Posts

Whatever happened to aiming for the best waste management option? 

If it’s easier to do, then it’s the thing to do.  If the job can be done faster by cutting corners, go for it.  If it’s the cheapest option, buy two.  Somewhere along the path of societal evolution, easiest-fastest-cheapest has become synonymous with best.  This linguistic transmogrification is so pervasive, society no longer takes notice of its shortsighted slide down a spiraling path toward all things inferior.

When did easiest-fastest-cheapest become synonyms for best? When did we stop aiming for the best waste management choices and settle for inferior? 

There are good, affordable options out there that can strengthen/support recycling mandates and result in better waste management systems.  But progress toward zero waste is s-l-o-w and too many communities are still stuck in their comfortable ruts.

Progressive leadership looks to the future, ever-steering its constituency toward that proverbial “brighter tomorrow.”  For waste management, that horizon does not include landfills or incinerators. But it does include high-rate industrial composting … if public and private facility owners aim for the best and not the cheapest.

What are the best options for biodegradable wastes, the best organics collection strategies, the best composting technologies, the best facility designs, the best uses for compost products – who asks these questions before plunging head first into a development project?

Or, if someone asks the questions, do they really mean what’s the cheapest technology, design, and collection strategy? 

As for the resulting compost product, is the real objective to put it to highest and best use or to get rid of the stuff as easy and as fast as possible?

‘Best use’ is hard to achieve with an inferior product

Stormwater management, erosion control, carbon sequestration, turfgrass management, landscaping – these rank among the best uses for compost products.

They represent markets that place high dollar value on stable, quality soil amendments with no odor, high organic matter content, macro and micro nutrients, and other characteristics linked to a high-performance product that can be safely used by anyone, anywhere, at any time.

Poor quality compost cannot meet this minimum standard.  For the most part, its sale and distribution is restricted to low-dollar markets like farming and landfill cover.

The catch here is that, when managing mixed organic wastes, it usually requires a combination of the best facility designs, composting technologies, and management protocols to produce a really good compost product.

To achieve top quality, keep product moving out the gate, and ensure the highest possible revenue stream, a facility owner must match those aspirations with a high-quality manufacturing process and competent management that includes a professional sales effort.

Shortsighted strategies won’t meet long-term goals

Many communities are waking up to the fact that their long-range plan needs to include a viable strategy for organic waste management that keeps biodegradable materials – especially, food waste – out of landfills and incinerators.

Composting certainly fits the bill, and it’s often possible to modify an existing yard waste windrow permit to include other organics.

But what happens a few years down the road when that one load of food waste per week turns into a load per day, and then two loads per day, and then 10 loads per day?

When the entire city is source-separating organics curbside, and the vast majority of those garbage trucks are headed for that crowded, outdoor windrow composting facility, what happens then? 

Historically, facility owners (public and private) can struggle through years of banned feedstocks, failed lab reports, public complaints, unsellable product, fines, and/or legal fees before finally facing the facts. Their antiquated composting system simply isn’t up to the challenge of today’s urban waste streams … and their bargain basement facility wasn’t such a bargain after all. 

Successful high-volume processing of urban streams that include highly putrescible materials and biodegradable plastics requires tight environmental control and a high-rate composting process. 

If a facility owner wants to process in the least amount of space, taking the least amount of time, using the most reliable, predictable process, then that owner is going to convert that lesser system to the best system for mixed urban organics.  A covered and/or encapsulated aerated static pile (ASP) system, preferably with computerized control/monitoring and biofiltration, meets those expectations.

But how much might that region or business have saved/earned by investing in an expandable, high-rate facility in the beginning?  Remember, we’re not just talking composting, but all the dollars saved associated with compost use, too.

While Nero fiddled, Rome burned

Fiddling about while the city buries itself under a mountain of garbage is not an example of good governance.  In the private sector, failing to invest in upgrades and new technologies sets a company up for obsolescence.

Both depict outcomes resulting from failure to act when the time is right.

Unlike even 10 or 15 years ago, when most people were clueless about the many benefits of organics recycling on a municipal/industrial scale, today’s taxpayers are aware of composting as a waste management strategy.

