Department of the Environment

About us | Contact us | Publications

Settlements Header ImageSettlements Header ImageSettlements Header Image

Publications archive - Waste and recycling

Disclaimer

Key departmental publications, e.g. annual reports, budget papers and program guidelines are available in our online archive.

Much of the material listed on these archived web pages has been superseded, or served a particular purpose at a particular time. It may contain references to activities or policies that have no current application. Many archived documents may link to web pages that have moved or no longer exist, or may refer to other documents that are no longer available.

On-farm Composting of Municipal and Commercial Organics as an Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Resource Recovery Scheme for Rural Communities

June 2003,
Environment Australia

3 Benchmarking

One of the first activities within the project was to document waste management and recycling activities within Crows Nest Shire before kerbside collection of organics and on-farm composting were promoted and implemented. This was achieved by:

Results of these activities are presented in the following sections.

3.1 Waste Management

3.1.1 Collection services

The level of waste and recycling collection services offered to shire residents depends on the location of their home. Residents in Highfields / Blue Mountain Heights (BMH) receive a weekly waste and fortnightly recycling collection service. Residents in Crows Nest, Meringandan, Cabarlah and Hampton receive a weekly waste collection service and residents who have rural addresses receive neither a waste nor a recycling collection service. Table 1 shows that waste collection services are provided to 3,000 households while recyclables are collected from 2,071 households, resulting in 929 properties that receive a waste, but no recycling, collection service. In addition, there are about 1,200 rural properties that receive no collection service.

Table 1 Number of waste and recycling collection services provided within Crows Nest Shire (as of December 2002)
Area Waste Recycling
240 L
140 L
Total
240 L
Crows Nest and villages
628
158
786
-
Highfields and Blue Mountain Heights
2,195
19
2,214
2,071
Crows Nest Shire
2,823
177
3,000
2,071

Crows Nest Shire Council charges the following fees for the provision of waste and recycling collection services:

Waste collection:

240 L wheelie bin: $80 per year 140 L wheelie bin: $75 per year

Recycling collection:

240 L wheelie bin: $55 per year

3.1.1.1 Waste

It was estimated that 1,647 tonnes of waste was collected from the kerb during 2000/01. However, a considerable amount of waste is not disposed of via kerbside collection but rather taken to one of the six disposal facilities within the shire. This aspect is presented and discussed in more detail in Section 3.1.3.3.

3.1.1.2 Recyclables

Residents in Highfields / BMH are offered fortnightly kerbside recycling services. It is compulsory for residents in those areas to have a recycling bin.

According to the contractor, 283.4 tonnes of recyclables were collected during 2000/01. Based on all kerbside collected material, this equates to a recycling rate of 14.7%. If only those households are considered that have a recycling bin, the rate increases to 19.9%.

However, the above recycling yields are only estimates. As the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) does not have a weighbridge, the collected materials are not weighed as they enter the facility. Likewise, composition of recyclables presented in Figure 2 does not represent material collected in Highfields / BMH, but rather a mix of recyclables collected in the region. The relatively high contamination level of 20% is most likely caused by split bins used in neighbouring areas. Dedicated recycling bins used in Highfields / BMH are expected to show considerably less contamination.

Composition (% w/w) of recyclables processed at MRF in Toowoomba

Figure 2 Composition (% w/w) of recyclables processed at MRF in Toowoomba

In addition to the collection of recyclables from the kerbside there are several drop-off points for recyclables. The local Scouts Group operates two collection points for glass and aluminium cans, one in Highfields and one in Crows Nest. Various charities have collection bins for textiles in Highfields and Crows Nest. Council operated a recycling centre at the Kleinton landfill with the caretaker having scavenging rights. However, these arrangements have changed over the last 12 months and are in a state of flux at present.

Data concerning the quantity of collected recyclables were available neither for drop-off facilities at landfill sites, nor for those run by community organisations.

3.1.2 Disposal facilities

Crows Nest Shire Council used to operate six landfills, or 'tips', all of which were constructed in a fashion typical for rural and regional areas, i.e. not highly engineered and without a base liner. Now council operates five landfills, since the Crows Nest landfill was closed after it became evident that leachate from the tip threatened to contaminate Toowoomba's drinking water supply. The Crows Nest landfill was also used to dispose of septage from residential properties before the leachate problem was discovered.

