Global Food Ventures MnDRIVE Mid-term Grant Reports
Due:
Submit to:
February 20, 2015
Linda Valeri (valer024@umn.edu)
Title of Grant: Waste Not: Closing the Loop on Organics Wastes
Principal Investigator(s): Larry Baker, Steve Kelley, William Lazarus, Roger Ruan, Carl Rosen,
Gerald Shurson, and Tim Smith. External collaborator: Dr. Sara Hughes, University of Toronto.
1. Progress on Grant Objectives
(1) Quantifying production, flows, and losses of organic wastes.
We are using both “top-down” and “bottom-up” methods to quantify flows of organics through
the Twin Cities region and (to a lesser extent) Minnesota. Top-down methods utilize existing
databases, including the USDA’s ERS Food Waste Database; bottom-up methods start in a
waste barrel, by collecting samples. Although the top-down approach is more comprehensive,
and easier (certainly cleaner!), databases on organics wastes production, and especially, the
nutrient quality of these wastes, are often sparse or non-existent.
(1A) Spatial variation in waste generation from large facilities
Biosolids. Biosolids are treated, stabilized solids from municipal wastewater that are a
beneficial resource rich in nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), micronutrients, and organic
matter. Using MPCA’s biosolids database for 2013, we determined that Minnesota's
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) produced over 151,000 dry tons of biosolids.
Seventy-two percent of biosolids were incinerated (the resulting ash was then
landfilled), 27% applied to cropland or reclaimed mine sites, and 1% landfilled directly.
After accounting for the effects of incineration, which removes all N, we estimated that
Minnesota's biosolids and ash contained 4,100 tons of crop-available P and 1,046 tons
of crop-available N. At 2013 prices, the P in biosolids was worth $14.6 million and the N
was worth an additional $0.3 million.
One historical limitation of the use of biosolids was high concentrations of toxic metals,
especially Cd. Source reduction and industrial pre-treatment have been very effective in
decreasing the concentration of pollutants in the wastewater stream, and hence in biosolids.
Over 95% of all biosolids in MN are now clean enough that they not only meet the biosolids
regulations, but could also meet the stricter regulations some states have for metals
concentrations in commercial phosphate fertilizers (WA, OR, CA, and Canadian regulations; MN
currently only regulates arsenic in fertilizers). Co-PI Carl Rosen, in separately funded work, has
determined that corn grows well when P is supplied in the form of biosolids ash. Thus, replacing
inorganic phosphate fertilizers with biosolids will continue to protect human and environmental
health.
Currently, however, biosolids in MN are largely wasted. We computed that 75% of Minnesota's
biosolids P (3,071 tons) was landfilled in 2013, either directly or as ash after incineration. This
amount of wasted P was worth $11.0 million at 2013 fertilizer prices. Applying all biosolids and
biosolids ash to cropland would reduce dependence on increasingly scarce (and increasingly
expensive) nonrenewable sources of mined phosphate.
Biosolids production was extremely disproportionate, with <4% of the WWTPs producing >90%
of biosolids P. As a result, substantially increasing biosolids P recycling would require working
with only a handful of the largest WWTPs in the state. The Metropolitan WWTP (Saint Paul)
alone produced over two-thirds of the state's biosolids P – all of which was incinerated and
landfilled. Recycling biosolids from five major metro-area WWTPs that currently incinerate or
landfill would capture all but 3 tons of the 3,071 tons of biosolids P currently wasted.
Unlike many major metropolitan areas, the Twin Cities metro area is in close proximity to
farmland, making biosolids recycling economically attractive. The metro area produced 3,612
tons of biosolids P in 2013, 88% of biosolids P produced statewide. Although this amount of P is
small relative to statewide P fertilizer use, it would be a significant contribution to cropland P
fertilization in the urban region. Farm fertilizer P use (2010-2013 average) in the metro area
was 70% of metro area biosolids P. Using GIS, we defined a near-urban biosolids recycling area
of the seven metro-area counties plus Rice and Goodhue counties, all within 50 miles of the
Metropolitan WWTP. Within this near-urban area, fertilizer P use was 170% of biosolids P
production; thus, there is ample near-urban demand for P to recycle all metro-area biosolids
without the need to transport biosolids to distant parts of the state.
