green cone food digester trial evaluation report

Green Cone Food Digester Trial Evaluation Report

JANUARY 2008

Green Cone Food Digester Trial | Evaluation Report

Executive SummaryThe growing amount of household waste produced in the UK has ledto the rise of waste minimisation as a solution to waste disposalproblems. Not only does waste minimisation help to save energyand resources, it also helps to reduce pollution and the space takenup by landfill sites.

It is estimated that food waste is the third largest component of theaverage household bin. When such waste is disposed of throughburial in landfill sites, it decomposes anaerobically, producing the highlypotent greenhouse gas, methane, which in turn contributes to globalwarming.

Charnwood Borough Council’s Zero Waste Strategy aims to stopthe growth of waste production in Charnwood by 2012, and to re-use, recycle or compost at least 50% of what remains. Tacklingthe amount of food waste in the household bin would make asignificant impact on achieving this aim, and the use of Green ConeFood Digesters could contribute significantly to this due to theadvantages of dealing with such waste at source.

The Green Cone is a food waste digestion system designed forgarden installation. It takes all household food waste, includingvegetable scraps, raw and cooked meat or fish, bones, dairy products,and other organic kitchen waste such as tea bags, bread and eggshells. It is comprised of three main compartments: the inner cone,the outer cone, and the basket. The basket is buried in the soil andacts as a repository for the waste. The cone stands above the groundand uses a solar heating effect between the inner and outer conesto promote air circulation, which facilitates the growth of micro-organisms and the aerobic digestion process. With a regularsprinkling of accelerator powder, the Green Cone reduces foodwaste to its natural components of water, carbon dioxide, and a smallresidue.

Charnwood Borough Council offers a comprehensive refusecollection and recycling service to the 65,000 properties in theBorough including a recycling service for paper, card, glass, cans, plasticbottles, textiles and garden waste. Kitchen waste is not

ContentsExecutive Summary 21 Introduction 4

1.1 Residual Waste 41.2 Policy Context 41.3 Food Waste 41.4 The need to trial potential solutions 41.5 Food Waste Disposal Trials 5

2 Aims and Objectives 62.1 Aims 62.2 Objectives 6

3 The Green Cone 73.1 How it works 73.2 The advantages 73.3 The disadvantages 73.4 Alternatives to Green Cones 73.5 Comparison with home composting 7

4 The Trial 85 Commentary on the Results 9

5.1 Response Rate 95.2 Waste diversion 95.3 Practicality of use 95.4 Types of food waste 105.5 Weather 10

6 Demographic Factors 116.1 Accommodation 116.2 Age of participants 116.3 Number of residents in property 11

7 Conclusion 128 Recommendations 13Appendices 14

Report prepared by:Melanie Bouyer, Zero Waste OfficerKath Kay, Waste Policy Manager

Charnwood Borough Council’s ZeroWaste Strategy aims to stop the growthof waste production in Charnwood by 2012,and to re-use, recycle or compost at least50% of what remains.


currently collected separately in Charnwood, with residentsencouraged to wrap this waste and put it in with ‘residual waste’.

The Borough Council decided to introduce a 250 property trial inlate 2006 with the aim of establishing if the use of Green Cone FoodDigesters by the residents of Charnwood were a practical way ofreducing biodegradable waste currently being disposed of in landfillsites. The trial involved 250 volunteer households in the Borough,each using a Green Cone for six months, and recording the types andquantities of food waste being disposed of in the unit. Difficulties,points of interest and demographic factors were also recorded.

The trial achieved a response rate of 33%, with 82 of the 250 initialvolunteers submitting data. On average, each of the respondinghouseholds diverted 18.1% of their total household waste (which iscomprised of residual waste, recyclate and garden waste) throughthe use of a Green Cone.

Most respondents (67%) found the installation and use of the GreenCones straightforward, while others found digging the hole for theunit was difficult. There were a few problems experienced by somevolunteers in the use of Green Cones, most notably the presence offlies, which were encountered by 22% of the respondents.

It is evident that commitment and motivation are required ofresidents using Green Cones as a way of diverting food waste fromlandfill sites, due to the installation and low-level maintenance that isrequired. It should also be noted that a Green Cone is not a suitablesolution to the problem of food waste for some residents. A gardenis needed for the installation of a Green Cone, so those residentswithout gardens would not be able to use one. Charnwood has alarge student population, centred in and around Loughborough. Dueto the ongoing commitment of a Green Cone, such equipment islikely to be unsuitable for such transient residents, or at propertieswhere the residents change frequently.