Meanwhile, the landfill in Crows Nest was converted to a transfer station for disposal of bulky waste with some drop-off containers for recyclables. An overview of the disposal facilities within Crows Nest Shire and the amount of waste disposed at each of these facilities is provided in Table 2. It needs to be emphasised that all figures presented in Table 2 are estimates as none of the landfills is equipped with a weighbridge. The figures demonstrate that approximately 5,500 tonnes of waste are landfilled each year in Crows Nest Shire. Of this, only 30% is collected from the kerbside while residents and businesses take about 70% of all waste to available disposal facilities.

A survey conducted in 2001 aimed at determining the type and quantity of waste being delivered directly to landfills within EDROC shires (Envirocom, 2001). Kleinton landfill was surveyed in Crows Nest Shire. The report, which was based on a 2 x 6 hour observation period, suggests that residents and businesses deliver up to 13,100 m3 or 8,284 tonnes of waste to Kleinton landfill annually. These figures appear to be relatively high, but suggest that estimates for Kleinton and other landfills shown in Table 2 may be too conservative. The Environmental Protection Agency's reports on 'The State of Waste & Recycling in Queensland' for 2000/01 and 2002 show that, on average, each person in Queensland generated 658kg and 797kg of waste per year respectively (EPA, 2002, EPA 2003). These figures include construction and demolition waste, green waste, municipal waste and commercial and industrial waste. According to council estimates, each resident within the shire generates 539kg of waste per year, while this amount would climb to 1,158kg per person annually if Envirocom's figures for waste disposal at Kleinton landfill were used.

Table 2 Disposal facilities in Crows Nest Shire (as of April 2003)
Location
Estimated disposal rate (tonnes)
Remaining capacity at current disposal rate
Per week
Per year
Crows Nest transfer station
15
780
-
Geham landfill
- from transfer station
- kerbside collected (2002/03)
- self hauled waste
- self hauled garden organics

15
33
10
4

780
1,664
520
208
20 years
Kleinton landfill
- self hauled waste
- self hauled garden organics

25
12

1300
624
5 years
Haden landfill
3.5
182
12 month
Ravensbourne landfill
2.5
130
12 month
Emu Creek landfill
2.5
130
5-10 years
Total Crows Nest Shire
106.5
5,538
 
Waste per person per year  
0.539
 

It is expected that the landfills at Haden and Ravensbourne will be transformed into transfer stations in the not too distant future.

Separate areas for the disposal of garden organics are available at Geham and Kleinton landfills. Currently, these materials are burned, authorised through a relevant licence issued by the EPA.

3.1.3 Analysis of waste and recycling streams

Detailed analysis of waste and recyclables collected from the kerbside in Crows Nest Shire was conducted in September 2001 at the outset of the project. Parallel to the analysis of the kerbside collected materials, Envirocom assessed the amount and composition of waste taken to Kleinton landfill by residents and businesses (Envirocom 2001).

3.1.3.1 Kerbside collected waste

Representative samples of waste collected in Crows Nest and surrounding villages (18.9.2001) were analysed separately from waste collected in Highfields and Blue Mountain Heights (21. 9. 2001), where a kerbside recycling service is provided. Waste composition data for both areas are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Composition of waste collected in Crows Nest and surrounding villages


Figure 3 Composition of waste collected in Crows Nest and surrounding villages

Composition of waste collected in Highfields and Blue Mountain Heights

Figure 4 Composition of waste collected in Highfields and Blue Mountain Heights

The waste analysis demonstrated that kerbside collected waste in both collection areas was predominantly comprised of organic materials. Waste collected in Crows Nest contained 54% organics and waste collected in Highfields / BMH showed a level of 64% organics. This demonstrated that organics comprised by far the single largest waste fraction in kerbside collected waste. This has been observed many times even though organics levels can vary between 30% and 60% depending on the catchment area (Brisbane City Council. 2003; Fricke, 1992; Nolan ITU, 1996).

The sampled waste was sorted into various categories in accordance with specifications outlined in the Australian Waste Database Project. This meant that the 'organics' category comprised the following material categories:

Classification of clothing / textiles / leather and rubber as 'organic' is not helpful in assessing the waste stream for materials that are potentially compostable, even though these materials may be of a natural or organic origin. It is recommended that waste classification categories be amended with a view to the potential reuse of certain materials, as is the case with paper and cardboard. They both consist of natural / organic materials and are biodegradable and hence could be included in the organic waste fraction. However, these materials are accounted for separately since they are usually segregated for paper recycling.

