Front. Sustain. Food Syst. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2571-581X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fsufs.2021.781537 Sustainable Food Systems Review Critical Factors and Emerging Opportunities in Food Waste Utilization and Treatment Technologies Jones Sarah L. 1 Gibson Kristen E. 1 Ricke Steven C. 2 * 1Department of Food Science, Center for Food Safety, University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR, United States 2Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, WI, United States

Edited by: Carlos Martin-Rios, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland, Switzerland

Reviewed by: José L. S. Pereira, Instituto Politecnico de Viseu, Portugal; Aeslina Abdul Kadir, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Malaysia

*Correspondence: Steven C. Ricke sricke@wisc.edu

This article was submitted to Waste Management in Agroecosystems, a section of the journal Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems

24 12 2021 2021 5 781537 22 09 2021 02 12 2021 Copyright © 2021 Jones, Gibson and Ricke. 2021 Jones, Gibson and Ricke

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Globally, approximately one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or discarded, comprising 1. 3 billion tons annually. Factors contributing to food waste from the food manufacturer to the consumer level are numerous. Events that may result in food waste include, but are not limited to, manufacturing food by-products, improper handling within the supply chain (e.g., cold chain deviations), misunderstood food date labels, over-purchasing, and consumer-level temperature abuse. From the manufacturer to consumer, each node in the food supply requires concerted efforts to divert food waste from entering municipal landfills. Depending on the state of the food waste, it is diverted to various outlets, from food donation for consumption to composting for soil amendment. To better understand the opportunities in the United States to divert food waste from landfills, current and emerging federal policies as well as the causes of food waste generation must be understood. Unfortunately, information on both the composition of food waste in the U.S. and how it impacts critical factors in food waste treatment, especially in food waste composting, is limited. Specifically, this review aims to: (1) discuss and compare critical factors that impact the fate of food waste and (2) examine emerging opportunities to advance the processing and products of food waste.

food waste animal feed compost energy production additives

香京julia种子在线播放

    1. <form id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></form>
      <address id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></nobr></address>

      Introduction

      Globally, approximately one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or discarded, which is nearly 1.3 billion tons annually (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Of the food that goes unused, the waste streams can be classified into two primary categories: food loss and food waste. Since there is no legal definition for either terminology, past studies have defined food loss and food waste differently (Chaboud and Daviron, 2017).

      However, despite there not being a specific definition of “food waste,” it is important to highlight how groups define this term. For instance, Östergren et al. (2014) and Bellemare et al. (2017) do not define the terms “food waste” and “food loss” separately, but rather refer to them as a single group of “food waste.” However, Parfitt et al. (2010) define food loss at the end of the food supply chain (e.g., retail, consumer) as “food waste” which is also in accordance with Gustavsson et al. (2011). However, Gustavsson et al. (2011) go on to define that all products intended for human consumption—but that do not result in consumption—are considered food waste including products that are diverted for other final uses (e.g., animal feed, industrial by-products). In the current review, the authors follow the definitions of “food loss” and “food waste” set by the Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2019b). Specifically, the FAO defines “food loss” as occurring along the food supply chain up to, but not including, the retail level, whereas “food waste” occurs at the consumer and retail level. Therefore, the present review will focus on food waste that occurs after the final product is created, as the majority of food wasted in the U.S. occurs at this final stage of the food supply chain (i.e., retailers, food service providers, and consumers) (Buzby et al., 2014).

      According to a database established by the Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2019a), based on data from 2016, ~13.8% of food worldwide goes unused due to food loss ranging from 5 to 6% in Australia and New Zealand up to 21% in Central and South Asia across all commodity areas (Table 1A). The FAO database aggregates data from more than 480 publications and reports from various sources and further characterizes food commodity categories. The top three commodities with the most significant amount of loss are (1) roots, tubers, and oil-bearing crops, (2) fruits and vegetables, and (3) meat and animal products, respectively (Table 1B). Notably, at the time of this review, there is not a comprehensive database addressing and characterizing food waste; although, the Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2019b, 2021) states that the first estimates of worldwide food waste are in preparation. In a similar effort, Barco et al. (2019) published a recent study suggesting new methodologies for facilitating the quantification of food waste based on European Union data points. However, on a global scale, accruing food waste data is challenging because nearly all studies focus on food waste in developed countries, such as the U.S., United Kingdom, and Japan (Hackes et al., 1997; Harrington et al., 2005; Griffin et al., 2009; Buzby et al., 2011; Lebersorger and Schneider, 2014; Lehmann, 2015; Loke and Leung, 2015; Parry et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2016; Welch et al., 2018; Filimonau et al., 2020).

      Food losses by (A) global regions and (B) commodity, in descending order.

      Food loss (%)
      (A) Region
      Central and Southern Asia 20–21%
      Northern America and Europe 15–16%
      Sub-Saharan Africa 13–14%
      Latin America and the Caribbean 11–12%
      Western Asia and Northern Africa 10–11%
      Oceania (Excluding Australia and New Zealand) 8–9%
      Eastern and South-Eastern Asia 7–8%
      Australia and New Zealand 5–6%
      Worldwide 13–14%
      (B) Commodity
      Roots, tubers and oil-bearing crops 25–26%
      Fruits and vegetables 21–22%
      Meat and animal products 11–12%
      Other 10–11%
      Cereals and pulses 8–9%

      Table based on information provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019a).

      In the meantime, the Economic Research Service (ERS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has estimated the amount of food waste annually in the U.S. alone (Buzby et al., 2014). Researchers concluded that ~60.3 million tons of the 195 million tons of food at the retail and consumer levels in 2010 went uneaten. This food waste represents the equivalent of 161.6 billion USD lost where the top three food commodity categories include meat, poultry, and fish (30%; $48 billion), vegetables (19%; $30 billion), and dairy products (17%; $27 billion). With food waste impacting such a large part of the U.S. food supply, researchers are actively looking for opportunities to optimize the uses of food waste. Specifically, this review aims to: (1) discuss and compare critical factors that impact the fate of food waste and (2) examine emerging opportunities to advance the processing and products of food waste.

      Histories of U.S. Policies on Food Waste

      Over the past decade, initiatives to reduce food waste and to optimize its use have drastically increased (Aboulam et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2007; Chang and Hsu, 2008; Cuéllar and Webber, 2010). With a piqued interest in the scientific communities and across the general public, lawmakers have been called to action. Federal governmental policy is often motivated by public outcry as well as trade association advocacy over a specific topic, such as the Consumer Brands Association (2017) initiative to address food date labeling. For food waste, the first U.S. federal policy was passed in the mid-1990s (Table 2).

      Food waste legislation in the United States.

      Regulation Year Goal Pathway
      Legislation aimed at food donation for human consumption
      Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act 1996 Divert food waste from landfills and increase food donations Provides criminal and civil liability protection to those bodies that donate safe food as well as the organizing bodies that receive and distribute the donated food
      Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 2005 Encourage donations in response to Hurricane Katrina Provides temporary federal tax incentives to a variety of business, including food donation
      Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Acts 2015 Permanent federal tax incentives Provides permanent federal tax incentives, including food donation
      Legislation aimed at food donation for animal use
      Swine Health Protection Act 1980 Regulate the treatment of food waste for swine feed Ensuring that food waste (e.g., waste derived whole or in part from meat animal products) used for feed is free of disease-causing pathogens so that the swine, and subsequently, human consumers, are protected
      Ruminant Feed Ban Rule 1997; 2009 Reduce the risk of dissemination of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy Does not allow the use of mammalian protein in animal feed for all ruminant animals. Thus, the enforcement of this rule requires rigorous recordkeeping by the manufacturer to ensure the regulation is being met
      Food Safety Modernization Act 2011 Introduce preventive controls to ensure a safer food supply The Preventive Controls for Animal Food does not focus on food waste, but it creates another safeguard between food waste and safe animal feed
      Pending legislation
      Food Recovery Act 2015; 2017 Wide-ranging food waste reduction Diverting and reducing food waste reduction at farm, processing, retail, and consumer levels
      Food Date Labeling Act 2019 Standardize food date labels across the food chain Establish a federal food date labeling system that includes a quality and safety label
      Food Donation Act 2018 Expansion of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act Add liability protections of a greater scope of donated food products
      School Food Recovery Act 2020 Broad-spectrum food waste program at the local, school-district level Focus on food waste quantification, reduction, and education in school districts

      While reducing the amount of food waste generated is the primary goal, donating safe, quality food is the next-best option in reducing the amount of food waste going to landfills (Figure 1). However, food manufacturers and retailers were fearful of liability for any resulting illness or reactions when donating food (143 Cong. Rec. S9532., 1996; Haley, 2013). For this reason, the U.S. Congress passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (1996); Table 2, which provides criminal and civil liability protection to those bodies that donate food as well as the organizing bodies that receive and distribute the donated food. Of course, if gross negligence and intentional misconduct are found to result in the harm or well-being of a person, the donor or non-profit organization responsible is not protected from civil or criminal liability in the event litigation occurs.

      The fate of food waste. Adapted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2017b). The ultimate endpoint of food waste from the best- to worst-case scenario. Created with BioRender.com. MSW, municipal solid waste.

      To further encourage food manufacturers to donate food to nonprofits, the U.S. government provides tax incentives to businesses that decide to donate food, according to the Federal Enhanced Tax Deduction for Food Donation: A Legal Guide (Blazek et al., 2016). In 2005, federal tax incentives were temporarily expanded to cover a wider variety of businesses in response to Hurricane Katrina (Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act, 2005). As a result, food donations to nonprofits in the U.S. sharply increased in the following year (ReFed, 2019a). In 2015, U.S. Congress made the expansion permanent to continue encouraging food donation (Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of, 2015) (Table 2).

      If food donation is not an option, the use of food waste in animal feed is highly encouraged. As a result, there are several laws and regulations regarding the use of food waste as animal feed which have been outlined in Table 2. The Swine Health Protection Act (1980); SHPA focuses on ensuring that food waste (e.g., waste derived wholly or in part from meat animal products) used for feed is free of disease-causing pathogens so that the swine, and subsequently, human consumers, are protected. The SHPA requires that food waste containing animal tissue or animal by-products is thermally treated (≥100°C) for at least 30 mins. This waste-to-feed must also be stored under conditions that prevent spoilage microorganisms or the proliferation of pathogenic bacteria. The Ruminant Feed Ban Rule (RFB) (1997) (21 C.F.R. § 589.2000) was also developed in 1997 in response to animal disease outbreaks linked to animal feed and has a shared goal with SHPA—protection of consumer health as well as ruminant animals (Table 2).

      In the most extensive food safety reform enacted in the U.S., the Food Safety Modernization Act (2011) was signed into law. While there is a complex set of guidelines in the Preventive Controls for Animal Food (PCAF) Rule, facilities that are in compliance with the Preventive Control for Human Food (PCHF) Rule are not required to follow the additional rules outlined by the PCAF. This includes food processing facilities that produce food under conditions that adhere to the PCHF and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (1938). While this legislation is not solely focused on food waste, it creates another safeguard between food waste and safe animal feed.

      In addition to the current rules and regulations, there are several bills regarding food waste that have been introduced to the U.S. Congress (Table 2). In the past few years, several gaps in food waste regulation have been identified, resulting in the introduction of the (1) Food Recovery Act, H.R. 4184. (2015); Food Recovery Act, H.R. 3444; S. 1680. (2017), (2) the Food Date Labeling Act, H.R. 3981; S. 2337 (2019), (3) the Food Donation Act, H.R. 952. (2017); Food Donation Act, S 2787. (2018), and (4) the School Food Recovery Act, H.R. 5607. (2020). All of these policies have been introduced to U.S. Congress. However, none have passed the House of Representatives or Senate.

      The FRA has broad, overarching goals to reduce food waste. Unsurprisingly, many of the goals are focused on reducing waste generated at the farm, processing, retail, and consumer levels, respectively (Pingree, 2018). However, some specific goals are targeted at reducing waste generated at U.S. kindergarten through 12th-grade public schools and throughout the federal government. Moreover, the FRA bill aims to reduce food waste by encouraging and supporting USDA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiatives to redirect food waste from landfills, such as supporting food anaerobic digestion projects at the local level for energy production. Additionally, the FRA wants to allocate money for research addressing the barriers that prevent the donation of surplus food as well as new technologies to increase the shelf life of highly perishable food. Lastly, if passed, the FRA would mandate the USDA to establish a standard for how much food is wasted at the farm level (Pingree, 2018). However, there are still gaps remaining in food waste regulations.

      The FDL bill was written to address the lack of standardization of food date labels in the U.S. (ReFed, 2019b). Partially due to the lack of labeling standardization, consumers discard food based on labels set for quality, not food safety (Gong et al., 2021). Additionally, some retailers in certain states cannot sell food past the date label resulting in more food waste (Kosa et al., 2007; ReFed, 2019b). The FDL has two primary goals: (1) establish a “dual label system” for two label indicators and (2) provide monetary funds for educating consumers about interpreting the aforementioned label system to make better-informed decisions. The dual label system would include one date label, which indicates quality, and the other, a safety-based label. Ultimately, the legislation should result in less food being discarded.

      Another bill introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives is the Food Donation Act, H.R. 952. (2017); Food Donation Act, S 2787. (2018). This bill is an expansion of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, allowing for liability protections of a greater scope of donated food products. For example, if this bill is signed into law, foods that are mislabeled in a way that does not impact the safety of the product could be donated.

      Recently, the bipartisan SFRA of 2020 was introduced to the House. This bill instructs the USDA to provide grants “to implement food waste measurement and reporting, prevention, education, and reduction projects” at the local level [School Food Recovery Act, H.R. 5607. (2020)]. The School Food Recovery Act, H.R. 5607. (2020) states that when reviewing grant proposals, the USDA must prioritize allocating funds to local agencies that will focus on specific research areas. In the School Food Recovery Act, H.R. 5607. (2020), those areas include the (1) experiential food waste activities that encourage the children involved to participate in food waste measurement and education; and (2) the establishment of local, sustainable food waste measurement, prevention, and reduction projects. Local initiatives to combat food waste have also been proposed and/or passed in at least six states across the U.S. [National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 2020].

      As food waste reduction has entered the national dialogue, food waste-based policies have been introduced to the U.S. Congress in efforts to increase the amount of food donated to those in need. However, once the food is no longer safe and cannot be donated, other food waste treatments are needed.

      Producers of Food Waste

      Food waste results in a reduced availability of consumable food. This waste also impacts the environment by reducing usable land via landfills, creating greenhouse gas emissions, and consuming surface and groundwater resources (Scialabba et al., 2013; Barco et al., 2019). While food waste occurs at every node in the food supply chain, Buzby et al. (2014) found that retail-level establishments waste ~10% of all food. Furthermore, consumers waste ~21% of available food in the U.S. annually (Buzby et al., 2014). Therefore, the present review focuses on these end stages of the food supply chain. However, these data do not account for food waste or loss prior to the retail level. Buzby et al. (2014) did not include any analysis of on-farm up to retail waste due to data limitations. To better understand the contributors of food waste, the authors have split food waste into three categories: (1) industry, (2) retail, and (3) household.

      Industry

      In this review, the authors are qualifying “industry” as the food processor and/or manufacturer up to the retail level. According to a survey conducted by the Business for Social Responsibility™ (BSR) (2013), U.S. food manufacturers (n = 13) disposed of an estimated 2.4 billion pounds (1.1 billion kg) of food and donated ~700 million pounds (318 million kg) in 2011. However, not all the food that was disposed of by manufacturers went to a landfill—73% of food disposed went into animal feed (Business for Social Responsibility™ (BSR), 2013). These data and analyses were to represent the U.S. food industry as a whole from a survey of 13 respondents, which represents merely 17% of the food manufacturing industry by revenue. Analysis of the food industry and its generated waste is challenging because only one-quarter of the world's major food manufacturing companies have measured food loss and waste within their operations (Flanagan et al., 2019). Furthermore, of those food manufacturers that track their food waste and losses, only 20% had established food waste and loss reduction initiatives and goals (Flanagan et al., 2019). To determine where food waste is occurring in the food industry, efforts are underway to better understand how much food waste is generated in manufacturing facilities.

      Research by Griffin et al. (2009) analyzed the community food waste stream of a single county (population 97,000) in upstate New York, which featured the entire food system from farm to fork. In this study, researchers interviewed food processing operations (n = 27) regarding their generation of food waste. The authors found that most of the processing facilities were small in scale—but did not define “small”—and served the local marketplace. During the survey, the authors reported that several (n = 4) food processors were unable to estimate how much waste they generated. Meanwhile, other processors could estimate their food waste but used a myriad of measurements (e.g., volume, weight, monetary). Ultimately, the authors estimated that 258,414 pounds (117,215 kg) and 17,660 gallons (66,850 L) of food waste were generated per year from the surveyed operations. It is important to understand how companies track food waste as it has been shown that companies who measure surplus food more effectively manage food waste (Garrone et al., 2016). Based on data gathered by Garrone et al. (2016), the efficiency and effectiveness of surplus food management in the food industry are primarily influenced by measurement, coordination, and organization within the company. Unsurprisingly, the authors found that the companies which regularly measured the quantity of surplus food produced were managed more effectively than those companies that did not monitor the amount of surplus.

