organics to nearby
agricultural land. On average,
this company treats 100-200
ha/year of land with the liquid
food organics.
Process description
This operation utilises two
11 000 litre liquid sludge
injection vehicles, a 14 000 litre
tractor drawn sludge injector, a
tractor and a pump. Tines have
been attached to the rear of the
sludge injection vehicles.
Liquid food organics are stored
in two 45 000 litre mobile
storage tanks. These mobile
tanks give the company the
flexibility to store their
feedstocks close to application
sites.
Cleanaway and other companies
transport liquid food organics in
14 000 to 25 000 litre trucks to
L.V. Rawlinson and Associates.
The food organics are pumped
through a metal grate into sealed
storage tanks.
The food organics are usually
transferred to a liquid sludge
injector vehicle or trailer within
1-2 days of delivery. The
feedstock is then incorporated
into the soil to a depth of 15-20
cm with the sludge injection
machinery at an approximate
rate of 200 tonnes/ha
(dependent upon feedstock used
and soil characteristics).
After application, the treated
soil is left for a period of 30 or
90 days before grazing beef or
dairy cattle respectively.
Cropping of soil following
application is dependent upon
the requirements of the
landholder. However, the soil is
usually cropped within 1-2
weeks of application.
The company claims that all
odours from the injected food
organics disappear within 1-2
days of application.
L. V. Rawlinson and
Associates directly
injects food organics
onto 100-200 ha of
agricultural land at an
average rate of 200
tonnes/ha/year

Feedstocks
Chicken sludge, ice cream
residuals and fermentation
residues from yogurt
manufacturers

Facility size
No central processing facility

Process
Liquid food organics are
directly applied to soil using
sludge injection machinery

Processing time
0 days

Outputs
Unprocessed liquid food
organics applied to 100-200
ha/year

Installations (sites)
Appin, NSW

Cost
Machinery and storage
costs: $733 000

Status
Commercial operation
Plate 8.3 Sludge injection vehicle used to apply liquid food
organics to agricultural soils. The food organics are incorporated
into the soil using tines attached at the rear of the vehicle.
2nd Edition 2007
This company receives food
organics from food processing
manufacturers. Food organics
materials include chicken
sludge, ice cream residuals,
fermentation residues from
yogurt production and grease
trap residuals. The material is
passed through a metal grate in
order to filter out any
contaminants such as metal or
plastic.
In some instances, the chicken
or grease trap residuals are
mixed with garden organics or
lime and composted in order to
reduce odour problems.
However, as the material is
usually applied and stored in
isolated locations, odour does
not generally pose any
problems.
requirements
The facility can store a
maximum of 90 000 litres in its
metal storage tanks. A very
small land area is required for
the storage tanks and vehicles.
Processing time
No processing of the food
organics materials (other than
the direct soil injection process).
Materials are, however, passed
through a metal grate to remove
plastic and metal contaminants.
Appin, NSW. Location of
storage tanks varies depending
upon the area in which the food
organics are to be injected.
Costs
Machinery costs associated with
the land application of the
feedstocks are significant. The
two soil injection vehicles cost
$310 000 each. The tractor
drawn sludge injector is worth
$80 000. Additional machinery
expenses include a tractor and
manure spreader. The storage
tanks cost approximately $5 000
each and the pump cost
$28 000.
Contact details
Lisa Rawlinson
PO Box 255
Berry NSW 2535
Ph: 02 44 641657
Fax: 02 44642248
berrybio@ozemail.com.au

a)
b)
c)
Plate 8.4 a) Delivery of liquid food organics to L.V.
Rawlinson and Associates by Cleanaway. b) Feedstocks
are usually pumped through a metal grate to remove metal
and plastic contaminants. c) Feedstocks are temporarily
stored in sealed metal storage tanks.
2nd Edition 2007
Section 9 Conclusions
This review provides a basis for increasing knowledge and awareness of food organics processing
options in industry and government, supporting informed decision making within an Environmentally
Sustainable Development (ESD) framework across New South Wales.
It is not within the scope of this review to recommend any of the technologies covered, as their
suitability for application is dependent upon regional and site specific variables. For a more detailed,
situation specific evaluation of food organics processing options, further research is required.

