Food waste materials

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Food waste materials
Physical Description:
Unknown
Creator:
Stolting, Walter H
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture
United States -- Bureau of Agricultural Economics
Publisher:
s.n. ( Washington, D.C. )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 028444917
oclc - 05985584
System ID:
AA00017392:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text




u^'1


r F0's q'1 UNITEDD 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


I*. .
I a ^l"ii n


Washington, D. C.
September 1941


UK -* ---





























Gratitude is expressed to all those city officials

wl.cse replies to the questionr.cire shown herein, made this

wcrl. p-scible. The author also wishes to thank C. A. Burmeister

&L.d 0. Been for rmany suggestions and to acknowledge indebt-

ed.ess to George E. Keon and Charles H. Meyer who edited re-

plies tc the questionr.naire and assembled the data upon which

tl.i. rcpc.rt is based.










FOOD WASTE MATERIALS
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
Plan of survey . . .. 2
Regional summaries of garbage production, collection, and
disposal 193q-40 for 247 reporting cities, each with
population of 25,0C0O or more persons ... 3
Present utilization of garbage for hog feeding 7
Estimates of total urban garbage output .... S
Effective limits on garbage feeding of hogs .
Problems associated with effective use of garbage .... 14
Summary . . . .. .16



The Farmer's Interest in Fnod 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 consurnsmrs, obliging consumers to pay more at retail and return-
ing lower prices to producers.

There are two means of reducing thesa losses. The first is to
reduce waste in marketing and in the homes; thi second is to utilize the
waste materials to the best advantage.

The purpose of the survey htr= reported was to ascertain the quantities
of waste food mater iajs repro snt-d in the -roduction of urban garbage and
to ascLrt;a"n 'or several geographic areas thu way in which th-se mat-rials
were utiliz-rl or disposAd of. The chitf methods of disposal include hog
feeding, reduction to reclaim greas, incineration, use as land fill, and
burial. This report makus no reconmundations as to what disposal methods are







- C -


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.

Preduoers of hogsand growers of corn and other feeds have been fear-
ful of the potential threat in competition from garbage feeding of hogs.
According to'tke 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 Status 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 ,olioios relating to food production.

Replies to the questionnaire woro received during December 1940 and
the first few months of this y:ar 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 ind thu Mountain and Pacific States.
Those from which the proportion of returns was lowest (about 50 percent)
wore 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 Garbage Production. Collection. and
Disposal 21939-0 for 247 Reporting Cities, Each with
Population of 25,000 or More Persons

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 Stat;s 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 enumr-.tion to number approximately 131,669,000 ii
habitants of hitcrnearly 74,424,CC0,.or69.2 percent, wore classified as
living in urban areas. jI The population of the 412 cities of 25,00C
and over numbered approximately 52,749,0C0, and represents 40 percent .of all
the population. Tablu 1 shows the regional distribution of this city popula-
tion group, both J-ith respect to the 247 cities which returned the

/ An urban area is defined by the Bureau of the Census as an incorporated
place having a population of 2,500 or more, ind townships having a total
population of 10,000 or more and a population density zf 1,000 or more
per square mile.










FIGURE I


Teed Waste Sarvey

Period covered I


Bureau of Agricultural Seonomice
Division of
Marketing and Transtortation Besearch


From


(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.


How much of this

How m.ch of this


production was collected by the city? _____ tons.

was:

Vegetable garbage _____tons.

nimal garbage ____ tons.

Total _____ tons.