      Another influential factor in food waste management is coordination within the company regarding a “best” option for the fate of the surplus food, such as rework, donation, or other food waste fates. Similar to coordination, organizational structure within the company can reduce the amount of food waste. For instance, if a company has an established, structured plan for surplus food that can be executed immediately after generation, this will reduce the likelihood that the food will become unsafe for donation or other uses, such as animal feed. Food manufacturers are increasingly aware of the importance of food waste reduction and its influence on food waste generation in the supply chain (Champions 12.3., 2020). In fact, almost 200 food suppliers and retailers have committed to a 50% food waste reduction target within their own operations, to measuring and publishing their food loss and waste, and to take action to reduce their waste (Champions 12.3., 2020). However, food manufacturers are only one aspect of a much more complicated food chain when it comes to food waste.

      Retail

      At the marketing stage of the supply chain, food waste occurs for a multitude of reasons (Buzby et al., 2011). Retail food waste may occur due to the natural senescence of fruits and vegetables, damage to foods during transportation and stocking (e.g., dented cans), sell-by dates, temperature abuse in cold chain storage, overstocking of product, and improper stock rotations, such as not adhering to the “first in, first out” rule (Buzby et al., 2011; Mena et al., 2011; Goodman-Smith et al., 2020).

      Moreover, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Economic Research Service (ERS) (2019), 21,435 new food and beverage products were introduced to the marketplace in 2016. As innovative food products hit the shelves, they often have low success rates (Buzby et al., 2011). The failure rate of some product categories exceeds 90%. As a result, unpurchased products are often sent back to the manufacturer, where the product is ultimately discarded, or the product exceeds a safety or quality use-by date and is removed from the shelves (Connor and Schiek, 1997; Buzby et al., 2011). In the diverse food marketplace, there are many factors that contribute to the acute ongoing problem of food waste.

      In the BSR report (2013) described in the subsection Industry, U.S. food retailers (n = 10) and wholesalers (n = 3) discarded ~1.3 billion pounds (589 million kg) of food waste that went to landfills or incinerators in 2011. However, the retail and wholesale sector donated an estimated 670 million pounds (303 million kg) of food products during the same year. The survey respondents represented 30% of the industry. Despite donations, ~50% of the food products were wasted, indicating the need for innovative downstream technologies to turn food waste into value-added products, such as agricultural soil amendments (i.e., compost), animal feed, and energy.

      Household

      Household, or “consumer” food waste, is one of the largest categories of waste that occurs in the food chain (Rohm et al., 2017; Welch et al., 2018; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2019; Yu and Jaenicke, 2020). On the consumer level, there are many different facets that can contribute to the generation of food waste. Often, these variables are diverse in nature (Chen and Chen, 2018). Table 3 outlines some variables of food waste generation and their potential remedies as summarized by Chen and Chen (2018).

      Food waste in the household.

      Drivers Drivers example Remedies Remedies example References
      Misunderstanding food labeling information Date label confusion Consumer education; federal regulations Standardized date labeling Neff et al., 2019
      Label education and outreach
      Over-preparation Event foods Planning; save leftovers Information about portion size (e.g., “feeds 3–4”) Buzby et al., 2011
      Holidays Packaging suggestions for storing and reheating
      Over-purchasing Bulk shopping Consumer preparation Meal planning Koivupuro et al., 2012
      Spontaneous purchases Adhering to prepared grocery lists
      Food safety Concerns regarding the safety of product Food safety training Proper storage techniques U.S. Food Drug Administration (FDA), 2019
      Use of items, such a meat thermometer
      Selection Defect-free produce Consumer education Purchasing imperfect foods (e.g., misshapen produce) de Hooge et al., 2017; Janssen et al., 2017
      Short-shelf life foods Purchasing frozen products (e.g., meat, produce) to extend shelf-life

      Many contributing factors regarding food wastage in the household are based on consumer behaviors, and thus, could be remedied through education and outreach initiatives. For instance, in the home, a driver of food waste is the misunderstanding of the various date labels, as described in the subsection Policies. The different labeling systems can cause confusion among consumers. An example of this confusion is a consumer throwing away a carton of eggs past the ‘best by’ date and misinterpreting this listed date as an expiration rather than an indicator of quality. Date labeling confusion could be addressed by industry initiatives, consumer education programs, and legislation to create a streamlined date labeling system (Read and Muth, 2021).

      A recent trend in food waste reduction is the attempt to change consumer acceptance of “ugly” fruits and vegetables (see Table 3; Pantano, 2015). The concept of ugly produce stems from the rejection of fruits and vegetables at peak ripeness and quality. This produce is being left in the field or sorted out at the processing level due to deformities in shape. The edible but “ugly” produce is now reaching the mainstream through produce delivery boxes and small sections of retailers who advertise the use of imperfect produce to reduce food waste. This acceptance and call-to-action at the consumer level not only brings forth the issue of food waste but allows the consumer to be an active participant in the food waste reduction strategy (de Hooge et al., 2017).

      As illustrated, food waste generation occurs at all points in the food chain. Although the remedies for food waste reduction appear different, food waste reduction is possible with planning, education, and action. Nevertheless, food waste generation will continue to occur at some level, so it is valuable to optimize the technologies used to give food waste a new purpose which will be the focus of this review from here forward.

      Current Food Waste Uses

      The current uses of food waste from best- to the worst-case scenario are illustrated in Figure 1. Unfortunately, an overall estimated 35.6% of food waste generated in the U.S. ends up in a landfill (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2020. Additionally, when excluding the U.S. food industry manufacturer and supplier sector, more than half (55.9%) of food waste generated by residential, commercial, and institutional sectors is sent to the landfill, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2020). Overall, the EPA estimates that food waste comprises 24% of all materials sent to landfills in the municipal solid waste stream (MSW) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2020).

      Of the millions of tons of food waste generated annually in the U.S., an estimated 3.4 to 5.3% of food waste is composted (Buzby et al., 2014; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019a). As indicated in Figure 1, other uses of food waste include the creation of animal feed (21.3%), fuel for energy sources (12.5%), donation for human consumption (7.2%), land application (8.9%), controlled combustion (7.5%), and sewer/wastewater treatment (3.6%) [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2020]. A key to the success of food waste recovery efforts hinges on the composition of the food waste, which varies greatly (Zhang et al., 2007; Chang and Hsu, 2008; Adhikari et al., 2009). While no data analyses are available on the regionality or seasonality of raw food waste composition, it is known that variations in food waste composition directly impact the effectiveness of the composting system as well as animal feed (Chang and Hsu, 2008; Chang and Chen, 2010). This data gap is a problem repeatedly reported in food waste research (Xue et al., 2017). For instance, composted food waste relies on the biological process of food degradation, which, in turn, reduces in volume and creates an enriched soil amendment for further use (Manu et al., 2017). In animal feed, the heterogeneity and composition of food waste can impact the nutrient content making the food-to-feed conversion variable. In this subsection, the optimization of food waste recovery efforts that result in usable secondary products (e.g., energy, soil amendments, animal feed) will be the focus.

      Animal Feed

      An alternative fate for food waste is animal feed. Over the last decade, the interest in sustainable animal feed production has increased (Angulo et al., 2012a). In 2014, Makkar and Ankers (2014) conducted a survey (n = 1195) that found those involved in the animal feed market (i.e., industry, non-governmental organizations, academe) identified food waste as a priority research area for animal nutrition. Particularly, the use of fruit and vegetable waste (FVW) and crop waste have been studied as a supplement in bovine feed (Angulo et al., 2012b), fish feed (Ulloa et al., 2004; Mo et al., 2014), and inclusion into poultry feed (Khempaka et al., 2009; Abdel-Hafeez et al., 2018; Pandi et al., 2018). In addition, albeit less frequently, studies have investigated the use of food waste products in sheep, goat, and swine feed (Westendorf et al., 1998; Yang et al., 2006; Márquez et al., 2010; Sahoo et al., 2021).

      While the redirection of food waste to animal feed is an option, there are some concerns. As described in the subsection Policies, there are parameters (e.g., refraining from feeding mammalian proteins to ruminant animals) that must be adhered to in order to protect the animals and, eventually, human consumers (U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2018). With those considerations in mind, many of the studies focus on FVW. However, there are problems that can arise from using horticultural food waste as animal feed. For instance, FVW varies throughout the year due to seasonality. Therefore, those that rely on food waste products for animal feed will have to re-formulate often to address these seasonal changes (Martin et al., 2016). Another issue that can emerge with food waste is the proliferation of pathogen contamination, especially due to the high water activity (≥ 0.9 Aw) (Garcia et al., 2005; Martin et al., 2016). If pathogenic microorganisms are present, many of these organisms can cause disease in the animals if the food waste is not treated, as thoroughly reviewed by Avery et al. (2012). For example, a swine farmer fed unprocessed food waste to pigs, which led to a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak resulting in an 8 billion EUR (~8.8 billion USD) loss (Scudamore and Harris, 2002). In addition to the risk of disease, the high Aw makes processing the food waste to animal feed challenging (Martin et al., 2016). Often, food waste has a moisture content of >80% and would need to be reduced to ~10% to be used as animal feed (Garcia et al., 2005; Martin et al., 2016). These risk factors must be mitigated via processing techniques to utilize food waste as animal feed.

      Ruminant

      There are many studies that have investigated the use of food waste as livestock feed (Abarghuei et al., 2014; Das et al., 2019; de Evan et al., 2020). For instance, Angulo et al. (2012b) studied the impact of integrating FVW into lactating Holstein cow feed. The authors evaluated the use of FVW and its impact on milk yield and quality. FVW was included in 0, 6, 8, 12, and 18% concentrations of the feedstuff. The top three components of the FVW were cabbage (15%), orange (13%), and refuse (11%). The authors defined “refuse” as small pieces of indiscernible products. The data showed that including FVW did not statistically impact the yield of milk produced or reduce the quality of milk. Although the use of FVW as a dietary ingredient in Holstein cow feed is limited to a proportion of 6–18%, this could still lead to other alternative uses of FVW in the future.

      Another study by de Evan et al. (2020) assessed the potential of cauliflower and Romanesco waste (e.g., leaves, stems, and sprouts) in an in vitro ruminant feeding study. Specifically, the authors investigated in vitro ruminal fermentation and intestinal digestibility. de Evan et al. (2020) found that all fractions of cauliflower and Romanesco waste were highly degradable the in vitro rumen study and resulted in high digestibility for a protein source. During these in vitro studies, it was observed that up 24% of dried cauliflower in concentrate can be included in feed for dairy sheep without negative ruminal fermentation effects. However, these studies should be confirmed in vivo and must address the impact of cauliflower and Romanesco waste on overall animal health and end-product quality. While the use of food waste in ruminant nutrition is promising, more research needs to be done.

      Fish

      Meanwhile, Ulloa et al. (2004) analyzed tropical FVW residues (e.g., green banana, coffee cherry pulp, rice hulls, pineapple, papaya) and their potential uses for fish feedstuff. This study considered many of the factors that would impact developing fish feed from FVW. Based on data gathered analyzing the FVW produced in Costa Rica, the authors found that most FVW products contain high levels of moisture (80–84%) and low levels of protein (5–12.2%), with the exception of protein content levels in papaya (23.2%). In addition to this, the tropical FVW also contained variable amounts of other compounds (e.g., polyphenols, caffeine), high fiber levels (1.6–57.1%), and toxic substances and pesticides. Low protein content and high fiber levels are not beneficial in feed utilization and can hinder fish growth (Ulloa et al., 2004). Additional issues the authors explored include the nutritional density of the waste, the availability throughout the year, and the pollution and toxicity risk of the waste-turned-feed.

      In application, Mo et al. (2014) studied the impact of food waste-based diets in polyculture of low trophic level fish (grass carp, bighead, and mud carp). Three diets were fed to the fish–one control and two food waste-based diets–for 6 months. The food waste was acquired from hotel kitchens. Diet A was composed of fruits and vegetables (10%), cereal (53%), bone meal (8%), fish meal (10%), corn starch (15%), and other food waste (4%), whereas Diet B was composed of fruits and vegetables (10%), meat products (25%), cereal (28%), bone meal (8%), fish meal (10%), corn starch (15%) and other food waste (4%). Diet A did not include meat waste and was 53% cereal-based, whereas Diet B was 25% meat and 28% cereal. Over the six-month period, the authors analyzed the presence of plankton, water quality, and fish growth. The water quality did not appear to be significantly impacted by the various feeds. Meanwhile, plankton density was the highest in the Diet A body of water, but not significantly different. However, Diet B feedstuff seemed to be a better formulation in terms of the overall performance on fish growth factors. Thus, the increased diversity in feedstuff generation could allow for more food waste to be utilized for many fishery species.

      Poultry

      Recently, Abdel-Hafeez et al. (2018) evaluated the use of potato peels and sugar beet pulp with and without enzyme supplementation in broiler chicken diets. The application of enzyme supplementation was investigated due to the significant amounts of non-starch polysaccharides (e.g., cellulose, hemicellulose, xylose, and lignin) in potato peels and sugar beet pulp (Abdel-Hafeez et al., 2018), and poultry do not possess the enzymes required to break down the non-starch polysaccharides (Annison, 1993). Thus, poultry would be unable to access the nutrients without enzyme supplementation (Chesson, 2001). Abdel-Hafeez et al. (2018) fed alternative diets to the broilers from 1 to 42 days of age while observing growth performance, carcass characteristics, and blood parameters. The birds were split into five groups: group 1 was the control; groups 2 and 3 were fed diets containing potato peels and sugar beet pulp at the rate of 15 and 7.5%, respectively; and groups 4 and 5 were fed the same altered diet with an enzyme mixture. The authors found that potato peels can be added to feedstuff at a maximum proportion of 15%, without the inclusion of enzymes, in the grower diet of broilers. Conversely, the inclusion of sugar beet pulp at 7.5% in the diet resulted in poor growth performance in the absence of enzymes. In addition, the authors concluded that poultry producers could include potato peels (≤15%) and sugar beet pulp (≤7.5%) in the diets of broilers after enzyme treatment while potentially reducing costs of conventional feeding methods.

      Furthermore, Pandi et al. (2018) studied the evaluation of the effects of sweet potato integrated into broiler diets. The authors used broiler diets that contained 0 and 25% sweet potato flour with and without enzyme supplements. While this study was not an analysis of growth performance, the researchers evaluated gastrointestinal tract (GIT) parameters associated with digestion and GIT health and found that these factors were not undermined by the addition of sweet potato flour to broiler feedstuffs. While these studies are not an exhaustive list, they represent a glimpse into food waste-to-feed research that is analyzing and optimizing food waste for animal feedstuffs. However, not all food waste is optimal or available to use as animal feed. In cases such as this, some food waste can be converted into energy.

      Energy Production

      With food waste that is no longer safe or wholesome for human or animal consumption, it can be directed into further processes that create energy or an energy source by-product (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019b). There are three ways to process food waste into alternative energy or by-product: anaerobic digestion (AD), rendering, and biodiesel (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019b). Each energy generation pathway has different goals in mind. For instance, the processing of food waste oils and fat to biodiesel creates a renewable energy source and less pollution (Hossain et al., 2008; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019b). In contrast, rendering uses food waste, liquid fats, and meat products as raw materials to create processed products such as cosmetics and soaps (Woodgate and Van Der Veen, 2004). Rendering has been a long-standing process to reduce food waste at the manufacturing level and facilitates the use of all parts of the animal in meat production (Shareefdeen et al., 2005). However, AD can create usable energy and a soil amendment from food waste [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017a]. Altogether, these processes utilize different parts of food waste and create valuable products.

      Biodiesel

      Biodiesel is used as an alternative to conventional diesel fuel that does not require significant modifications in current fuel engines (Ma and Hanna, 1999; Sensöz et al., 2000; Demirbas, 2007; Hossain et al., 2008). However, biodiesel can be expensive to produce due to the high cost of the refined oils used (Marchetti et al., 2008). Given this high cost as well as the moral dilemma of using edible materials to create refined feedstocks, researchers have investigated the use of waste products as the raw materials to reduce the cost and limit the number of edible feedstocks used in biodiesel production (Karmee et al., 2006, 2015a,b; Ugarte and He, 2007; Ajanovic, 2010). More recently, studies have focused on the use of food waste as a biodiesel material. For instance, Yang et al. (2014) utilized instant noodle manufacturing waste as a feedstock for conversion to bioethanol and biodiesel. The authors isolated the instant noodle waste into starch residues and palm oil. By treating the food waste, the researchers were able to convert the waste to bioethanol and biodiesel at a conversion of 98.5 and 95.4%, respectively. The authors found that these conversion rates would support the manufacturing-scale use of instant noodle waste as a viable raw material for energy production.

