'A ;u 2 foM! UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Bureau of Agricultural Economics U^ FOOD WASTE MATERIALS A SURVEY OF URBAN GARBAGE PRODUCTION, COLLECTION, AND UTILIZATION By Walter H. Stolting Junior Agricultural Economist Washington, D. C. September 1941 G v a J ,itude is expressed to all those city officials whose replies to the questionnaire shown herein, made this work r-s^ible. The author also wishes to thank C. A. Burmeister and R. 0. Been for many suggestions and to acknowledge indebt- jss to George E. Keon and Charles H. Meyer who edited re- plies to the questionnaire and assembled the data upon wl. this report is based. FOOD WASTE MATERIA LS A Survey, of Urban Garbage Production, Collection, and Utilization By Walter H. Stolting, Junior Agricultural Economist CONTENTS • PAGE The farmer's interest in food wastes 1 Flan of survey . 2 Regional summaries of garbage production, collection, and disposal - 193^-40 - for 247 reporting citiss, each with population of 25,000 or more persons 3 Present utilization of garbage for hog feeding 7 Estimates of total urban garbage output 8 Effective limits on garbage feeding of hogs 8 Problems associated with effective use of garbage lU Summary l6 T he Farmer's Interest in Food, Wastes Wastes in the marketing and home consumption of perishable farm products reach an enormous total each year. The wastes in the marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables alone would amount to several hundred million dollars a year if valued at retail prices. These wastes restrict the diets of consumers and increase the spread of marketing costs between farmers and consumers, obliging consumers to pay more at retail and return- ing lower prices to producers. There are two means of reducing these losses. The first is to reduce waste in marketing and in the homes; the second is to utilize the waste materials to the best advantage. The purpose of the survey here reported was to ascertain the quantities of waste food materials represented in the production of urban garbage and to ascertain for several geographic areas the way in which these materials were utilized or disposed of. The chief methods of disposal include hog feeding, reduction to reclaim grease, incineration, use as land fill, and burial. This report makes no recommendations as to what disposal methods are most economic for this will obviously depend upon circumstances within the locality concerned. The facts presented here merely indicate total volume of production and its division into several uses. Producers of hogs and growers of corn and other feeds have been fear- ful of the potential threat in competition from garbage feeding of hogs. According to the analysis and estimates shown in this report this is largely a bugaboo. They indicate that under the most favorable circumstances the full utilization of all urban garbage in hog feeding could not add so much as 2 percent to the United States production of pork and lard. Plan of the Survey The survey was conducted by means of a questionnaire (fig. 1) which was mailed to the proper administrative authority of each of the 412 cities containing a population of 25 , 000 or more. A somewhat similar survey was made by the United States Food Administration in the last World War, (during late 1917 and early 1918) and the information obtained in that survey was helpful in formulating administrative policies relating to food production. Replies' to the questionnaire were received during December 1940 and the first few months of this year from 247, or 60 percent, of the 412 cities to which it was sent. Regions from which the percentage of returns was relatively high were the North Central and the Mountain and Pacific States. Those from which the proportion of returns was lowest (about 50 percent) were New England and the East South Central States. The; smallest proportion of returns was from Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi, and, in consequence, the data presented herein for the two regions in which these States are located may not be truly representative of those regions. For the country as a whole the data, based on all the reports received, appear to be rather reliable. Regional Summaries of Ga rba ge Product ion, _ Collection, and Disposal ^ 1939-40 r_l pr_ 2 47 Repo r t in/? Cit ies, E ach with Po pulation of 25,000 or More Pers o n s As this survey was confined to cities having a population of 25,000 and over, the proportion that this population group represents of the total population of the United States is of interest in appraising the information obtained. The Bureau of Census reports show the total United States popula- tion at the time of the 1940 enumeration to number approximately 131,669,000 in habitants of whicixnearly 74,424,0^0. or 69. 