Study finds food waste compost less effective than potting mix alone

Commercial potting mix found to outperform food waste compost blends

University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

COMPOST STUDY — Watermelon seedlings are seen in trays with pure food waste substrate, pure commercial peat moss-based potting mix, and blends of the two with varying ratios in a study to compare seedling germination, growth and nutrient uptake.

view more 

Credit: U of A System Division of Agriculture photo

By Maddie Johnson

University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture

Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — With an estimated 30 to 40 percent of the United States’ food supply ending up as waste, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, food science and horticulture experts teamed up to study if it could lay the foundation for growing the next bunch of crops. 

“It’s capturing food waste that would otherwise go to landfill and produce greenhouse gases and cause harm to the environment in some capacity,” said Matt Bertucci, assistant professor of sustainable fruit and vegetable production with the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture. 

“Instead, we are utilizing it to generate an organic substrate, an organic amendment compost that can then be utilized for propagating seedlings,” he said.

Bertucci is part of the department of horticulture within the Division of Agriculture’s research and outreach arms — the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Cooperative Extension Service — and the Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences at the University of Arkansas.

The study, “Assessing Food Waste Compost as a Substrate Amendment for Tomato and Watermelon Seedlings,” was published in HortTechnology last year. 

Researchers grew tomato and watermelon seedlings in pure food waste substrate, pure commercial peat moss-based potting mix, and blends of the two with varying ratios to compare seedling germination, growth and nutrient uptake. The pure food waste substrate was made up of food scraps from a commercial partner and wood chips from a tree service company.

The study found that while food waste compost might not be viable as a standalone alternative to commercial potting mix, it could be suitable as part of a substrate mix.

Results showed that mixtures with less than 50 percent food waste compost produced better seedling emergence and growth and had better biomass accumulation than pure food waste, a key indicator of a plant’s health and potential yield.

Still, Bertucci underscored the value of composting food waste, which he said prevents waste from going to landfill and offers a usable byproduct.

“Compost is the sweet spot for sustainability,” he said.

Co-authors included former graduate student Allyson Hamilton and professor Kristen Gibson of the department of food science, and department head Mary Savin, program associate D.E. Kirkpatrick and graduate student R.C. Woody-Pumford of the department of horticulture. Gibson is a professor of food safety and microbiology, the Donald “Buddy” Wray Endowed Chair in Food Safety and director of the experiment station’s Arkansas Center for Food Safety. Savin is a professor and head of the department of horticulture. 

This project was funded by an Arkansas Specialty Crop Block Research Grant (award no. AM180100XXXXG157), with additional support from the United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch project no. 102445.

To learn more about the Division of Agriculture research, visit the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station website. Follow us on X at @ArkAgResearch, subscribe to the Food, Farms and Forests podcast and sign up for our monthly newsletter, the Arkansas Agricultural Research Report. To learn more about the Division of Agriculture, visit uada.edu. Follow us on X at @AgInArk. To learn about extension programs in Arkansas, contact your local Cooperative Extension Service agent or visit uaex.uada.edu.

About the Division of Agriculture

The University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture’s mission is to strengthen agriculture, communities, and families by connecting trusted research to the adoption of best practices. Through the Agricultural Experiment Station and the Cooperative Extension Service, the Division of Agriculture conducts research and extension work within the nation’s historic land grant education system.

The Division of Agriculture is one of 20 entities within the University of Arkansas System. It has offices in all 75 counties in Arkansas and faculty on three system campuses.

Pursuant to 7 CFR § 15.3, the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture offers all its Extension and Research programs and services (including employment) without regard to race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, marital or veteran status, genetic information, sexual preference, pregnancy or any other legally protected status, and is an equal opportunity institution.

 

# # #

FOOD WASTE COMPOST —Tomato plants are seen in trays with pure food waste substrate, pure commercial peat moss-based potting mix, and blends of the two with varying ratios in a study to compare seedling germination, growth and nutrient uptake.

A University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture researcher takes a SPAD meter measurement of watermelon plants during a study on food waste as a substrate. A SPAD measurement offers a quick, non-destructive reading of a plant's leaf "greenness," which estimates its relative chlorophyll content, indicating plant health and nitrogen levels for optimizing fertilizer use in agriculture and research.