      Moreover, Yu et al. (2011) used an oil fraction gathered from food waste leachate. In the process, the authors found that the leachate oil fraction contained various fatty acid methyl esters (FAME), commonly referred to as biodiesel (Bautista et al., 2009; Demirbas, 2009), after pretreatment with sulfuric acid as an acid catalyst. Based on the FAME collected, the authors anticipate that biodiesel production from food waste oil fractions will be feasible as systems become optimized for processing food waste. In addition, Karmee et al. (2015a) found similar results when isolating lipids from café bakery waste. The authors determined the peak biodiesel yield was 100% for the base (KOH) catalyzed transesterification at a 1:10 M ratio of lipid to methanol in 2 h at 60°C. Similarly, Karmee et al. (2015b) found that waste cooking oil could also be a suitable material for biodiesel generation. These studies highlight the future use of food waste as a biodiesel feedstock. However, food waste can be used to generate energy in other ways.

      Anaerobic Digestion

      Anaerobic digestion, which is the degradation of the product in the absence of oxygen, is emerging as one of the most efficient systems to process food waste (Gujer and Zehnder, 1983; Zhang et al., 2007; Wambugu et al., 2019). In addition to removing food waste from landfills, the energy that is produced via AD is a renewable source (Milán et al., 2001; Bouallagui et al., 2003; Meyer-Kohlstock et al., 2016). The concept of using food waste in AD to produce energy has been thoroughly reviewed by Xu et al. (2018). The biogas produced during AD is comprised of ~65 to 70% methane (CH4) and 35–40% carbon dioxide (CO2), which is ultimately used as compressed natural gas and electric energy. Moreover, the use of food waste in AD to produce energy is not only a concept; there are some active ADs that utilize the food waste stream in the U.S., as described below.

      More specifically, The University of Wisconsin (UW) Oshkosh began producing renewable energy via a dry fermentation anaerobic biodigester in 2011 (Potts, 2012). At maximum capacity, the UW Oshkosh's biodigester can generate up to 10% of the campus' electricity and heat and processes 11,000 tons of organic waste annually [Potts, 2012; University of Wisconsin Oshkosh (UWO), 2021]. It utilizes decomposed agricultural plant waste, city of Oshkosh yard clippings, and campus food waste where input materials must balance out to a moisture content of <75%. In a similar fashion, the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) in Oakland, California, is the first wastewater treatment plant in the nation to convert food waste to energy via AD (Day, 2012; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019b). However, this food waste is not collected from residents' homes; it is obtained from local restaurants and food markets (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019b). The utilization of local food waste allows the EBMUD system to produce enough electricity to power the EDMUD facility and generate ~15% more power than it uses annually (Day, 2012). However, AD of food waste and other biological products is sensitive due to the variety of microorganisms that are involved (Fagbohungbe et al., 2016). There are multiple ways to use food waste to create energy or utilize it as animal feed. However, it is necessary to understand the composition and current sources of food waste in order to optimize methods.

      Composting Approaches

      As described, food waste originates from various sources ranging from industry to household-scale; thus, food waste composting can occur using a variety of approaches. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2016), there are four defined types of food waste aerobic composting (Table 4). Turned windrow composting systems can process a wide variety of feedstocks—the raw, green food waste prior to processing—ranging from grease and animal by-products to yard trimmings. However, this system requires mechanized turning based on its size, continuous labor and produces noticeable odor and leachate (Table 4). This outdoor turned windrow system can be contrasted with vermicomposting, which is much smaller in scale and limited in its input/output. As described in Table 4, the vermicomposting utilizes live worms to process the food and yard waste feedstock. Specifically, 800–1,000 worms can consume approximately one-half pound of organic material per day. However, this system is typically on a household scale and is temperature and light-sensitive with little to no odor or leachate production. Additionally, there is aerated static pile and in-vessel composting. Aerated static composting is not turned but is aerated through forced-air below the compost pile. This method of composting requires an investment in equipment and expertise. Whereas in-vessel composting is held in a container, often on a smaller, household scale, but does not necessarily require extensive financial investments. There is a substantial diversity in the feedstock input, the timeframe to process the waste, and equipment and labor requirements depending on the approach used for composting food waste (Table 4). Recently, Awasthi et al. (2020) have highlighted the ever-evolving global food waste composting trends and challenges, including gaseous emissions, nutrient loss mitigation, and assessing mature compost quality.

      Categories of composting methods for food waste.

      Type Feedstock Producer size range Timeframe Unique features Limitations
      Turned Windrow FW, YT, grease, liquids, animal by-products Community High-volume food processor Months Requires periodic mechanized turning Optimal size: 1.2–2.4 m tall and 4.2–4.9 m wide Large amount of leachate that requires treatment Requires odor control
      Large tracts of land
      Equipment
      Continuous labor
      Aerated Static Pile FW, paper, YT Community Farms Landscaper Months Does not require turning Utilizes forced air through pipes beneath pile or strategic layering of organic matter and bulking agent Significant cost and technical assistance to purchase, install, and maintain equipment
      In-Vessel FW, YT, animal by-products Household Food processor Weeks Limited odor and leachate production Expensive
      Can range from small to large scale Technical expertise to operate
      Vermi-composting FW, paper, YT Household Months Utilizes red worms Red worms are temperature sensitive
      Does not require turning or aeration systems Should be out of direct sunlight

      FW, food waste; YT, yard trimmings. Table based on information provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2016).

      Laboratory-Based Composting Studies

      As food waste has moved to the forefront of research interest and focus, food waste composting studies have rapidly proliferated in the past 20 years. However, to our knowledge, nearly all food waste composting studies utilize in-vessel composters on a pilot- or bench scale. Yet, despite the limited variety in the type of composting system, studies characterizing food waste composting are diverse, as summarized in Table 5. Although all studies in Table 5 utilized a food waste feedstock, the similarities across these composting studies end there. From the bulking agent to the in-vessel design to the measured parameters, the food waste composting studies are limited in comparability.

      Variability in recorded research parameters from in-vessel composting of food waste feedstock.

      Bulking agent(s) Scale Addition of microorganisms (Yes/No) Average initial pH Average final pH Average initial C/N ratio Average final C/N ratio Peak temperature (°C) References
      Newspaper or onion peels Bench Yes N/Aa 9.0 Newspaper: 36.0 Newspaper: 37.0 54.3 Abdullah et al., 2013
      Onions: 21.0 Onions: 8.15
      Woodshavings; mulch hay Pilot No 4.6 8.1 19.7 12.95 61.3 Cekmecelioglu et al., 2005
      Biochar (BC) Bench No 0% BC: 5.87 0% BC: 7.81 0% BC: 20.73 0% BC: 11.60 0% BC: 61 Chaher et al., 2020
      10% BC: 7.38 10% BC: 8.05 10% BC: 27.05 10% BC: 14.97 10% BC: 66
      20% BC: 7.94 20% BC: 9.12 20% BC: 27.91 20% BC: 19.26 20% BC: 72
      N/A Bench No 5.1 8.4 35.1 N/A 55.5 Chang and Hsu, 2008
      Rice bran; rice husk; sawdust Bench No N/A 9.2 28.4 37.9 50.2 Chang and Chen, 2010
      Rice hull; chipped tree cuttings Pilot Yes 5.5 7.5 29.3 20.3 66.6 Chikae et al., 2006
      Rice husk Pilot No 4.5 8.6 48 46.3 41.0 Guidoni et al., 2018
      Sawdustb Pilot No 7.7 7.7 22.0 16.0 58.0 Kalamdhad et al., 2009
      Rice husk Bench No N/A 8.2 16.4 N/A 75.2 Kumar et al., 2010
      Mature compost Pilot No 6.0 8.0 23.1 13.5 70.0 Li et al., 2015
      Yardwaste Pilot Yes 5.4 8.0 N/A 25.0 60.0 Malakahmad et al., 2017
      Grass; shredded branches of palm tree; horse manure Bench; Pilot Yesc 4.3 N/A 40.2 N/A 60.0 Pandey et al., 2016
      Fine-textured softwood shaving Pilot No 4.3 9.0 N/A N/A 60.0 Smith et al., 2006
      Elm leaves; coal ash amendment Bench No 6.0 8.8 23.8 N/A 70.0 Sun et al., 2009
      Raw zeolite (RZ); Bench Yesd 10% RZ: 6.7 10% RZ: 7.5 N/A N/A 10% RZ: 52 Waqas et al., 2019
      Modified zeolite 15% RZ: 6.7 15% RZ: 8.0 15% RZ: 56.7
      (MZ) 10% MZ: 6.7 10% MZ: 7.7 10% MZ: 55.3
      15% MZ: 6.7 15% MZ: 8.3 15% MZ: 65.3
      Leaves Bench Yese 6.0 8.8 20.5 N/A 68.0 Yu and Huang, 2009

      “Acidic conditions.”

      This study used green vegetable waste and cattle manure for feedstock.

      Used a commercial additive that contained thermophilic microorganisms in addition to enzymes.

      “…After feedstock feeding, a small amount of cow manure was added at 1:0.1 (wet weight basis) as microbial inoculum….”

      “…garden soil was added to provide more desired microorganisms.”

      BC, Biochar; RZ, raw zeolite; MZ, modified zeolite.

      Bulking agents are the organic additives (e.g., rice husks, grass clippings, sawdust) added to the feedstock used to increase porosity, reduce moisture content, and buffer organic acids produced in composting (Adhikari et al., 2009; Chang and Chen, 2010). Nevertheless, in the available data, several patterns emerged from the published literature on in-vessel food waste composting: (1) the average pH of the compost turned from acidic to basic, (2) the average carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio changed over time based on bulking agents used, and (3) the peak temperatures recorded ranged from 41 to 75.2°C. These three reported parameters are critical factors in converting raw food waste feedstock to mature compost (Chang and Hsu, 2008; Adhikari et al., 2009; Kumar et al., 2010; Guo et al., 2012; Huet et al., 2012).

      Additionally, aeration and moisture content are important factors in the composting of food waste (Chang and Hsu, 2008; Adhikari et al., 2009; Kumar et al., 2010; Huet et al., 2012). Yet, those two factors are irregularly reported in the literature. The importance of aeration and moisture content, in addition to pH, temperature, and C/N ratio, are reviewed extensively by Li et al. (2013). Furthermore, within current research, the reported use of microbial additives varied from study to study (Table 5) and is not well quantified. Effective microorganism (EM) uses in food waste composting is explored further in the subsection Additives in Composting.

      Challenges

      One of the biggest challenges that arise from food waste composting is environmental odor and leachate production. Community and industry-sized food waste composting methods often generate leachate that must be treated and require an odor control plan [see Table 5; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016]. These detectable environmental odors have an established impact on human health (Heida et al., 1995; Bruno et al., 2007; Tsai et al., 2008; Gallego et al., 2012) and are often difficult to address (Jackson et al., 2014) as they are a result of hundreds of identified odorous substances (Smet et al., 1999; Sundberg et al., 2013). Moreover, the diversity and intensity of food waste compost odor can vary significantly based on the composition of food waste (Kim et al., 2009), such as a low starting pH, potentially causing discomfort to those near composting facilities (Müller et al., 2004).

      For example, a study by Mohee et al. (2015) found that food waste compost feedstock with a low C/N ratio (17.7 ± 0.7) gave a noticeable noxious odor. A reduction in odor could be achieved by the addition of inorganic additives to raise the C/N ratios (27.2–31.2). Koivula et al. (2004) found similar results in odor reduction after adding inorganic ash to compost. It is important to understand that reducing some of the factors contributing to malodorous compounds may, in turn, reduce the efficiency of other critical factors, such as microbial activity, by altering the pH and composting temperatures (Fang et al., 1997, 1998, 1999; An et al., 2012). However, this was not explored by Mohee et al. in their 2015 study.

      Rather than attempting to reduce the odors from food waste composting, Mao et al. (2006) identified which compounds were exceeding the human olfactory threshold in a food waste composting facility in Taiwan. The study authors identified six types of compounds that crossed the olfactory threshold—ammonia, amines, dimethyl sulfide, acetic acid, ethyl benzene, and p-Cymene. These compounds contribute to the odor nuisance problem and require intervention to reduce the odors released in the community. As food waste composting grows in the U.S., an infrastructure to combat food waste composting odors will become necessary (D'Imporzano et al., 2008; Tsai et al., 2008; Gallego et al., 2012; Qamaruz-Zaman and Milke, 2012; Sundberg et al., 2013; Maulini-Duran et al., 2014; Ermolaev et al., 2015).

      Moreover, food waste composting produces more than mature compost and odors. During the composting process, some liquid percolates through the compost and begins to pool (Sall et al., 2019). This liquid is referred to as “leachate” and contains much more than water (Yu et al., 2011). Food waste compost leachate includes water, oils, minerals, heavy metals, suspended solids, and various other by-products (Le Man et al., 2010; Heo et al., 2011; Yu et al., 2011). To protect the soil integrity and water supply, this leachate should be collected and treated for toxic organic pollutants (Behera et al., 2010; Roy et al., 2018; Sall et al., 2019). Considering the regulatory framework of some countries requiring further treatment, research efforts on the utilization of the leachate have begun to arise (Behera et al., 2010; Le Man et al., 2010; Heo et al., 2011; Li et al., 2013; Sall et al., 2019). For example, Sall et al. (2019) highlighted the opportunity for the use of FVW leachate to be used as a crop fertilizer. In addition to the work being done to mitigate food waste environmental challenges, other research is focused on the use of additives in composting for process optimization.

      Advancing Food Waste Utilization Additives in Composting

      Additives are diverse materials added to the feedstock or other compostable organic materials. These additives are often multifaceted in nature. Additives normally serve the purpose of (1) accelerating the composting process, (2) enhancing the finished product for its intended use (e.g., nutrient availability), (3) or both.

      Biological

      To decrease the time between the feedstock and mature, finished compost, biological additives can be used to accelerate the process (Wakase et al., 2008; Fan et al., 2018). Effective microorganisms, sometimes referred to as bio-inoculants, are the microorganisms that can be added to food waste composting systems and assist in the conversion of food waste into mature compost (Bolta et al., 2003; Vargas-García et al., 2005; Jurado et al., 2015). While most EM are sold as proprietary commercial solutions, an additive EM mixture often contains some combination of the following microorganisms: fungi, yeasts, lactic acid bacteria, and phototrophic bacteria (Wakase et al., 2008; Pan et al., 2012; EM Research Organization, 2016). Those microorganisms are frequently utilized for ammonia absorption (Wakase et al., 2008) or in the breakdown of lignocellulose (Jurado et al., 2015).

      In 2016, Muttalib et al. (2016) published a review of the application of EM in food waste composting. Overall, the authors found that EM is a promising additive in the acceleration of food waste composting. However, the uncertainty of microbial reactions and variability in food waste compost composition was also highlighted, noting that more research is needed in the area of EM additives in diverse food waste streams. Since Muttalib et al. (2016) published this review, additional studies have been published on EM and food waste compost.

      In 2017, Siddiquee et al. (2017) published a study with empty fruit branches from the oil palm industry utilizing two Trichoderma strains as additives. However, the Trichoderma strains (SICCI and 11B) were not mixed and were used as individual inocula. The laboratory-scale composting process occurred for 30 days under anaerobic conditions, which varied from most types of food waste composting as these are typically aerobic processes (Table 4). The authors concluded that this process, for both Trichoderma strains, was an effective method to dispose of empty fruit branches from the oil palm industry. However, further work is needed to determine the effectiveness of mixed green waste, such as food waste.

      Manu et al. (2017) used modified composting drums to allow natural air circulation within the food waste compost and inoculated the waste with EM. The feedstock was a combination of food waste sourced from a university dining hall, and grass trimmings, leaves, and small plants were used as bulking agents. The authors used a control (drum 1), a modified drum with additional air ventilation and turning (drum 2), and a modified drum (same modifications as drum 2) with the addition of EM (drum 3). This study utilized a commercially available liquid EM solution (EM1®) that contained Lactobacillus plantarum, L. casei, L. fermentum, L. delbrueckii, Bacillus subtilis, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Rhodopseudomonas palustris.

      Manu et al. (2017) noted that both drum 1 and 2 resulted in active decomposition to be complete in 54 days, whereas drum 3 was completed by day 36. The study determined that active decomposition concluded when the temperature profile of the compost dipped down and remained constant at 30°C, which was the ambient temperature at the time of the study. Drum 3, with added EM, reached thermophilic (≥55°C) temperatures after 9 days of composting and peaked at ~60°C during the fifth week of decomposition, then rapidly decreased to 30°C. Importantly, extended periods at thermophilic temperatures are an effective time-temperature combination considered to be lethal for many human and plant pathogens as well as noxious weed seeds (Avery et al., 2012; Pandey et al., 2016; Manu et al., 2017). Moreover, the lignocellulosic components decomposed more efficiently in the presence of the EM inoculum, and the mature compost was composed of more fine particles (≤15 mm) in drum 3 (21%) compared to the 2 and 18% from drums 1 and 2, respectively. The fine particles are the most desirable product of composting to use as a homogenous, humus-like soil amendment (Pan et al., 2012). Manu and collaborators studied the performance of multiple composting vessels, and future research should focus on the optimization and scaling-up of food waste compost systems with the use of EM in mind.