2 percent, were classified as living in urban areas. 1/ The population of the 412 cities of 25,000 and over numbered approximately 52,749,000, and represents 40 percent of all the population. Table 1 shows the regional distribution of this city popula- tion group, both with respect to the 247 cities which returned the 1/ An urban area is defined by the Bureau of the Census as an incorporated place having a population of 2,500 or more, and townships having a total population of 10,000 or more and a population density cf 1,000 or more per square mil*. . Figure I Bureau of .Agricultural Economics Food Waste Survey Division of Marketing and Transportation Research Period covered I From To (1) (a) How much garbage was produced by all sources in your city during above period tons. (b) How much of this was: Vegetable garbage tons. .Animal garbage tons. Total tons. (2) (a) How much of this /iroduction was collected by the city! tons. (b) How much of this was: Vegetable garbage tons. Animal garbage tons. To tal tons . (3) The remainder was collected by whom? Type of collector Amount How disp o sed of Pig-feeder tons Other (specify) tons tons (U) How is the garbago collected by your city disposed of? Method .Amount Incineration tons. Reduction tons. Burial tons. Hog.feeding tons - Other tons. (5) Do y° u have a mixed collection s -stem? If so, please describe it (6) Do you have an effective local ordinance prohibiting the inclusion of glass, crockery, metal, etc., with garbage? (7) If a demand for garbage should develop from pig feeders in your vicinity could your garbage collections be made available to them. Y3S _ NO (Check) If not what would be the chief difficulties in the way of using your collections for pig-feeding. - U - Table 1.- Population distributions in the United States and of cities included in survey 1/ Group or region Total United States All rural All urban Cities 25,000 and over All cities and towns of 2,500 to 25,000.. Region: New England Middle Atlantic . . East North Central West North Central South Atlantic . . . East South Central '.Vest South Central Mountain Pacific Total Total population Population of cities and towns 25.000 and ove r Total 247 cities: 165 cities reporting : not on survey : reporting 131,669,275 57,245,573 74.423.702 52, 74S, 999 21,674,703 4,640 16,093 13,112 3.661 4,616 1,691 3,037 835 4,858 ,655 ,985 ,140 ,503 ,676 ,962 .603 .390 2,949,279 13,379,457 11,385,328 2,719,312 3,291,785 1,110,694 1,836,909 563,413 4,340,648 1,691,376 2,714,528 1,726,812 942,191 1,324,891 781,268 1,200,974 252,392 517,742 52,746,999 41,596,525 11,152,174 1/ U. S. Census Reports 1940. - 5 - questionnaire sent to them and the 165 that failed to report. The cities reporting comprised 60 percent of all the cities in the group surveyed and they represented 79 percent of the total population in that group. Table 2 summarizes the data obtained from the 247 cities relative to the amount of garbage collected in each region and its disposal. For the entire group xhe yearly average collection per capita amounted to approxi- mately 302 pounds, of which 80,9 percent was reported as collected by the cities, 11*5 percent by hog feeders, and 7.6 percent by others. There is a rather wide range in the quantities collected as between regions. In Nun England and in the Mountain States the quantity per capita was only slightly above 240 pounds, whereas in the South Atlantic and East South Central States it ranged from 373 to 384 pounds. The high production in the South probably reflects the more extensive use of certain vegetable products which are highly productive of waste when used for human consumption.. The longer growing season and proximity to producing