Food Waste. As with biosolids, a key question with respect to utilization is the distribution of
wastes. As a starting point, we are using the first, recently published, national level per capita
retail and consumer level food waste estimates computed on the basis of calories. Though not
published, the database compiled by the authors (Buzby et al., 2014) allows us to obtain the
nutrient content of individual items (e.g., carrots, onions), groups of items (produce; meat), and
the entire food waste stream (both retail and consumer levels) Dr. Buzby has graciously agreed
to help us dig into this database, which we will start to do. Combining this information with
Census data, we will soon be able to map the density of food wastes in terms of nutrients (e.g.
lb protein per square mile/yr). Simultaneously, we are mapping the locations of major food
stores (roughly 100) in the metro region. Because food stores consider information on total
sales to be proprietary, our first approach to estimating food waste volume per store will be to
develop a map that links spatially explicit per capita food waste by census block to the nearest
food store, thereby generating a preliminary estimate of the volume of food wastes at each
major store. As we develop our own data on the nutrient composition of grocery store wastes
(see 1B), we will use this information to ground truth our spatial approach and possibly recalibrate it.
With respect to wastes produced by food processing facilities, we will have to use a
combination of site visits, phone interviews, literature reports, and, in some cases, physical
sampling, to get a relationship between facility production and waste generation. Our
experience has been that it is relatively easy to acquire production estimates from food
processors and only slightly more difficult to get an estimate of waste volumes. Because there
are only about 50 major food processors in Minnesota, we should be able to interview most of
them by phone and use a previously developed interview template to guide the interviews. To
date, we have made major progress on mapping generic flows of “wastes” within the animal
production system and need only the extrapolation step. We will focus next on vegetable
processing then the dairy & cheese processing and expect to have these near completion by
June 2015. Ultimately, we anticipate being able to map waste production (in terms of nutrient
content) for each food production facility in the state, probably by the middle of next year.
(1B) Characterization of organics waste streams.
First, we have expanded the scope of this effort somewhat, going from only household SSO to
other types of organics wastes. The main reason for this expanded scope is to identify the “low
hanging fruit” for organics recycling, with a focus on organics waste streams that are primarily
food. We are still planning to sample household SSO wastes, specifically along the “Hiawatha”
route (more below). A major goal of this sampling is to determine the nutrient content of
various waste streams – fats, proteins, carbohydrates, fiber, and minerals (Ca and P) – and
possible contaminants, especially metals. We are interested not only in mean values, but also
in variability, which is important to businesses who might want to utilize this resource. First
steps have included making contacts and arrangements for sampling, developing field collection
and lab preparation methods, selecting analytical methods, and training new technicians
(students). A major obstacle has been the high degree of heterogeneity in samples; we have
decided to purchase an industrial scale food mixer to allow better mixing (reduced
heterogeneity) of large samples.
We have started sampling at several sites, and developing several others in collaboration with
TAG members, who are connecting us to individuals who manage each site. These are:
Hennepin Co. Transfer Station (Brooklyn Park) – this is a drop-off site for mixed organics
generated within Hennepin Co. We have completed a five-week sampling program, collecting
10 daily samples for 2 days a week (n = 100). These samples are mostly prepared for analysis
and will be sent to a commercial lab for analysis very soon.
Baily Hall food service (UM campus): We started sampling the mixed organics (food + paper
products) at the Baily Hall food service in January. We are collecting 10 samples daily 3 days a
week for 3 weeks to describe daily and weekly variability in composition of SSO representing a
restaurant.
Lunds/Byerly – we have met with the manager of one Lunds/Byerly store and are planning to
start sampling at the Snelling store, probably within one
month.
Photo: Waste from the Lund’s deli counter 
Restaurants: We are developing a contact with a local restaurateur who owns several
restaurants with the intent of starting an organics collection program at one or more of them.
Minneapolis’ household SSO wastes. This program has moved to full-scale in February, so we
will start sampling within the next month. Initially we will sample bulk samples from the haul
truck, but we hope to do limited samples from select households based on their responses to
our household SSO survey (below) to better understand relationships between food
preparation and eating patterns and the composition and volume of SSO wastes.
We will continue to develop new sampling sites, and terminating existing sites when we feel
that we have sufficient data. As we move forward, we will continue to readjust our sampling in
our search for the lowest hanging fruit – commercial entities with high volumes of food wastes
and currently low recycling rates. Of particular interest are restaurants; a California study
found that more than half of the waste produced by restaurants is food, and that average
diversion rates were < 15%.
