Commercial vs.industrial composting: are they the same?
Commercial vs. industrial composting — no, they are not the same, though the terms may be used interchangeably on the web. But one word has to do with the money trail and the type of organization that owns the facility. The other is linked to operational scale and/or manufacturing approach.
A government-owned operation is not commercial, but it could be industrial in scale. It could also be operated like a commercial facility with a similar structure and profitability goals.
A privately-owned facility would be commercial but might not have any claim to industrial. A small facility owned by a nonprofit may be neither. Big, modern compost manufacturing plants may be both.
What makes a composting operation commercial?
A “commercial” facility infers ownership by an individual, partnership or corporation, with profits accruing to the benefit of the owners’/shareholders’ bank accounts. “Commercial” doesn’t have anything to do with the processing method in use, facility design, throughput, technologies, or manufacturing systems.
Composting operations owned by municipalities, counties, nonprofit organizations and the like are not commercial, because any profits realized go back into communal coffers to subsidize operations or fund other projects related to their respective missions.
Government-owned plants are “public-sector” operations, while commercial facilities are “private-sector” operations. Generally, nonprofits or not-for-profit entities are citizen groups and may also be referred to as non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Sometimes, an NGO may be established by individuals representing governments or agencies. Like public-sector projects, composting facilities owned by NGOs could look very much like a commercial operation, complete with a revenue stream.
How big is industrial scale?
“Industrial” is a relative term, most often associated with factories and manufacturing. In the 21st century, manufacturing infers mass production, big equipment, automation, systems, and uniformity. Ergo, industrial scale infers a facility size that would require these things to improve efficiencies and revenues.
When it comes to commercial and industrial composting, how big does the operation have to be to earn the designation of industrial scale? How big is big?
Again, it’s a relative term. When doing research for this post, one of the findings was this article written in the mid-1990s that classified a 100-tons-per-year operation as industrial.
Compared to the backyard compost pile, 100 tons is a big number. But the average throughput of a composting operation in the U.S. is now approaching 4,500 tons per year. There are 194 facilities processing more than 30,000 tons per year, some in the 100,000-plus category.
It may be time to add one or two more zeros to the “industrial scale” definition of 1996.
Still, size is only one indicator of an industrial facility. But other adjectives that might be used to provide clarity are also quite subjective.
Commercial vs. industrial composting — is “manufacturing” the key?
The original definition of manufacturing (manu factum in Latin)literally translates to “made by hand.” Today’s dictionaries typically describe manufacturing as making something manually or using machines.But for most folks, the word conjures images of big buildings, lots of machinery, and cookie cutter output.
Yet, no matter the variations in definition, one thing is clear — when applied to the manufacture of goods in the modern era, making something in an industrial setting requires production through a system that typically includes assembly lines, division of labor, a quality control program, and a sales network to move products out into the marketplace.
Does it really matter whether a composting facility is commercial or not? Industrial or not?
The important thing is for composting operations of every description to make good compost. How they do it or where the money goes is secondary and may not even be on a customer’s radar.
A “commercial” facility may still imply private-sector ownership, but if public-sector owners are serious about their responsibilities to taxpayers, they’ll design, operate, and generate revenue from compost sales like the privately-owned.
Protecting the integrity of the process and quality of the finished compost matters. Hiring experienced, qualified compost facility operators matters. Practicing preemption when it comes to the environment and preventing deterioration of the quality of life for the host community matters. Providing stellar service to both intake and compost sales customers matters.
These are the indicators of a successful composting operation, whether commercial or not, industrial scale or not. At the end of the day, professional and profitable are among the most important descriptors for any composting facility.
https://mcgillcompost.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/eggs.png288560Lynn Lucashttps://mcgillcompost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/McGill-logo.svgLynn Lucas2019-10-15 12:32:522019-10-17 11:42:52Commercial vs. industrial composting: are they the same?
Sure, compost adds nutrients. But that might be this soil amendment’s least important function.
Quite often, articles will mention compost as a replacement for some or all of the nutrients that might be provided to plants throughapplications of synthetic (man-made) fertilizers.