areas in the South makes these products available over a longer period of the year than in other areas. Regions in which the cities collect a relatively high proportion of the garbage output include the Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, South Central, and East North Central States. In these four regions the cities reporting collected from 86 to nearly 89 percent of the total. In the Mountain Status their collections amounted to only about 36 percent of the output and in New England only about 47 percent. In these two regions hog feeders collected relatively large proportions - nearly 64 percent in the Mountain States and about 46 percent in New England. Collections by other groups were of significant volume only in the South Atlantic States, and in this region the amount was only 22 percent of the total. Mention was -made that approximately 81 percent of the total garbage production reported by the 247 cities was collected oy the cities. These cities reported that 50 percent of the quantity they collected was disposed of by incineration, 27.8 percent by burial, 18.5 percent as feed for hogs, 3.5 percent through reduction plants, and 0.2 percent by other means. The extent to which these methods of disposal are used vary greatly by regions. Incineration is used most extensively in the Middle Atlantic States and in the South. In- New England and in the Pacific and West North Central the proportion incinerated is very small. New England is the only area in which any significant proportion of the garbage collected by the cities is disposed of by reduction and in that area this quantity represents 20 percent of the total. Disposal by burial is carried on most extensively in the East North Central States where nearly 49 percent was reported as handled in this way. Other regions using this method to a considerable extent are the East South Central States and the Middle Atlantic States, the proportions so disposed of representing one-third and one-fourth of their collections, respectively. The cities in the Mountain Status and in the South Atlantic and West North Central groups reported using this method only to a limited degree. d u 3 03 xX CM U O » d o 0) •H fl -p o o a) rH rH O O „ •a o •rH P g d •d o U ft a> t»n cd £> Pi cd cjj l CM Qi t-{ rQ cd EH rH cd W'd -p o a> o ^

•• rH W) O a 1 -H BB 'tfld CP o a) \ •H U3 CD 9 P a SB CD p r H X! d -p -d o o a-' H -p bj «• *■ C) to c f-f P H o 1 rH si Md +3 O CD o e - 6 - xX IT\ lt> m CMV£> UD J" k^ r — LT\ CM to o VJD CT» XX o r-t LT\ O xX to r— 1 to a> CM 1 ^t rH CM t-\ • • o o rH f~- rH xt J=X m • J* CM ro m CO CM VJD CM d d *0 CM I en to r— cm I .=1- -=!■ O CO CM 1 co v.o r-vjD rH 1 O VJD "O CM XX CM • • o o cr> cm XX CM o cr. J" v.D irv cr-. m o xX O CO VJD r<-> LO a\ cm ViDvjD C~\ r-\ J" to CM VJD O Xt CO rH rH CO VJD rH 1 r— i — v£) CM r~\ O LT\VJD cn cm r^\ to r-i ir\ to XX r-\ m CM OJVJD CM CO rH HO mv.0 VJD CM r-i r-\ to cr> CM CO rH o rH rH OMT\ VjD CM CM to v\xX xx r^ rH rH VJD CM O-XX O CM 1 rH CM CM r-t to r>- «J3 CM IjP\ q • • CM O CM CM CM CT> • • T*~\XX rH O CM VJD CM 1 12.2 3-7 l l 1 1 • • CO r^i VJD VJD CM m xX O CO CM rOVJD r*- to O O^ r<^ O VJD IT\ CM O to r*- LOCO CO VJD rH CO Q o xX VJD CT\ rH cn o cm r»- CM CTvVJD CM O LTWJ3 rH xX o t—xX CM O CM LTV r-t 0> rH f^i XX rH r---=r xx r- r-1 (J\ VJD r^ CM CTi r-- cm to VJD rH O r^ rH CX>VJD o to CM r-\ ir\ CM XX r-{ CO CM r^to CM CM O VJD CM cm r — CM mvo r-\ CM CM O CM CM CO CM \r\ cm lT\xX CM LT\ VJD m CO IT\ O lp» rl^ rH mco CM Lnto CM m to XX r-\ vjd r— CM to CM CM J" it^vjd <-\ to xX XX r-< ITS LT> O LTi CO o> x~~xX r-i r-i mCTv xX ro r~-vjD CM LP> v£) CT> CMV.CD rH rH CO r—to CM r-co CM r-4 t^\ to h- CM CO r-H IT\ CM J- CO CM co r^v C^ CM VJD VJD XX o xx to CM rH O CM O xf O VJD O m o cr»o LP\ O rH O \T\ O CM O CM O xx o CM r-i VJD O o o rH O r— O XX o CM r-i r^\rH to o m r-{ LPv O CO O CM rH rH O .n- o CM r-\ O O CM r^ CM O O O r^rH -p 03 S •T^ CD a o O a (13 5« -p CD rH d d -p 03 C d Q> §8 o co PH Pn rH cd Pi -P r* o o Jd -p u o BB -d 4J G o rl O OJ PH rV| cd in -p C! (U o -p o 03 d o -p CI o o rl a P-i Ph 03 cd -p co o O •H P P P O CO -p CO ti tj C3 d o p »- o Ph Ph cd rl P d CD o .d -p d o CO CO cd -p 03 C 03 O rl O d o fL| Ph +3 to a d C3 d o d r* o o Pi Ph