Finally, for food processing wastes, we will use a combination of approaches, including
literature review, site visits, and phone interviews, to estimate the volume and quality of
wastes, augmented by physical sampling as needed. We have already done this for several
food processing industries in a prior study, and are working on a waste flow study for the
coupled meat processing-rendering industries, aided by internal industry reports (courtesy of
David Meeks from the National Rendering Association).
(2) Developing and evaluating technologies for re-engineering of waste
Be cause we want to be able to test the energy production potential of a variety of organics
wastes quickly, we have developed lab-size testing devices (rather than previously used pilot
scale devices, which require large sample volumes). Two such downscaled devices have been
developed.
(2A) Microwave-assisted waste conversion system. Based on our previous experience with
microwave-assisted conversion, a small bench scale of microwave-assisted conversion (Figure
1) was developed to process solid wastes with a semi-continuous feeding, in the presence of
microwave absorbents. The device, using a microwave oven (MAX, from CEM Corporation) with
the power of 750 W at a frequency of 2,450 MHz, is composed of: (1) a solid wastes feeder that
allows a semi-continuous feeding; (2) inlet quartz connectors; (3) a microwave oven; (4) a
specially made quartz reactor with two necks; (5) an absorbent particles bed; (6) a
thermocouple (K-type) to measure the cavity temperature; (7) a thermocouple (K-type) to
measure the temperature of the bed particles and to control the oven; (8) an outlet quartz
connectors; (9) liquid fraction collectors; (10) condensers; (11) a connection for gas sampling
and a vacuum system, applied to draw the vapors and gas out of the reactor to a series of
refrigerated water cooled condensers. The vacuum may be varied to adjust the gas/vapor
residence time. For safety purpose, a microwave leakage detector (MD-2000, Digital Readout) is
used to monitor if there is any leakage.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of microwave-assisted waste conversion system.
To operate, 500 g of SiC particles are put at in the quartz reactor, which is placed in the oven
cavity. After connecting the inlet and outlet quartz tubes, the oven is turned on for the heating
process. When the temperatures of the bed particles reaches a designed level, the solid waste
samples are semi-continually dropped onto the hot SiC bed, while the microwaves is activated
with 15-second cycles order to improve the biomass heating and maintain the set temperature
of the absorbent bed. Samples of the gas product are collected during the process, while the
liquid fraction and char samples are collected at the end of the process. The solid and liquid
fraction yields are calculated from the weight of each fraction, while the gas yield is calculated
by difference based on the mass balance.
(2B) Fast microwave-assisted pyrolysis and gasification of various waste streams. We have
carried out fast microwave-assisted pyrolysis (fMAP) and gasification (fMAG) of various waste
materials. For fMAP, biomass materials including wood sawdust, corn stover, microalgae,
sewage sludge, turkey wastes, and newspaper were used as the feedstocks. The pyrolysis tests
were conducted at 450–650 oC and the bio-oil yield ranged from 23 wt.% to 65 wt.%. In
addition, some catalysts including HZSM-5, H-Y, and H-Beta have been investigated and the biooil yield and quality were improved with these catalysts. The bio-oil, char, and gas yields under
different experimental conditions were analyzed. The effects of key process variables, such as
temperature, feedstock loading, absorbent and biomass particle sizes, and vacuum pressure, on
the bio-oil yield were analyzed. Detailed compositional characterization and comparison of the
bio-oil produced were carried out using viscosity, moisture content, elemental analysis, and gas
chromatography (GC-MS) analyses. The components of the gaseous byproducts were
determined using a micro-GC. Elemental analysis, microwave digest and ICP-OES multi-element
determination were carried out for the bio-char.
For fMAG, corn stover and turkey wastes were used as the feedstocks. The gasification tests
were conducted at 900 oC and the syngas yield ranged from 50 wt.% to 80 wt.%. In addition, the
effects of some catalysts including Fe/Al2O3, Co/Al2O3 and Ni/Al2O3 on the gasification process
have been investigated. It was found that catalyst could greatly increase the syngas yield and
quality as well as reduce the tar production during the gasification process. The Ni-based
catalyst was found to be the most cost-effective and promising one for industrial application. In
addition, we studied the effect of steam on the waste gasification process and found that steam
could further improve the syngas yield and quality.