2nd Edition 2007
Section 10 References
Allen (1994) Composting food scraps at Georgia prison. BioCycle 35:4, 90.
Allen (1997) Investing in organics diversion at state prisons. BioCycle 38:10, 30-33.
Anonymous (1996) Anaerobic digestion process. BioCycle 37: 78-79.
Anonymous (1997) Composting prison food residuals. BioCycle 38:8, 37-39.
Anonymous (1997a) Recycling food residuals and agricultural film. BioCycle 38:7, 82-83.
Anonymous (1998) Bungled: the science of BSE. The Economist (US) March 14: 21.
Anonymous (1999) Recycling food residuals into animal feed. BioCycle 40: 60-63.
Anonymous (1999a) Container composting in Colchester. BioCycle 40:2, 34-35.
Anonymous (1999b) Yard trimmings composter moves into food. BioCycle 40:5, 70-72.
Anonymous (2000) Composting follows digestion of biowaste. BioCycle 41:8, 80.
Anonymous (2000a) College composts food residuals in aerated static piles. BioCycle 41:11, 22.
Assmuth, T.W., and Strandberg, T. (1993) Groundwater contamination at Finnish landfills. Water, Air
and Soil Pollution 69: 179-199.
Australia, Standards (1999) Composts, soil conditioners and mulches. Homebush, NSW, Australia:
Standards Association of Australia.
Blackwood, I., and Byrne, D. (2000) Minimising the risk when buying stockfeeds. NSW Agriculture
Agnote DAI-198: 10.
Block, D., and Farrell, M. (1998) Variety of spice of on-site composting. BioCycle 39:4, 84-88.
Board, Inner Sydney Waste (2000) Location Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities. Draft
Guideline by Gary Shiels & Associates Pty. Ltd., June 2000.
Borden, R.C., and Yanoschak, T.M. (1990) Ground and surface water quality impacts of North
Carolina sanitary landfills. Water Resources Bulletin 26: 269-277.
Brown, D.T., and Chalermwat, K. (1998) Composition of municipal waste in Laem Chanbang,.
Thailand: CIET, p. Internet Publication: http://www/brocku.ca/epi/ciet/ciet305/composition.htm.
Brown, M.J., Robbins, C.W., and Freeborn, L.L. (1998) Combining cottage cheese whey and straw
reduces erosion while increasing infiltration in furrow irrigation. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 53: 152-156.
Chandler, J.A., Jewell, W.J., Gossett, J.M., Vansoset, P.J., and Robertson, J.B. (1980) Biotechnology
and bioengineering symposium. 10: 93.
Chang, A. C., Adriano, D.C., and Pratt, P.F. (1973) Waste accumulation on selected dairy corral and its
effect on the intrate and salt of the underlying soil strata. Journal of Environmental Quality 2: 233-237.
Chaves, C. (1998) Collegiate diversion: Recycling and composting on campus. BioCycle 39:2, 48-52.
Cockborne, A.M., Valles, V., Bruckler, L., Sevenier, G., Cabibel, B., Bertuzzi, P., and Bouison, V.
(1999) Environmental consequences of apple waste deposition on soil. Journal of Environmental
Quality 28: 1031-1037.
2nd Edition 2007
Cole, V.G. (1979) Diseases of Cattle. Parramatta, Australia: Macarthur Press.
Converti, A., Del Borghi, A., Zilli, M., Arni, S., and Del Borghi, M. (1999) Anaerobic digestion of the
vegetable fraction of municipal refuses : mesophilic versus thermophilic. Bioprocess Engineering 21:
371-376.
Cook, L. (2000) Manufactured Stock Food Requirements. NSW Agriculture Agnote DAI 219: 4.
Cook, L. (2001) Feed controls - stopping BSE. NSW Agriculture Agnote DAI-227: 2.
Curzio, A.Q., Prosperetti, L., and Zobli, R. (eds) (1994) The Management of Municipal Solid Waste in
Europe: Economic, Technological and Environmental Perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Davies, N., Gravett, M., and Bramley, D. (1997) Development of a municipal solid waste anaerobic
digestion facility. Waste Tech. Melbourne: Australian Water and Wastewater Association Incorporated;
Waste Management Association of Australia, p. 123.
Derr, D.A., and Dhillon, P.S. (1997) The economics of recycling food residuals. BioCycle 38: 55-56.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (1996) EIS Practice Guidelines: Composting and Related
Facilities. Sydney: DUAP.
Edelmann, W., Joss, A., and Engeli, H. (1999) Two step anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes.
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Wastes. Mata-
Alvarez, J., and Cecchi, F. (eds). Barcelona: Grafiques, pp. 50-153.
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) NSW Consolidated Acts. Internet publication:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/epaaa1979389/.
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation (2000) NSW Consolidated Regulations. Internet