That’s certainly true. Compost delivers the macronutrients nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK), plus a slew of plant-essential micronutrients that are missing from most synthesized fertilizer products. Compost provides plants with a wholesome, well-rounded meal, not the nutritional equivalent of junk food.
But what these fertilizer-focused articles rarely mention is the fact that the real value in compost use is not related to feeding plants, but to feeding soil … and soil does require a wholesome diet to function as a true soil and not a dead substrate.
Compost feeds soil
Providing plant nutrients is just one of many soil functions. Worms and other creatures that live in healthy soils help to physically break down food sources, then microbes take over to convert that food into plant-available form.
Both physical and microbial conversion depend on a soil environment that can support those lifeforms. If the soil is chronically too wet, too dry, too compacted –yada, yada– then it can’t support a healthy soil ecosystem. That plot of ground may not be soil at all, but lifeless dirt.
To countermand the impacts of human activity, disturbed soils require a regular program of replenishment that includes organic matter and microbes. Compost provides both. Compost feeds soil.
Then, when it rains, soil retains that water, reducing runoff. When runoff is reduced, so is erosion, sedimentation, and water pollution. Because soil microbial activity also degrades pollutants, any stormwater that does run off is cleaner.
That same microbial activity can help neutralize some soil-borne diseases, too.
Improving plant nutrition, aiding in disease control, reducing water pollution, and retaining water are all important soil functions.
But wait, there’s more.
Compost as a carbon sink
The build-up of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere is cause for concern. As more greenhouse gases flood the atmosphere, temperatures increase.
This rise in global temperatures influences many things, erratic and extreme weather being one of the most visible.Subsequent climate shifts can impact people, crops, and livestock for hundreds of years.
When used to amend soils, compost sequesters carbon. This means the soil will act as a carbon “sink,” capturing and holding carbon in stasis – but only as long as the soil remains undisturbed.When the soil is tilled, that carbon is released.
Extensive use of compost for perennial crops and other long-term applications (grasslands, tree farms, utility easements, etc.) can positively impact atmospheric conditions by reducinggreenhouse gases.
At the same time, the addition of compost rebuilds a topsoil layer that has been eroded or scraped away by farming, development, and otherhuman activity.Since topsoil loss has been identified as a significant threat to planetary health, second only to population growth, its restoration is a global priority.
At a time when nearly a third of the world’s arable land has become unproductive in just a few decades, compost really can be that superhero swooping in to save topsoil, save water, save the atmosphere, and save the planet.
Soil amendment is one of the least expensive ways to collect and manage stormwater
“Manage water where it falls.”
This sound advice is the foundation of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District’s Regional Green Infrastructure Plan, a program that identified soil amendment as one of the least expensive ways to manage stormwater. At 28 cents per gallon, improving soil is second only to native plantings in lowest cost per gallon retained.
Green roofs? $4.72 per gallon.Those fancy-schmancy deep storage tunnels? $2.42 per gallon.At $1.59 per gallon, even pretty little rain gardens cost more than five timesthat of simple soil amendment.
Milwaukee is not alone in promoting soil amendment as a first line of defense for stormwater management. For example:
Some state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) now routinely specify compost. A few years ago, the Texas DOTsaid it was the largest single market for compost in the U.S.
In an urban environment, opportunities for soil amendment abound. City parks, athletic fields, planters, urban lawns, highway medians and easements, foundation backfill – anywhere there’s soil, there’s opportunity for inexpensive water retention.
Every 1 percent increase in soil organic matter (SOM) contentadds an additional 16,000 gallons of water-holding capacity per acre foot. A site managed to maintain soil organic matter at only 2 percent can hold all the water of a typical rain event (1 inch or less), which is 27,154 gallons per acre.
In fact, at 5 percent SOM, the soil can retain the water equivalent of nearly 3-inches of rainfall.In some regions, this equals 95 percent of all storm events.
Soil amendment may not solve all rainfall issues, especially in downtown areas. But managing water where it falls can be the most sensible, efficient, environmentally- and economically-prudent strategy for“first line of defense” stormwater management.