Large volume waste generators in the private sector have been using commercial composting services for decades for one reason only – it’s more cost-effective than landfills.  As a bonus, it also gives corporations green points to use in their marketing messages.

Is it right for governing boards to continue to expect taxpayers to pay more simply because those who made the decision failed to be proactive in their decision-making?

No single option will be right for every community.  But giving serious consideration to organics recycling is always the right thing to do.

Starting at the top and working down is a lot easier than trying to claw one’s way up from the bottom.  So, aim for the best solution first, even if it’s not the easiest, fastest, or cheapest option.  

Then, use easy-er, fast-er, cheap-er tweaks to mold that system into the perfect waste management approach, customized to meet the unique needs and expectations of each community or business. 

Considering the pros and cons of waste management technologies?

Evaluations of waste management technologies can be riddled with inaccurate, incomplete, and outdated information – and the full dollar value of compost use is rarely included.

Elected officials making decisions on behalf of taxpayers may be experts in their respective fields.  But most lack knowledge in many areas specific to municipal governance, especially waste management technologies.  Consequently, staff and consultants are often asked to do some research and provide a report of findings, including recommendations.

A couple of articles released last month aimed a spotlight on inherent weaknesses in a process that relies on published research and interpretive reports for decision-making.

One piece focused on a study out of North Carolina State University.  It concluded the best use for compost was as landfill cover.  The other, from the University of Washington’s Dr. Sally Brown, said those research assumptions were off.  Many benefits of compost use weren’t considered.

No matter which viewpoint seems right to those who read the articles, the fact that there are two different takes on “best use” for compost – both from very reputable sources – focuses attention on one of the biggest struggles engineers and consultants face as they attempt to develop meaningful recommendations for policy-crafters and lawmakers.

A never-ending information stream floats about in cyberspace.  Available facts and bits of data are of sufficient quantity and quality to support almost any position one chooses to promulgate.  Adding or subtracting just one factoid in the mix of observations can result in a very different conclusion.

And the sad-but-true fact is that too many studies involving waste management systems fail to include the full range of economic and environmental benefits of composting.  Conspicuous by their absence are those elusive “dollars saved” numbers resulting from compost use.

Level playing fields for waste management technologies are hard to find  

Decisions related to organic waste management options present unique challenges.  Credible research comparing all four of the modern commercial technologies in the same study is rare.  Landfill gas-to-energy, thermal waste-to-energy, anaerobic digestion, and high-rate composting – finding a level playing field for technology comparisons feels like the impossible dream.

A researcher must wade through an ocean of irrelevant and often conflicting studies to find the few that fit the bill.  Volumes and types of materials may differ from one study to the next.  The specific parameters and amount of data collected won’t match up.  One report might focus on energy generation while skipping over input costs.  Others fail to include industrial composting and/or anaerobic digestion along with landfills and incineration or base conclusions on data that is now decades old.

Unfortunately, staff/consultants hired by municipal governments to gather information for these kinds of reports must rely on this mishmash of published data.  Rarely (if ever) does that consultant or in-house specialist have the budget to conduct new economic research comparing four different technologies at field scale using identical waste streams under real life conditions.

Hunting for needles in haystacks

A literature review may require the researcher to sort through a hodgepodge papers and websites to find information.  The hunt can include bench-scale studies, computer modeling outcomes, masters theses, field trials, magazine articles, and published budgets from public record projects. 

From this jumble comes the reviewer’s analysis, report of findings, and recommendations.  But proprietary information like construction and operating costs from privately-owned composting facilities is rarely available in the public arena.  As a result, a consultant’s report may not reflect an accurate picture of a technology’s true potential or the latest innovations.

In the real world, research scientists are limited by budgets, people power, time, personal knowledge, and the expectations of funders.  And while that may be the nature of the beast, the resulting scientific paper merely represents a snapshot of conditions and available data as they existed within the framework and specific timeline of the investigation – nothing more.

Scientists understand this.  But the elected officials using those study results to guide their decisions may not, taking those studies as gospel.  They don’t see inconsistencies or information gaps.  They don’t ask the right questions.

But if all of those studies ignored compost use, do any of their only-halfway-there conclusions really matter?