(2C) Preliminary study on fMAP of food wastes. Food waste samples were collected from the
dinning hall of the University of Minnesota, Saint Paul Campus; samples were split for nutrient
analysis (Gerry Shurson’s group) and fMAP. Samples were dried at 105 oC for 48 h and then
ground prior to use. The pyrolysis was conducted at the temperature of 550 oC. The yields for
oil, gas, and char were 22.0%, 43.2% and 34.8%, respectively. The composition of the bio-oil
was determined using the GC/MS. The dominant compound in the bio-oil is butyrolactone,
which is an important organic solvent and reagent, and can be also used as an intermediate or
precursor to other chemicals.
(2D) Integrated database. All types of organic wastes used in project elements 1B and 2 will be
analyzed for water content, major elements (C, N, P), and gross calorie content. Wastes with
potential use in animal feed will also be analyzed for nutrient compounds, generally proteins,
fats, carbohydrates, and fiber. A portion of food waste samples will also be analyzed for metals
and a broader spectrum of minerals. All food wastes will also be subjected to energy extraction
analysis, but wastes with little or no potential for animal feeds will not be analyzed for nutrient
compounds. As the project continues to analyze new wastes, we will develop a database that
will include energy generation potential (type of fuel and amount), elemental composition, and
nutrient composition of various wastes. In addition to our own analyses, we will include to the
extent possible, data from other studies, including a breakdown of the ERS food waste
database. This database will be an important deliverable from our project, and one that we will
make publically available.
(3) Understanding social, political, and economic drivers that influence the technology
developments and investments required to re-engineer waste streams.
(3A) Regional drivers of re-engineering. This part of the study examines policies that affect
recycling of organic wastes. To do this, we have had to start developing a conceptual
framework of public sector innovation, extending innovation thinking concepts developed
primarily in the private sector but not widely studied in the public sector. The framework
includes both internal factors (leadership; whether ideas move from top-down or the bottomup; the extent of collaboration within a given public unit, across units, between government
and citizens, etc.), and external factors, such as crisis and external regulation. We have
received an IRB “exempt” status of the draft policy interview script and are now modifying and
condensing the script so that interviews can be completed in one hour. We expect that the
interview script will be completed within completed in a few weeks; interviews will then be
conducted over the next 2-3 months. WHERE
(3B) Household survey. Our goal here is to survey participating and non-participating
households in the City of Minneapolis’ organics recycling (source separated organics). With
considerable help from Kellie Kish (City of Minneapolis), we have developed the survey tool
Closing the Loop on Organic Waste in the City of Minneapolis, received IRB approval (exempt
status) to conduct the survey, established a contract to administer the survey with the U of M
Survey Center, and developed a mailing list of participants and non-participants. The survey
will be sent out in late February, and we plan to have results sufficiently processed to present
key findings at our upcoming Waste Note conference. Survey findings will almost certainly be
developed into a journal article.
(4) Regional Symposium: “Waste Not”
The original goal of this conference was “developing an ‘organic wastes’ community that links
practitioners with U of M researchers”. Upon reflection, we have intensified the goal, which is
now “to bring together waste management practitioners and researchers to envision a future
for management of organic wastes in Minnesota”, and are planning the conference so that
community partners become part of the visioning process – by sequencing talks from overviews
to research concepts, engaging the audience in a “clicker” Q&A session at noon, and then
engaging them in a small group workshop process in the late afternoon, and finally,
synthesizing a community vision (after the conference) based on the reporting from the small
groups. In this manner, we hope to develop a group vision, which will in turn inform the next
steps in our research.
With regard to logistics, we have developed a contract with CCE to hold the conference in the
Earl Brown Center on June 2, formed a conference committee (which has now met three
times), and have started to invite national speakers. We have also received an IonE “mini-grant
($2,700) to support one national speaker. We also have a URL (wastenot.umn.edu) for the
conference and will populate the site with the prospectus (completed), logistics information
(being developed by CCE), within the next week, adding new materials (speakers, etc.) as we
move toward June 2.
Literature cited
Buzby, J.C., H.F. Wells, B. Axtman, and J. Mickey. 2009. Supermarket Loss Estimates for Fresh
Fruit, Vegetables, Meat, Poultry, and Seafood and Their Use in the ERS Loss-Adjusted Food
Availability Data. EIB-44, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. 26 pgs.
Buzby, J.C, J. Hyman. 2012. Total and per capita value of food loss in the United States. Food
Policy. 37. 561-570.
