Griffon against the realistic alternatives — on-site composting, dehydrators, and conventional collection — on what matters operationally and environmentally. Carbon footprint is one row; it is not the whole story.
*Processing/disposal footprint per University of Zagreb (2022): aerobic device (Griffon) and dehydrator are device-processing figures; landfill is the net lifecycle value for waste sent without gas capture. On-site treatment adds no collection transport; off-site routes add transport on top. The electric composter figure (≈165 kg CO₂/t) is computed from a representative commercial in-vessel unit (≈690 kWh/month, ~30 t/year) at the study’s 0.60 kg CO₂/kWh factor. Composting and anaerobic digestion can be net-negative on a full lifecycle basis thanks to resource-recovery credits — see the carbon section below and the full study. The notes 1–4 in the table are explained, with sources, in Methodology & sources below.
On-site composters and dehydrators reduce and hygienise food residues, but peer-reviewed work shows the material is typically biologically immature and not equivalent to finished compost: it needs further curing before use, and studies have detected phytotoxicity persisting even after several weeks of curing. Regulatory guidance likewise states that dried food residue is not compost and must be rehydrated and blended before it can be composted. Applied directly to edible crops, immature material can inhibit germination and damage plants, and it also engages food-safety obligations for the food business. The Griffon produces no solid material, so there is nothing to cure, store, or apply.
Sources: Science of the Total Environment (2020); BioCycle, “Electric Kitchen Composter Confusion” (2023); CalRecycle guidance.
Under EU law, catering and kitchen food residues are animal by-products (Category 3). Converting them into compost or digestate intended for application to land must take place in a facility approved under Regulation (EC) 1069/2009, using a validated process — not in an on-site kitchen appliance. In practice the output of an on-site machine is therefore still removed and, in most cases, handled as waste. The Griffon produces no solid output, so this land-application pathway does not arise.
Sources: Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 and Commission Regulation (EU) 142/2011; Croatian Pravilnik on animal by-products not intended for human consumption.
Each Griffon connects to the existing kitchen drain, which — like the dishwasher and every other appliance — runs to the building’s grease separator (EN 1825), the standard pre-treatment every commercial kitchen already has. Measured effluent is around 1700 mg/L COD, and below 500 mg/L after the grease separator — comparable to ordinary domestic wastewater. The enzymes and micro-organisms used in digestion continue to act downstream on fats, oils and grease, in the same way as documented grease-trap bioaugmentation, which peer-reviewed studies associate with lower fat/oil/grease deposition, fewer sewer-line blockages and reduced COD load to treatment plants. Across our installations to date we have recorded no wastewater problems, and on some sites an improvement in trap and drain-line condition was observed (field observation, not a controlled laboratory measurement).
Sources: peer-reviewed grease-trap bioaugmentation literature (e.g. Bioresource Technology; Journal of Environmental Sciences); Griffon effluent measurement and field experience.
The Griffon is driven by small, single-phase, continuous-duty motors — 0.18 kW on the GR-70/GR-150 up to 1.5 kW on the GR-1000 — with no high-power drying stage. At maximum rated throughput this is approximately 0.03–0.06 kWh per kilogram of food residues (nameplate rating — a conservative upper bound; actual draw is typically lower). This matches the University of Zagreb figure reached by a different route: 21.40 kg CO₂/t at the study’s 0.60 kg CO₂/kWh factor is about 0.036 kWh/kg. For context grounded in physics: any process that reduces mass by drying must supply the latent heat of vaporisation of water — on the order of 0.45–0.55 kWh per kilogram of food residues at typical 70–80% water content (standard steam tables), before any system losses. Because the Griffon discharges water as liquid rather than evaporating it, this dominant energy term does not apply. The composter (≈0.28 kWh/kg) and dehydrator (≈0.58 kWh/kg) values are derived from the CO₂ figures in the table at the same factor.
Sources: Griffon motor nameplate specifications; University of Zagreb, Faculty of Geotechnical Engineering (2022); standard steam tables (latent heat of vaporisation of water).
What we do not claim. We do not claim the Griffon is net carbon-negative or environmentally superior on a full lifecycle basis — composting and anaerobic digestion can be net-negative thanks to resource-recovery credits. Competitor electricity values are derived or modelled, not measured on a specific third-party device. Wastewater improvement is an operational observation, not a controlled measurement.
Short factual answers to the questions most often raised when comparing food-residue solutions for professional kitchens.
An aerobic digester breaks food residues down into a liquid that leaves through the existing drain, runs continuously and produces no solid output. A composter works in batch cycles and produces a solid material that is removed after each cycle and handled further. Griffon is installed in the kitchen or the room next to it, while composters normally require a separate room.
A dehydrator thermally dries food residues and reduces their mass; the result is a dried mass that still has to be collected. An aerobic digester breaks residues down biologically, with enzymatic hydrolysis and no heating stage. According to the 2022 University of Zagreb study, treating one tonne accounts for 21.40 kg CO₂ in an aerobic unit and 346.45 kg CO₂ in a dehydrator.
No. A disposer mechanically grinds food residues and sends solid particles into the drain, without biological breakdown. An aerobic digester decomposes the organic matter through a microbial and enzymatic process inside the machine. These are two different technologies with different effects on the sewer system.
In such systems food residues are ground and stored in a sealed tank, which — according to the manufacturers of these systems — a tanker empties typically every 4–6 weeks, taking the contents to a biogas plant. The process is hygienically closed and can be automated, but storage does not reduce the mass: the entire quantity, including the water that makes up most of it, is paid for in transport for the lifetime of the system, the tank occupies floor space, and operation depends on the schedule and price of external logistics.
An aerobic digester breaks the same mass down continuously at the point of origin — the liquid effluent leaves through the existing drain (confirm discharge conditions with your local water utility), so there is no stored mass, no emptying schedule and no recurring transport cost. Griffon's CO₂ emissions per tonne of treated residues were measured in the 2022 University of Zagreb study; figures for competing categories are quoted solely from their manufacturers' data.
No. The machine is installed in the kitchen or the room next to it and requires a standard kitchen drain and a power connection. GR-70 and GR-150 run on 0.18 kW single-phase, GR-250 on 0.55 kW, GR-500 on 0.75 kW and GR-1000 on 1.5 kW.
Griffon is engineered and manufactured in Croatia, inside the European Union, and has carried the CE mark since October 2021. Components are sourced predominantly within the EU. Most food-residue digesters on the European market are imported from North America or Asia and resold by local distributors.
Service is handled by the manufacturer, with in-country engineers across the markets where Griffon operates. Authorised partners cover Croatia, Serbia, Hungary, Switzerland, Germany and Austria, while France is served directly from Croatia. Consumables and replacement parts are held in EU stock, with no customs clearance for routine service.
Installed where the waste arises — restaurants, hotels, hospital and school kitchens — an aerobic device (Griffon) avoids the trucks and bins of conventional collection and keeps food waste out of landfill. On a like-for-like processing basis, treating one tonne emits 21.40 kg CO₂ with an aerobic device (Griffon) against 346.45 kg for a dehydrator — about 16× lower, and far below landfill (2,965 kg/t without gas capture; 791 kg/t with gas capture).
kg CO₂ eq. per tonne, processing basis. On-site treatment adds no transport; off-site routes add 0.20 kg CO₂ per km per tonne (study, within a ~60 km radius).
Send daily food-waste volume + operation type. We return the right model, savings and payback — or tell you honestly if Griffon is not the answer.
Specify your model →