Getting waste management comparisons to the finish line

Just to see if it could be done, we took a stab at stitching together a balanced comparison of organics management options. Pulled the most recent data we could find from multiple studies.  Adjusted dollars for inflation.  Converted all energy input/output to a common unit of measure.  Cobbled together bits and pieces from a slew of research papers, municipal budgets, and other web resources.  

Tipping fee revenue was assumed for all technologies.  Commercial composting was compared instead of municipal operations because [1] we had a pretty good idea of the costs for building and operating a big, industrial composting plant and [2] many of the published costs we’ve seen over the years for municipal construction and/or operations for similarly-sized or smaller facilities were far higher than our own experience.

Based on a 100,000 TPY operation, annual revenue calculations included tipping fees and sale of products like energy and compost, minus debt amortization for facility construction (without interest) and operating costs per ton processed.

Admittedly, the resulting numbers were very, very crude.  But the grand total of those figures?  All options netted about the same dollars per ton.

Yeah.  We were surprised, too.  However, what none of the studies calculated – including our own investigation – were all the additional economic benefits to be had through compost use. 

Compost use tips the scale in favor of organics recycling

Sadly, the oversights of these reports were not unusual.  The full dollar value of compost use was missing from almost every published economic evaluation of waste management technologies for organics.  The absence of this highly relevant data represents a glaring hole in the big picture, one that can negatively impact an entire region for decades.

Mostly, these benefits represent dollars saved, which are much more difficult to identify and calculate than dollars spent.  But that doesn’t mean those dollar values should be ignored:

  • There is a dollar value for carbon sequestration through compost use.  
  • There are dollar savings in water treatment costs when runoff is cleaner because of compost’s filtration abilities.  
  • Construction projects save when they use compost-based controls for erosion.  
  • Turfgrass managers save when there is compost beneath players’ feet.  There is also a reduction in the severity of sports injuries … more avoided dollars.
  • When compost use is specified as part of a communitywide stormwater program, stormwater systems and their construction costs can shrink.  
  • During times when synthetic fertilizer costs are high, the NPK content of compost can represent a real bargain.  There are also avoided costs related to transatlantic shipping and synthetics’ reliance on natural gas.
  • Compost helps soil combat weeds and control some plant diseases, reducing chemical use on lawns and sports fields.

When a government body responsible for the general well-being of hundreds (or millions) of people is not provided with all the facts, their decision-making suffers.

Granted, it’s devilishly hard to assign dollar values to some of these benefits.  This article by Dr. Brown demonstrates how involved the calculation of even one aspect of compost’s advantages can be.

Yet, the greatest value of organics recycling comes not from composting, but from compost use.  Ignoring this fact serves no one and significantly undervalues composting as an option for mainstream waste management.

If a municipality wants to be assured of choosing the very best technology option for its organic waste stream, issuing agencies and departments will include those important “dollars saved” calculations on the list of deliverables required of their consultant or engineer.

FAQ: Do I have to rake fall leaves?

Nature drops fall leaves for a reason, and it’s not to give sightseers an excuse to tour the countryside.  Those red, yellow, and gold gems will eventually decay to help fertilize the soil for the coming season.   So, no, leaf raking is not a necessity. 

Know, however, that the fall leaf drop can wreak havoc on stormwater systems.  One should, at the very least, make the effort to keep those leaves well away from stormwater inlets and  flow pathways.

Use a mulching mower to break up the leaf mat and accelerate biodegradation once that colorful blanket starts to fade.

If you can’t get through October or November without grabbing a rake, rough chop some of those leaves and use them to mulch planting beds and gardens.

The remainder can go to composting, of course.  Add them to your backyard compost pile, or prep them for curbside collection following your municipality’s guidelines.  And, please, do remove plastics, metal, glass, and other contaminants before moving those leaves to the curb. 

FAQ: Is fall a good time to use compost?