Credit

U of A System Division of Agriculture photo

---

Journal

HortTechnology

DOI

10.21273/HORTTECH05559-24 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Assessing Food Waste Compost as a Substrate Amendment for Tomato and Watermelon Seedlings

 

Why this little-known birth control option deserves more attention

University of California - San Francisco

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Self-administered injectable contraceptives have been available in the United States for more than two decades, yet a new study has found only about a quarter of reproductive health experts prescribe it — and many are unaware it’s even an option. 

Researchers surveyed 422 clinicians who regularly prescribe birth control and found that only about a third of those who were aware of the option prescribe it. The providers said they were concerned about their patients’ ability to self-inject, the medication’s availability at pharmacies, and the lack of standardized approaches to counseling and prescribing it.

The study is the first to document the barriers that prevent widespread adoption of self-administered injectable contraception. It was published Jan. 8 in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Since most physicians don't know that this is an option, patients don’t know about it,” said Jennifer Karlin, MD, PhD, a UCSF associate professor of Family and Community Medicine and the paper’s senior author. “It’s safe, effective, and puts the control in patients’ own hands. We should be talking about and offering it to patients without biases.”

Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) is an injectable form of progestin, which is a synthetic form of the natural hormone progesterone. The drug prevents pregnancy for up to three months by stopping ovulation, thickening cervical mucus, and thinning the uterine lining. 

DMPA is available in two injectable forms: an intramuscular injection, marketed under the name Depo Provera, that can only be administered by a provider, and one that is injected just under the skin. This subcutaneous version can be easily self-injected, like the now popular injectable GLP-1 weight-loss drugs.

The drug has been associated with potential side effects, such as reduced bone mineral density, weight gain, and a benign brain tumor called meningioma. While the overall risk of these side effects is low, it is important that clinicians discuss the risks and benefits with their patients.

The subcutaneous version, approved in 2004, is officially labeled for administration by a clinician, but doctors have been training patients to self-inject safely for many years. Self-injectable contraception is more commonly used globally, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. It became more widely used in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the study found more than half the prescribers surveyed learned about it between 2020 and 2022. 

Both international and national guidelines recommend making this option accessible to all patients, but the study found that providers in states with restricted abortion access were less likely to prescribe it. Other obstacles include insufficient educational materials, lack of staff support, and limited time for consulting with patients.

To make the option more widely available, the authors recommend an education campaign for clinicians about self-administration of injectable contraceptives. They also advocate for FDA approval of the version of the injectable that can be self-administered, as well as ensuring that insurance cover it and streamlining clinic workflows.

Authors: Additional authors include Chase Clark, of UC Davis; and An-Lin Cheung, PhD, and Laura Creason, MS, of the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Funding: The work was supported by a grant from the Society of Family Planning (SFPRF16). The authors had nothing to disclose. 

 

About UCSF: The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is exclusively focused on the health sciences and is dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care. UCSF Health, which serves as UCSF’s primary academic medical center, includes top-ranked specialty hospitals and other clinical programs, and has affiliations throughout the Bay Area. UCSF School of Medicine also has a regional campus in Fresno. Learn more at https://ucsf.edu or see our Fact Sheet.
 

###

Follow UCSF

ucsf.edu | Facebook.com/ucsf | Twitter.com/ucsf | YouTube.com/ucsf

 

 

 

---

Journal

Obstetrics and Gynecology

 

Study shows federal safety metric inappropriately penalizes hospitals for lifesaving stroke procedures

Researchers say findings highlight need for confidential physician wellness resources, treatment access

University of California - Los Angeles Health Sciences

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

A new UCLA study reveals that a widely used federal hospital safety metric is fundamentally flawed when applied to emergency stroke care, potentially creating incentives that may discourage hospitals from performing lifesaving procedures for the sickest patients.

The research, published in the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, examined Patient Safety Indicator 04 (PSI 04), a "failure-to-rescue" measure developed by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to track deaths following treatable complications in surgical patients. The study analyzed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample covering 73,580 stroke thrombectomy procedures between 2016-2019, along with detailed reviews of consecutive cases at UCLA.