      A study by Nakasaki and Hirai (2017) utilized a yeast, Pichia kudriavzevii RB1, as a biological additive to assist in food waste degradation. This specific yeast type assists in the control of organic acids produced during the composting process (Nakasaki et al., 2013). The authors used a synthetic food waste composed of commercial rabbit food (pelleted, timothy grass meal blend) and rice with a sawdust as the bulking agent and EM. This study found that utilizing a yeast inoculum and controlling the temperature (≤40°C) for 2 days (days three and four) of composting accelerated the composting process of a “high concentration of easily degradable carbonaceous compounds” (Nakasaki and Hirai, 2017). Under these circumstances, composting is accelerated; however, the composting process often reaches temperatures that are lethal to yeast (≥55°C) and would require additional energy to cool and maintain the cooled temperature of the compost for those 2 days (Nakasaki et al., 2013; Nakasaki and Hirai, 2017). Moreover, this process was tested with a synthetic feedstock; thus further research is needed to determine its effectiveness in variable compost, such as in the presence of high fat or animal proteins.

      Overall, EM is a promising avenue to accelerate the food waste composting process, but there are still many unknowns. More research utilizing authentic food waste is needed; in addition, further optimization of EM and the characterization of food waste and microbial interactions are needed. However, biological additives are not the only additives that can be optimized for food waste composting.

      Organic Matter

      Bulking agents such as yard trimmings or other by-products U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019c) often must be added to the feedstock to enable composting via optimization of the critical factors described in the Composting subsection. The addition of organic matter to food waste as a bulking agent can help modify pH, increase porosity, decrease moisture content, and balance C/N ratios (Adhikari et al., 2009; Chang and Chen, 2010). Organic matter is often the by-product of other waste streams, as seen in Table 5.

      Abdullah et al. (2013) studied the impact of different bulking agents, specifically onion peels and newspapers, on food waste composting. In their study, the authors found that the onion peels were a more suitable bulking agent when compared to the newspaper for composting household kitchen waste. This is particularly interesting because the authors also studied the use of EM and, in contrast with other studies, found that there were no significant differences in compost with EM additives when compared to compost without. The use of EM and organic additives and their interactions together in the decomposition of food waste is an area that needs further exploration.

      In another study, Adhikari et al. (2009) investigated the influence of organic bulking agents on raw and cooked produce food waste compost maturation. The researchers used (1) chopped wheat (Triticum) straw, (2) chopped mature hay composed of 80% timothy (milium), and 20% clover (triphullum), and (3) pine (pinus) wood shavings as their bulking agents. For the bulking agent to be considered the most successful, the authors determined that the final compost had to meet the following criteria: (1) reach thermophilic temperatures (≥ 50°C) during its active composting stage, (2) lose the most dry and wet mass during its maturation phase, (3) degrade so that no individual particles would be recognizable, (4) have a final moisture content under 50%, and (5) hold an acceptable level of total nitrogen (≥ 2.5%), total phosphorus (≥ 0.25%), and total potassium (≥3.0%) once matured. The food waste with a 20% dry matter content of chopped wheat straw and the chopped mature hay both were successful in meeting the outlined criteria. However, the pinewood shavings did not meet multiple criteria factors such as thermophilic temperatures, particle decomposition, and nutrient levels. The authors determined that further research is needed when utilizing wood shavings in combination with other organic materials.

      Other studies have used rice husk, leaves, wood shavings, sawdust, and sometimes a combination of multiple organic additives as their bulking agent (Table 4). Bulking agent selection can be directly influenced by availability; thus, if there is a specific bulking agent readily available, the composting process would need to be optimized with that in mind specifically. However, it is challenging to compare the bulking agent studies due to the differences in composter design, waste source, waste-to-organic matter ratio, environmental conditions, and other factors. With this in mind, there are many opportunities to study the influence of organic and inorganic additives in food waste composting.

      Inorganic Additives

      Aside from the addition of organic bulking agents and biological inoculants into the feedstock, inorganic additives are also utilized to encourage more rapid degradation into stable, mature compost or to enrich the end-product of the composting process (Barthod et al., 2018). However, those two goals are not frequently achieved together in the same compost batch. For instance, in food waste compost, the pH increases over time and becomes stable in an alkaline environment. As indicated previously, the initial low pH has been linked to malodourous compounds; therefore, to quickly increase the pH of the compost, studies have added alkaline additives, such as lime, red mud, fly ash, and calcium bentonite (Wong et al., 1997; Fang and Wong, 1999; Fang et al., 1999; An et al., 2012; Gabhane et al., 2012). However, the addition of basic additives can initially decrease the thermophilic microbial activity (Chen and Li, 2006). This initial impact on microbial activity is essential to consider due to the role microorganisms play in composting (Additives in Composting section).

      For instance, a study by Gabhane et al. (2012) utilized the feedstock that was composed of sundried grass cuttings and fallen leaves and vegetable waste (1:1 ratio) and analyzed the impact of several organic and inorganic additives. The additives used include polyethylene glycol, jaggary, phosphogypsum, fly ash, and lime. The authors declared the inorganic additives were the phosphogypsum, fly ash, and lime, based on their negligible amounts of organic matter and organic carbon (Gabhane et al., 2012). However, the authors ultimately concluded that none of the inorganic additives positively influenced the composting efficiency or the quality of finished compost. Of note, Gabhane et al. (2012) did find that jaggery and polyethylene glycol improved the composting process by increasing microbial biomass and encouraging enzymatic activity. Jaggery and polyethylene glycol increased the rate of organic matter degradation and improved the quality of mature compost. Unfortunately, the authors found that the use of this additive in composting was cost-prohibitive.

      An et al. (2012) also considered inorganic additives in the food waste composting process. The feedstock was composed of steamed rice, meat, potatoes, carrots, leaves, and starter culture with no inorganic additive, one additive, or two additives. The additives used in this study were coal ash and uric acid, both of which are often found in agricultural and industrial waste (An et al., 2012). The authors found that the inclusion of additives increased oxygen uptake, lowered the final C/N value, increased active composting temperatures, increased the pH, and reduced a greater amount of organic matter over time. These results were consistent with both the coal ash-only treatment and the coal ash/uric acid treatment. Interestingly, the authors also found increased thermophilic and mesophilic microbial activity in the treatments that included the coal ash-only and coal ash and uric acid amendment throughout the experiment when compared to the control. This contrasts with studies by Wong et al. (1997) and Fang et al. (1998), who found the presence of alkaline additives decreased microbial activity in the composting process. This could be the result of varying food waste feedstock composition and experimental design differences across studies, making it an imperfect comparison.

      The study of additives has a far-reaching scope due to the various biological, organic, and inorganic additives that can potentially be used in the composting process, especially since many additives can be derived from under-utilized waste streams. The appropriateness of additives used is often based on the composition of the feedstock; wherein, food waste is very diverse. Considering any negative environmental impacts, such as run-off or odor, more research is needed on the application of additives in food waste composting.

      Application of Alternative Technologies to Food Waste Conventional Ensiling

      Silage is the anaerobic fermentation and preservation of moist forages, such as legumes, grasses, or cereals (Adesogan and Salawu, 2004). This high moisture, fermented product is often used for livestock feed (Derbyshire et al., 1976; Eriksson and Murphy, 2004; Jaakkola et al., 2006). Ensiling these harvested crops for animal feed is not a new methodology but one that is still being improved and researched today.

      Ensiling is often conducted on-site where the forage is harvested and does not necessarily require any established infrastructure aside from land, moving and packing equipment, and something to cover the silage pile (e.g., tarp). This is advantageous for producers due to its limited maintenance during the ensiling process. This process can be broken into four general phases, as adapted from Weinberg and Muck (1996) and is described in Figure 2.

      The phases of ensiling. Adapted from Weinberg and Muck (1996). The general four phases in the standard ensiling process of forages to silage. Created with Biorender.com.

      The finished silage is ready to be utilized as livestock feed. During the feedout stage, the proliferation of aerobic microorganisms can cause spoilage in the finished silage (Inglis et al., 1999; Saarisalo et al., 2006). In order to eliminate spoilage while still fulfilling the role as feed, additives are used in the ensiling process to help fermentation as well as during preservation (Derbyshire et al., 1976; Lindgren et al., 1983; Adesogan and Salawu, 2004; Saarisalo et al., 2006; Knický and Spörndly, 2009). More recently, Muck et al. (2018) have researched and reviewed the advancements of silage additives in-depth, including microbial inoculants, chemical additives, and enzymes. While there is extensive research on the optimization of silage technologies for forage, there is limited work being done utilizing alternative feedstocks, such as food waste.

      Ensiling Food Waste

      As discussed in the current review, food waste is very diverse and is present in significant excess worldwide. To divert this waste from entering landfills, emerging technologies are being optimized to turn food waste into a usable by-product. There are several different ways to compost food waste into a usable soil amendment, as outlined in Table 4. However, many of these methods require extensive infrastructure, personnel, and management to turn food waste into mature compost. These required investments could possibly discourage food waste composting.

      Interestingly, green silage shares some characteristics featured in food waste. With comparable initial pH (4–6), high moisture content (≥60%), starting ambient temperature, and reliance on microbial activity, the nature of composting and ensiling tend to overlap. Specifically, turned windrow composting and aerated static piles share commonalities with ensiling. Turned windrow composting relies on large piles of food waste to degrade over time but requires the mechanized turning of the piles, whereas the aerated static piles do not require mechanized turning but do necessitate some type of installed forced-air infrastructure. These aeration requirements are in stark contrast to the anaerobic ensiling process, where the proliferation of anaerobic bacteria is the driving force of fermentation and remains in covered, outdoor static piles. To reduce the costs of turned windrow and aerated static pile composting, there is value in investigating the use of ensiling science and technologies in food waste composting.

      To the best of the authors' knowledge, there has not been any published research regarding the application of silage technologies to food waste composting. There are some studies specifically utilizing silage technologies in the conversion of food waste to animal feed. Nearly 40 years ago, Moon et al. (1981) observed the potential for ensiling vegetable food waste. A more recent study by Yang et al. (2006) sought to determine the effects of a lactic acid bacterium (Lactobacillus salivarius) inoculant on pulverized restaurant and bakery food waste and broiler poultry litter mixture in the conversion to swine feed. The authors found that under anaerobic conditions, 0.2% LAB on a wet basis was the optimal additive amount to convert and store fermented food waste swine feed. However, the authors did note that further studies would be needed to prove the impact with an in vivo animal feeding study. A similar study by Froetschel et al. (2014) found that ensiled food waste was a successful energy source for cattle feed.

      While gaps still exist in conventional silage technology, even more gaps are present in research regarding the ensiling potential of food waste. Food waste is an issue that is pervasive in every community, and applying existing science and technology, such as ensiling techniques, is an option to divert food waste from landfills. This helps improve both conventional and non-traditional ensiling techniques while generating economically valuable food waste by-products.

      Discussion Future Research

      Society and the food industry continue to evolve. In-depth, accelerated data collection, streamlined food recovery plans, and food waste-preventive laws are desirable for regulatory agencies, food processors, and the public. The benefits of accurate food waste data help identify weaknesses in the food chain, from the food manufacturer to the consumer environment. Presently, data indicate that much of the food waste occurring in developed countries is at the retail and consumer levels (Rohm et al., 2017; Welch et al., 2018; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2019; Yu and Jaenicke, 2020). Besides future sweeping rules and regulations, much of the food waste initiatives are implemented by local governments, nonprofit organizations, and the food industry as there are limited federal regulations. In order for these entities to handle food waste efficiently, more food waste research is needed.

      On the food industry and retail scales, the manner in which the public interacts with food is constantly evolving. With more retailers now offering online shopping for convenience, curbside grocery pick-up and grocery delivery services (e.g., Instacart; San Francisco, CA) are becoming more prevalent. With the increase in popularity of online grocery shopping, questions regarding the impact of online shopping on consumer choices have arisen. For instance, absent from meandering the aisles of a retailer, does a consumer make less impulsive grocery choices when shopping online? Or do consumers over-purchase items that are based on the scale, such as meat or some produce? In addition to behavioral research regarding online grocery shopping, research is needed based on what occurs after the groceries are brought home. Does purposeful grocery shopping in an online purchasing model reduce food waste in the home? As the food retail environments change, more research is needed to understand the motivation and impact of consumer decisions and how it impacts food waste generation.

      Food waste generation will continue to occur at some level, especially in consumer environments. Efforts to divert food waste from landfills are of the utmost importance. This diversion of food waste likely will result in valuable by-products, such as animal feed and soil amendments. Another option is by diverting wasted food by-products and utilizing them as functional ingredients in human food (Lehmann, 2021). One of the challenging factors in diverting food waste, particularly retail and consumer waste, is that it comes from a variety of sources. There is a gap in the literature on the characterization of food waste. As discussed in the present review, moisture, pH, C/N ratio, and bulking agents are all critical factors in food waste processing, whether for animal feed or otherwise. To better optimize how diverted food waste is processed, studies are needed to further characterize what types of food products are being wasted. From this information, other questions arise, such as is there a seasonality aspect to food waste? Do seasonal changes impact what comprises food waste, and how do the changes impact the aforementioned critical factors? Moreover, in the U.S., research is needed to investigate if there are quantifiable differences based on the region. Although considerable strides have been made to quantify how much food waste is being generated, more work needs to be done.

      In addition, as described in this review, the transformation from feedstocks to mature compost is a challenge. The compost system, the feedstock, bulking agents, and additives utilized all impact the efficiency and quality of the mature compost. It is challenging to compare the composting systems since the methodologies rely on varying metabolic activities (e.g., vermi-composting compared to turned windrow). There will likely never be a one-size-fits-all system when it comes to food waste composting, but more research is needed. One area in the literature that is frequently overlooked is mature compost quality. Frequently, as reviewed, many studies are attempting to optimize the food waste composting process and less so the mature end-product. Moreover, in doing so, the success of some composting additives is the absence of cost analysis. Further research must consider the cost of infrastructure and additives when conducting food waste composting research and future, practical applications. For food waste research to become applicable outside of the laboratory, efficiency, quality, and cost must all be considered. This area of research would highly benefit from a systematic literature review; however, researchers should proceed with caution given the variety of bulking agents and feedstock compositions utilized.

      As researchers look to optimize the food waste composting process, a mostly unexplored avenue is the application of alternative, existing technologies, such as ensiling. The anaerobic fermentation of forages is a process that can occur in large quantities and uses additives similar to composting to create an economically viable product. Ensiling and additives have been used for decades, and as such, the available research is extensive (Muck et al., 2018). Even so, there is a lack of research using this technology to process food waste into mature compost. As described in the present review, ensiling requires less labor and infrastructure than many food waste composting methods and is an area of great potential for food waste composting that warrants further investigation.

      As food waste concerns mount with a growing global population, innovative methods to cope with food waste generation become a necessity. Food waste studies with the inclusion of characterized food waste data, consumer behaviors, optimization of by-product methods, attention to by-product quality, or application of existing technologies are crucial data for the advancement of food waste reduction programs. As these data are released by non-governmental organizations, governmental, and peer-reviewed publications, federal, state, and local agencies can create informed legislation regarding the reduction of food waste.

      Conclusions and Recommendations

      Studies of quantifying and utilizing food waste vary significantly throughout the literature. The variability in results likely exists due to the many factors outlined in this review, including, but not limited to, food waste producer, the volume of waste, location, size of the study, and treatment of waste. For instance, many food waste studies focus on composting efficiency using homogenous, synthetic food waste inputs in a laboratory-scale environment with minimal focus on compost quality or cost. For this reason, researchers may have difficulty choosing the most applicable variables for a study due to the range of food waste characteristics, additives, and methods used across the literature. Moreover, those in a community setting who are looking to reduce food waste may have even greater difficulty identifying the most applicable method for their community or household.

      The following recommendations are based in the current review to aid researchers in moving forward on the management and utilization of food waste:

      Systematic evaluation of consumer behaviors should be investigated in the online grocery purchasing model.

      Food waste needs further compositional characterization on a seasonal and regional level.

      Food waste composting studies must utilize community food waste rather than synthetic, designed food waste.

      Food waste composting research must consider the cost and efficiency of additives.

      Application of existing technologies needs to be investigated in the transformation from feedstock (e.g., green food waste) to mature by-products.