Buzby, J.C., H.F. Wells, and J. Hyman. 2014. The Estimated Amount, Value, and Calories of
Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States. USDA
Economic Research Service Bulletin 121.
EPA, 2012. Municipal solid waste generation, recycling and disposal in the United States: facts
and figures for 2012. Available online:
http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC.
2. How Waste Not advances MnDRIVE goals
A. Advancing Minnesota’s economy:
Improved management of organic wastes will provide some new business opportunities, but
perhaps the biggest economic impact will be improving the bottom line of existing industries
and improving the efficiency of governmental organizations charged with managing wastes.
With respect to the potential impact of improved organics wastes management, consider the
following:
 Based on a 2014 USDA ERS study (Buzby et al. 2014) food wastage at the retail and
consumer levels is equivalent, on a caloric basis, to one-half of food consumed. Scaled to
Minnesota, the retail value of wasted food is $2.6 billion – equivalent to nearly 1% of
Minnesota’s gross domestic product.
 We estimate that wasted food at the retail and consumer levels in Minnesota could supply
enough calories to grow 2 million hogs from feeder pigs to market weight, (about 15% of
the total hog production in MN); diverted food waste to hog feed could greatly reduce the
upward pressure on feed prices for hog farmers.
 The “shrinkage” in retail food outlets is 9% (on a dollar basis) nationally, with much of these
being wasted food. For comparison, the profit margin for grocery stores is often 1-3%.
Reducing wastage or finding value in these wastes could greatly alter the profit margin.
 The P in sewage biosolids from the Metro region could supply more than the entire P
fertilizer requirement for farms located within 50 miles of the city.
Knowledge produced by our study regarding the spatial distribution of these wastes, the
nutrient content of diverse wastes, potential social and legal barriers, the economics of
recycling a will inform potential opportunities for haulers, processors, and users of these wastes
even in the near term (within a year or two). Early on, we are creating transparency where
there is now opacity, thereby creating economic opportunity.
B. Seizes opportunities to leverage MN's strengths and comparative advantages. One major,
inherent advantage that we can leverage in this project is that Minnesota has more than
enough agricultural industry to fully utilize all organic wastes generated by its cities. Hence, our
knowledge is actionable; Minnesota can reasonably expect to largely “close the loop. Second,
the U of M has the diverse academic expertise to develop the knowledge base to catalyze the
innovation needed to create a circular economy. And third, our region is ready to move on this
issue. For example, the City of Minneapolis has recently (late January) started household level
source-separate organic waste collection, Met Council is starting to look for alternative ways to
dispose biosolids (or at least, biosolids ash), the State of Minnesota has established quantitative
goals for recycling by 2030, and many producers of organic wastes are seeking to gain value
from their organic wastes, and many companies are learning to help them.
C. Improves Minnesotans' health and quality of life. Learning to utilize organic wastes may
have the impact of lowering food costs, and would almost certainly help reduce the need for
landfills, which tend to have environmental problems as such groundwater contamination.
D. Advances the capacity and competitiveness of Minnesota industries. Inefficiencies reduce
profitability of Minnesota’s industries; improved utilization of waste products can therefore
improve the bottom line. For example, corn farmers now spend, on average, about 20% of the
value of their crops on fertilizer (based. on the U of M’s FINBIN database). Because this is a
variable cost, any reduction in fertilizer use that doesn’t result in reduced production increases
profit directly: even a 10% reduction increases profit by 2%. Similarly, as noted earlier, the,
“shrinkage” in grocery stores (much of which is discarded food) is likely ~ 9% of purchased food,
in an industry where profit margins are typically 1-3%. The knowledge gained through our
Waste Not project would help industries learn to utilize wastes more effectively, and therefore
become more competitive.
E. Positions our state as a national leader
First, this project would also elevate the U of M’s position with respect to interdisciplinary,
problem-solving, environmental research at the urban-agricultural interface, building on both
the traditional CFANS agricultural/food expertise and our emerging urban ecosystems research
theme to create what might be called a “human ecosystems” theme. Knowledge that we
create would be disseminated rapidly in diverse venues because most of the PIs have national
exposure (hence are invited to give talks, serve on advisory committees, participate in research
network activities, etc.), and several have considerable international activities.
Second, our project would highlight new waste management concepts that are evolving within
Minnesota’s cities (such as Minneapolis’ nascent SSO program), bringing these to the national
forefront; conversely, many of our TAG members also participate in national waste
management organizations and will bring our Waste Not research to national view in these
organizations.