Most definitely, yes.  In fact, some believe the fall season is the best time to add compost to lawns and gardens.  For grassy areas, sprinkle a little over the surface and rake in.  For planting beds, add compost and work into the top layer of soil.  Alternatively, just leave the compost to sit on the surface of the planting bed and allow Mother Nature to work her magic over the winter months.  Cover the surface with leaves or other mulch to help retain moisture.  When spring planting season rolls around, the soil will be ready for you.  Compost products will vary, so always follow the manufacturer’s recommendations about exact amounts to use for specific applications.  You can find McGill’s recommendations here.

Global warming — Earth’s ‘carb’ overload 

Whether the basis for climate change is over-reliance on fossil fuels, loss of jungle canopy, too many chemical fertilizers, natural phenomenon, all of the above, or none of the above – the fact remains that global temperatures are showing an upward trend.  

Some claim the climb is caused by industrialization.   Others disagree and point to a Medieval Warm Period and other episodes of global warming through the ages.  But the crux of the matter is that, unlike our Middle Ages counterparts, the humans living in this era possess the skills, knowledge, and wherewithal to temper the impacts of rising global temperatures. 

We can pull less carbon out of those long-long-long-term storage deposits of coal and oil, plant a few more trees, and let cows eat grass instead of stuffing them with grain.  But we can also try to keep temperatures within our own Goldilocks Zone by sequestering more carbon in soils that won’t be disturbed for extended periods of time.   

Even if all new sources of carbon were reduced to zero, there’s still too much in the atmosphere now – and it has to go.  Scientists are working on numerous projects designed to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere, but soil sequestration remains among the simplest and least expensive solutions.   

First, it must be said that the much maligned “greenhouse effect” is actually a good thing.  It’s what makes this planet habitable for humans.   

In the atmosphere, radiation from the sun generates heat.  As it bounces around in the “greenhouse,” some of this heat is absorbed by the earth and some is released back to space.  But greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane absorb and trap heat.  When there is an excess of this type of gas in the atmosphere, too much heat is trapped and radiated back to the earth, resulting in global warming.   

Other greenhouse gases include water vapor and nitrous oxide.  Industrial chlorofluorocarbons are highly-regulated, synthetic greenhouse gases. 

But carbon dioxide (CO2) has become a primary focus becausits increase is associated with human activity.  Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have jumped from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million since the mid-1800s, which coincide with the early days of the Industrial Revolution. 

To reduce carbon compounds in the atmosphere, science looks for ways to naturally or artificially sequester excess carbon for long-term storage. 

Putting the atmosphere on a low-carb(on) diet 

Limiting and reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is the goal of carbon sequestration.     

Vegetation, oceans, and soils are examples of natural sequestration.  These carbon sinks naturally absorb atmospheric CO2.   

Carbon capture, ocean injection, and geological storage are examples of artificial sequestration.   Captured CO2 has a number of industrial uses, including the manufacture of fizzy beverages and plastic bottles.  Athe costs for these new technologies drop, their uses are expected to rise. 

As sinks go, compost use is among the best.  Amending soils with raw manures and biochar also sequester carbon, but neither offers such a wide range of other soil-enhancing benefits as does compost use.    

Almost everyone can contribute to carbon sequestration 

Regenerative agriculture can restore soil health and make a major impact on carbon sequestration.  In fact, the Rodale Institute says more than 100 percent of current global CO2 emissions could be sequestered if all pasture and cropland management was based on regenerative agriculture. 

But one needn’t be a farmer to create carbon sinks.  From backyard to utility easements to parkland, there is opportunity for every community to contribute to the reduction of the planet’s carbon overload.   

Know that things like soil type and local climate can influence carbon retention.  Tactics must reflect the region, because a good strategy for the arid west may not be the best choice for humid, subtropical Florida.   

Yet all sequestration approaches will have one thing in common – decades or centuries-long confinement of that carbon without disturbance: 

  • Establishing a lawn by incorporating compost?  Yes. 
  • Topdressing a garden plot that is tilled every year? Not so much. 
  • Using compost to amend a field that is plowed every season?  Not that great. 
  • Planting that same field with perennials or converting it to grassland?  Much better. 

Any patch of soil that can be amended, planted, and then left undisturbed for many years is a potential carbon sink.  This includes every community’s roadsides, athletic fields, and recreation areas. 