An Alternate Weekly Collection of household refuse and recyclinghas been in operation in Charnwood since 2004. This service isgenerally well received however a minority of residents doexperience some difficulties, particularly in the summer months. Thislargely stems from the perceived hygiene problems of food wastebeing stored in wheelie bins for up to two weeks before collection.The offer of Green Cones could help to resolve this problem bytaking food waste out of the waste stream and dealing with it atsource.

As the trial centred on 250 ‘active’ volunteers it is recognised that theresults cannot be easily translated to the wider population acrossthe Borough. The results show that a large amount of kitchen wastecan be diverted using Green Cones however, the level of take up,

active participation and longevity of residents to the scheme couldbe significantly reduced if offered Borough wide. In addition, twothirds of those starting the trial did not respond to later consultationsand data collection. This lack of data gives rise to uncertainty whenconsidering the impact of any wider promotion of the scheme acrossthe Borough.

It is recommended therefore that an extension of the trial be carriedout, involving the inundation of a demographically representativesample of the population with a wide variety of waste minimisationinitiatives. It is recommended to use a refuse collection ‘round’ as asuitable trial area with a control area of similar size. This will enableaccurate and reliable waste data to be collated across a wider area.To maximise diversion rates of biodegradable waste a range offlexible initiatives will be offered including a range of alternatives e.g.garden waste collections, home composting bins, wormeries andGreen Cones. Additional resources will also be used to significantlyenhance the monitoring and reporting of performance e.g. ‘door-stepping’, road-shows and local displays to ensure maximumcommunication.

The collection of data relating to the tonnages of waste collectedand waste diverted will be compared to data from the existingservice in previous years. This will help to establish the most popularand effective ways of diverting waste away from landfill sites, sooutlining the future of the refuse and recycling service offered byCharnwood Borough Council, in accordance with the NationalWaste Strategy 2007, and the Council’s Zero Waste Strategy.

The Green Cone takes all household foodwaste, including vegetable scraps, raw andcooked meat or fish, bones, dairy productsand other organic kitchen waste such astea bags, bread and egg shells.


1 INTRODUCTION1.1 Residual WasteHousehold waste is made up of a variety of items, and the growthin recycling rates has led to a change in the composition of householdbins. In 2000 / 01, household waste compositional analysis inEngland1 showed that garden waste made up the largest proportionof household waste, at 20% of all household waste produced. Thisis followed by paper and cardboard at 18%, and kitchen waste at17%.

The minimisation of waste is commonly accepted as the solution towaste disposal difficulties in landfill sites. This is largely because ithelps to save energy and natural resources, it reduces pollution, andit reduces the amount of land taken up by landfill sites.

Within Charnwood, there are already a number of measures in placeto reduce the amount of household waste produced. These includean alternate weekly collection of residual waste and recycling,numerous bring sites, a garden waste collection service, support ofa furniture re-use project, the promotion of home composting andreal nappies, and a range of awareness-raising initiatives to promotewaste minimisation.

1.2 Policy ContextThe EU Landfill Directive (99/31/EC)2 came into effect in July 2001,and requires EU countries to reduce the amount of biodegradablewaste being disposed of in landfill sites. In 2010, the requirement isto reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 75% of thatproduced in 1995; to 50% in 2013; and to 35% in 2020. These targetsare reflected in the National Waste Strategy 20073, and adopted inthe Leicestershire Waste Management Partnership’s (LWMP)Leicestershire Municipal Waste Management Strategy4.

Within Charnwood, the Zero Waste Strategy5 sets out how this willbe achieved at a local level, aiming to stop the growth of waste by2012, and to re-use, recycle or compost at least 50% of what remains.

Leicestershire currently has relatively high performance in terms ofwaste being sent to landfill sites, and recycling and composting rates.There is a political desire across the County to move away from theuse of landfill as a means of managing household waste, and toexceed the targets set for waste disposed of in landfill. It should alsobe noted that landfill sites are in short supply in both Leicestershireand the UK as a whole.

1.3 Food WasteWRAP estimates that kitchen waste makes up 17% of the householdwaste produced in the UK, which is the third largest component ofthe average bin. Due to this high rate of kitchen waste production,measures taken to reduce the amount being sent to landfill sitescould provide a significant reduction in overall total household wastearisings.