publication: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/epaar2000480/.
EPA (1997b) Green Waste Action Strategy. NSW Environment Protection Authority, Chatswood,
NSW.
EPA (1998) Food sense - a guide to reducing waste in the hospitality industry. Chatswood, NSW:
Environment Protection Authority.
EPA, NSW (1997) Environmental Guidelines: Use and Disposal of Biosolids Products. Chatswood,
NSW: NSW Environmental Protection Authority.
EPA, NSW (1999b) Environmental Guidelines: Assessment, Classifications and Management of
Liquid and Non-Liquid Wastes. Sydney: Environment Protection Authority, p. 118.
EPA, NSW (2000) Environmental Guidelines: Composting and Related Facilities. Draft for
Community Consultation. EPA, Chatswood, NSW.
EPA, US (1997a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Waste Management. Report prepared for
the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Epstein, E. (1998) Pathogenic health aspects of land application. BioCycle 39:9, 62-67.
Farrell, M. (1998) From ice cream to nuts in food residuals composting. BioCycle 39:10 43-47.
Farrier, D., Lyster, R., and Pearson, L. (1999) The Environmental Law Handbook: Planning and Land
Use in New South Wales. Third Edition, Redfern Legal Centre Publishing, Redfern, NSW, Australia.
Gies, G. (1995) Composting food processing residuals. BioCycle 36:8, 36.
2nd Edition 2007
Glen, J. (1997) Marketing food residuals as animal feed. BioCycle 38: 43-50.
Goldstein, J (2000) Anaerobic digestion advances. BioCycle 41:2, 30-32.
Goldstein, N (1997) National trends in food residuals composting. BioCycle 38:7, 67-74.
Goldstein, N (1998) Gaining insights into containerized composting. BioCycle 39:4, 80-83.
Goldstein, N (2000a) Anaerobic digester on line to process MSW in Ontario. BioCycle 41:11, 30-31.
Gottas, H.B. (1956) Composting. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
Haug, R.T., Hernandez, G., Sarullo, T., and Gerringer, F. (2000) Using wastewater digesters to recycle
food residuals into energy. BioCycle 41:9, 74-77.
Jewell, W.J. (1999) Latest progress in anaerobic digestion. BioCycle 40: 64-65.
Lafitte-Trouque, S., and Forster, C.F. (1999) Dual anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and
confectionery waste. Bioresouce Technology 71: 77-82.
Lehrsch, G.A., and Robbins, C.W. (1996) Cheese whey effects on surface soil hydraulic properties.
Soil Use Management 12.
Lehrsh, G.A., Robbins, C.W., and Hansen, C.L. (1994) Cottage cheese (acid) whey effects on sodic soil
aggregate stability. Arid Soil Resource Rehabilitation 8: 19-31.
Malina, J.F., and Pohland, F.G. (eds) (1992) Design of anaerobic processes for the treatment of
industrial and municipal wastes. Lancaster: Technomic Publishing Co. Inc.
Manser, A.G.R., and Keeling, A.A. (1996) Practical Handbook of Processing and Recycling Municipal
Waste. London: Lewis Publishers.
Marion, J. (2000) Composting 12,000 tons of food residuals a year. BioCycle 41:5, 30-35.
Masoud, K., Blake, T., and George, E. (1996) Compressed windrow composting in California.
BioCycle 37:11, 44-45.
Mata-Alvarez, J., Mace, S., and Llabres, P. (2000) Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes. An
overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresouce Technology 74: 3-16.
Mata-Alvarez, J., Verstraete, W., Van Lier, J., Pohland, F.G., Tilche, A., Ahring, B., Hawkes, D.,
Cecchi, F., Moletta, R., and Noike, T. (1999) Digesting one million tons of organic residuals. BioCycle
40: 68-69.
Myer, R.O., Brendemuhl, J.H., and Johnson, D.D. (1999) Evaluation of dehydrated restaurant food
waste products as feedstuffs for finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 77: 685-692.
NSW Department of Housing (1998) Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction. Sydney:
New South Wales Department of Housing.
Plante, A.F., and Voroney, R.P. (1998) Decomposition of land applied oily food waste and associated
changes in soil aggregate stablity. Journal of Environmental Quality 27: 395-402.
Rice, C.R., Sierzega, P.E., Tiedje, J.M., and Jacobs, L.W. (1988) Stimulated denitrification in the
microenvironment of a biodegradable organic waste injected into soil. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 52: 102-108.
Riggle, D. (1996) Anaerobic digestion for MSW and industrial wastewater. BioCycle 37: 77-82.
2nd Edition 2007
Riggle, D. (1997) Improving collection for food residuals. BioCycle 37:9, 46-49.
Russel, G.M., and Higer, A.L. (1988) Assessment of groundwater contamination near Lantana landfill,