Bottom line:  Earth’s history is peppered with episodes of warming followed by ice ages.  Unless humans learn to manage carbon to moderate temperature extremes – no matter the cause — those who survive this era of global warming may learn the hard way that nature always seeks to return to a state of balance.    

How much compost for my garden?

Compost makes a great addition to any garden plan.  But how much compost do you need?

A new plot in sand may require wheelbarrows of the stuff.  But if you are digging up a patch of lawn that has seen repeated compost applications over the years, the soil beneath the sod should be in pretty good shape.  A sprinkle might be all that’s needed.

How can you tell if the soil is good?  

The best method is soil testing.  (Contact your county Cooperative Extension Service for more information).  But you can use visual clues, too.  

Weeds like purslane, crabgrass, and dandelion are signs of a troubled soil.  

Stick a spade in the ground and turn over a shovelful of soil.  If it’s sticky and looks like modeling clay or dry and resembles beach sand, you’ve got big problems.  Fortunately, your soil is probably somewhere between these two extremes. 

Is it dark brown and loose?  Are there earthworms?  That’s what you want to see.  

How much compost do you need for a garden?

If building raised beds or container gardening, the soil blend should be about 30 percent compost.  When breaking new ground, incorporate 2 to 3 inches into the top 6 to 8 inches of soil.  

If your soil is very hard,  and you are planning deep rooted vegetables like tomatoes,  consider digging a little deeper.  Maintain the compost-to-soil ratio at about one part compost to two parts soil.

For an established garden with decent soil, just rake an inch or two into the surface before planting.   A 1/8 to 1/4 inch layer of compost sprinkled on the surface as needed throughout the growing season can revitalize flagging rows or containers.  The compost will feed your plants when you water. 

Three to 4 inches of compost can also be used as mulch during the growing season or as blankets when putting beds to sleep for the winter.  However, don’t pile compost up against tree trunks and stems of woody ornamentals.   

Our compost calculator can help you determine how much to buy.       

How much does compost weigh?

Depending on moisture level, figure 2 to 2.5 cubic yards of compost per ton.  A one cubic foot bag of compost will weigh about 40 pounds (1 cubic yard = 27 cubic feet).

A product shipped at 30 percent moisture will weigh less than one at 60 percent when it crosses the weigh scale, resulting in more cubic yards per ton than the wetter material when delivered.  

This may be good for keeping transportation costs low. But it also means the microbes responsible for aerobic degradation of the composting mass might die of thirst.  Weights that are too high could be indicative of low oxygen levels resulting from compaction and/or too much moisture — again, not good for the beneficial microbial populations.

An ideal compost will be 40-50 percent moisture.

Are compost and fertilizer the same?

Compost and fertilizer are not the same. But compost does have fertilizer value.

Wikipedia describes fertilizer as any material of natural or synthetic origin that is applied to soil or to plant tissues to supply one or more plant nutrients essential to the growth of plants.”

Compost’s nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or potassium (a.k.a. NPK) values are low compared to a synthetic fertilizer.  Some may add ingredients like urea to hike these macronutrient numbers.

That said, compost’s NPK value does have dollar value. The nutrients delivered by a compost product should be a factor in any input decisions involving synthetic fertilizer purchases.  Compost also adds a slew of micronutrients not typically found in common synthetics and improves nutrient uptake.

Compost feeds the soil. In turn, the soil takes care of the plants, offering a smorgasbord of nutrients, pest and disease resistance, and more.   But those nutrients are slow-release, feeding plants over time.  The benefits of a single compost application can stretch over multiple seasons.

Fertilizer’s sole purpose is feeding plants.  The primary function of most synthetic fertilizers is adding N, P, and/or K.  Application gives an immediate burst of nutrition.

Do you need fertilizer if you use compost?

For the home gardener, probably not, especially if that gardener is a long time compost user.

But for a commercial grower?  Maybe.  If the crop likes a punch of nitrogen (for example) at a certain point in the growth cycle, the addition of a synthetic fertilizer may be warranted.

However, the smart grower will carefully weigh the cost of any input against the expected return on investment. Sometimes, a lower yield will still net higher profits if input costs for synthetic fertilizers and pest control products are reduced or eliminated as a crop management expense.