Clothing / textiles / leather and rubber accounted for 6.3% and 7.9% of the waste stream in Crows Nest and Highfields / BMH, respectively. If these materials were not included in the organics category, the level of organics in the waste stream would decrease to 47.1% in Crows Nest and 55% in Highfields / BMH. However, even at the reduced level, organic materials would still comprise by far the single largest fraction in the waste stream.

On the other hand, if all biodegradable materials were considered, i.e. including paper and cardboard, waste from Crows Nest would contain 65% biodegradable components and Highfields / BMH 66%.

Reduced levels of paper (11%) and plastic (3%) in waste from Highfields / BMH were assumed to result from the provided kerbside recycling service in this area. Waste from Crows Nest contained 18% paper and 11% plastic. However, the reverse was observed for glass. Crows Nest waste contained only 3% glass while waste from Highfields / BMH showed a level of 10%.

The waste collection company failed to weigh the waste and recyclables collected and analysed. Therefore, it was not possible to extrapolate available waste audit results and obtain meaningful data on the amount of waste and recyclables collected annually. Likewise, it was not possible to calculate waste generation and recycling rates per household and per capita.

3.1.3.2 Kerbside collected recyclables

The composition of recyclables collected in Highfields / BMH on 21. 9. 2001 is shown in Figure 5. At 62%, paper and cardboard comprised the majority of collected recyclable materials. The second largest fraction was plastic, which constituted 18% of collected materials and was twice as high as glass. This was somewhat surprising, given the bulk density of plastic and glass. On average, material delivered to Toowoomba MRF contained 20% glass and 6% plastic (Figure 2). It should be noted that the level of contaminants, i.e. material that should not be in the recycling bin, was relatively low at 6%, compared to a 20% average for the region.

Composition of recyclables collected in Highfields and Blue Mountain Heights

Figure 5 Composition of recyclables collected in Highfields and Blue Mountain Heights

3.1.3.3 Waste delivered to Kleinton landfill

As mentioned previously, Envirocom assessed the amount and composition of waste delivered to Kleinton landfill. All data and information presented in this section is based on Envirocom's report (Envirocom, 2001).

The survey was conducted on Friday and Saturday 5/6 October 2001 and assessed 89 self-haul loads brought to the landfill site over two six hour periods. It should be noted that results of the landfill survey are based on volumetric estimates (m3) while the results of all other waste audits are presented on a weight basis (kg, tonne).

The survey demonstrated that half of all materials brought to the site was diverted to a dedicated green organics disposal site (Figure 6). The remainder was taken to the tip face as virtually nothing was dropped off for recycling. However, material taken to the tip face still contained 34% of organic material, made up of equal parts organic and wood/tree waste (Figure 7). Furthermore, waste at the tip face contained 21% metal, 14% paper/cardboard and 8% plastic. In total, approximately two-thirds of all materials brought to Kleinton landfill consisted of garden organics and wood/tree waste. This is demonstrated in Figure 8.

Disposal of self-haul waste at designated locations at Kleinton landfill site

Figure 6 Disposal of self-haul waste at designated locations at Kleinton landfill site (based on volumetric (m3) estimates)

Composition of waste taken to tip face at Kleinton landfill

Figure 7 Composition of waste taken to tip face at Kleinton landfill (based on volumetric (m3) estimates)

Composition of all materials taken to Kleinton landfill

Figure 8 Composition of all materials taken to Kleinton landfill (based on volumetric (m3) estimates)

Both residential and commercial / industrial waste was taken to Kleinton landfill. Figures representing the distribution of households with and without a domestic waste collection service across the shire matched exactly those derived from users of the Kleinton landfill: 72% with and 28% without a domestic waste collection service.

Most material (62.8%) originated from households that were provided with a waste collection service, while those that did not have a domestic service delivered 23.4%. Commercial and industrial waste accounted for 13.8% of the total waste delivered and was comprised primarily of 'dirty building material' (47%), 'mixed waste' (21%) and 'rubbish from domestic clean ups' (12.2%). Commercial waste contained no garden organics. Domestic waste, on the other hand was found to contain 66.8% and 63.2% garden organics for households with or without a waste collection service, respectively.