southeast Florida. Ground Water 26: 156-164.
Rynk, R. (1992) On-Farm Composting Handbook. Ithaca, New York, USA: Natural Resource,
Agriculture, and Engineering Service.
Rynk, R. (2000a) Large-scale contained composting systems. BioCycle 41:4, 67-72.
Rynk, R. (2000b) The search for better bugs and better mousetraps. BioCycle 41:8, 33-37.
Seif, A. (1999) On-campus composting gets the right fit. BioCycle 40:1, 50-52.
Smith, J.H. (1974) Decomposition in soil of waste cooking oils used in potato processing. Journal of
Environmental Quality 3: 279-281.
Sonesson, U., Bjorklund, A., Carlsson, M., and Dalemo, M. (1999) Environmental and economic
analysis of management systems for biodegradable waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 28:
29-53.
Stentiford, E.I. (1996) Composting Control: Principles and Practice. In The Science of Composting.
Bertoldi, M. de, Sequi, P., Lemmes, B., and Papi, T. (eds). London: Blackie Academic and
Professional.
Tardy, R.J., and Beck, R.W. (1996) Composting Technology in the United States: Research and
Practice. In The Science of Composting. Bertoldi, M. de, Sequi, P., Lemmes, B., and Papi, T. (eds).
london: Blackie Academic and Publishing, pp. 939-947.
Recycled Organics Unit (2000) On-site composting: technology options and process control strategies.
Recycled Organics Unit, internet publication: www.recycledorganics.com
Recycled Organics Unit (2000a) Recycled Organics Industry Dictionary & Thesaurus: standard
terminology for the NSW recycled organics industry. Recycled Organics Unit, internet publication:
http://www.rolibrary.com.
Recycled Organics Unit (2000b) Establishing a Licensed Composting Facility. Recycled Organics
Unit, internet publication: www.recycledorganics.com
Recycled Organics Unit (2000c) Terminology Briefing Paper. Report for the NSW Waste Boards
General Managers Group. Recycled Organics Unit, internet publication: www.recycledorganics.com
Waste Enquiry, (2000) Alternative Waste Management Technologies and Practices Inquiry. Sydney.
Waste Minimisation and Management Act (1995) New South Wales Consolidated Acts:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/wmama1995316/.
Westendorf, M.L., and Zirkle, E.W. (1997) Closing the loop with animals. BioCycle 38: 51-54.
Wright, A.G. (2000) Independent Public Assessment - Landfill Capacity and Demand. Report prepared
for the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, State Government of NSW, September 2000.
Wright, W.R. (1978) Laboratory and field mineralization of nitrogen from fermentation residues.
Journal of Environmental Quality 7: 343-345.
2nd Edition 2007
Section 11 Glossary
Aerobic In the presence of, or requiring, oxygen.
Anaerobic In the absence of oxygen, or not requiring oxygen. Composting
systems subject to anaerobic conditions often produce odorous
compounds and other metabolites that are partly responsible for
the temporary phytotoxic properties of compost. Anaerobic
conditions are important for anaerobic digestion systems.
Carbon to nitrogen ratio The ratio of the weight of organic carbon (C) to that of total
nitrogen (N) in an organic material.
Compostable organics Compostable organics has been adopted by NSW Waste Boards as
the generic term for all organic materials that are appropriate for
collection and use as feedstocks for composting or in related
biological treatment systems (e.g. anaerobic digestion).
Compostable organics is defined by its material components:
residual food organics; garden organics; wood and timber;
biosolids, and agricultural organics.
Feedstock Organic materials used for composting or related biological
treatment systems. Different feedstocks have different nutrient
concentrations, moisture, structure and contamination levels
(physical, chemical and biological).
Fluidised Having liquid added in a semi-liquid form.
Food Organics Food Organics includes organics generated by any one of the
following activities: the manufacturing, preparation or
consumption of food (including beverages); the processing of
meat, poultry or fish, and the manufacturing of edible grocery
products. Such materials may be derived from domestic or
commercial and industrial sources. The definition does not include
grease trap waste. Food organics is one of the primary components
of the compostable organics stream, see Compostable Organics.
Foreign ingredient Any substance, or other thing, that is prohibited from use or can
only be present in specified amounts in stock foods.
Garden organics