Also, keep in mind that compost-amended soil reduces rainwater and irrigation runoff, which means more nutrients are retained in the soil.   This will impact synthetic fertilizer input requirement, as well.

The Compost Connoisseur 

Compost maturity and stability are not the same 

A mature compost is usually stable, but a stable compost may not be mature.  Yet, both products have their uses.  Though the term“maturity” and “stability” are often used interchangeably to describe compost, they should not be.  

Confused? 

Look at a red and green tomato.  Both are stable and edible.  But the green tomato won’t be mature until it turns red.  This work-in-progress tomato is a bit on the tart side with firmer flesh that holds up when fried.  The mature red one is sweeter, softer, and makes a great sauce. 

As distinct products, mature and immature composts have their specific characteristics and uses, too.  But like red and green tomatoes, they’re definitely not the same. 

Compost maturity and stability 

MATURITY  All organicwill eventually decay until nothing remains but atoms.  The trick is to reach a degradation phase where the easy stuff is gone, leaving only dark, slow-to-degrade, earthy-smelling material behind.  That’s a mature compost. 

Between the raw waste and finished compost, however, are a series of degradation steps that aren’t that beneficial to plants.  In an immature state, compost can release compounds harmful to plants, fight with plants for oxygen, and pull nitrogen out of the soil.  

Compost maturity is best determined by testing, which is a good reason to insist on seeing a recent lab report for the compost under consideration.  Maturity indicators on lab reports include: 

  • C:N ratios  
  • Germination rates  
  • Oxygen uptake  

Maturity assumptions based on curing time are also recognized within the industry, but may not be as reliable as testing. 

STABILITY  If a compost passes the maturity test, it is a stable, market-ready product.  In a mature compost, microbiological activity slows because all the “easy” food has been consumed.  

But there are conditions within the composting mass that can cause product to enter a stable state without reaching maturity. 

Compost that has been dried to remove moisture, for example, makes it lighter for shipping, but can exhibit reduced biological activity, as well.  The same thing happens if the pile is deprived of oxygen. 

Unfortunately, once moisture or air has been reintroduced, microbial colonies can reestablish and return to active feeding.  Pathogens can rebloom and odors resurface as the composting process resumes. 

Germination tests remain one of the best indicators of mature stability.  If the compost exhibits no indications of phytotoxicity in conjunction with good pH ranges and slowed microbial activity, then the product has probably passed into the mature range. 

If trying to evaluate stability while standing next to a pile in a landscape supply yard, look for: 

  • A light, porous, evenly-textured product that encourages good air flow 
  • A compost with sufficient moisture to stick together when squeezed in the palm of the hand without crumbling or dripping water 
  • A pleasant, earthy scent 

Selecting the right product 

In the absence of testing information, the easiest way to gauge a product’s maturity is to smell it.  Compost that smells like soil has likely reached a stable, mature state and is ready for use anywhere and by anyone. 

Product that still retains some pungency isn’t stable or mature.  It’s not quite ready for unrestricted use.  But, provided it has met minimum quality standards for pathogen and vector reductions (as specified by regulations), the compost can be applied in rural areas away from sensitive noses where its higher NPK value is much appreciated by farmers. 

Time and nature will finish the job of product maturation and stabilization. 

What is compost used for?

“What is compost used for?  What’s the difference between compost and manure, or compost and topsoil, or compost and mulch, or compost and…?”

These questions (or some variation thereof) have been posed in Google searches by thousands of McGill Compost website visitors over the years, suggesting a broad lack of understanding on the part of the general public about soil products, in general, and compost products, in particular.

They tell us there’s much more work to be done before compost becomes a solid, steady blip on the soil amendment radar. 

It doesn’t matter whether the compost purveyor is municipal, commercial, or non-profit, or if it’s selling B2C or B2B (or both).   Compost manufacturers, distributors, and retailers can all benefit from marketing programs and advertising campaigns that include a healthy dollop of consumer education along with branding, product descriptions, and price points.