There are two significant advantages to reducing the amount ofkitchen waste being disposed of in landfill sites.

1) When organic waste decomposes in a landfill site, it does soanaerobically due to the nature of the site, producing thehighly potent greenhouse gas methane.

2) Removing kitchen waste from the alternate weekly collectionof residual waste would result in greater customer satisfactionwith the collection service offered, due to the perceivedhygiene problems when collected on alternate weeks.

1.4 The need to trial potential solutionsIt is clear that a reduction in the amount of kitchen waste disposedof in landfill sites is necessary, and a solution to this problem isneeded.

A number of options are available, which could include:

• Home composting of vegetable matter

• Kerbside kitchen waste collections

• Wormeries

• Acceptance of vegetable matter as part of the Garden WasteService

• The use of food digestion systems, such as Green Cones

In 2000/01, household waste compositionalanalysis in England showed that kitchenwaste made up 17% of all household wasteproduced.

1 WRAP: ‘Analysis of household waste composition and factors driving waste increases, December 2002’ Seehttp://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/upload/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/composition.pdf for further information.2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0031:EN:HTML3 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/strategy07/index.htm4 http://www.lesswaste.org.uk/final_strategy.pdf5 http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/uploads/zerowastestrategy.pdf


Charnwood Borough Council made the decision that a trial of theGreen Cones would be useful in order to establish their viability inreducing the amount of kitchen waste sent to landfill sites.

1.5 Food Waste Disposal TrialsWithin the Leicestershire Waste Management Partnership (LWMP),trials are running to investigate the effectiveness of alternativemethods of food waste disposal.

A kerbside food waste collection trial is running in the districts ofHarborough and Hinckley & Bosworth, supported by the LWMP andLeicestershire County Council. Over 2000 homes in the districts havebeen given the opportunity to participate in the trial, and initialindications show the trial to be running successfully.

A bid for funding from Leicestershire County Council’s WasteIncentive Scheme has been submitted by Melton District Counciland North West Leicestershire District Council to conduct a trialinto the use of food waste disposers in the form of a unit attachedto kitchen sinks. The outcome of this bid is yet to be decided.

The Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) is working inconjunction with Local Authorities to conduct food waste collectiontrials. The purpose of the trials is to establish the costs and benefitsof food waste collections, and to promote the sharing of experienceand learning between all authorities involved in or considering foodwaste collections. A diverse range of Local Authorities have beenselected to take part in the trials in order to gauge how food wastecollections schemes could work in both urban and rural areas, andamong different types of housing (including flats) and communities.Information on the outcome of the trials will be available fromWRAP in June 2008.

A variety of food waste disposal trials are in operation in Leicestershire and acrossthe UK.


2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES2.1 AimsThe aim of the trial was to establish if the use of Green Cone FoodDigesters by the residents of Charnwood were a practical way ofremoving sufficient quantities of biodegradable waste from theresidual waste stream, currently being disposed of in landfill sites.

2.2 ObjectivesThe objectives of the trial were:

1) To evaluate the effectiveness of the Green Cone as a wasteminimisation tool

2) To ascertain the levels of satisfaction with Green Cones, asexpressed by householders

3) To estimate the rates of diversion of food waste from landfillsites, and to project them across Charnwood

4) To examine the types of households taking part in the trial

5) To understand the motivation of householders taking part inthe trial.


3 THE GREEN CONE3.1 How it worksThe Green Cone is a food waste digestion system made from plasticand designed for garden installation. Each unit measures less than70cm in height above ground, and 59cm in diameter at the base,narrowing to 28cm at the top. It takes all household food waste,including vegetable scraps, raw and cooked meat or fish, bones, dairyproducts, and other organic kitchen waste such as tea bags, breadand egg shells. The Green Cone comes with a four litre kitchencaddy for collecting and carrying food waste.

It is comprised of three main compartments: the inner cone, theouter cone, and the basket. The basket is buried in the soil and actsas a repository for the waste, whilst the cone stands above theground.

The unit uses a solar heating effect between the inner and outercones to promote air circulation, which facilitates the growth ofmicro-organisms and the aerobic digestion process.

With a regular sprinkling of accelerator powder, the Green Conereduces food waste to its natural components of water, carbondioxide, and a small residue.