Any garden derived organic (plant) materials generated by
domestic, C&D and C&I sources. Garden Organics is defined by
its component materials including: putrescible garden organics
(grass clippings); non-woody garden organics; woody garden
organics; trees and limbs, and stumps and rootballs. Garden
organics is one of the primary components of the compostable
organics stream, see Compostable organics.
Hermetically Made air-tight.
Inoculum Plural inocula. Living organisms or material containing living
organisms (such as bacteria or other microorganisms) which are
added to initiate or accelerate a biological process.
In-vessel System of composting involving the use of an enclosed chamber
or vessel in which (in most cases) the composting process is
controlled by regulating the rate of mechanical aeration. Aeration
assists in heat removal, temperature control and oxygenation of the
2nd Edition 2007
mass. Aeration is provided to the chamber by a blower fan which
can work in a positive (blowing) and/or negative (sucking) mode.
Rate of aeration can be controlled with temperature, oxygen or
carbon dioxide feedback signals.
Maximum residue limit The maximum level of an agricultural or veterinary chemical
allowed in a particular agricultural commodity or food
(Blackwood and Byrne, 2000).
Mesophilic A temperature range of 20-45C. Mesophilic microorganisms
grow well at these temperatures and are also important for
decomposition during the cool-down or maturation stage of
composting. Most pathogenic microorganisms grow in this
temperature range, and are thus destroyed under high temperature
(thermophilic) conditions during composting.
Pasteurise The process whereby organic materials are treated to kill plant and
animal pathogens and weed propagules.
Phytotoxic Toxic to plants. Partially decomposed organic materials or
immature composts are often phytotoxic, but this usually
decreases with time. Such products may be phytotoxic due to a
number of factors, including: low nutrient content; high oxygen
consumption; presence of fatty acid or alcohol metabolites formed
by microorganisms under anaerobic conditions; or due to
excessive concentrations of salts, heavy metals and other organic
compounds.
Plenum A container of air, or other gas, under greater than the surrounding
pressure.
Sterilise A method for killing all microorganisms using heat and moisture.
Sterilisation occurs quickly at temperatures above the boiling point
of water (100C). Sustaining very high temperatures (>75C) for
long periods during composting increases the risk of sterilisation
and system failure. It is a different process to pasteurisation, which
occurs at 55-70C and kills only the unwanted pathogenic
microorganisms.
Stock food Stock foods are foods for farm animals that have undergone a
manufacturing process (Cook, L., 2001).
Thermophilic Temperatures above 45C. Used to describe a stage of composting
in which high temperatures are sustained resulting in high rates of
decomposition and pasteurisation of the organic material. Heat
tolerant microorganisms survive well in these conditions.
Waste As defined in the Waste Minimisation and Management Act
(1995) to include:
any substance (whether solid, liquid or gaseous) that is discharged,
emitted or deposited in the environment in such volume,
constituency or manner as to cause an alteration in the
environment, or any discarded, rejected, unwanted, surplus or
abandoned substance, or any otherwise discarded, rejected,
unwanted, surplus or abandoned substance intended for sale or for
recycling, reprocessing, recovery or purification by a separate
operation from that which produced the substance, or any
substance prescribed by the regulations to be waste for the
2nd Edition 2007
purposes of this Act.
A substance is not precluded from being waste for the purposes of
this Act merely because it can be reprocessed, re-used or recycled.
Waste stream A general term used to denote all waste material placed out for
removal, either by the recycling or garbage contractor.
Zeolites Any of various hydrous silicates that are analogous in composition
to the feldspars, occur as secondary minerals in cavities of lavas,

Food Organics Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Organics Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Organics Processing

Options for New South Wales

by Spartel Pty. Ltd. and the Containerized Composting System

batch-type composting unit by Spartel Pty. Ltd. is a modified transport

) and/or immediate incorporation to address

You might also like