While stating the metric is appropriate for elective procedures performed on relatively healthy patients, the study found the metric is inappropriate for endovascular thrombectomy, an emergency procedure to remove blood clots in stroke patients who are already gravely ill upon admission.

"This metric was designed to identify preventable deaths, but when applied to emergency stroke care, it's flagging unavoidable complications of severe strokes rather than problems with the procedure itself,” said Dr. Melissa Marie Reider-Demer, the study’s first author and UCLA Health DNP. "The unintended consequence is that hospitals providing excellent stroke care to the sickest patients may appear to have poor safety records."

PSI 04 is triggered when patients develop any of five complications after a procedure (pneumonia, blood clots, sepsis, shock/cardiac arrest, or gastrointestinal bleeding) and subsequently die in the hospital. The metric is used nationally for public reporting, hospital quality ratings and pay-for-performance programs by Medicare and influential organizations like the Leapfrog Group.

The UCLA team analyzed both national data and detailed case reviews to assess the metric's appropriateness for stroke care. Their findings included:

• PSI 04 occurred in 20.5% of stroke thrombectomy patients nationally, which is one to three orders of magnitude higher than all other 17 patient safety indicators (median: 0.10%)
• The rate for stroke procedures was far higher than the 14.3% rate for all surgical procedures combined
• Among the 18 federal patient safety indicators, PSI 04 for all procedures had by far the highest event rate, suggesting the metric may be fundamentally problematic

At UCLA's Comprehensive Stroke Center, researchers examined every thrombectomy case flagged by PSI 04 between 2016-2018. An expert panel of neurointerventionalists and neurologists reviewed each case and found:

• All patient deaths were related to complications of the severe presenting stroke, not the thrombectomy procedure
• EVT procedures accounted for 7.2% of neurosurgical PSI 04 flags despite representing only 1.5% of neurosurgical procedures
• Not a single case represented an actual preventable safety concern

The study authors found the metric is flawed for two key reasons when applied to stroke thrombectomy:

1. The complications it tracks are common consequences of severe strokes themselves, not the procedure. Patients arriving with massive strokes are at high risk for pneumonia, blood clots, and other complications regardless of treatment.
2. Stroke patients are already critically ill before the procedure, unlike patients undergoing elective surgeries. Even when complications arise, these gravely ill patients have far less resilience to survive them compared to relatively healthy surgical patients.

"We're essentially penalizing hospitals for trying to save patients who are already dying from stroke," Dr. Reider-Demer said. "These procedures give severely affected patients their only chance at survival or functional recovery, but the current metric makes it look like the hospitals are providing poor care."

Unintended Consequences

The researchers warn that inappropriate safety metrics can create harmful incentives. Previous research has shown that public reporting of surgical mortality rates led some heart surgeons to cherry-pick healthier patients to protect their performance ratings, limiting access for the sickest patients who need care most.

"There's a real concern that hospitals might be discouraged from performing thrombectomy on the most severe stroke patients, or that stroke centers with high volumes of critically ill patients could be unfairly penalized in quality ratings and reimbursement," said Dr. Jeffrey Saver, the study’s senior author and vice chair for Clinical Research and the Carol and James Collins Chair of the Department of Neurology at UCLA Health.

This issue has become more pressing as recent clinical trials have expanded thrombectomy to patients with even larger strokes, who have high mortality rates even with intervention though still lower than without it.

A Path Forward

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has proposed revising PSI 04 to exclude patients with acute conditions like stroke coded as the principal reason for admission, with implementation planned for fiscal year 2027.

In Dr. Saver’s view, the revision addresses important shortcomings.

"This revision makes sense from a clinical perspective," Dr. Saver said. "The current metric doesn't identify preventable events in stroke care and has the potential to mislead the public about hospital quality while creating incentives that could harm the sickest patients."

---

Journal

Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery

DOI

10.1136/jnis-2025-023727 

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Design limitations and unintended consequences of the AHRQ patient safety indicator for endovascular thrombectomy stroke care