3.2 The advantages The advantages of the Green Cone Food Digester are many, andinclude:

i) Safe disposal of all food waste, including cooked food, meat,fish, bread, bones and vegetables

ii) Year-round operation

iii) Helps to keep wheelie bins clean, so minimising negativeimpacts of alternate weekly collections

iv) Easy set up and maintenance

v) Inaccessibility to vermin

vi) Disposal of waste at source, so reduction in collection costsand transport pollution

vii) Reduction in organic waste sent to landfill sites, so reducinggreenhouse gas emissions.

3.3 The disadvantagesi) Requirement for an outside space in which to install the

Green Cone

ii) Ability to dig a hole for installation of the unit

iii) Commitment to maintenance, such as addition of acceleratorpowder, and potential need to empty a small amount ofresidue from the unit

iv) Difficulty associated with moving the Green Cone whenmoving house

v) Possibility of perceived hygiene problems

vi) Possibility of flies and vermin being attracted to the unit andit’s contents

vii) Inability to accommodate garden waste

3.4 Alternatives to Green ConesA number of options are available as a means of removing foodwaste from the waste stream. These could include:

• Separate collection of food waste from the kerbside

• Incorporation of food waste into garden waste kerbsidecollections

• The use of wormeries

• Food digestion using a unit attached to a sink, resulting in foodwaste being added to waste water for treatment

• Home composting units (more information below).

3.5 Comparison with home compostingTypes of wasteWhilst home composting systems can accommodate muchbiodegradable waste, this is mostly limited to garden waste, fruit andvegetable peelings, egg shells, tea bags and shredded paper.

The Green Cone can digest all food waste from the kitchen, includingcooked food, meat, fish, bread, bones, vegetables, dairy produce, andalso animal excrement. However, it cannot accommodate gardenwaste.

InstallationWhilst a composting system can be installed on a flat surface, theGreen Cone requires partial submersion in the ground in a welldrained, sunny area.

By-productsHome composting produces rich compost which can be used in thegarden, whilst 90% of what’s disposed of in the Green Cone will beabsorbed as water by the soil.

The Green Cone is made up of three parts:the basket, which is buried under theground, and the inner and outer coneswhich are subject to a solar heating effect.


4 THE TRIALThe Green Cone Food Digester trial involved 250 volunteerhouseholds in Charnwood. These households were recruited to thetrial throughout Autumn 2006 through newspaper reports, an articlein the Charnwood Borough Council publication ‘Charnwood News’(see Appendix 1), and at waste minimisation roadshows.

The trial was spread over nine months, from November 2006 to July2007, with each volunteer household asked to complete a six monthtrial.

Each volunteer household was issued with a Green Cone, a kitchencaddy, accelerator powder and a powder shaker. A launch event washeld prior to the start of the trial, where information, advice andsupport were given to help volunteers with the installation and useof their Green Cone. Green Cones were available for collection bythe volunteers at this event.

Each volunteer household was asked to complete and return amonthly monitoring sheet (see Appendix 3), which aimed to establishthe amount of kitchen waste put into the Green Cone each month.

The volunteers were asked to complete a questionnaire at the endof the trial (see Appendix 3), in order to establish demographicinformation about the participants, the installation and use of theGreen Cone, and any particular problems that were encounteredduring the trial.

Guidance and support were available to the volunteers throughoutthe trial by contacting the Waste Policy Team at Charnwood BoroughCouncil by phone, letter or e-mail, or by contacting Green Cone,who supply the product, using a free-phone contact number.

Volunteers were issued with a Green Cone,a kitchen caddy, accelerator powder andpowder shaker.


5 COMMENTARY ON THE RESULTS5.1 Response RateOf the 250 volunteer households involved in the trial, ten returnedtheir Green Cones within the first few weeks, primarily because itwasn’t suited to their garden due to a lack of space, or because ofmoving house. These volunteers were not replaced, and the trialcontinued with 240 households.

Of the initial 250 participants, 82 returned the monitoring forms andquestionnaire, resulting in an overall response rate of 33%. Theseare referred to as the “active participating households” as opposedto the 250 “overall participating households”.

5.2 Waste DiversionDuring 2006 / 07, 53,724 tonnes of household waste was producedby the residents of Charnwood, or 0.83 tonnes per household onaverage.

The 82 volunteers who completed the trial diverted 6.14 tonnes offood waste from landfill sites over the course of the six month trial,which equates to 12.3 tonnes per year. However, this does not takeaccount of any seasonal variation due to holidays or Christmas wasteproduction.

From this, it can be deduced that one average ‘active’ householdparticipating in the trial diverted 0.075 tonnes of waste in the courseof the six month trial, or a projected 0.15 tonnes a year, whichequates to 18.1% of a household’s annual waste.