By extrapolating survey data to annual disposal figures, Envirocom (2001) estimated that up to 13,100 m3 of waste could be delivered to Kleinton landfill annually. However, these figures seem to represent only waste that was taken directly to the tip face. Garden organics that were delivered to the designated site seem to have been overlooked. If garden organics were considered also, the assumed total amount of material delivered to Kleinton landfill would increase to more than 21,500 m3 per year. This figure certainly appears to be excessive. Consequently, it is recommended that the assumptions upon which the calculations and resulting figures are based be re-evaluated.

Overall, the report seems to marginalise the fact that approximately two-thirds of waste delivered to Kleinton landfill was comprised of organic material and instead seems to overemphasis the metal fraction, which makes up about 11% of all waste delivered to the site.

3.2 Attitudes of Residents and Businesses

3.2.1 Survey of shire residents

Shire residents were surveyed by means of telephone interviews to find out about

The survey was conducted during the middle of February 2002, before the organics collection and composting trial was promoted and introduced. 91 questionnaires were completed, which represented 2.17% of all households in Crows Nest Shire. Survey results were differentiated according to the level of waste and recycling collection service available to surveyed households. 38 interviewed households (41.8%) were provided with a waste and recycling collection service, another 38 (41.8%) were provided with a waste collection service only, and 15 surveyed households (16.5%) had no service at all. This is not a true representation of the distribution of services across the shire (waste and recycling collection service: 49.3%, waste collection service: 22.1%, no service: 28.6%) but this information was not available at the time the survey was conducted.

As an introduction, householders were asked whether they thought that Crows Nest Shire was affected by environmental problems and whether the waste generated in the shire posed a problem. Approximately one-third of interviewed residents felt that the shire was experiencing environmental problems (Figure 9). This perception was a lot more pronounced among residents who lived in rural areas (No Service, 52.9%) compared to those who lived in a more suburban environment (Recycling & Waste, 23.7%).

Perception of environmental problems affecting Crows Nest Shire

Figure 9 Perception of environmental problems affecting Crows Nest Shire

Answers to the question of whether waste posed a problem in the shire (Figure 10) showed a response pattern similar to that concerning environmental problems, except that waste was perceived to be less of a problem. This is not true however for residents who received a waste collection service only; more people within this group saw waste as a problem than those that saw general environmental problems. The fact that only 15.8% of residents who received a kerbside recycling service perceived waste as a problem reinforced the notion that recycling gives people the feeling that they 'are doing their bit' in solving the problem.

Perception of waste as being a problem in Crows Nest Shire

Figure 10 Perception of waste as being a problem in Crows Nest Shire

Residents, who are not provided with a waste collection service were asked in which way they disposed of their waste. Figure 11 illustrates that 60% of respondents said they take their waste to landfill, while 26.7% used a combination of the offered disposal choices (animal feed, mulching/composting, landfilling, burning, burying). It appeared that waste was no longer burnt by households that are not provided with a waste collection service. It was somewhat surprising though, that only 6.7% of respondents claimed to use mulching and composting as a means of disposing of some of their waste materials.

However, when asked which of the available recycling options were utilised, more than 86% of households without a waste collection service claimed to employ home composting as a means of recycling and waste reduction (Figure 12). Home composting was the most popular form of recycling, except for the kerbside recycling service, which is compulsory in areas where it is offered. 83.3% of households across the shire claimed to practise home composting as a means of recycling. The use of charities to dispose of re-usable or recyclable goods was also very popular, particularly among residents in Highfields / BMH (Recycle & Waste). Drop-off recycling options were less popular, regardless of whether they were located in the neighbourhood (Scouts recycling depot) or at a landfill site (re-use depot at landfill).

Waste disposal options utilised by residents without waste collection service

Figure 11 Waste disposal options utilised by residents without waste collection service

Recycling options utilised by Crows Nest Shire residents

Nb: These figures do not amount to 100% because respondents selected more than one option

Figure 12 Recycling options utilised by Crows Nest Shire residents

As the survey focused on the organic waste stream, residents were asked to provide information about what they usually do with their garden organics. 79% of households in Highfields / BMH (Recycling & Waste) stated that they utilise garden organics through mulching and 68% said they do the same through composting (Figure 13). While composting was also popular among households in other areas, the use of garden organics as mulch was less than half as frequent as it was in Highfields / BMH. On the other hand, almost 40% of households without collection services used organic garden materials as animal feed. About a third of households with waste collection services disposed of garden organics at landfill, either via the collection service or via self-haul. Households without collection services claimed not to dispose of garden organics in the landfill.

