Compost producers participated in USCC's second triennial survey
Print this Article | Send to Colleague
This past winter, the USCC launched a survey aimed at estimating the environmental impact of USCC member compost producers including universities and municipalities. The survey data was used to calculate greenhouse gas (GHG) avoidance, carbon sequestration, and fertilizer value, helping us gain a clearer understanding of the environmental impact of composting activities within our membership.
The 2023 Compost Throughput and Environmental Impact Survey was a voluntary assessment distributed to 730 US Composting Council (USCC) members, including compost producers, haulers, researchers, advocates, public agencies, and other stakeholders in the composting industry. Of those invited, 142 respondents completed the survey, representing more than 263 composting facilities across 40 states.
Members of the USCC sequester an estimated 522,538 US tons (474,038 metric tonnes) a year of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq) in soil in 2023. Equivalent to USD $22,753,847 in carbon dioxide value (assuming 1 metric tonne of CO2 is $ 48) based on[1]. Equivalencies can be calculated here: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator. 2,313,424 US tons of compost applied to agricultural land in 2023 (36%) of the total (or scaled up taking into account that the estimated split between markets only adds up to 97% of the total amount of compost produced = 2,381,217 tons)
- US tons converted to metric tonnes
- 86% of compost applied directly to soil. ‘Other markets’ and ‘Direct to public’ disregarded as they may end up in landfill or only used as potting media.
[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/sp/visualized-the-price-of-carbon-around-the-world-in-2024/
Participant Breakdown
Respondents included the following member categories:
● 383 Small Compost Producers
○ 18% responded
● 85 Medium Compost Producers
○ 17.6% responded
● 17 Large Compost Producers
○ 52% responded
● 28 Community Composters
○ 17.8% responded
● 14 Colleges or University Departments
○ 37.5% responded
● 10 Farm Operators
○ 0% responded
● 9 Haulers
○ 0% responded
● 7 Academic Researchers
○ 14% responded
● 6 Advocates
○ 0% responded
● 12 Nonprofits
○ 16.7% responded
● 100 Public Agencies
○ 31% responded
● 10 Students
○ 0% responded
● 36 Individuals
○ 5% responded
● 13 Miscellaneous/Unspecified
○ 15% responded
Geographic Representation
The most frequently represented states were California (17), Colorado (12), New York (10), Florida (10), Washington (9), North Carolina (9), Texas (8), Pennsylvania (8), Oregon (6), Illinois (6), Arizona (5), Iowa (5), Michigan (5), Ohio (5), Minnesota (4), Massachusetts (4), Tennessee (4), Idaho (3), Connecticut (3), Georgia (3), Maine (3), Maryland (3), New Jersey (3), Montana (3), Virginia (3), Wisconsin (3), Utah (2), Missouri (2), South Carolina (2), Rhode Island (2), Arkansas (1), Kentucky (1), Indiana (1), Kansas (1), Nebraska (1), Oklahoma (1), South Dakota (1), Vermont (1), Wyoming (1). While this does not reflect the total number of facilities per state, it reflects where the most survey participants were located, which generally aligns with states that have a higher number of USCC members.
States with no representation in this year’s survey include: Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and North Dakota.
Inbound Feedstock Intake
Survey respondents reported processing a total of 14,379,113 tons of organic feedstock in 2023. The breakdown of inbound feedstock sources was as follows:
● 31.14% – Households
○ Accepted in 171 facilities
○ Across the following 34 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
● 28.57% – Other (e.g., yard trimmings, industrial organics, or unspecified)
○ Accepted in 136 facilities
○ Across the following 34 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
● 13.55% – Commercial Food Distribution
○ Accepted in 124 facilities
○ Across the following 28 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
● 16.12% – Restaurants
○ Accepted in 125 facilities
○ Across the following 31 states:[1] Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
● 10.62% – Wastewater Treatment Plants
○ Accepted in 73 facilities
○ Across the following 23 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
Distribution of these inputs by feedstock [2] type included:
● 3,034,329.875 tons – Yard Waste (Green Waste)
● 643,528.1542 tons – Food Scraps
● 1,458,436.007 tons – Biosolids
● 337,386.3844 tons – Agriculture Manure
● 130,842.0617 tons – Forestry Byproducts
● 22,339.23188 tons – Crop Residues
● 13,389.85489 tons – Compostable Food Service Ware & Packaging
● 483,584.895 tons – Commingled Yard and Food Waste
● 8,255,276.54[3] tons - Other*
Yard waste is the most significant input type at composting facilities across the country, which is expected given its widespread availability and the prevalence of collection programs. This is followed by biosolids, reflecting the substantial role they play in composting operations, particularly in relation to regulatory oversight and concerns over contaminants. Food waste ranks third, likely due to gaps in infrastructure, supportive policy, and ongoing challenges with contamination. Agricultural and forestry byproducts, along with crop residues, contribute only modestly; the survey does not investigate the reasons behind their lower volumes. As anticipated, compostable food service ware and packaging are not processed in high volumes, likely due to limited facility capabilities and verification challenges. The “Other” category, which tops the chart, is a catch-all that may reflect nuances in the conversion rates used in the analysis, particularly those aligned with the Model Rule framework.
Finished Compost Output
Facilities collectively reported producing 6,002,260 tons of finished compost in 2023. Distribution of this output by end market included:
● 2160813.6 tons – Agriculture
● 2400904 tons – Commercial Horticulture (e.g., landscapers, nurseries, topsoil blenders)
● 600226 tons – Direct to Public/Retail (bulk and bagged)
● 60022.6 tons – Environmental Remediation (e.g., landfill cover, mine reclamation)
● 240090.4 tons – Turfgrass Management (e.g., golf courses, parks, athletic fields)
● 360135.6 tons – Erosion Control / Stormwater Management / DOT projects
● 240090.4 tons – Other (e.g., donations or not specified)
Sections Pending
● Permitting Overview
Details to be added on respondent permitting status and regulatory landscape
● Compostable Products and Food Waste
Discussion of contamination challenges, trends in acceptance of compostable items, and facility preferences to be added
Assumptions
- Assumptions about green waste, food scrap and biosolids available are the same as the previous iteration of the study.
- Source - GREEN WASTE FOOD WASTE BIOSOLIDS
From the last survey
2021: What states and member types were represented
EPA carbon sequestration model
Disclaimer: During our comparison of 2021 and 2023 data, we discovered that the reported numbers from one large producer were accidentally overstated by a factor of ten. We also identified a facility located outside the United States that should not have been included. In response, our team spent more than four months working closely with industry members to improve the accuracy and representation of the data, one of several reasons behind the increase in throughput seen in this report.