If all 65,000 properties in Charnwood were to take part in wastediversion through Green Cones, a total of 9,750 tonnes of foodwaste could be diverted from landfill sites each year.

This trial showed a 33% participation rate, which means that iftransferred to the Borough as a whole, 21,450 properties would takepart in the scheme. However, the actual figure is likely to be lessthan this, due to the number of properties without gardens, and thatthe trial volunteers were keen to take part.

If the Borough-wide participation rate was 33%, it can be projectedthat 3218 tonnes of household waste could be diverted from landfillsites each year through the use of Green Cones. This equates to 6%of the household waste produced across Charnwood.

This information is summarised in the table below.

5.3 Practicality of UseInstallationOf the 82 trial respondents, 67% found the installation of the GreenCone straightforward, while 23% had some difficulty. The mainproblems encountered were that the hole was too big to dig easily,or that the clay soil in the area made digging the hole difficult.

80% of the respondents found it easy to locate a suitable area for theGreen Cone in their garden, while 20% found this more difficult.

Green Cones were located in full sun in 52% of the participants’gardens, and 48% were in partial sun. Those located in partial suncould have experienced a slower degradation rate.

MeasurementA n n u a lTonnage

Diversion Rate ofTotal WasteArisings (TWA)

Total Waste Arisings (TWA)2006 / 07

53,724.00 N/A

TWA 2006 / 07 perhousehold

0.83 N/A

Diversion through GreenCone per ‘active’ household

0.15 18.1%

Total diversion through GreenCone by entire trial of 250households

12.3 5.9%

Diversion through GreenCone by 100% of Borough

9750.00 18.1%

Diversion through GreenCone by 33% of Borough

3218.00 6.0%


OperationAlthough most people found the Green Cone fairly easy to use, anumber of minor difficulties were experienced. These aresummarised in the table below.

5.4 Types of Food WasteAll types of food waste can be disposed of in the Green Cone. Therespondents reported the following:

5.5 WeatherA significant amount of rainfall was experienced in Leicestershirethroughout the trial, which is not typical of the weather normallyexperienced at this time of year. The rainfall is known to have causedwater logging of the Green Cones in some instances. As a result ofthis, there was a short period of time when decomposition withinsome Cones stopped, and the users refrained from using theequipment. Once the water logging had cleared, normal use of theGreen Cones was resumed.

The significant rainfall experienced duringthe trial caused water-logging of someGreen Cones. This caused decompositionto stop. Once the water-logging cleared,normal use was resumed.

Difficulty% of respondentsexperiencing this difficulty

Flies 22%

Wildlife trying to gain entry 14%

Hole at top of unit too small, anddifficulty with rectangular caddy andround hole

7%

Maggots 5%

Other problems 3%

Type of Food Waste% of respondents using Green Cone forthis type of food waste

Cooked food scraps 100%

Bread 80%

Bones 68%

Animal excrement 18%


6 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS6.1 Accommodation The majority of trial respondents (43%) lived in semi-detachedhouses. It is unclear whether the properties involved in the trial hadgardens, although it can be assumed that they did. The flats whichtook part in the trial could have had gardens, or perhaps had accessto an area of communal land which was used for the Green Cone.Information about the types of property respondents lived in is givenbelow.

6.2 Age of ParticipantsMost respondents (over 36%) were aged 61 or over. Informationabout the ages of respondents is summarised in the table below.

6.3 Number of Residents in Property89.7% of the respondent households were made up of 2 residents,whilst 10.3% were made up of lone occupiers.

Property Type Percentage of Respondents

Semi-detached 43.0%

Detached 29.3%

Terraced 13.8%

Bungalow 10.3%

Flat 3.4%

Age Group Percentage of Respondents

Over 61 36.3%

45 to 60 19.5%

31 to 45 14.4%

19 to 30 10.2%

Under 18 19.5%


7 CONCLUSIONThe trial of Green Cone FoodDigesters by 250 volunteer households inCharnwood aimed to assess the viability of theiruse in diverting kitchen waste from landfill sites. Thisforms part of the Council’s Zero Waste Strategy, whichaims to stop the growth of household waste production by2012, and to re-use, recycle or compost at least 50% of whatremains.