      Author Contributions

      SJ: conceptualization, writing—original draft, writing—review, editing, and visualization. KG: resources, writing—review, editing, supervision, and funding acquisition. SR: resources, writing—review, editing, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

      Funding

      This work was supported in part by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Hatch Act.

      Conflict of Interest

      The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

      Publisher's Note

      All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

      References 143 Cong. Rec. S9532. (1996). Statement of Sen. Santorum. Daily Ed. Aug. 2, 1996. Available online at: https://www.congress.gov/104/crec/1996/08/02/CREC-1996-08-02-pt1-PgS9532.pdf (accessed August 5, 2020). Abarghuei M. J. Rouzbehan Y. Salem A. Z. M. Zamiri M. J. (2014). Nitrogen balance, blood metabolites and milk fatty acid composition of dairy cows fed pomegranate-peel extract. Livest. Sci. 164, 7280. 10.1016/j.livsci.2014.03.021 Abdel-Hafeez H. Saleh E. Tawfeek S. Youssef I. Abdel-Daim A. (2018). Utilization of potato peels and sugar beet pulp with and without enzyme supplementation in broiler chicken diets: effects on performance, serum biochemical indices and carcass traits. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 102, 5666. 10.1111/jpn.1265628304103 Abdullah N. Chin N. L. Mokhtar M. N. Taip F. S. (2013). Effects of bulking agents, load size or starter cultures in kitchen-waste composting. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2:3. 10.1186/2251-7715-2-328441473 Aboulam S. Morvan B. Revel J. C. (2006). Use of a rotating-drum pilot plant to model the composting of household waste on an industrial scale. Compost. Sci. Util. 14, 184190. 10.1080/1065657X.2006.10702282 Adesogan A. T. Salawu M. B. (2004). Effect of applying formic acid, heterolactic bacteria or homolactic and heterolactic bacteria on the fermentation of bi-crops of peas and wheat. J. Sci. Food Agric. 84, 983992. 10.1002/jsfa.174525855820 Adhikari B. K. Barrington S. Martinez J. King S. (2009). Effectiveness of three bulking agents for food waste composting. Waste Manag. 29, 197203. 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.04.00118558482 Ajanovic A. (2010). Biofuels versus food production: Does biofuels production increase food prices? Energy 36, 20702076. 10.1016/j.energy.2010.05.019 An C.-J. Huang G.-H. Yao Y. Sun W. An K. (2012). Performance of in-vessel composting of food waste in the presence of coal ash and uric acid. J. Hazard. Mater. 203–204, 3845. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.11.06622188789 Angulo J. Mahecha L. Yepes S. A. Yepes A. M. Bustamante G. Jaramillo H. . (2012a). Quantitative and nutritional characterization of fruit and vegetable waste from marketplace: a potential use as bovine feedstuff? J. Environ. Manage. 95 Suppl, S203209. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.02221277675 Angulo J. Mahecha L. Yepes S. A. Yepes A. M. Bustamante G. Jaramillo H. . (2012b). Nutritional evaluation of fruit and vegetable waste as feedstuff for diets of lactating Holstein cows. J. Environ. Manage. 95, S210S214. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.05021784573 Annison G. (1993). The role of wheat non-starch polysaccharides in broiler nutrition. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 44, 405422. 10.1071/AR993040528948418 Aschemann-Witzel J. Giménez A. Ares G. (2019). Household food waste in an emerging country and the reasons why: consumer's own accounts and how it differs for target groups. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 145, 332338. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.001 Avery L. M. Booth P. Campbell C. Tompkins D. Hough R. L. (2012). Prevalence and survival of potential pathogens in source-segregated green waste compost. Sci. Total. Environ. 431, 128138. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.05.0222677624 Awasthi S. K. Sarsaiya S. Awasthi M. K. Liu T. Zhao J. Kumar S. . (2020). Changes in global trends in food waste composting: Research challenges and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 299:122555. 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.12255531866141 Barco H. Oribe-Garcia I. Vargas-Viedma M. V. Borges C. E. Martín C. Alonso-Vicario A. (2019). New methodology for facilitating food wastage quantification. Identifying gaps and data inconsistencies. J. Environ. Manage.234, 512524. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.03730654243 Barthod J. Rumpel C. Dignac M.-F. (2018). Composting with additives to improve organic amendments. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 38, 17. 10.1007/s13593-018-0491-934798585 Bautista L. F. Vicente G. Rodríguez R. Pacheco M. (2009). Optimisation of FAME production from waste cooking oil for biodiesel use. Biomass Bioenergy 33, 862872. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.01.009 Behera S. K. Park J. M. Kim K. H. Park H.-S. (2010). Methane production from food waste leachate in laboratory-scale simulated landfill. Waste Manag. 30, 15021508. 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.02.02820227867 Bellemare M. F. Çakir M. Peterson H. H. Novak L. Rudi J. (2017). On the measurement of food waste. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 99, 11481158. 10.1093/cce/aax034 Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act 42 U.S.C. § 1791(a). (1996). Blazek K. Balkus O. Leib E. B. Civita N. Maley M. Nuckolls K. . (2016). Federal enhanced tax deduction for food donation—a legal guide. Available online at: https://www.chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Food-Donation-Fed-Tax-Guide-for-Pub-2.pdf (accessed February 7, 2020). Bolta S. V. Mihelic R. Lobnik F. Lestan D. (2003). Microbial community structure during composting with and without mass inocula. Compost. Sci. Util. 11, 615. 10.1080/1065657X.2003.10702104 Bouallagui H. Cheikh R. B. Marouani L. Hamdi M. (2003). Mesophilic biogas production from fruit and vegetable waste in a tubular digester. Bioresour. Technol. 86, 8589. 10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00097-412421014 Bruno P. Caselli M. de Gennaro G. Solito M. Tutino M. (2007). Monitoring of odor compounds produced by solid waste treatment plants with diffusive samplers. Waste Manag. 27, 539544. 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.03.00616713237 Business for Social Responsibility™ (BSR) (2013). Analysis of U.S. Food Waste Among Food Manufacturers, Retailers, and Wholesalers—Prepared for the Food Waste Reduction Alliance. Available online at: https://www.foodwastealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FWRA_BSR_Tier2_FINAL.pdf (accessed May 12, 2020). Buzby J. C. Farah-Wells H. Hyman J. (2014). The estimated amount, value, and calories of postharvest food losses at the retail and consumer levels in the United States. USDA-ERS Econ. Inf. Bull. 121:39. 10.2139/ssrn.2501659 Buzby J. C. Hyman J. Stewart H. Wells H. F. (2011). The value of retail- and consumer-level fruit and vegetable losses in the United States. J. Consumer Aff. 45, 492515. 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2011.01214.x Cekmecelioglu D. Demirci A. Graves R. E. (2005). Feedstock optimization of in-vessel food waste composting systems for inactivation of pathogenic microorganisms. J. Food Prot. 68, 589596.15771187 Chaboud G. Daviron B. (2017). Food losses and waste: Navigating the inconsistencies. Glob. Food Sec. 12, 17. 10.1016/j.gfs.2016.11.004 Chaher N. E. H. Chakchouk M. Engler N. Nassour A. Nelles M. Hamdi M. (2020). Optimization of food waste and biochar in-vessel co-composting. Sustainability 12:1356. 10.3390/su12041356 Champions 12.3. (2020). World's Leading Food Retailers and Providers Engage Nearly 200 Suppliers in Cutting Food Loss and Waste in Half (Press release). Available online at: www.Champions123.org (accessed September 10, 2021). Chang J. I. Chen Y. J. (2010). Effects of bulking agents on food waste composting. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 59175924. 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.02.04220385493 Chang J. I. Hsu T.-E. (2008). Effects of compositions on food waste composting. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 80688074. 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.04318467092 Chen C. R. Chen R. J. C. (2018). Using two government food waste recognition programs to understand current reducing food loss and waste activities in the U.S. Sustainability 10:2760. 10.3390/su10082760 Chen J. Li Y. (2006). Coal fly ash as an amendment to container substrate for Spathiphyllum production. Bioresour. Technol. 97, 19201926. 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.08.00916214336 Chesson A. (2001). Non-starch polysaccharide degrading enzymes in poultry diets: influence of ingredients on the selection of activities. World Poultry Sci. J. 57, 251263. 10.1079/WPS20010018 Chikae M. Ikeda R. Kerman K. Morita Y. Tamiya E. (2006). Estimation of maturity of compost from food wastes and agro-residues by multiple regression analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 97, 19791985. 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.09.02616289625 Connor J. M. Schiek W. A. (1997). Food Processing: An Industrial Powerhouse in Transition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Consumer Brands Association (2017). Best if Clearly Labeled: How the Consumer Packaged Goods Industry is Reducing Confusion and Food Waste. Available online at: https://consumerbrandsassociation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/ConsumerBrands_ClearlyLabeled.pdf (accessed July 27, 2020). Cuéllar A. D. Webber M. E. (2010). Wasted food, wasted energy: the embedded energy in food waste in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 64646469. 10.1021/es100310d20704248 Das N. G. Huque K. S. Amanullah S. M. Makkar H. P. S. (2019). Feeding of processed vegetable wastes to bulls and its potential environmental benefit. Anim. Nutr. 5, 8794. 10.1016/j.aninu.2018.04.00230899815 Day D. (2012). Beyond Net Zero. Treatment Plant Operator. https://www.tpomag.com/editorial/2012/12/beyond_net_zero (accessed July 1, 2020). de Evan T. Vintimilla A. Molina-Alcaide E. Ranilla M. J. Carro M. D. (2020). Potential of recycling cauliflower and romanesco wastes in ruminant feeding: In vitro studies. Animals 10:1247. 10.3390/ani1008124732707953 de Hooge I. E. Oostindjer M. Aschemann-Witzel J. Normann A. Loose S. M. Almli V. L. (2017). This apple is too ugly for me!: Consumer preferences for suboptimal food products in the supermarket and at home. Food. Qual. Prefer. 56, 8092. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.09.012 Demirbas A. (2007). Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel. Energy Policy 35, 46614670. 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.04.003 Demirbas A. (2009). Progress and recent trends in biodiesel fuels. Energy Convers. Manag. 50, 1434. 10.1016/j.enconman.2008.09.001 Derbyshire J. C. Gordon C. H. Waldo D. R. (1976). Formic acid as a silage preservative for milking cows. J. Dairy Sci. 59, 278287. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(76)84195-1 D'Imporzano G. Crivelli F. Adani F. (2008). Biological compost stability influences odor molecules production measured by electronic nose during food-waste high-rate composting. Sci. Total Environ. 402, 278284. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.04.05318538820 EM Research Organization (2016). How EM Works. Available online at: https://www.emrojapan.com/how/ (accessed June 23 2020). Eriksson T. Murphy M. (2004). Ruminal digestion of leguminous forage, potatoes and fodder beets in batch culture: I. Fermentation pattern. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 111, 7388. 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2003.05.001 Ermolaev E. Jarvis Å. Sundberg C. Smårs S. Pell M. Jönsson H. (2015). Nitrous oxide and methane emissions from food waste composting at different temperatures. Waste Manag. 46, 113119. 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.08.02126321382 Fagbohungbe M. O. Herbert B. M. J. Hurst L. Li H. Usmani S. Q. Semple K. T. (2016). Impact of biochar on the anaerobic digestion of citrus peel waste. Bioresour. Technol. 216, 142149. 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.04.10627236401 Fan Y. V. Klemeš J. J. Lee C. T. Ho C. S. (2018). Efficiency of microbial inoculation for a cleaner composting technology. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 20, 517527. 10.1007/s10098-017-1439-5 Fang M. Wong J. W. C. (1999). Effects of lime amendment on availability of heavy metals and maturation in sewage sludge composting. Environ. Pollut. 106, 8389. 10.1016/S0269-7491(99)00056-115093062 Fang M. Wong J. W. C. Li G. X. Wong M. H. (1997). Effect of coal ash residues on the microbiology of sewage sludge composting. Stud. Environ. Sci. 66, 511523. 10.1016/S0166-1116(97)80067-2 Fang M. Wong J. W. C. Li G. X. Wong M. H. (1998). Changes in biological parameters during co-composting of sewage sludge and coal ash residues. Bioresour. Technol. 64, 5561. 10.1016/S0960-8524(97)00156-9 Fang M. Wong J. W. C. Ma K. K. Wong M. H. (1999). Co-composting of sewage sludge and coal fly ash: nutrient transformations. Bioresour. Technol. 67, 1924. 10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00095-4 Filimonau V. Todorova E. Mzembe A. Sauer L. Yankholmes A. (2020). A comparative study of food waste management in full service restaurants of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. J. Clean Prod. 258:120775. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120775 Flanagan K. Lipinski B. Goodwin L. (2019). SDG Target 12.3 on Food Loss and Waste: 2019 Progress Report. Available online at: https://champions123.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/champions-12-3-2019-progress-report.pdf (accessed March 7, 2020). Food Date Labeling Act H.R. 3981; S. 2337. 116th Congress. (2019). Food Donation Act H.R. 952.115th Congress. (2017). Food Donation Act S 2787. 115th Congress. (2018). Food Recovery Act H.R. 3444; S. 1680. 115th Congress. (2017). Food Recovery Act H.R. 4184. 114th Congress. (2015). Food Safety Modernization Act 21 U.S.C. § 2201-2252. (2011). Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2019a). Food Loss Index. Online statistical working system for loss calculations. http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/flw-data (accessed February 4, 2020). Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2019b). The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf (accessed January 20, 2020). Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2021). Food Loss and Food Waste. http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/flw-data (accessed August 18 2021). Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301-399i. (1938). Froetschel M. A. Ross C. L. Stewart R. L. Jr. Azain M. J. Michot P. Rekaya R. (2014). Nutritional value of ensiled grocery food waste for cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 92, 51245133. 10.2527/jas.2014-812625349356 Gabhane J. William S. P. M. P. Bidyadhar R. Bhilawe P. Anand D. Vaidya A. N. . (2012). Additives aided composting of green waste: Effects on organic matter degradation, compost maturity, and quality of the finished compost. Bioresour. Technol. 114, 382388. 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.04022444633 Gallego E. Roca F. J. Perales J. F. Sánchez G. Esplugas P. (2012). Characterization and determination of the odorous charge in the indoor air of a waste treatment facility through the evaluation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using TD–GC/MS. Waste Manag. 32, 24692481. 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.01022883687 Garcia A. J. Esteban M. B. Márquez M. C. Ramos P. (2005). Biodegradable municipal solid waste: characterization and potential use as animal feedstuffs. Waste Manag. 25, 780787. 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.01.00616125059 Garrone P. Melacini M. Perego A. Sert S. (2016). Reducing food waste in food manufacturing companies. J. Clean Prod. 137, 10761085. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.14532502525 Gong Z. Yi-Fan Su L. Shiyue Zhang J. Chen T. Wang Y.-C. (2021). Understanding the association between date labels and consumer-level food waste. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021:104373. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104373 Goodman-Smith F. Mirosa M. Skeaff S. (2020). A mixed-methods study of retail food waste in New Zealand. Food Policy 92:101845. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101845 Griffin M. Sobal J. Lyson T. A. (2009). An analysis of a community food waste stream. Agr. Hum. Val. 26, 6781. 10.1007/s10460-008-9178-1 Guidoni L. L. C. Marques R. V. Moncks R. B. Botelho F. T. da Paz M. F. Corrêa L. B. . (2018). Home composting using different ratios of bulking agent to food waste. J. Environ. Manage 207, 141150. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.11.03129156437 Gujer W. Zehnder A. J. (1983). Conversion processes in anaerobic digestion. Water Sci. Technol. 15, 127167. 10.2166/wst.1983.0164 Guo R. Li G. Jiang T. Schuchardt F. Chen T. Zhao Y. . (2012). Effect of aeration rate, C/N ratio and moisture content on the stability and maturity of compost. Bioresour. Technol. 112, 171178.22437050 Gustavsson J. Cederberg C. Sonesson U. van Otterdijk R. Meybeck A. (2011). Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2697e.pdf (accessed January 14, 2020). Hackes B. L. Shanklin C. W. Kim T. Su A. Y. (1997). Tray service generates more food waste in dining areas of a continuing-care retirement community. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 97, 879882. 10.1016/S0002-8223(97)00213-79259710 Haley J. (2013). The Legal Guide to the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. University of Arkansas School of Law. http://media.law.uark.edu/arklawnotes/2013/08/08/the-legal-guide-to-the-bill-emerson-good-samaritan-food-donation-act/ (accessed March 14, 2020). Harrington J. M. Myers R. A. Rosenberg A. A. (2005). Wasted fishery resources: discarded by-catch in the USA. Fish. Fish. 6, 350361. 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2005.00201.x Heida H. Bartman F. van der Zee S. C. (1995). Occupational exposure and indoor air quality monitoring in a composting facility. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 56, 3943. 10.1080/154281195910172957872202 Heo H. S. Kim S. G. Jeong K.-E. Jeon J.-K. Park S. H. Kim J. M. . (2011). Catalytic upgrading of oil fractions separated from food waste leachate. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 39523957. 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.11.09921177101 Hossain A. S. Salleh A. Boyce A. N. Chowdhury P. Naqiuddin M. (2008). Biodiesel fuel production from algae as renewable energy. Am. J. Biochem. Biotechnol. 4, 250254. 10.3844/ajbbsp.2008.250.254 Huet J. Druilhe C. Trémier A. Benoist J. C. Debenest G. (2012). The impact of compaction, moisture content, particle size and type of bulking agent on initial physical properties of sludge-bulking agent mixtures before composting. Bioresour. Technol. 114, 428436. 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.03122490363 Inglis G. D. Yanke L. J. Kawchuk L. M. McAllister T. A. (1999). The influence of bacterial inoculants on the microbial ecology of aerobic spoilage of barley silage. Can. J. Microbiol. 45, 7787. 10.1139/w98-20710349723 Jaakkola S. Rinne M. Heikkilä T. (2006). Effects of restriction of silage fermentation with formic acid on milk production. Agric. Food Sci. 15, 200218. Jackson D. Rosales-Guevara L. Blake R. (2014). Environmental odors web site: Providing communities and health officials with the tools to address odor issues. J. Environ. Health 77, 3839. Available online at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4561993/ (accessed May 14, 2020).25603622 Janssen A. M. Nijenhuis-de Vries M. A. Boer E. P. J. Kremer S. (2017). Fresh, frozen, or ambient food equivalents and their impact on food waste generation in Dutch households. Waste Manag. 67, 298307. 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.01028511926 Jurado M. M. Suárez-Estrella F. López M. J. Vargas-García M. C. López-González J. A. Moreno J. (2015). Enhanced turnover of organic matter fractions by microbial stimulation during lignocellulosic waste composting. Bioresour. Technol. 186, 1524. 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.05925795998 Kalamdhad A. S. Singh Y. K. Ali M. Khwairakpam M. Kazmi A. A. (2009). Rotary drum composting of vegetable waste and tree leaves. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 64426450. 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.07.03019679465 Karmee S. Chandna D. Ravi R. Chadha A. (2006). Kinetics of base-catalyzed transesterification of triglycerides from Pongamia oil. J. Am. Oil. Chem. Soc. 83, 873877. 10.1007/s11746-006-5040-z Karmee S. Lindardi D. Lee J. Lin C. S. K. (2015a). Conversion of lipid from food waste to biodiesel. Waste Manag. 41,169173. 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.03.02525843356 Karmee S. Patria R. Lin C. (2015b). Techno-economic evaluation of biodiesel production from waste cooking oil—a case study of Hong Kong. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 16, 43624371. 10.3390/ijms1603436225809602 Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 (September 23 2005). Khempaka S. Molee W. Guillaume M. (2009). Dried cassava pulp as an alternative feedstuff for broilers: effect on growth performance, carcass traits, digestive organs, and nutrient digestibility. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 18, 487493. 10.3382/japr.2008-00124 Kim K.-H. Pal R. Ahn J.-W. Kim Y. H. (2009). Food decay and offensive odorants: a comparative analysis among three types of food. Waste Manag. 29, 12651273. 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.08.02919042117 Knický M. Spörndly R. (2009). Sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate and sodium nitrite as silage additives. J. Sci. Food. Agric. 89, 26592667. 10.1002/jsfa.377125855820 Koivula N. Räikkönen T. Urpilainen S. Ranta J. Hänninen K. (2004). Ash in composting of source-separated catering waste. Bioresour. Technol. 93, 291299. 10.1016/j.biortech.2003.10.02515062825 Koivupuro H.-K. Hartikainen H. Silvennoinen K. Katajajuuri J.-M. Heikintalo N. Reinikainen A. . (2012). Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 36, 183191. 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01080.x Kosa K. M. Cates S. C. Karns S. Godwin S. L. Chambers D. (2007). Consumer knowledge and use of open dates: results of a web-based survey. J. Food Prot. 70, 12131219. 10.4315/0362-028X-70.5.121317536682 Kumar M. Ou Y.-L. Lin J.-G. (2010). Co-composting of green waste and food waste at low C/N ratio. Waste Manag. 30, 602609. 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.02320034778 Le Man H. Behera S. K. Park H. S. (2010). Optimization of operational parameters for ethanol production from Korean food waste leachate. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Te. 7, 157164. 10.1007/BF03326127 Lebersorger S. Schneider F. (2014). Food loss rates at the food retail, influencing factors and reasons as a basis for waste prevention measures. Waste Manag. 34:1911. 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.06.01325060676 Lehmann E. (2021). Future Protein Mission: Growing Protein to Feed a Growing World. Available online at: https://blog.csiro.au/future-protein-mission/?utm_medium=emailandutm_source=rasa_ioandPostID=37868324andMessageRunDetailID=6455394536 (accessed September 10, 2021). Lehmann L. (2015). The Garbage Project Revisited: from a 20th century archaeology of food waste to a contemporary study of food packaging waste. Sustainability 7, 69947010. 10.3390/su7066994 Li Z. Huang G. Yu H. Zhou Y. Huang W. (2015). Critical factors and their effects on product maturity in food waste composting. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187:217. 10.1007/s10661-015-4430-925822329 Li Z. Lu H. Ren L. He L. (2013). Experimental and modeling approaches for food waste composting: a review. Chemosphere 93, 12471257. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.06423876506 Lindgren S. Kaspersson A. Rydberg E. Lingvall P. Kartzow A. D. (1983). Effect of inoculants, grain and formic acid on silage fermentation. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 13, 91100. Liu C. Hotta Y. Santo A. Hengesbaugh M. Watabe A. Totoki Y. . (2016). Food waste in Japan: trends, current practices and key challenges. J. Clean Prod. 133, 557564. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.026 Loke M. K. Leung P. (2015). Quantifying food waste in Hawaii's food supply chain. Waste Manag. Res. 33:1076. 10.1177/0734242x1560742726446198 Ma F. Hanna M. A. (1999). Biodiesel production: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 70, 115. 10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00025-5 Makkar H. P. S. Ankers P. (2014). Towards sustainable animal diets: a survey-based study. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 198, 309322. 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.09.018 Malakahmad A. Idrus N. B. Abualqumboz M. S. Yavari S. Kutty S. R. M. (2017). In-vessel co-composting of yard waste and food waste: an approach for sustainable waste management in Cameron Highlands, Malaysia. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 6, 149157. 10.1007/s40093-017-0163-9 Manu M. K. Kumar R. Garg A. (2017). Performance assessment of improved composting system for food waste with varying aeration and use of microbial inoculum. Bioresour. Technol. 234, 167177. 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.02328319765 Mao I. F. Tsai C.-J. Shen S.-H. Lin T.-F. Chen W.-K. Chen M.-L. (2006). Critical components of odors in evaluating the performance of food waste composting plants. Sci. Total Environ. 370, 323329. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.06.01616863658 Marchetti J. M. Miguel V. U. Errazu A. F. (2008). Techno-economic study of different alternatives for biodiesel production. Fuel Process Technol. 89, 740748. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2008.01.007 Márquez M. A. Diánez F. Camacho F. (2010). The use of vegetable subproducts from greenhouses (VSG) for animal feed in the Poniente region of Almería. Renew. Agr. Food Syst. 26, 412. 10.1017/S174217051000001330886898 Martin D. S. Ramos S. Zufía J. (2016). Valorisation of food waste to produce new raw materials for animal feed. Food Chem. 198, 6874. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.11.03526769506 Maulini-Duran C. Artola A. Font X. Sánchez A. (2014). Gaseous emissions in municipal wastes composting: effect of the bulking agent. Bioresour. Technol. 172, 260268. 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.04125270040 Mena C. Adenso-Diaz B. Yurt O. (2011). The causes of food waste in the supplier–retailer interface: evidences from the UK and Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 648658. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.09.006 Meyer-Kohlstock D. Haupt T. Heldt E. Heldt N. Kraft E. (2016). Biochar as additive in biogas-production from bio-waste. Energies 9:247. 