CO d d P o Pi P-. rH cd u -p c o o X! -p d o CO ■p 03 CD O 2 o ^H «M •H o cd P< CO d cd -p c Eh - 7 - Garbage collected by the cities is used most extensively for hog- feeding in the Pacific and West North Central States where more than 80 percent of the total is so used. Cities in New England and in the Mountain States also reported a relatively large proportion of city-coll^ctod garbage being used for hog feeding, - 60 percent in the latter area and 62 percent in the former. Regions in which cities reported very small proportions of city-collected garbage used for hog feeding are the Middle Atlantic and East South Central States. Present Utilisation for Hog Fee d ing Combining the proportions of city-collected garbage, used for hog feeding with the proportions of the total supply collected by hog feeders and, assuuun a t.iat the combination indicates the approximate quantity of the entire supply used for hog feeding, the conclusion is reached that about 26.5 percent of the garbage produced in the 247 cities reporting is disposed of as hog feed. The variation by regions, however, Is very ^reat. In the Mountain States nearly 85 percent of the total garbage output of the cities reporting is used for hog feeding. In the West North Central Status the proportion so used reaches 77 percent; in New England it is about 75 percent; and in the Pacific group it is about 66 percent. In the East Sout« Central States unly sli^tl.- more than 2 percent of the output is reported as being used for h^g feeding and in the Middle Atlantic States about 9 percent is so used. In the East Norxn Central St axes the proportion is 15.6 percent and in the South Atlantic and West Soutu Central States 24 and 28 percent, respectively. It will be noted that in four regions the proportion of the garbage output used for hog feeding is now relatively large. In only one of these regions - the West North Central group of States - is hog production a major enterprise in its agricultural system and in this region corn is the principal feed used for fattening hogs. Regions in which greater utilization of garbage for the feeding of hogs appears to be possible, from the standpoint of present methods of their garbage disposal, are the South and the Middle Atlantic and East North Central States. Climatic conditions and excessive losses from swine diseases may limit this use in the South. Moisture and high temperatures hasten decomposition of organic materials and thus would make garbage feeding more difficult and also more objectionable to a community than is true where conditions are less unfavorable. The risk of death loss from cholera is always great, in feeding garbage, unless hogs are immunized, and immunization treatments arc used less commonly in the South than in other regions, and this in itself may tend to restrict garbage feeding there, The Middle Atlantic region in some respects is somewhat like New England, yet only about 9 percent of its garbage output, as indicated by the reports received, is used for hog feeding, as contrasted with 75 percent in New England. Information obtained from other sources indicates that this figure of 9 percent probably is slightly smaller than the actual amount because considerable feeding of garbage is done in northern New Jersey with waste material obtained from hotels and restaurants. This garbage is collected by the feeders and apparently was not included in the reports furnished by the cities. - 8 - In addition to this northern New Jersey area the feeding of garbage in the Middle Atlantic region is concentrated again In a few counties of southern New Jersey and the wastes used there apparently are obtained 1 irgely from the Philadelphia area. Feeding is done to a limited extent in scattered localities throughout Pennsylvania and New York State . Most of the gurbage from the large metropolitan area of New York City and in cities of northern New Jersey, that is collected by the cities, is either incinerated or used for land fill. In the East North Central States hog production is already an important enterprise but is associated primarily with corn product' on. As only about 16 percent of the garbage output of the cities in that region is being used for hog feeding, possibilities are indicated