3. Publications, presentations, patents, and intellectual property.
Some publications listed below include some work done prior to the start of this project, but
also some results from early analysis in this project:
Borges, F.C., Xie, Q., Min, M., Muniz, L.A.R., Farenzena, M., Trierweiler, J.O., Chen, P., Ruan, R.,
2014. Fast microwave-assisted pyrolysis of microalgae using microwave absorbent and
HZSM-5 catalyst. Bioresource Technology. 166, 518–526.
Borges, F.C., Du, Z., Xie, Q., Trierweiler, J.O., Cheng, Y., Wan, Y., Liu, Y., Zhu, R., Lin, X., Chen, P.,
Ruan, R., 2014. Fast microwave assisted pyrolysis of biomass using microwave absorbent.
Bioresource Technology. 156, 267–274.
Xie, Q., Peng, P., Liu, S., Min, M., Cheng, Y., Wan, Y., Li, Y., Lin, X., Liu, Y., Chen, P., Ruan, R.,
2014. Fast microwave-assisted catalytic pyrolysis of sewage sludge for bio-oil production.
Bioresource Technology. 172, 162–168.
Xie, Q., Borges, F.C., Cheng, Y., Wan, Y., Li, Y., Lin, X., Liu, Y., Hussain, F., Chen, P., Ruan, R.,
2014. Fast microwave-assisted catalytic gasification of biomass for syngas production and
tar removal. Bioresource Technology. 156, 291–296.
We have completed a survey tool Closing the Loop on Organic Waste in the City of Minneapolis,
(S. Hughes, J. Peterson, L. Baker, and Kellie Kish) which we will publish on our web page for
other researchers to use.
Finally, we have started development of an article “Opportunities and Barriers for Returning
Urban Organics Wastes to Agriculture”, which we plan to complete within year 1.
Presentations
1) We plan to submit an abstract focusing on the policy aspects of our project for a
presentation (due March 6) to the 31st Minnesota Policy Conference, to be held in
October 2015.
2) Waste Not researchers will present approximately 3-4 talks at our upcoming Waste Not
conference in June; TAG members will chair and/or be participants on several panels.
4. New programs, degree areas, or courses.
None.
5. Project Personnel.
Principle investigators:
Larry Baker, BBE, PI
Sarah Hughes, Political Science, University of Toronto
Steve Kelley, Humphrey School, co-PI
William Lazarus, co-PI, Applied Economics
Carl Rosen, co-PI, Soil, Water, and Climate
Roger Ruan, BBE, co-PI
Gerald Shurson, Animal Science, co-PI
Tim Smith, BBE, co-PI
Other faculty and post-docs
Dr. Pedro Uriola, Research Assistant Professor, Animal Science
Dr. Daniel Nidzgorski, Post-Doc, BBE
Dr. Jennifer Schmitt, Research Associate, IonE
Graduate students
Eric Anderson (accepted to graduate school, to work with Dr. Ruan. Eric is currently on our
external TAG)
Jacqueline Brown, Ph.D. student at the University of Toronto
Sashan Rodrigo, MA student, Humprhey School (with Steve Kelley)
Qinglong Xie, Ph.D. student (with Dr. Ruan)
Undergraduates
Leonard Fung (a senior, applying for graduate school to work with Dr. Shurson)
Jennifer Arsjad
Chukwunonso Onuma
Ceria Chandra
6. External Partners and Their Roles.
We have had extensive interaction with stakeholders associated with both waste generation
and waste utilization. Some of their specific contributions are listed below. Our Technical
Advisory Group (TAG) has been very active, with strong participation in monthly meetings
during the first six months. We’ve paused this for a while to avoid burnout (the next full TAG
meeting will be scheduled for late March) and have shifted moving of our interaction with TAG
members to small group meetings, which often include TAG members (discussed below). TAG
members identified in the proposal are noted (name, TAG); other partnerships have evolved
(names boldfaced)

Laura Babcock (TAG) and Matt Domski from the MN Technical Advisory Program
organized several meetings to put us in touch with Dana Donatucci, who runs the U of
M Waste Recovery Group, who in turn introduced us to the folks who run the Bailey Hall
(UM) dining hall. We have now started a sampling program to analyze the mixed
organic wastes from Bailey Hall. Matt has also been active on the Waste Not conference
committee.









