## 5 Conclusions  
Feeding recycled food waste-based diets is effective to improve laying performance, nutrient digestibility and bone mineralization in laying hens. The findings of the current study demonstrate that hens offered the food waste-based diets had higher digestibility for energy and various minerals, resulting in increased bone ash and mineral levels compared to the control group. This would be advantageous for egg production and hen health during the late laying period when the hen's physiological conditions and bone mineralization status worsen. Furthermore, the current findings showed that feeding food waste-based diets improved feed efficiency by 10.3% without compromising egg production compared to the control diets, while the 50:50 blend treatment showed intermediate effects over 40 weeks of the study. Thus, using the food waste-based diets would be more advantageous to reduce the feed cost, improve production efficiency, and reduce environmental impacts from the poultry production compared to the 50:50 blend diets. However, the inclusion of recycled food waste materials at 50% or less is still beneficial for poultry producers who may want to replace a part of their commercial diet with the food waste diet to reduce the feed cost. Removal or reducing dietary inclusion rates of food waste streams with high Na, P, and Cr content would improve the mineral profile of the food waste-based diets, leading to further improvements in laying hens' performance and nutrient digestibility. Furthermore, determination of digestible values and development of near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIR) calibration for rapid nutrient analysis of food waste materials, as well as determination of the economic benefits of food waste-based diets, may help to expand the industry adoption on this feed. Conceptualization, A.F.M., H.T.D., R.A.S. and N.K.S. ; methodology, A.F.M., H.T.D., R.A.S., N.K.S., R.B. and E.K. ; software, A.F.M., H.T.D., R.A.S., N.K.S., R.B. and E.K. ; validation, A.F.M., H.T.D., R.A.S., N.K.S., R.B. and E.K. ; formal analysis, H.T.D., A.F.M., R.B. and E.K. ; investigation, H.T.D., A.F.M., R.A.S., N.K.S., R.B. and E.K. ; resources, A.F.M. and H.T.D. ; data curation, A.F.M., H.T.D., R.A.S., N.K.S., R.B. and E.K. ; writing--original draft preparation, H.T.D. ; writing--review and editing, A.F.M., H.T.D., R.A.S., N.K.S., R.B. and E.K. ; visualization, H.T.D. ; supervision, A.F.M., R.A.S. and N.K.S. ; project administration, A.F.M. and H.T.D. ; funding acquisition, A.F.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research was funded by Food Recycle Ltd. and Poultry Hub Australia (grant number: Moss--Food Recycle 208). The Animal Ethics Committee of the University of New England approved all the experimental design and procedures (approval number: AEC 20-042), and the experimental procedures met the requirements of the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Not applicable. **Data Availability Statement:** The research data that support this study will be shared upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. **Acknowledgments:** We would like to thank to all postgraduate students and staff of the Centre for Animal Research and Teaching for their help during the experimental period and sample collection. We also would like to thank the technicians at the University of New England--[PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON]--for their help during the laboratory analysis. **Conflicts of Interest:** Author [PERSON] is employed by the Ridley AgriProducts Pty Ltd. The remaining 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.