In a recent BioCycle article, Dr. Sally Brown reminds us that “… feel good sayings without quantitative information to back them up doesn’t always help to move the product. To a city engineer, these feel good statements can make you sound like a new age guru pushing a dietary supplement rather than a knowledgeable resource with alternative solutions.

Ouch.  

To be fair to all the OGs out there, in the early days of the composting industry, the only thing we had to peddle was feel good. There was little bona fide research or hard facts that demonstrated compost’s effectiveness to a customer,  just anecdotal evidence and side-by-side field photographs comparing compost and no compost applications.

McGill’s own economic impact studies, conducted in the early 2000s and funded by the state of North Carolina, were among the first to investigate dollar benefits related to compost use.  The research may have been simple by today’s standards, but it validated information our agricultural customers had been telling us for nearly a decade – and provided a solid foundation for the growth of our compost sales program into high-value markets.  (READ: the 2000 and 2001 McGill study reports)

But dollars and cents are only one part of compost’s amazing story that started with fertilizer value, but now just keeps going and going and going to include everything from food waste recycling to stormwater management to carbon storage.

Yet, the abundance of compost’s benefits seems to be a message that hasn’t been told loud enough or long enough or often enough to reach the ears of the majority.  There are still too many stormwater plans out there that don’t fix the soil as a critical first step,  communities that burn or bury compostables, and farmers who don’t use compost on conventionally-managed fields.

Talking who, what, when, where, and how when promoting compost is good.  But today, when a potential customer, policymaker, or specification writer is searching the web, s/he also wants to know the why — backed up with facts and figures.  Why is compost the right solution for their particular problem?   Why is it a better choice than amendment X, Y, or Z?

What is compost used for?

Adding macro and micro nutrients, building soil organic matter, replenishing and sustaining soil microbes, improving nutrient uptake and plant disease resistance, creating pore space, adjusting pH, absorbing rain impact energy, degrading pollutants, storing carbon —  it’s a lengthy benefits list for a single product that just happens to be “green.” 

Fortunately, unlike decades past, cyberspace is now loaded with scientific studies that provide meaningful data related to compost performance.  This is news the marketplace needs to hear.    

For example, it’s true to say compost alleviates compaction.  But when presenting to engineers, would it not be better to also include a link to or slide of this table that compares compost’s performance to other solutions, showing it among the best?

Or when a city is making decisions about its stormwater management strategy, why not share some comparative costs per gallon retained for various retention solutions discussed in Milwaukee’s Green Infrastructure Plan (see Page 63)?

“Compost will hold 10 times its weight in water” is good for visualization.  But how does it help a stormwater system designer calculate potential water and cost savings for mandating compost use vs. rain gardens or storage tunnels?  

These are the types of statistics a decision-maker needs to see when considering options:

  • A typical compost is about 50% organic matter. 
  • Every 1 percent increase in soil organic matter adds 16,000 gallons of water-holding capacity per acre foot.  
  • At only 2 percent organic matter, soil can hold all the rainfall from a typical rain event — around 1 inch or 27,154 gallons. 
  • A 1 percent increase in topsoil organic matter also stores about 60 tons of carbon per acre.

While specific numbers may vary depending on the study and/or source, the core message — that compost can be the better choice — remains constant. 

Researchers say the majority of today’s buyers do their due diligence and make purchasing decisions before reaching out to vendors for that all-important “first touch.”   If true, it’s more important than ever that brochures, point of sale displays, websites, or other outreach tools make the effort to quantify as well as entice. 

The environmental benefits of compost use are still an important part of the message. But the days of the easy sell to a predisposed customer base are long gone.  Now it’s time to win over everyone else.

Expansion of both B2C and B2B markets depends on the industry’s ability to effectively silence skeptics, motivate fence-sitters, and educate the uninformed — while keeping products (and services) cost-competitive.

Facts and figures will play a big role in that education effort.

Granted, there are lots of challenges ahead, and we do need more research of relevance to compost users to help fill quantitative gaps.

But composting is at an unprecedented place in its own history.  For the first time, the general public is eager to know more about what composting and compost use can do to positively impact a wide variety of issues. 

“What is compost used for?”

For the continued growth and wellness of the industry, research-based numbers need to be part of that all-important answer.