Charnwood Borough Council operates an Alternate WeeklyCollection scheme for refuse and recycling with a chargeable schemefor kerbside garden waste collections. A small number of householdsreport problems with the perceived hygiene issues relating to foodwaste rotting in wheelie bins for up to two weeks before collection.The use of Green Cones could help to resolve this problem bytaking food waste out of the waste stream and dealing with it atsource.

The data gathered from the trial shows that the use of Green Conesby the responding volunteer households was largely a success, withan average waste diversion rate of 18.1% per ‘active’ household. Evenif it is assumed that all non-responding households failed to use theGreen Cones and did not divert any kitchen waste, up to 6% of thetotal waste arisings of the 250 trial volunteers was diverted.

Most residents found the operation and use of the Green Conespractical, with only minor levels of dissatisfaction, which can be mostlyattributed to the presence of flies in or around the Green Cone.

A minority of the volunteer households experienced difficulties withtheir Green Cone which can be accounted for by the very wetsummer, which led to water-logging of the unit and a temporary haltin the decomposition of materials. The abundance of clay soil in theBorough also proved difficult in establishing some Green Cones, dueto the difficulty of digging a suitable hole for the installation of theunit.

It is evident that commitment and motivation are required ofresidents using Green Cones as a way of diverting food waste from

landfill sites, due to the installation and low-level maintenance that isrequired. This could account for the low response rate of 33% ofparticipants in the trial, although further investigation would help toverify this.

Whilst only minor difficulties were experienced with the use ofGreen Cones, these should be taken into consideration whenextending the trial, as the perception of a lack of hygiene could detersome users.

The data gathered from the trial showsthat the use of Green Cones by theresponding volunteer households waslargely a success, with an average diversionrate of 18.1% per active household.


8 RECOMMENDATIONSBased on the findings of this report, it is recommended that the trialbe extended in order to gather more data. As 33% of the trialvolunteers supplied data at the end of the trial, it is recommendedthat more resources are put into monitoring and communication inany subsequent trial in order to gather sufficient feedback and data.

A refuse collection round should be identified which isdemographically representative of the Borough, and is likely toinclude parts of Loughborough, some rural areas and some villages.The trial area would be offered all of the services currently availablefrom Charnwood Borough Council in terms of refuse, recycling andwaste minimisation, with some additional options.

As some Green Cone users may perceive a lack of hygieneassociated with the use of the equipment, a number of flexiblealternatives could be offered. These options may include homecomposting units, wormeries, garden waste kerbside collections,kerbside recycling collections, free bulky household waste collections,promotion of real nappies and furniture re-use, in addition topublicity, support, educational talks and awareness-raising initiatives tohelp residents minimise the amount of waste they produce.

Records are available of the amounts of refuse, recycling and bulkyhousehold waste which has been collected from each refuse andrecycling collection round in Charnwood over the past few years, inaddition to the number of home composting units delivered toresidents by Leicestershire County Council. By comparing this datawith the extended trial data, it will be possible to see the types ofwaste diverted from landfill, and how this has been achieved.

A control area should also be established in order to monitorchanges as a direct result of the trial. This control area should havesimilar demographic factors to that chosen for the trial.

The data gathered from the extended trial will help to establish themost popular and effective ways of diverting waste away from landfillsites, so outlining the future of the refuse and recycling service offeredby Charnwood Borough Council, in accordance with the NationalWaste Strategy 2007, and the Council’s Zero Waste Strategy.

It is recommended that the trial be started in April 2007, and it willrun for 12 months. This will allow seasonal variations in wasteproduction and management to be noted throughout the year, eitheras a result of weather variation or holiday seasons.

Extending the trial in this way could result in perceived discriminationamongst residents. The project must be publicised as a trial using ademographically representative trial area within the Borough. Thiswill help to minimise the potential interpretation that this is adiscriminatory trial, particularly by those residents aiming to reducetheir waste, but not being included in the trial as a result of wherethey live.

As just 33% of the trial volunteers supplieddata at the end the trial, it is recommendthat in future, more resources are put intomonitoring and communication in order togather sufficient feedback and data.


APPENDICESAppendix 1Press release

Ian Whadcoat – Press and Marketing Officer, Consultation andPartnershipsFor all press enquiries please phone: 01509 634778

IW/233/06

PRESS RELEASE

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED FOR FOOD DIGESTER TRIAL

VOLUNTEERS are needed to take part in a Charnwood BoroughCouncil run pilot scheme to trial an innovative product – whichmakes a meal out of unwanted food.

