<h2>Abstract</h2> Recycled food waste (FW) may provide a nutritious, alternate feed for swine. However, the high water content of FW makes it difficult to manage, suggesting that a dry, processed product may be more suitable. Pigs will readily consume wet FW, but little research has addressed the use of dried or processed FW as animal feed. The preference and digestibility of a dry FW product were determined in two research trials. The preference trial measured food intake and growth rates during a 14-d adaptation phase and an 8-d choice phase. Barrows (n = 20; 26.3 ± 1.3 kg) were adapted to either a corn and soybean meal (CS) or FW diet for 14 d. Both diets in this and the following experiment were fed in a meal form. During this adaptation phase, pigs fed CS ate more than the FW group (CS, 2.92 kg/d; FW, 2.39 kg/d; P<0.05), and also grew faster than the FW group (CS, 0.66 kg/d; FW, 0.43 kg/d; P<0.001). During the following 8-d phase, all pigs were offered both diets for 1h (1300 to1400 h) to determine preference. From 1400 to 1130h of the following day, pigs received their usual diet. During the 1-h choice period, all pigs preferred the CS diet over the FW; the pigs fed FW originally consumed significantly more CS than did the pigs fed CS originally (CS-CS, 0.43 kg; CS-FW, 0.13 kg; FW-CS, 0.86 kg, FW-FW, 0.10 kg/d; SEM=0.16 g). During the nonchoice time (21.5 h/d), pigs assigned to the CS group consumed significantly more feed than did the pigs assigned to the FW diet (CS, 3.37 kg/d; FW, 2.36 kg/d; P=0.02). During this 8-d phase, both groups of pigs grew at the same rates (CS, 1.08 kg/d; FW, 0.99 kg/d; P=0.23); this was probably due to the increased intake by the pigs assigned to the FW group during the preference period. Digestibility was determined using six barrows (29.5 ± 3.3 kg) in an experiment consisting of a 13-d adaptation and a 5-d collection. Dry matter and ADF digestibilities were significantly higher in pigs assigned to the CS diet, but there were no differences in either CP or EE (fat) digestibility. These data suggest that, when diets were formulated for protein and not amino acids, pigs given a choice prefer a standard CS diet to the dry FW product used in this study. Confounding was evident because of the low levels of lysine in both treatment groups, especially the FW treatment (lysine: FW=0.65%, CS=0.82%). Data also showed that when pigs assigned to the FW diet were offered CS for only 1 h/d, they grew at rates similar to the pigs assigned to the CS diet, suggesting that FW supplemented with some CS would be an adequate diet for growing pigs.