FWIW: This year, we did an LNT version of the FBC method, by re-purposing the trash generated by each meal's packaging. In order practice water conservation (& per Philmont's Wilderness Pledge commitment for Conservation and proper use of water) and consequently reduce our environmental footprint. It also reduces our environmental footprint by avoiding unnecessary fossil fuel emissions from having to waste gas boiling water for clean-up.
In general this approach aligns very nicely with the patrol method: The crew works together as a team, the duty roster's cook pair does the set-up, boils water, sterilizes the eating utensils, oversees portion control and does clean up. With help from the cook pair, each Scout (each night) learns to cook (control the amount of water for re-hydrating and time required to re-hydrate) ... and with the cook pair as the unifying force, any lessons learned are quickly disseminated among the team.
All that, while aligning nicely into Philmont's Wilderness Pledge commitment for Conservation and proper use of water, it teaches conservation perspectives and offers participating in living lab to minimize their environmental food print both as an individual and as a team. Those conservation perspectives include the mitigating the waste of gas, time, and fossil fuel emissions that comes from the unnecessary boiling of water for clean-up. All and all, it produces a patrol method that is much more sustainable than Philmont's version of the patrol method.
Ok, here's the outline:
First, each meal is designed to feed two Scouts - those two Scouts became "food buddies"
For re-hydrating meals, one of the food buddies, would rehydrate their half of the meal utilizing the bag the meal came in, and the other food buddy would rehydrate their half utilizing large LLDPE bag that organized every thing (entree, snacks, dessert & "electrolyte mix" (i.e. sugar water :-).
IMPORTANT: All of this was done in bowls (re-purposed/recycled bowls, of course - given our reduced environmental impact approach ) in case a leak ever developed in the bags being utilized (none did). The bags only acted as "bowl liners" NOT as cooking vessels. The packaging bags (depending on the size) tended to not reach over the outer edges of the bowl, and thus the bowl was more of a containment/support vessel those bags. But the LLDPE bag in particular nicely lined the bowl and reached over the bowls' outer edges no problem. BTW, the giant graphic transfer on the LLDPE bag IDing the meal, was kept on the non-use side of the bag (obviously, or maybe not so obviously).
So, in summary to reduce our environmental footprint: This method re-purposed the existing packaging trash, conserved fuel, time, and precious water resources (no wasted water from dish washing), avoided smelling up the sump with grey water, and of course, bottom line - did not generate additional trash (... did I already mention that? ;-)
For those couple of Scouts that were ravenous eaters, this approach also allowed them to double up on various dinners (with minimum hassle to the rest of the crew) by utilizing the culinary treasures they found in the swap boxes.
The swap boxes also offered alternative entree selections to be prepared by those more "picky eaters" ... and by utilizing this method, those alternative meals were prepared with minimum hassle & disruption.
Final Notes on environmental footprint: With this method, one would think that because LLDPE bags used to rehydrate would be presumably dirty, there would be 1/3 less LLDPE bags to "feed the snake" collection points(which one would hope, ultimately be recycled as filler into composite lumber - the biggest application user of such bags) ... but that was NOT the case because when the camp's staff saw how "clean" they were (our Scouts were hungry and didn't leave much, if any, food in them), the camp staff strongly encouraged us to to "feed the snake" with them anyway.
(BTW, the giant graphic transfer on all of the LLDPE bags can be considered a form of contamination in terms of recycling, but that's a post for another thread)
It should also be noted that with each meal there would be one or two LLDPE bags that weren't scrapped clean of food generated by less than hungry enough (i.e. the meal didn't appeal to them) Scouts ... those bags were utilized as the collection trash bag for all of the rest of the trash generated by the crew's meals. We considered this aspect an environmental foot print "wash" with the prevailing method because in the staff camps' trash cans we saw that all of the crews utilized the LLDPE bags as collection trash bags ... and in addition, the amount of food residue left over (from what we saw), looked to be approximately the same as the amount of food residue left over from the prevailing Philmont method (i.e. that residue collected from the left overs in the frisbee strainer, that couldn't be washed down the sump (& shouldn't be left on the sump screen) ... since the prevailing method does washing & rinsing (and hence does not conserve precious water resources - unfortunately), this end result on the small amount of residue left over may surprise some: we had conversations with other crews who expressed curiosity about this approach and some were surprised that the rinsing cycle (for the bags, not for the cooking pots and eating bowls) was not needed ... those folks could easily see that it eliminated the washing cycle, but a few did not readily realize it could completely eliminate the rinsing cycling too.
Edit / Editorial Comment: From my perspective, in terms of trash smellables, the residue from the dinners (regardless of cooking method) were not the most significant smellable produced from meals or for that matter the bulkiest - the most significant was the "sickly combination" of smells from the sugary, spicy chip snacks & with the over-the-top fruity smells from candy bars (Honey Stingers, etc), along with the various bag snacks (Corn-nuts, etc) & and the electrolyte mixes (fruit favoring, etc) were more pronounced in trash bag smells & bulk.