The Green Cone Food Waste Digester helps cut the amount of rawand cooked meats, bones, vegetable scraps, dairy products, egg shells,teabags and bread that is normally thrown in black bins and dumpedin landfill sites.

Instead, food waste is thrown into the green cone, which is buried ina sunny spot in the back garden, and is naturally reduced to carbondioxide, water and a small nutrient-rich residue.

Now, Charnwood recycling officers are looking to recruit 250households to take part in the environmentally-friendly pilot, whichwill begin next month, before considering offering the scheme tohomes throughout the Borough.

The benefits of installing the odour-free and pet-safe cones include:

• Minimising the amount of waste thrown in black bins,therefore reducing the need for landfill and large-scaletreatment plants;

• cleaner dustbins;

• and waste food can be disposed of immediately in the easyto maintain green cones.

Cllr Sandie Gough, Charnwood Borough Council’s Cabinet memberfor Leisure and Environment, is signing up to the pilot scheme andsaid the green cone can save 20 per cent of household waste beingthrown in black bins.

She added: “A small difference in your lifestyle can help make a bigdifference to the environment.

“A large amount of household waste is kitchen waste and the greencones will eliminate the smells created by food rotting in black bins.

“Having five children, there’s often not a lot of food left in our houseat meal times but the great thing is everything can go in the greencones – whether it be bones, egg shells or vegetable peelings.

“They are a fabulous idea as they will substantially reduce the amountof waste put in black bins while the natural goodness from the foodwill enrich the soil in your gardens.

“I hope they really take off and people quickly sign up to the pilotscheme – I certainly will be!”

The lower section of the cones needs to be buried 42cm (17 inches)below ground level, while the 70cm (27 inch) upper level is designedto maximise solar heating, which helps break down the waste,without causing smells.

A four-litre kitchen caddy is supplied to collect waste that needs tobe taken out to the green cone and residents will be asked to weighit before it is emptied.

People will also be asked how often they took the caddy out to thegreen cones and if they had any problems.

A special event will be staged next month when residents can collecttheir green cones and be shown how to install them in their backgardens.

Anyone wanting to register for the scheme or find out further detailsshould call (01509) 634563 or email [email protected]

The final 250 chosen for the pilot will be made up of residents acrossCharnwood and will include individuals and families of varying sizesso the results reflect a cross-section of the Borough’s population.


Appendix 2 - Monitoring sheet

Charnwood Borough Council Food Digester Trial

Volunteer Name:

NovemberWeight ofCaddie (grms)

Acce leratorPowder Used?

Weight ofCaddie (grms)

Acce leratorPowder Used?

01/11/2006 17/11/2006

02/11/2006 18/11/2006

03/11/2006 19/11/2006

04/11/2006 20/11/2006

05/11/2006 21/11/2006

06/11/2006 22/11/2006

07/11/2006 23/11/2006

08/11/2006 24/11/2006

09/11/2006 25/11/2006

10/11/2006 26/11/2006

11/11/2006 27/11/2006

12/11/2006 28/11/2006

13/11/2006 29/11/2006

14/11/2006 30/11/2006

15/11/2006

16/11/2006

Monthly Comments:


Appendix 3Green Cone Trial – Follow Up Questionnaire

Please complete this at the end of the 6 month trial and return toGreen Cone Trial, Environmental Services, Charnwood BoroughCouncil, Southfield Road, Loughborough, LE11 2TN.

1. What type of house do you live in?

Bungalow

Terrace

Semi-detached

Detached

2. Please enter the number of people living in your house inthe following age brackets.

0-18

19-30

31-45

46-60

61 and over

3. Was the Green Cone straightforward to install?

Yes

No

If no, what problems did you experience?

4. Was it easy finding a suitable location in your garden forthe green cone?

Yes

No

If no, what problems did you experience?

5. Is you cone situated in:

Full sun

Partial sun

Mostly shade

6. What materials do you place in the Green Cone?

7. Did the Green Cone require emptying at all during the trial?

Yes

No

If yes, please outline how often:

8. Did you experience any problems with the Green Coneduring the trial?

Yes

No

If yes, what were they?

9. Over the trial did you notice a reduction in the volume ofwaste you put into your wheelie bin?

Yes, significantly

Yes, a small amount

No

10. What in your opinion are the benefits of using a GreenCone?

Thank you for taking the time to fill in this questionnaire and fortaking part in our Green Cone trial!

green cone food digester trial evaluation report

Documents