of some expansion in garbage feeding there. At present, most of the garbage is being disposed of by burial and incineration. Except where burial Inoreases the fertility of the land no economic return is obtained from either of these methods of disposal. The situation regarding garbage production, collection, and disposal in the 10 largest cities of the United States is shown in table 3. A relatively large proportion of the urban production is concentrated in these limited areas. Similar information is available for many other urban centers upon request. In addition, some information on attitudes of local authorities toward making garbage available for feeding can also be obtained. The records are too voluminous to be published here but informatior will be made available through communication with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Estimates of Total Urban Garbage Output Table 4 shows by regions the estimated production of garbage in all the cities of 25,000 population and over, and its utilization. Figjre 2 shows the regional production graphically and figure 3 shows the quantity of collections and disposal. These estimates are based on the per capita averages of the 247 reporting cities which were given in table 2. The degree of error in these estimates depends on the extent to which the smaller cities differ from the larger cities in their production and utili- zation of garbage on a per capita basis. The proportion of the larger cities that reported and that are included in table 2 is somewhat greater than the proportion of smaller cities. As the estimates in table 3 a re based on the data in table 2, they are weighted disproportionately in the same way. Any tendency either to over-or to under- estimate cannot bulk large in the final figures because the population in the nonre;:orting cities is small in relation to the total (11 million out of 52 million). Effective Limits on Garbage Feedin,? of Hogs The estimates of the quantities of garbagE used for hog feeding in each region (table 3) ..re supported by data obtained from a survey made by the Bureau early in 1940, to ascertain the number of hogs that are currently fed garbage. ^J This survey was made in cooperation with the 2/ Extent of Garbage Feeding of Hogs. United States Department 6f Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, June 194-C (Processed) xi CD -m u o p. CO" r-Tl (T\ CO K> CD rH CD 4-3 p CO H co •H CD -d ,P §.J P O •H 4-3 O CD CO CD •H 4-3 •H O 4-3 CO CD CD rP 4^> P rH O •H O 4^ rH O O P Ph P o tn ■e i CD 1 • 9 - CO P TH CO 1 O rH rH CD O p Q V£> o a> X) ,P -P o C3> >> +J -M rH 1 - CD O CD S oj vd X5 rH :i0 ,a •H CO OJ o OJ P hQxi d t. CO o a; o -/ rH VT\ W) ffl CD Eh CT\ X> LO c+h rH OJ xi CD 4-3 QVJD •H i to cn a> CO o o id P 1 rH o> g o o m ft » ■. - » ■> CO a o P 1A HCTi OW O r— •H •H M O 3 O rH r-\ r-\ -J- CP» OJ rH CO P CO r^\ J- vO 3; b CD P l*~\ VD U^ In r<3 ,P o * - -M EH ro oj n a> CD +3 o O r^ OJ OJ CO O CO 1 — o CO Sh -»~, o o o r— r-- ojl r— Qj=t o^^~\ ^O rH CD CO d- rH ufl'P P - m 9. - O O CD o J" O^O OJ LO» OJ O ffl CD *H iTi OJ HLO LT\ 0 OJ id CD zt +J CO O CD CO p o r— vd inowcTiLnoHO O^ CD >j.H HPP k-\^D rH rH J" QJ r— ro LX> ai zj- j- a>o^o covd no 1 — ■ CO rH -H Nn HHH rH rO O O »■ o CO r-i Oj' tl CO cd 4-3 xi CO OJ r^UD 1-OrHr— VD rH r^\ OJrHO:tCOCOcrNO^C3>rH 1 p -H d CD P. H, rorviajajojcvjHHOjro -d Ph «j o o CJ (In p p. O O (\l O r-NH Q O O r-OCMOUD LTNXAO rH O [>v_ LT\ a> cn ¥ <-{ CO a p (MvDCPiO HC\JM WHO a^ rO ±1 o CTi i o EH OJ K^rH OJ OJ rH tH rH VjD t5 rH OJ p lX\CO,rt OJ r— X) O COX) CP> 'XN o CTnO r^io>r — nOJ rH lo OJ 4J O CD J M CD Cn CO KVd" OJ rO rH O CO vD CO P J- X) rH roJ" CO CT\MD O rH fi rH ai •H M P. rH Tj CD CO QUO rH ^ rH CD p iH -H S-i rl O (|) +3 JJ) J) O ^ P «J 4J O <4) >-'Cacoo 4^> 4-3-5 O & -H .H +3 CO CD rH • CO 4-5 CD ^i ,p 0) O H iii P O -H 8 o ci, p H-1 o ffl w cq i^ p o 4-> CO O pq •■d § CD P • 05 CO CO O^ TJ rH P O O a) p p o rP C73 4-3 CO p C(J CD >s -d P o rH id o >n o cm o -O CO H- CD CTv m r-l rH Cd CD CtD - co p CO O rP P o cm O tH n in O o p o 4-3 CD P P " D P o 4-3 CO ■PCTiO P--K»cq CD Cn O rH CD - O rH^J- a> >jh r-^ rH C^^ p - rH '-D rH CO -Tf ^4 O H M CD cd CD ,-P O S3 ■p p CD o o 4-3 PhS P o «m o> CD ro P CP> cd <-{ P CO - OTJH «m ^4 O rH CO O -H xi CD m P rH Ph o •H fciO 4-3 o p CO p CD *& •j CD Cm mjO O & CO p o •H 4-3 o CD o o - rH ~ CD d m o o •H a -U C) u 3 o TJ O C M p. 8 CD ir> tf CM s CH m o I) co d -d o a> •H ■+J 4-3 cd cd •H ^ 4-3 ft CO o H ft J-" Q) rH A cd tH U Q rH CO rH o CD Q CO o d rH rd II 1 1 1 1 4^> - o CD o rH 4-3 O OJ r— 60 60 0) OJ CM O co ca loco j owj- o $ 4-3 UD-n 8 2 CM o o -rt rH rH OJ rH 1 rH 1*^* CM Q ffi o - o » rH o rH 4-3 rH rH cm o o rH co 9 O r — i — r — co O A cd r^ cr> CD CD ■H 8 2 - o CM LOCO CM LO crvzr LO t-\ aps i LOCO 1 r— ,0 -H PQ rH -U rH 'lO CD i jd y ti Q cm r~-o co '-O O J" CM vX> » CD +3 - O •a* co O Mh rH -U i d ft d o o OOHHCTirHHJ-K) CO co • H -H O CO CM CT\rH f*-"\CM CO K^rH rH OJ •H o u O d J- I-— LOrH OJ OJ P d « - o * - r~« M rH 4J rH ro 0) j- cu r— co cr* O vo rH oj o-\ >i CO M rQ O, CD O CO J CO CM r*-vd" Mn LO O d rd O d rH rH ^O t3 o -M - o CD in o rH 4-3 -m QJD O OJ co 0^_^^ sr '.O O CD CO CD rH CD O"^. ro rH A 00 CD O co <5 d LO O +J o t3 CM ru rH G^ O O td ca CD cm - o rH v> ■d CD -1-3 tO O CO rH H^D^O l -D CJV.O r-l CM O CD cd co i — r^LOr — i^r^rH O CD >»-H o d cj rH i — ni — oj ro A J" HPP - o » m - rH -H |rH <-3 OJ rH ^O O O O o 8 2 cD 3) d LO CO j- o r — CD toocn C^ o ■H Bj vD CTiH LOCO CP» CO CO r^ O^ 4J j O rOCM rHCO rH 1 lTNCO CO •li A A CTirHvO r-^ O^ror-^iO A £ B cDOrH^OcOCOOCOCO r-- ■■ •» m *» «■ *■ • •> V ft a J-^Oro ro.^ Hn J" CM o rH H LO Pn rH rH rH rH cd cd cd cd M >H J-t M O 4-3 -M 4-3 -M •h c! C O d C +J CD CD -H a) CD d o o 40 o o d 3 d d rH x: x! a jz! ^ C3 *-3 4-3 +3 ,_) +3 -t-3 d o rH 1 tt r-l A -U Cm C5-I-34-34-3+34-3 Cj-H o CD EH CO gibcocodwcodo CD -H >.o CD O CO CD O 10 11 ^Y JJ'/^ K V (3 J\. o z 1^ o c ■ 1 \ c_ " u^"*^^ ^m « H '"-— > W if> r >f < a. O u> \ 2^ ^L 1--' v. f^w a. O III ^K \P K - a \ ^ m m^ ^ X i CO O O 5 z -I 1 ** VH ^v * iS Nil {• \ £ 0) ^ff L " tt k\ OD m Ul or — < In \- UJ (>/ tn R X e- -J o a in t- l- ?■ ,in^ u UJ >- .^/^/ i- _i i xa. < 1 O a I '£■ i — X'"v» (O cn 3 « L ^~ III Q Q ^ N S UJ CO l\ ^"^ i (Q H z z o z UJ X &tn ^ — a: c ^ V 1- _i o \ z o > m 1 o < m^m\ H L X 1- - j f to z o 1- ( Z #!% H of O Q A V jj UJ u u UJ Z 1- flB 3D S rr ID Q > O St ^J n • o a s t J q: a. z < f UJ iNN t- < CO 0; o / o / q / in / / o < CM / U_ / O / o Q; — 5 "* ^ 5 s Y> ^ -^ ^i z. s * u Ul Q UJ t- < / z / Z / ^ o 1 • / o ^ ^ W * Uj W O l) o d 2 1-. Ul o a: s 2 UJ o =1/1 to K / o o" / o / r^ — -j : m w «: S; 5 Q 1- ■>( -J ^r >- * 2 ^ S3? / -1*0- r s uj ^ g Ul Ul 10 -^ o t~ Q 0^ / " > m 1 *- & K ° ^fci * J ' ■ o / *•' / >r> I to / /t 1 9 ^ ^ Q iu 5 O h- [y S 5 ° S £ Q m ? * E 2 B? Yith Effective Use Effective utilization of garbage production involves many problems pertaining to economics, technological processes, sanitation, and municipal management. At times the interests of the various groups who deal with these problems are similar but at other times they are in direct conflict or they overlap to such an extent as to hinder the most effective accomplish- ments in disposal and utilization of garbage. Cooperative effort, therefore, is necessary if complete wastes are to be avoided. Some of the chief problems and phases that receive the attention of the different groups may be summarized briefly as .follows: Public-health officials are perhaps the most deeply concerned with garbage disposal at the present time. They have shown now the incidence of the disease, trichinosis, is much higher in garbage-fed hogs than hogs which are fed on other rations. This fact emphasizes forcibly the need of keeping the public informed regarding the danger of eating uncooked pork. Pork from all hogs, regardless of the feed used, may contain the trichinae parasite but studies made by the Bureau of Animal Industry shew that this parasite is destroyed when subjeoted to a temperature of 137 F. 4/ It is also destroyed when pork containing it is subjected to extremely low temperatures or to oertain curing methods commonly used by most processors. To insure absolute protection from the danger of acquiring trichinosis, consumers should avoid eating uncooked or improperly cooked pork in any form, whether fresh or cured. Animal husbandry specialists at virions tim^s have been interested in testing the feeding value cf garbage and the best methods of handling it