10.3390/en9040247 Milán Z. Sánchez E. Weiland P. Borja R. Martin A. Ilangovan K. (2001). Influence of different natural zeolite concentrations on the anaerobic digestion of piggery waste. Bioresour. Technol. 80, 3743. 10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00064-511554599 Mo W. Y. Cheng Z. Choi W. M. Man Y. B. Liu Y. Wong M. H. (2014). Application of food waste based diets in polyculture of low trophic level fish: Effects on fish growth, water quality and plankton density. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 85, 803809. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.01.02024492151 Mohee R. Boojhawon A. Sewhoo B. Rungasamy S. Somaroo G. D. Mudhoo A. (2015). Assessing the potential of coal ash and bagasse ash as inorganic amendments during composting of municipal solid wastes. J. Environ. Manage. 159, 209217. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.00826093343 Moon N. J. Ely L. O. Sudweeks E. M. (1981). Effect of inoculation of vegetable processing wastes with Lactobacillus plantarum on silage fermentation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 32, 675683. 10.1002/jsfa.274032070825855820 Muck R. E. Nadeau E. M. G. McAllister T. A. Contreras-Govea F. E. Santos M. C. Kung L. Jr. (2018). Silage review: recent advances and future uses of silage additives. J. Dairy Sci. 101, 39804000. 10.3168/jds.2017-1383929685273 Müller T. Thißen R. Braun S. Dott W. Fischer G. (2004). (M)VoC and composting facilities part 1: (M)VoC emissions from municipal biowaste and plant refuse. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 11, 9197. 10.1007/BF0297970815108856 Muttalib S. A. A. Ismail S. N. S. Praveena S. M. (2016). Application of effective microorganism (EM) in food waste composting: a review. Asia Pac. Env. Occup. Health J. 2:1. Nakasaki K. Araya S. Mimoto H. (2013). Inoculation of Pichia kudriavzevii RB1 degrades the organic acids present in raw compost material and accelerates composting. Bioresour. Technol. 144, 521528. 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.00523886646 Nakasaki K. Hirai H. (2017). Temperature control strategy to enhance the activity of yeast inoculated into compost raw material for accelerated composting. Waste Manag. 65, 2936. 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.04.01928410888 National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (2020). Fighting Food Waste. Available online at: https://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/fighting-food-waste.aspx (accessed August 10, 2021). Neff R. A. Spiker M. Rice C. Schklair A. Greenberg S. Leib E. B. (2019). Misunderstood food date labels and reported food discards: A survey of U.S. consumer attitudes and behaviors. Waste Manag. 86, 123132. 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.02330770169 Östergren K. Gustavsson J. Bos-Brouwers H. Timmermans T. Hansen O.-J. Møller H. . (2014). FUSIONS Definitional Framework for Food Waste. Available online at: https://www.eufusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/FUSIONS%20Definitional%20Framework%20for%20Food%20Waste%202014.pdf (accessed January 20, 2020). Pan I. Dam B. Sen S. K. (2012). Composting of common organic wastes using microbial inoculants. 3 Biotech. 2, 127134. 10.1007/s13205-011-0033-5 Pandey P. K. Vaddella V. Cao W. Biswas S. Chiu C. Hunter S. (2016). In-vessel composting system for converting food and green wastes into pathogen free soil amendment for sustainable agriculture. J. Clean Prod. 139, 407415. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.034 Pandi J. Glatz P. Forder R. Komolong B. Chousalkar K. (2018). Evaluation of the effects of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam) in broiler diets. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 102, e216e224. 10.1111/jpn.1273028603839 Pantano K. (2015). Rise of ‘Ugly’ Produce in Europe, Its Future in the U.S. Available online at: https://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/rise-of-ugly-produce-in-europe-its-future-in-the-u-s/ (accessed April 7, 2020). Parfitt J. Barthel M. Macnaughton S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 365, 30653081. 10.1098/rstb.2010.012620713403 Parry A. Bleazard P. Okawa K. (2015). Preventing food waste: case studies of Japan and the United Kingdom. OECD Food Agric. Fish. Pap. 76. 10.1787/5js4w29cf0f7-en Pingree C. (2018). Summary: H.R. 3444, the Food Recovery Act. Available online at: https://pingree.house.gov/legislation/summary-hr-3444-the-food-recovery-act.htm (accessed February 5, 2020). Potts M. (2012). ‘Feed the Beast’ aims at collecting waste to fuel UWO's biodigester. UW Oshkosh Today. Available online at: https://uwosh.edu/today/17028/feed-the-beast-aims-at-collecting-waste-to-fuel-uwos-biodigester/ (accessed August 12, 2021). Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act 26 I.R.C. § 179 . (2015). Qamaruz-Zaman N. Milke M. W. (2012). VFA and ammonia from residential food waste as indicators of odor potential. Waste Manag. 32, 24262430. 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.06.02322819598 Read Q. D. Muth M. K. (2021). Cost-effectiveness of four food waste interventions: is food waste reduction a “win–win?”. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 168:105448. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105448 ReFed (2019a). Federal Tax Incentives. Available online at: https://www.refed.com/tools/food-waste-policy-finder/federal-policy/federal-tax-incentives (accessed March 4, 2020). ReFed (2019b). Standardized Date Labeling. Available online at: https://www.refed.com/solutions/standardized-date-labeling (accessed March 4, 2020). Rohm H. Oostindjer M. Aschemann-Witzel J. Symmank C. L Almli V. . (2017). Consumers in a sustainable food supply chain (COSUS): Understanding consumer behavior to encourage food waste reduction. Foods 6, 104. 10.3390/foods612010429186883 Roy D. Azaïs A. Benkaraache S. Drogui P. Tyagi R. D. (2018). Composting leachate: characterization, treatment, and future perspectives. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 17, 323349. 10.1007/s11157-018-9462-5 Ruminant Feed Ban Rule (RFB) (1997). Animal proteins prohibited in ruminant feed, 21 C.F.R. 589.2000 (1997; amended 2008). Saarisalo E. Jalava T. Skyttä E. (2006). Effect of lactic acid bacteria inoculants, formic acid, potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of wilted grass silage. Agric. Food Sci. 15, 185199. 10.2137/14596060677921626321161671 Sahoo A. Sarkar S. Lal B. Kumawat P. Sharma S. De K. (2021). Utilization of fruit and vegetable waste as an alternative feed resource for sustainable and eco-friendly sheep farming. Waste Manag. 128, 232242. 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.05034010789 Sall P. M. Antoun H. Chalifour F.-P. Beauchamp C. J. (2019). Potential use of leachate from composted fruit and vegetable waste as fertilizer for corn. Cogent. Food Agric. 5:1580180. 10.1080/23311932.2019.1580180 School Food Recovery Act H.R. 5607. 116th Congress. (2020). Scialabba N. Jan O. Tostivint C. Turbé A. O'Connor C. Lavelle P. . (2013). Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources. (Rome: FAO).33640543 Scudamore J. Harris D. (2002). Control of foot and mouth disease: lessons from the experience of the outbreak in Great Britain in 2001. Sci. Tech. Rev. 21, 699707. 10.20506/rst.21.3.135112523708 Sensöz S. Angin D. Yorgun S. (2000). Influence of particle size on the pyrolysis of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.): fuel properties of bio-oil. Biomass Bioenergy 19, 271279. 10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00041-6 Shareefdeen Z. Herner B. Webb D. Verhaeghe L. Wilson S. (2005). An odor predictive model for rendering applications. Chem. Eng. J. 113, 215220. 10.1016/j.cej.2005.03.006 Siddiquee S. Shafawati S. N. Naher L. (2017). Effective composting of empty fruit bunches using potential Trichoderma strains. Biotechnol. Rep. 13, 17. 10.1016/j.btre.2016.11.00128352555 Smet E. Van Langenhove H. De Bo I. (1999). The emission of volatile compounds during the aerobic and the combined anaerobic/aerobic composting of biowaste. Atmos. Environ. 33, 12951303. 10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00260-X Smith D. R. Cawthon D. L. Sloan J. J. Freeman T. M. (2006). In-vessel, mechanical rotating drum composting of institutional food residuals. Compost. Sci. Util. 14, 155161. 10.1080/1065657X.2006.10702277 Sun W. Huang G. H. Zeng G. Qin X. Sun X. (2009). A stepwise-cluster microbial biomass inference model in food waste composting. Waste Manag. 29, 29562968. 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.06.02319620001 Sundberg C. Yu D. Franke-Whittle I. Kauppi S. Smårs S. Insam H. Romantschuk M. Jönsson H. (2013). Effects of pH and microbial composition on odour in food waste composting. Waste Manag. 33, 204211. 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.01723122203 Swine Health Protection Act 7 U.S.C. § 3801 . (1980). Tsai C.-J. Chen M.-L. Ye A.-D. Chou M.-S. Shen S.-H. Mao I. F. (2008). The relationship of odor concentration and the critical components emitted from food waste composting plants. Atmos. Environ. 42, 82468251. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.07.055 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Economic Research Service (ERS) (2019). New Products. Available online at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-markets-prices/processing-marketing/new-products/ (accessed February 4, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2016). Types of Composting and Understanding the Process. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/types-composting-and-understanding-process (accessed May 12 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2017a). Environmental Benefits of Anaerobic Digestion (AD). Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/anaerobic-digestion/environmental-benefits-anaerobic-digestion-ad (accessed February 4, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2017b). Food Recovery Hierarchy. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-hierarchy (accessed January 29, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019a). Facts and Figures About Materials, Waste and Recycling. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/food-material-specific-data#FoodTableandGraph (accessed May 12, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019b). Industrial Uses for Wasted Food. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/industrial-uses-wasted-food (accessed May 12, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019c). Reducing the Impact of Wasted Food by Feeding the Soil and Composting. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/reducing-impact-wasted-food-feeding-soil-and-composting (accessed May 12, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2020). 2018 Wasted Food Report. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/documents/2018_wasted_food_report-11-9-20_final.pdf (accessed August 10, 2021). U.S. Food Drug Administration (FDA) (2018). Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/compliance-enforcement/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy (accessed March 15, 2020). U.S. Food Drug Administration (FDA). (2019). How to Cut Food Waste and Maintain Food Safety. Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/media/101389/download (accessed July 12, 2020). Ugarte D. D. L. T. He L. (2007). Is the expansion of biofuels at odds with the food security of developing countries? Biofuel Bioprod. Biorefin. 1, 92102. 10.1002/bbb.16 Ulloa J. Van Weerd J. Huisman E. Verreth J. (2004). Tropical agricultural residues and their potential uses in fish feeds: the Costa Rican situation. Waste Manag. 24, 8797. 10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.00314672728 University of Wisconsin Oshkosh (UWO). (2021). Energy. https://uwosh.edu/cso/about-us/energy/ (accessed September 10, 2021). Vargas-García M. C. López M. J. Suárez F. Moreno J. (2005). Laboratory study of inocula production for composting processes. Bioresour. Technol. 96, 797803. 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.07.01215607193 Wakase S. Sasaki H. Itoh K. Otawa K. Kitazume O. Nonaka J. . (2008). Investigation of the microbial community in a microbiological additive used in a manure composting process. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 26872693. 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.04.04017572083 Wambugu C. W. Rene E. R. Van de Vossenberg J. Dupont C. Van Hullebusch E. D. (2019). Role of biochar in anaerobic digestion based biorefinery for food waste. Front. Energy. Res. 7:14. 10.3389/fenrg.2019.00014 Waqas M. Nizami A. S. Aburiazaiza A. S. Barakat M. A. Asam Z. Z. Khattak B. . (2019). Untapped potential of zeolites in optimization of food waste composting. J. Environ. Manage. 241, 99112. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.01430986667 Weinberg Z. G. Muck R. E. (1996). New trends and opportunities in the development and use of inoculants for silage. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 19, 5368. 10.1111/j.1574-6976.1996.tb00253.x Welch D. Swaffield J. Evans D. (2018). Who's responsible for food waste? Consumers, retailers and the food waste discourse coalition in the United Kingdom. J. Consum. Cult. 2018:121. 10.1177/1469540518773801 Westendorf M. L. Dong Z. C. Schoknecht P. A. (1998). Recycled cafeteria food waste as a feed for swine: nutrient content digestibility, growth, and meat quality. J. Anim. Sci. 76:2976. 10.2527/1998.76122976x9928600 Wong J. W. C. Fang M. Li G. X. Wong M. H. (1997). Feasibility of using coal ash residues as co-composting materials for sewage sludge. Environ. Technol. 18, 563568. 10.1080/09593331808616574 Woodgate S. Van Der Veen J. (2004). The role of fat processing and rendering in the European Union animal production industry. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 8, 283294. Xu F. Li Y. Ge X. Yang L. Li Y. (2018). Anaerobic digestion of food waste—challenges and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 247, 10471058. 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.02028965912 Xue L. Liu G. Parfitt J. Liu X. Herpen V. E. Stenmarck Å. . (2017). Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food losses and food waste data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 66186633. 10.1021/acs.est.7b0040128492315 Yang S. Y. Ji K. S. Baik Y. H. Kwak W. S. McCaskey T. A. (2006). Lactic acid fermentation of food waste for swine feed. Bioresour. Technol. 97, 18581864. 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.08.02016257200 Yang X. Lee J. H. Yoo H. Y. Shin H. Y. Thapa L. P. Park C. . (2014). Production of bioethanol and biodiesel using instant noodle waste. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng 37, 16271635. 10.1007/s00449-014-1135-324515118 Yu H. Huang G. H. (2009). Effects of sodium acetate as a pH control amendment on the composting of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 20052011. 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.10.00719042126 Yu M. J. Jo Y.-B. Kim S.-G. Lim Y.-K. Jeon J.-K. Park S. H. . (2011). Synthesis of biodiesel from an oil fraction separated from food waste leachate. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 28, 22872292. 10.1007/s11814-011-0134-1 Yu Y. Jaenicke E. C. (2020). Estimating food waste as household production inefficiency. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 102, 525547. 10.1002/ajae.1203625855820 Zhang R. El-Mashad H. M. Hartman K. Wang F. Liu G. Choate C. . (2007). Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 98, 929935. 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.02.03916635571