John Jaimez (TAG) from Hennepin County has facilitated the development of a sampling
program for organic wastes at the Brooklyn Park Transfer Station. John has also opened
doors for us to meet with Patty Horton (manager of the Chanhassen Lunds/Beyerly);
Ms. Horton is working with us to set up a food waste sampling program at their
Roseville store. John has also arranged for us to meet with restaurateur Kim Barmann,
who runs the Red Stag and several other restaurants who which recycle food wastes,
with the goal of starting a food sampling program at one or more of these restaurants.
Kellie Kish (TAG) from the City of Minneapolis has been deeply engaged with the
development of our Waste Not Survey (described above), helping to develop the survey
tool, design the experiment, and prepare the survey mailing list. Kellie will be a coauthor on our abstract to the AASHE conference. Her boss, David Herberholz (TAG) has
supported Kellie’s work with us.
Tim Farnan (TAG) from MPCA Organics Management Team has supplied us with
numerous state reports on waste recycling and has been a wealth of knowledge
regarding state programs. Tim and Kellie, in their roles as Board members of the MN
Composting Council, have introduced our study to their board, which has provide a
small amount of funding ($500) to support incentives for survey participants.
Erik Anderson (TAG), who represented Superior Technologies, is now retuning to U of M
to join BBE’s Ph.D. program, working under co-PI Roger Ruan.
Sara Smith (TAG) has represented Met Council’s Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment
Plant. She has facilitated extensive data acquisition regarding the plants treatment
processes, particularly, biosolids quality.
Heidi Peterson, a research scientist at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (and
former graduate student and post-doc in BBE) has recently joined the TAG. Heidi will
provide a liaison between Waste not and MDA.
We are developing a working relationship with Jean Buzby, who leads the USDA’s
Economic Research Groups Food Waste studies. Dr. Buzby was unable to accept an
invitation to our upcoming conference (see below), but she has indicated a willingness
to help us tap into their extensive food waste databases, and we are taking advantage of
that.
Our food waste group has met with David Meeker, Senior Vice President of the National
Rendering Association (NRA) who shared his insights on Minnesota’s rendering industry
at a meeting with our “food waste” group; David has also provided us with several key
industry reports from the NRA that would not have been generally available outside the
industry, allowing me to develop (in progress) a picture of waste flows in animal
processing.
Several emerging potential collaborators include David Russick (Russick Group), a waste
management entrepreneur who met with our food waste group; Rick Cook, Manager
Bakery Services at Reconserve, a leading local waste food recycler, who we plan to meet
with in the next few weeks; and Shrish Mehta at Land O’Lakes (initial email contact only,
with agreement to meet between groups).
We are also developing collaborations with other academic researchers. We have already
entered into a networking collaboration on the topic of phosphorus recycling with one group in
Ireland (led by John McGrath, funded by the Irish EPA); the PI is also part of a NSF-funded
Research Coordinating Network on P Sustainability, based at Arizona State University. The PI is
also serving on the Ph.D Committee of a Yale student (BinBin Pierce), whose work includes an
analysis of food wastes and P flows in Singapore; and has been invited to be an “examiner” for
a Ph.D. thesis at the University of Melbourne, on the topic of P flows. Finally, the PI has agreed
to collaborate on a paper on agricultural P sustainability in Sub Saharan Africa, led by LydieStella Koutika, with the intent of contributing ideas regarding the utilization of organic wastes
as a P source, quite possibly using data from Waste Not.
7. Current financial report to include unspent grant balance and spending plan for next 4
months. A current financial report is attached. With regard to the next four months, we will
incur several major expenses: (1) Although the budget line for “consulting services indicates
that nothing has been spent, we have set up an internal contract with CCE to plan and host the
Waste Not Conference ($9,000), we decided not set up a formal contract with the University of
Toronto, but to simply hire a post-doc who works there (with co-PI Hughes) by the hour, for the
same amount ($26,000), and we are ready to sign an internal contract with the UM Survey
Center for $10,000 (this will require moving some money out of “general operating expenses”;
(2) travel expenses for several speakers and out-of-state participants, which will certainly
consume our travel budget; (3) purchase of an industrial scale food chopper, which will
consume most of our “lab/med supply line. These expenses total about $113,600, leaving
about $58,000 to spend on non-encumbered salaries. I will work with our accountant to be
sure that our end balance is fairly near zero by June 15.