from the standpoint cf economy, prevention of disease, and obtaining the maximum gains in weight. bj U.S.D.A. Service and Regulatory Announcements, B.A.I. January 1940. and Leaflet No. 3k U.S.D.A. Trichinosis, M-.y 1929. - 15 - Sanitary engineers are constantly working on the different phases of garbage disposal. They have devised various methods, such as burial, fill, incineration, and reduction, any one or any combination of which might be best suited for individual municipalities. Their principal objective is to minimize the cost of garbage collection and disposal. This involves technological as well as economic problems. The interest of economists in this work centers around studies of costs and prices to determine the most economical methods of collection and disposal. A.;ong others, two rather common groups of problems fall into this category. One is the analysis of prices of grease in connection with the use of the reduction process of disposal, and the other is the analysis of cost and management problems in connection with the use of garbage for hog feeding'. fj The cooperation of all these groups would be necessary for the attain- ment of greatest gain, if a definite program for complete utilization of garbage waste ;,ere to be undertaken. Experts from all these groups can contribute to a common fund of knowledge which would be helpful in the development of a coordinated program for economic use of food wastes. The purpose of this report is to disseminate certain facts concerning the production, collection, and disposal 3f garbage. Beyond this objective lie many questions. What developments in this field will be brought about in the near future are difficult to foretell. At any rate, it is true that each day in the United States a vast quantity of food matter is currently loft to waste. This survey gives estimates of its volume and present utilization. j>/ For a more complete account of some of the work in the above fields, reference is my.de to the following publications: American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 29, No. 2, February 1939. Studies on Trichinosis XI, The Epidemiology of Trichinella Spiralis Infestation and Measures Indicated for the Control of Trichinosis. Public Health Reports, Vol. 55, No. 24, June 14, 1940. Studies on Trichinosis XIV, A Survey of Municipal Garbage Disposal Methods as Related to the Spread of Trichinosis. Feeding Garbage to Hogs. (Processed.) U.S. Dept. of Agr. , Bureau of Animal Industry, March 193 8. Refuse Disposal in American Cities, Apri] 1931 - U. S. Chamber of Commerce Extent of Garbage Feuding of Hogs. (Processed.) U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, June 1940. - 16 - Summary (1) Estimates of garbage production, collection, and disposal given in this report apply to the 412 cities in the United States ..1th population of 25 t 000 or more persons, as compiled in the 1940 census. Out of a total urban population of 74,423,702 persons, 52,748t999 live in these cities. (2) Out of an estimated annual total of nearly 6 million tons of garbage produced in these 412 cities, 2 million tons is indicated as being used for feeding hogs. (3) If the per capita garbage production for the remainder of the urban population (cities and towns of 2,500 to 25,0C0 persons) is of about the same proportions as in the larger cities, the maximum out- put of all pork and lard from all urban garbage, if it were used entirely for hog feeding, would be around 200 million pounds and 56 million pounds, respectively; 200 ndllion pounds of pork is the equiva- lent of about 2 percent of the total production of pork from all hog slaughter in the United. States in 1940. This represents the maximum potential possibilities of garbage hog feeding in the United States. The actual quantity of pork and lard production would be somewhat less because in some areas garbage feeding of hogs .vculd not be feasible. Already, production from garbage folding amounts to one-fourth of this maximum. (4) The cooperation of public-health officials, animal husbandmen, sanitary engineers, and c conomists is necessary for the effective utilisa- tion of food waste materials in the United States. A UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08921 5130