Use and disposal of garden organics by households in Crows Nest Shire

Nb: These figures do not amount to 100% because respondents selected more than one option

Figure 13 Use and disposal of garden organics by households in Crows Nest Shire

It was not only of interest to find out how Crows Nest residents utilised organic materials but, also what type of materials were utilised and processed 'on site'. Figure 14 demonstrates that most households (between 92% and 94%) made good use of grass clippings. Between 60.6% and 76.9% of interviewed households stated that they utilised raw fruit and vegetables, and between 50% and 76.9% claimed to use tree and shrub prunings for mulching, composting or as animal feed. This figure seems relatively high, given that only 15.4% of residents owned or used a borrowed shredder.

Households that received recycling and waste collection services utilised primarily grass clippings, tree/shrub prunings and raw fruit and vegetables, but relatively little other organic materials. Many residents that received a waste collection service only or no service utilised also cooked food, bread and cut flowers / flower pots 'on-site'. Overall, it appeared that households that received no service were best in utilising organic materials 'on-site' (compare Figure 14). In turn, more households that received a waste collection service seemed to have utilised a wider range of organic materials than was observed for households that received a recycling and waste collection service.

Organic materials utilised 'on site' as mulch, animal feed and through composting

Figure 14 Organic materials utilised 'on site' as mulch, animal feed and through composting

Residents were asked about their level of satisfaction with the excisting recycling and waste management services offered by council. As expected, most households (97.4%) that received both waste and recycling collection services felt that the provided services were either satisfactory or more than adequate. On the other end of the scale, 86.7% of residents that received no service were not satisfied with the current situation and would like to see improvements. 23.7% of households with a waste collection service only thought that the recycling and waste collection services should be improved.

When asked whether they would be willing to pay more for improved recycling activities and waste collection services the response was fairly uniform. Across all three service levels, between 43.2% and 46.7% of households stated their willingness to pay more for improved services (Figure 15).

Those who had declared their willingness to make a financial contribution towards improved services were asked how much more they were prepared to pay per month. Figure 16 shows that the majority of those who already receive waste and recycling collection services (66.7%) were prepared to pay up to $2 more per month for improved services. Nobody in this group was prepared to pay as much as $5 more per month. In contrast, 40% and 50% of those who currently did not receive kerbside recycling services or who received no service at all, were prepared to pay up to $5 more per month. The additional payment of $5 per month equates to an amount of $60 per year, which is slightly more than what Crows Nest Shire Council currently charges for the kerbside recycling service ($55/year).

Willingness to pay for improved recycling and waste collection services

Figure 15 Willingness to pay for improved recycling and waste collection services

Level of potential financial contribution by residents towards improved recycling and waste collection services

Figure 16 Level of potential financial contribution by residents towards improved recycling and waste collection services

With a view to the future and with reference to the development of a new regional waste management strategy, residents were asked which potential future recycling and waste management developments they would approve of. Responses to this question are presented in Figure 17.

Approval rating for potential future recycling and waste management options

Figure 17 Approval rating for potential future recycling and waste management options

Across all residents in the shire, the various future recycling and waste management options achieved the following approval ratings:

Potential future development Approval rating (% households)
More waste reduction
76.9
Support for home composting
74.7
On-farm composting
62.6
User pays principle
59.3
Kerbside collection of organics
52.7
New large-scale processing facility
39.6
Alternating weekly collection
33.0
New landfill
28.6

The most popular future options among shire residents were an increase in waste reduction initiatives and improved support for home composting. On-farm composting, introduction of the 'user-pays-principle' and kerbside collection of organics would be also acceptable within the shire (approval ratings above 50%). On the contrary, a large scale processing facility, alternating weekly waste and recycling collection and a new landfill would not find much support among shire residents.

3.2.2 Survey of shire businesses

Municipal solid waste (MSW), i.e. waste that is disposed of by private households comprises only part of the total waste stream. Apart from MSW there is also 'commercial and industrial' waste as well as 'construction & demolition' waste. According to EPA figures, 577,445 tonnes of commercial and industrial waste were landfilled in Queensland in 2002, which amounted to approximately 42% of MSW (EPA, 2003).