      ‘Oh, my dear Thomas, you haven’t heard the terrible news then?’ she said. ‘I thought you would be sure to have seen it placarded somewhere. Alice went straight to her room, and I haven’t seen her since, though I repeatedly knocked at the door, which she has locked on the inside, and I’m sure it’s most unnatural of her not to let her own mother comfort her. It all happened in a moment: I have always said those great motor-cars shouldn’t be allowed to career about the streets, especially when they are all paved with cobbles as they are at Easton Haven, which are{331} so slippery when it’s wet. He slipped, and it went over him in a moment.’ My thanks were few and awkward, for there still hung to the missive a basting thread, and it was as warm as a nestling bird. I bent low--everybody was emotional in those days--kissed the fragrant thing, thrust it into my bosom, and blushed worse than Camille. "What, the Corner House victim? Is that really a fact?" "My dear child, I don't look upon it in that light at all. The child gave our picturesque friend a certain distinction--'My husband is dead, and this is my only child,' and all that sort of thing. It pays in society." leave them on the steps of a foundling asylum in order to insure [See larger version] Interoffice guff says you're planning definite moves on your own, J. O., and against some opposition. Is the Colonel so poor or so grasping—or what? Albert could not speak, for he felt as if his brains and teeth were rattling about inside his head. The rest of[Pg 188] the family hunched together by the door, the boys gaping idiotically, the girls in tears. "Now you're married." The host was called in, and unlocked a drawer in which they were deposited. The galleyman, with visible reluctance, arrayed himself in the garments, and he was observed to shudder more than once during the investiture of the dead man's apparel. HoME香京julia种子在线播放 ENTER NUMBET 0016hxwpw.net.cn
      www.kdihdp.com.cn
      gncfcn.com.cn
      hwaall.net.cn
      www.luyida.com.cn
      www.formit.com.cn
      www.oxngxm.com.cn
      www.muxin168.com.cn
      tplhtz.com.cn
      smoz.com.cn
      处女被大鸡巴操 强奸乱伦小说图片 俄罗斯美女爱爱图 调教强奸学生 亚洲女的穴 夜来香图片大全 美女性强奸电影 手机版色中阁 男性人体艺术素描图 16p成人 欧美性爱360 电影区 亚洲电影 欧美电影 经典三级 偷拍自拍 动漫电影 乱伦电影 变态另类 全部电 类似狠狠鲁的网站 黑吊操白逼图片 韩国黄片种子下载 操逼逼逼逼逼 人妻 小说 p 偷拍10幼女自慰 极品淫水很多 黄色做i爱 日本女人人体电影快播看 大福国小 我爱肏屄美女 mmcrwcom 欧美多人性交图片 肥臀乱伦老头舔阴帝 d09a4343000019c5 西欧人体艺术b xxoo激情短片 未成年人的 插泰国人夭图片 第770弾み1 24p 日本美女性 交动态 eee色播 yantasythunder 操无毛少女屄 亚洲图片你懂的女人 鸡巴插姨娘 特级黄 色大片播 左耳影音先锋 冢本友希全集 日本人体艺术绿色 我爱被舔逼 内射 幼 美阴图 喷水妹子高潮迭起 和后妈 操逼 美女吞鸡巴 鸭个自慰 中国女裸名单 操逼肥臀出水换妻 色站裸体义术 中国行上的漏毛美女叫什么 亚洲妹性交图 欧美美女人裸体人艺照 成人色妹妹直播 WWW_JXCT_COM r日本女人性淫乱 大胆人艺体艺图片 女同接吻av 碰碰哥免费自拍打炮 艳舞写真duppid1 88电影街拍视频 日本自拍做爱qvod 实拍美女性爱组图 少女高清av 浙江真实乱伦迅雷 台湾luanlunxiaoshuo 洛克王国宠物排行榜 皇瑟电影yy频道大全 红孩儿连连看 阴毛摄影 大胆美女写真人体艺术摄影 和风骚三个媳妇在家做爱 性爱办公室高清 18p2p木耳 大波撸影音 大鸡巴插嫩穴小说 一剧不超两个黑人 阿姨诱惑我快播 幼香阁千叶县小学生 少女妇女被狗强奸 曰人体妹妹 十二岁性感幼女 超级乱伦qvod 97爱蜜桃ccc336 日本淫妇阴液 av海量资源999 凤凰影视成仁 辰溪四中艳照门照片 先锋模特裸体展示影片 成人片免费看 自拍百度云 肥白老妇女 女爱人体图片 妈妈一女穴 星野美夏 日本少女dachidu 妹子私处人体图片 yinmindahuitang 舔无毛逼影片快播 田莹疑的裸体照片 三级电影影音先锋02222 妻子被外国老头操 观月雏乃泥鳅 韩国成人偷拍自拍图片 强奸5一9岁幼女小说 汤姆影院av图片 妹妹人艺体图 美女大驱 和女友做爱图片自拍p 绫川まどか在线先锋 那么嫩的逼很少见了 小女孩做爱 处女好逼连连看图图 性感美女在家做爱 近距离抽插骚逼逼 黑屌肏金毛屄 日韩av美少女 看喝尿尿小姐日逼色色色网图片 欧美肛交新视频 美女吃逼逼 av30线上免费 伊人在线三级经典 新视觉影院t6090影院 最新淫色电影网址 天龙影院远古手机版 搞老太影院 插进美女的大屁股里 私人影院加盟费用 www258dd 求一部电影里面有一个二猛哥 深肛交 日本萌妹子人体艺术写真图片 插入屄眼 美女的木奶 中文字幕黄色网址影视先锋 九号女神裸 和骚人妻偷情 和潘晓婷做爱 国模大尺度蜜桃 欧美大逼50p 西西人体成人 李宗瑞继母做爱原图物处理 nianhuawang 男鸡巴的视屏 � 97免费色伦电影 好色网成人 大姨子先锋 淫荡巨乳美女教师妈妈 性nuexiaoshuo WWW36YYYCOM 长春继续给力进屋就操小女儿套干破内射对白淫荡 农夫激情社区 日韩无码bt 欧美美女手掰嫩穴图片 日本援交偷拍自拍 入侵者日本在线播放 亚洲白虎偷拍自拍 常州高见泽日屄 寂寞少妇自卫视频 人体露逼图片 多毛外国老太 变态乱轮手机在线 淫荡妈妈和儿子操逼 伦理片大奶少女 看片神器最新登入地址sqvheqi345com账号群 麻美学姐无头 圣诞老人射小妞和强奸小妞动话片 亚洲AV女老师 先锋影音欧美成人资源 33344iucoom zV天堂电影网 宾馆美女打炮视频 色五月丁香五月magnet 嫂子淫乱小说 张歆艺的老公 吃奶男人视频在线播放 欧美色图男女乱伦 avtt2014ccvom 性插色欲香影院 青青草撸死你青青草 99热久久第一时间 激情套图卡通动漫 幼女裸聊做爱口交 日本女人被强奸乱伦 草榴社区快播 2kkk正在播放兽骑 啊不要人家小穴都湿了 www猎奇影视 A片www245vvcomwwwchnrwhmhzcn 搜索宜春院av wwwsee78co 逼奶鸡巴插 好吊日AV在线视频19gancom 熟女伦乱图片小说 日本免费av无码片在线开苞 鲁大妈撸到爆 裸聊官网 德国熟女xxx 新不夜城论坛首页手机 女虐男网址 男女做爱视频华为网盘 激情午夜天亚洲色图 内裤哥mangent 吉沢明歩制服丝袜WWWHHH710COM 屌逼在线试看 人体艺体阿娇艳照 推荐一个可以免费看片的网站如果被QQ拦截请复制链接在其它浏览器打开xxxyyy5comintr2a2cb551573a2b2e 欧美360精品粉红鲍鱼 教师调教第一页 聚美屋精品图 中韩淫乱群交 俄罗斯撸撸片 把鸡巴插进小姨子的阴道 干干AV成人网 aolasoohpnbcn www84ytom 高清大量潮喷www27dyycom 宝贝开心成人 freefronvideos人母 嫩穴成人网gggg29com 逼着舅妈给我口交肛交彩漫画 欧美色色aV88wwwgangguanscom 老太太操逼自拍视频 777亚洲手机在线播放 有没有夫妻3p小说 色列漫画淫女 午间色站导航 欧美成人处女色大图 童颜巨乳亚洲综合 桃色性欲草 色眯眯射逼 无码中文字幕塞外青楼这是一个 狂日美女老师人妻 爱碰网官网 亚洲图片雅蠛蝶 快播35怎么搜片 2000XXXX电影 新谷露性家庭影院 深深候dvd播放 幼齿用英语怎么说 不雅伦理无需播放器 国外淫荡图片 国外网站幼幼嫩网址 成年人就去色色视频快播 我鲁日日鲁老老老我爱 caoshaonvbi 人体艺术avav 性感性色导航 韩国黄色哥来嫖网站 成人网站美逼 淫荡熟妇自拍 欧美色惰图片 北京空姐透明照 狼堡免费av视频 www776eom 亚洲无码av欧美天堂网男人天堂 欧美激情爆操 a片kk266co 色尼姑成人极速在线视频 国语家庭系列 蒋雯雯 越南伦理 色CC伦理影院手机版 99jbbcom 大鸡巴舅妈 国产偷拍自拍淫荡对话视频 少妇春梦射精 开心激动网 自拍偷牌成人 色桃隐 撸狗网性交视频 淫荡的三位老师 伦理电影wwwqiuxia6commqiuxia6com 怡春院分站 丝袜超短裙露脸迅雷下载 色制服电影院 97超碰好吊色男人 yy6080理论在线宅男日韩福利大全 大嫂丝袜 500人群交手机在线 5sav 偷拍熟女吧 口述我和妹妹的欲望 50p电脑版 wwwavtttcon 3p3com 伦理无码片在线看 欧美成人电影图片岛国性爱伦理电影 先锋影音AV成人欧美 我爱好色 淫电影网 WWW19MMCOM 玛丽罗斯3d同人动画h在线看 动漫女孩裸体 超级丝袜美腿乱伦 1919gogo欣赏 大色逼淫色 www就是撸 激情文学网好骚 A级黄片免费 xedd5com 国内的b是黑的 快播美国成年人片黄 av高跟丝袜视频 上原保奈美巨乳女教师在线观看 校园春色都市激情fefegancom 偷窥自拍XXOO 搜索看马操美女 人本女优视频 日日吧淫淫 人妻巨乳影院 美国女子性爱学校 大肥屁股重口味 啪啪啪啊啊啊不要 操碰 japanfreevideoshome国产 亚州淫荡老熟女人体 伦奸毛片免费在线看 天天影视se 樱桃做爱视频 亚卅av在线视频 x奸小说下载 亚洲色图图片在线 217av天堂网 东方在线撸撸-百度 幼幼丝袜集 灰姑娘的姐姐 青青草在线视频观看对华 86papa路con 亚洲1AV 综合图片2区亚洲 美国美女大逼电影 010插插av成人网站 www色comwww821kxwcom 播乐子成人网免费视频在线观看 大炮撸在线影院 ,www4KkKcom 野花鲁最近30部 wwwCC213wapwww2233ww2download 三客优最新地址 母亲让儿子爽的无码视频 全国黄色片子 欧美色图美国十次 超碰在线直播 性感妖娆操 亚洲肉感熟女色图 a片A毛片管看视频 8vaa褋芯屑 333kk 川岛和津实视频 在线母子乱伦对白 妹妹肥逼五月 亚洲美女自拍 老婆在我面前小说 韩国空姐堪比情趣内衣 干小姐综合 淫妻色五月 添骚穴 WM62COM 23456影视播放器 成人午夜剧场 尼姑福利网 AV区亚洲AV欧美AV512qucomwwwc5508com 经典欧美骚妇 震动棒露出 日韩丝袜美臀巨乳在线 av无限吧看 就去干少妇 色艺无间正面是哪集 校园春色我和老师做爱 漫画夜色 天海丽白色吊带 黄色淫荡性虐小说 午夜高清播放器 文20岁女性荫道口图片 热国产热无码热有码 2015小明发布看看算你色 百度云播影视 美女肏屄屄乱轮小说 家族舔阴AV影片 邪恶在线av有码 父女之交 关于处女破处的三级片 极品护士91在线 欧美虐待女人视频的网站 享受老太太的丝袜 aaazhibuo 8dfvodcom成人 真实自拍足交 群交男女猛插逼 妓女爱爱动态 lin35com是什么网站 abp159 亚洲色图偷拍自拍乱伦熟女抠逼自慰 朝国三级篇 淫三国幻想 免费的av小电影网站 日本阿v视频免费按摩师 av750c0m 黄色片操一下 巨乳少女车震在线观看 操逼 免费 囗述情感一乱伦岳母和女婿 WWW_FAMITSU_COM 偷拍中国少妇在公车被操视频 花也真衣论理电影 大鸡鸡插p洞 新片欧美十八岁美少 进击的巨人神thunderftp 西方美女15p 深圳哪里易找到老女人玩视频 在线成人有声小说 365rrr 女尿图片 我和淫荡的小姨做爱 � 做爱技术体照 淫妇性爱 大学生私拍b 第四射狠狠射小说 色中色成人av社区 和小姨子乱伦肛交 wwwppp62com 俄罗斯巨乳人体艺术 骚逼阿娇 汤芳人体图片大胆 大胆人体艺术bb私处 性感大胸骚货 哪个网站幼女的片多 日本美女本子把 色 五月天 婷婷 快播 美女 美穴艺术 色百合电影导航 大鸡巴用力 孙悟空操美少女战士 狠狠撸美女手掰穴图片 古代女子与兽类交 沙耶香套图 激情成人网区 暴风影音av播放 动漫女孩怎么插第3个 mmmpp44 黑木麻衣无码ed2k 淫荡学姐少妇 乱伦操少女屄 高中性爱故事 骚妹妹爱爱图网 韩国模特剪长发 大鸡巴把我逼日了 中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片 大胆女人下体艺术图片 789sss 影音先锋在线国内情侣野外性事自拍普通话对白 群撸图库 闪现君打阿乐 ady 小说 插入表妹嫩穴小说 推荐成人资源 网络播放器 成人台 149大胆人体艺术 大屌图片 骚美女成人av 春暖花开春色性吧 女亭婷五月 我上了同桌的姐姐 恋夜秀场主播自慰视频 yzppp 屄茎 操屄女图 美女鲍鱼大特写 淫乱的日本人妻山口玲子 偷拍射精图 性感美女人体艺木图片 种马小说完本 免费电影院 骑士福利导航导航网站 骚老婆足交 国产性爱一级电影 欧美免费成人花花性都 欧美大肥妞性爱视频 家庭乱伦网站快播 偷拍自拍国产毛片 金发美女也用大吊来开包 缔D杏那 yentiyishu人体艺术ytys WWWUUKKMCOM 女人露奶 � 苍井空露逼 老荡妇高跟丝袜足交 偷偷和女友的朋友做爱迅雷 做爱七十二尺 朱丹人体合成 麻腾由纪妃 帅哥撸播种子图 鸡巴插逼动态图片 羙国十次啦中文 WWW137AVCOM 神斗片欧美版华语 有气质女人人休艺术 由美老师放屁电影 欧美女人肉肏图片 白虎种子快播 国产自拍90后女孩 美女在床上疯狂嫩b 饭岛爱最后之作 幼幼强奸摸奶 色97成人动漫 两性性爱打鸡巴插逼 新视觉影院4080青苹果影院 嗯好爽插死我了 阴口艺术照 李宗瑞电影qvod38 爆操舅母 亚洲色图七七影院 被大鸡巴操菊花 怡红院肿么了 成人极品影院删除 欧美性爱大图色图强奸乱 欧美女子与狗随便性交 苍井空的bt种子无码 熟女乱伦长篇小说 大色虫 兽交幼女影音先锋播放 44aad be0ca93900121f9b 先锋天耗ばさ无码 欧毛毛女三级黄色片图 干女人黑木耳照 日本美女少妇嫩逼人体艺术 sesechangchang 色屄屄网 久久撸app下载 色图色噜 美女鸡巴大奶 好吊日在线视频在线观看 透明丝袜脚偷拍自拍 中山怡红院菜单 wcwwwcom下载 骑嫂子 亚洲大色妣 成人故事365ahnet 丝袜家庭教mp4 幼交肛交 妹妹撸撸大妈 日本毛爽 caoprom超碰在email 关于中国古代偷窥的黄片 第一会所老熟女下载 wwwhuangsecome 狼人干综合新地址HD播放 变态儿子强奸乱伦图 强奸电影名字 2wwwer37com 日本毛片基地一亚洲AVmzddcxcn 暗黑圣经仙桃影院 37tpcocn 持月真由xfplay 好吊日在线视频三级网 我爱背入李丽珍 电影师傅床戏在线观看 96插妹妹sexsex88com 豪放家庭在线播放 桃花宝典极夜著豆瓜网 安卓系统播放神器 美美网丝袜诱惑 人人干全免费视频xulawyercn av无插件一本道 全国色五月 操逼电影小说网 good在线wwwyuyuelvcom www18avmmd 撸波波影视无插件 伊人幼女成人电影 会看射的图片 小明插看看 全裸美女扒开粉嫩b 国人自拍性交网站 萝莉白丝足交本子 七草ちとせ巨乳视频 摇摇晃晃的成人电影 兰桂坊成社人区小说www68kqcom 舔阴论坛 久撸客一撸客色国内外成人激情在线 明星门 欧美大胆嫩肉穴爽大片 www牛逼插 性吧星云 少妇性奴的屁眼 人体艺术大胆mscbaidu1imgcn 最新久久色色成人版 l女同在线 小泽玛利亚高潮图片搜索 女性裸b图 肛交bt种子 最热门有声小说 人间添春色 春色猜谜字 樱井莉亚钢管舞视频 小泽玛利亚直美6p 能用的h网 还能看的h网 bl动漫h网 开心五月激 东京热401 男色女色第四色酒色网 怎么下载黄色小说 黄色小说小栽 和谐图城 乐乐影院 色哥导航 特色导航 依依社区 爱窝窝在线 色狼谷成人 91porn 包要你射电影 色色3A丝袜 丝袜妹妹淫网 爱色导航(荐) 好男人激情影院 坏哥哥 第七色 色久久 人格分裂 急先锋 撸撸射中文网 第一会所综合社区 91影院老师机 东方成人激情 怼莪影院吹潮 老鸭窝伊人无码不卡无码一本道 av女柳晶电影 91天生爱风流作品 深爱激情小说私房婷婷网 擼奶av 567pao 里番3d一家人野外 上原在线电影 水岛津实透明丝袜 1314酒色 网旧网俺也去 0855影院 在线无码私人影院 搜索 国产自拍 神马dy888午夜伦理达达兔 农民工黄晓婷 日韩裸体黑丝御姐 屈臣氏的燕窝面膜怎么样つぼみ晶エリーの早漏チ○ポ强化合宿 老熟女人性视频 影音先锋 三上悠亚ol 妹妹影院福利片 hhhhhhhhsxo 午夜天堂热的国产 强奸剧场 全裸香蕉视频无码 亚欧伦理视频 秋霞为什么给封了 日本在线视频空天使 日韩成人aⅴ在线 日本日屌日屄导航视频 在线福利视频 日本推油无码av magnet 在线免费视频 樱井梨吮东 日本一本道在线无码DVD 日本性感诱惑美女做爱阴道流水视频 日本一级av 汤姆avtom在线视频 台湾佬中文娱乐线20 阿v播播下载 橙色影院 奴隶少女护士cg视频 汤姆在线影院无码 偷拍宾馆 业面紧急生级访问 色和尚有线 厕所偷拍一族 av女l 公交色狼优酷视频 裸体视频AV 人与兽肉肉网 董美香ol 花井美纱链接 magnet 西瓜影音 亚洲 自拍 日韩女优欧美激情偷拍自拍 亚洲成年人免费视频 荷兰免费成人电影 深喉呕吐XXⅩX 操石榴在线视频 天天色成人免费视频 314hu四虎 涩久免费视频在线观看 成人电影迅雷下载 能看见整个奶子的香蕉影院 水菜丽百度影音 gwaz079百度云 噜死你们资源站 主播走光视频合集迅雷下载 thumbzilla jappen 精品Av 古川伊织star598在线 假面女皇vip在线视频播放 国产自拍迷情校园 啪啪啪公寓漫画 日本阿AV 黄色手机电影 欧美在线Av影院 华裔电击女神91在线 亚洲欧美专区 1日本1000部免费视频 开放90后 波多野结衣 东方 影院av 页面升级紧急访问每天正常更新 4438Xchengeren 老炮色 a k福利电影 色欲影视色天天视频 高老庄aV 259LUXU-683 magnet 手机在线电影 国产区 欧美激情人人操网 国产 偷拍 直播 日韩 国内外激情在线视频网给 站长统计一本道人妻 光棍影院被封 紫竹铃取汁 ftp 狂插空姐嫩 xfplay 丈夫面前 穿靴子伪街 XXOO视频在线免费 大香蕉道久在线播放 电棒漏电嗨过头 充气娃能看下毛和洞吗 夫妻牲交 福利云点墦 yukun瑟妃 疯狂交换女友 国产自拍26页 腐女资源 百度云 日本DVD高清无码视频 偷拍,自拍AV伦理电影 A片小视频福利站。 大奶肥婆自拍偷拍图片 交配伊甸园 超碰在线视频自拍偷拍国产 小热巴91大神 rctd 045 类似于A片 超美大奶大学生美女直播被男友操 男友问 你的衣服怎么脱掉的 亚洲女与黑人群交视频一 在线黄涩 木内美保步兵番号 鸡巴插入欧美美女的b舒服 激情在线国产自拍日韩欧美 国语福利小视频在线观看 作爱小视颍 潮喷合集丝袜无码mp4 做爱的无码高清视频 牛牛精品 伊aⅤ在线观看 savk12 哥哥搞在线播放 在线电一本道影 一级谍片 250pp亚洲情艺中心,88 欧美一本道九色在线一 wwwseavbacom色av吧 cos美女在线 欧美17,18ⅹⅹⅹ视频 自拍嫩逼 小电影在线观看网站 筱田优 贼 水电工 5358x视频 日本69式视频有码 b雪福利导航 韩国女主播19tvclub在线 操逼清晰视频 丝袜美女国产视频网址导航 水菜丽颜射房间 台湾妹中文娱乐网 风吟岛视频 口交 伦理 日本熟妇色五十路免费视频 A级片互舔 川村真矢Av在线观看 亚洲日韩av 色和尚国产自拍 sea8 mp4 aV天堂2018手机在线 免费版国产偷拍a在线播放 狠狠 婷婷 丁香 小视频福利在线观看平台 思妍白衣小仙女被邻居强上 萝莉自拍有水 4484新视觉 永久发布页 977成人影视在线观看 小清新影院在线观 小鸟酱后丝后入百度云 旋风魅影四级 香蕉影院小黄片免费看 性爱直播磁力链接 小骚逼第一色影院 性交流的视频 小雪小视频bd 小视频TV禁看视频 迷奸AV在线看 nba直播 任你在干线 汤姆影院在线视频国产 624u在线播放 成人 一级a做爰片就在线看狐狸视频 小香蕉AV视频 www182、com 腿模简小育 学生做爱视频 秘密搜查官 快播 成人福利网午夜 一级黄色夫妻录像片 直接看的gav久久播放器 国产自拍400首页 sm老爹影院 谁知道隔壁老王网址在线 综合网 123西瓜影音 米奇丁香 人人澡人人漠大学生 色久悠 夜色视频你今天寂寞了吗? 菲菲影视城美国 被抄的影院 变态另类 欧美 成人 国产偷拍自拍在线小说 不用下载安装就能看的吃男人鸡巴视频 插屄视频 大贯杏里播放 wwwhhh50 233若菜奈央 伦理片天海翼秘密搜查官 大香蕉在线万色屋视频 那种漫画小说你懂的 祥仔电影合集一区 那里可以看澳门皇冠酒店a片 色自啪 亚洲aV电影天堂 谷露影院ar toupaizaixian sexbj。com 毕业生 zaixian mianfei 朝桐光视频 成人短视频在线直接观看 陈美霖 沈阳音乐学院 导航女 www26yjjcom 1大尺度视频 开平虐女视频 菅野雪松协和影视在线视频 华人play在线视频bbb 鸡吧操屄视频 多啪啪免费视频 悠草影院 金兰策划网 (969) 橘佑金短视频 国内一极刺激自拍片 日本制服番号大全magnet 成人动漫母系 电脑怎么清理内存 黄色福利1000 dy88午夜 偷拍中学生洗澡磁力链接 花椒相机福利美女视频 站长推荐磁力下载 mp4 三洞轮流插视频 玉兔miki热舞视频 夜生活小视频 爆乳人妖小视频 国内网红主播自拍福利迅雷下载 不用app的裸裸体美女操逼视频 变态SM影片在线观看 草溜影院元气吧 - 百度 - 百度 波推全套视频 国产双飞集合ftp 日本在线AV网 笔国毛片 神马影院女主播是我的邻居 影音资源 激情乱伦电影 799pao 亚洲第一色第一影院 av视频大香蕉 老梁故事汇希斯莱杰 水中人体磁力链接 下载 大香蕉黄片免费看 济南谭崔 避开屏蔽的岛a片 草破福利 要看大鸡巴操小骚逼的人的视频 黑丝少妇影音先锋 欧美巨乳熟女磁力链接 美国黄网站色大全 伦蕉在线久播 极品女厕沟 激情五月bd韩国电影 混血美女自摸和男友激情啪啪自拍诱人呻吟福利视频 人人摸人人妻做人人看 44kknn 娸娸原网 伊人欧美 恋夜影院视频列表安卓青青 57k影院 如果电话亭 avi 插爆骚女精品自拍 青青草在线免费视频1769TV 令人惹火的邻家美眉 影音先锋 真人妹子被捅动态图 男人女人做完爱视频15 表姐合租两人共处一室晚上她竟爬上了我的床 性爱教学视频 北条麻妃bd在线播放版 国产老师和师生 magnet wwwcctv1024 女神自慰 ftp 女同性恋做激情视频 欧美大胆露阴视频 欧美无码影视 好女色在线观看 后入肥臀18p 百度影视屏福利 厕所超碰视频 强奸mp magnet 欧美妹aⅴ免费线上看 2016年妞干网视频 5手机在线福利 超在线最视频 800av:cOm magnet 欧美性爱免播放器在线播放 91大款肥汤的性感美乳90后邻家美眉趴着窗台后入啪啪 秋霞日本毛片网站 cheng ren 在线视频 上原亚衣肛门无码解禁影音先锋 美脚家庭教师在线播放 尤酷伦理片 熟女性生活视频在线观看 欧美av在线播放喷潮 194avav 凤凰AV成人 - 百度 kbb9999 AV片AV在线AV无码 爱爱视频高清免费观看 黄色男女操b视频 观看 18AV清纯视频在线播放平台 成人性爱视频久久操 女性真人生殖系统双性人视频 下身插入b射精视频 明星潜规测视频 mp4 免賛a片直播绪 国内 自己 偷拍 在线 国内真实偷拍 手机在线 国产主播户外勾在线 三桥杏奈高清无码迅雷下载 2五福电影院凸凹频频 男主拿鱼打女主,高宝宝 色哥午夜影院 川村まや痴汉 草溜影院费全过程免费 淫小弟影院在线视频 laohantuiche 啪啪啪喷潮XXOO视频 青娱乐成人国产 蓝沢润 一本道 亚洲青涩中文欧美 神马影院线理论 米娅卡莉法的av 在线福利65535 欧美粉色在线 欧美性受群交视频1在线播放 极品喷奶熟妇在线播放 变态另类无码福利影院92 天津小姐被偷拍 磁力下载 台湾三级电髟全部 丝袜美腿偷拍自拍 偷拍女生性行为图 妻子的乱伦 白虎少妇 肏婶骚屄 外国大妈会阴照片 美少女操屄图片 妹妹自慰11p 操老熟女的b 361美女人体 360电影院樱桃 爱色妹妹亚洲色图 性交卖淫姿势高清图片一级 欧美一黑对二白 大色网无毛一线天 射小妹网站 寂寞穴 西西人体模特苍井空 操的大白逼吧 骚穴让我操 拉好友干女朋友3p