While construction and demolition waste can contain substantial amounts of timber, it is largely inert. This is not necessarily the case for commercial and industrial waste. Depending on the type of business, commercial waste can contain high levels of putrescibles. This is certainly true for food processing businesses as well as the catering and hospitality industry.

In order to gain information about current waste management practices of businesses in the shire that generate organic waste, and to find out whether these companies would be interested in participating in the planned organics recycling project, a survey of 17 businesses that generate organic residues was undertaken. Interviewed companies were selected from the Yellow Pages and tourist information brochures. They comprised fruit and vegetable and flower wholesalers, cafes, restaurants, a flower farm, a butcher and a feed merchant.

Table 3 shows that four of the interviewed businesses (23.5%) did not have a waste collection service. They took waste directly to landfill. Four companies (23.5%) segregated cardboard for recycling and two (11.8%) recycled glass and cans.

Waste generated by interviewed businesses contained between 5% and 99% of organic materials. 10 companies (58.8%) claimed to utilise all or part of their organic residues as mulch or animal feed or they composted it. Meat scraps from the butcher were processed into dog food. Three-quarters of the interviewed businesses were prepared to segregate their organic waste materials if there was a dedicated organics collection, and many of them seemed to be doing so already. Three companies (17.6%) were willing to pay extra for a dedicated organics collection, while one was undecided. Financial contributions offered for such a service ranged from $20 to $780 per year. For some companies segregation of organics would result in reduced collection frequencies for residual waste and would hence deliver savings.

The survey found that in many cases, the majority of organic materials was composted on site or fed to animals. Consequently, the level of organics in the waste stream was often considered too little to be concerned about. However, if there was a dedicated collection service for municipal organics, co-collection of commercial organics should be offered to interested businesses as this would increase yields and improve efficiencies.

It should be mentioned that no information was received about waste generation and recycling activities at a large military installation. The Borneo Barracks were thought to generate most commercial and industrial waste in the shire and to have by far the highest output of organic waste materials of all surveyed enterprises.

Table 3 Current and potential future waste management and recycling activities of companies that generate organic waste
Category
Receptacles
Collection interval
Recyclables separated
Organic waste
Disposal / use of organics
Willing to separate
Willing to pay extra
Less frequent waste collection
Type
Proportion
Rose farm
Plastic garbage
Landfill
Cardboard
Flowers
90%
Composted
Yes
No
N/A
Wholesale fruit & vegies
1 x 40 gallon drum
Weekly
Cardboard
Unsold food
10%
Animal feed
Yes
No
Yes
Wholesale fruit & vegies
2 x 2m3 bins
Fortnightly
None
Scraps
20%
Animal feed
Yes
No
N/A
Wholesale flowers
None
 
None
Foliage, leaves
95%
Animal feed
Yes
Maybe
N/A
Wholesale flowers
1 x Size 4 bin
Fortnightly
Cardboard
Foliage, leaves
50%
Composted,normal waste
Yes
Yes $15/wk
No
Wholesale flowers
None
Landfill
None
Flowers
99%
Mulch
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wholesale flowers      
Foliage, leaves
90%
Composted
     
Butcher      
Meat
 
Dog food
     
Restaurant
2 x 80 L bin
Weekly
Glass, cans
Food waste
10%
Normal waste
Yes
No
No
Restaurant
2 x 80 L bin
Weekly
None
Food waste
25%
Normal waste
Yes
Yes $20/yr
Yes
Restaurant
Industrial bin
Weekly
None
Food waste
10%
Normal waste
Yes
No
Maybe
Takeaway Restaurant
None
Landfill
None
Food waste
5%
Composted,normal waste
Yes
No
N/A
Café
3 x 80 L bin
Landfill
None
Food waste
5%
Normal waste
Yes
No
N/A
Café
2 x 64 L bin
Weekly
Glass, cans
Food waste
40%
Composted,animal feed
N/A
N/A
N/A
Café
1 x Size 2 bin
Weekly
None
Food waste
10%
Normal waste
Yes
No
No
Café
1 x Size 1 bin
Fortnightly
Cardboard
Food waste
30%
Normal waste
Yes
Yes $50/yr
Yes
Feed merchant
None
Landfill
Reuse feed bags
Spoilt feed
80%
Animal feed
Yes
No
N/A