(3) The remainder was collected bj whom?
Tpe o collector Anount Bow disposed of

Pig-feeder ______________tons______
Other(specify) _______tons ______
~~~~____~~____________tons______________

(4) How is the garbage collected by your city disposed of?

Method Anount

Incineration ________________ _____________ tons.
Reduction _______________ _____________ tons.

Burial _____________ __________ tons.

Hoe-feeding __________tons.
Other __________________ ____________ tons.

(5) Do you have a mixed collection s9,stem?_______

If so, please describe it _______________



(6) Do you have an effective local ordinance orohibitirng the

inclusion of glass, crockery, metal, etc., with garbage?



(7) If a demand for garbage should develop from pig feeders in your
vicir.ity could your garbage collections be made available to them.

S _______________ NO _________________(Check)
If not what would be the chief difficulties in the way of using
your collections for pig-feeding. ______ ______


(2)
(b)
(b)


P









- 4 -


Table 1.- Population distributions in the United States and
of cities included in survey I/


Group or region


: Total
: population


Population of cities and towns
25,.000 and over
: 247 cities: 165 cities
Total : reporting : not
: on survey : reporting


Total United States .....: 131,669,275


All rural
All urban


* 0 ....... ........ *.


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....:
West South Central....;
Mountain ............. :
Pacific ............. :


57,245,573
74,423,702

52,748,999

21,674,703


4,640,655
16,093,985
13,112,140
39661,503
4,616,676
1,891,962
3,037,.83
835,505
4,858,390


2,949,279
13,379,457
11,385,328
2,719,312
3,291,785
1,110,694
1,836,909
583,413
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


Total ......... :


52,748,999


41,596,825 11,152,174


V/ 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 the yearly average collection per capital 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 Now
England and in the Mountain Stat-s the quantity per capital 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 tho 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 Status. In these four regions the cities reporting
collected from 86 to nearly 89 percent of the total. In the Mountain States
their collections amounted to only about 36 percent of the output and in
Now England only about 47 percent. In theso two regions hog feeders collected
relatively large proportions nearly 64 percent in the .Mountain States and
about 46 percent in Now 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 pcrcunt of the totil garbage
production reported by the 247 cities was collected by 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 fnd for hogs,
.3.5 percent through reduction plants, arnd 0.2 percent by other means.
The extent to which these methods of disposal are used v'ary greatly by regions.
Incineration is used most extensively in the Middle Atla-ntic States and in
the South. In New England and in the Pacific and West llorth 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 oay.
Other regions using this method to a considerable extent are the East South
Central States and the Middle Atlantic States, the pro portions so disposed
of representing one-third and one-fourth of their collections, respectively.
The cities in thu Mountain Status and in the South Atlantic an:d West North
Central groups reported using this method only to a limited degree.






Table 2.- Garbage production, collection, and disposal in pounds per capital for 247 cities during
one year, 1939-40 l/


: Collected by :


: Pro- :Collect-: other groups :
auctionn :ed by : Hog- : Other :
: : cities :feeders: :


Disposal of garbage collected i


by the cities


Inciner-: Re- :
ation :duction:


Burial: Hog- :
:feeding:


New England .........: Pounds :
Percent:

Middle Atlantic...... Pounds :
: Percent:

East North Central...: Pounds :
Percent:

West North Central...: Pounds :
: Percent:

South Atlantic ...... :. Pounds :
SPercent:

East South Central...: Pounds :
Percent:

West South Central...: Pounds :
: Percent:

Mountain ............: Pounds:
Percent:

Pacific ............: Pounds :
: Percent:


242.1
100.0

3.06.2
100.0

315.4
100.0

247.6
100.0

373.3
100.0

383.9
100.0

285.5
100.0

241.1
100.0

270.5
100.0


112.5
46.5

271.0
88.5

270.8
85.9

181.7
73.4

325.1
67.1

291.3
75.9

249.4
87.3

85.7
35.6

169.2
62.5


11no.5
45.6

25.1
8.2

25.2
8.0

45.2
18.2

26.8
7.2

8.5
2.2

12.5
4.4

153.2
63.5

38.6
14.3


19.1
7.9

10.1
3.3

19.4
6.1

20.7
8.4

21.4
5.7

84.1
21.9

23.6
8.3

2.2
0.9

62.7
23.2


9.6
7.6

185.2
68.3

lOS.4
4o.o

16.8
9.2

229.3
70.6

191.7
65.8

152.0
60.9

34.3
4o.0


22.5
20.0

13.2
4.9

6.0
2.2


11.5
10.2

69.2
25.6

132.2
48.s


- 14.1
7.8


12.2
3.7


7.6
4.5


21.5
6.6

99.6
34.2

30.1
12.1


21.8
12.9


69.9
62.2

3.4
1.2

214.0
8.9

146.4
so80.6

61.5
18.9




67.3
27.0

.51.4
60.0

139.8
82.6


- 180.4
74.5

28.5
9.3


0.2
0.1

4.4
2.4

0.6
0.2


49.2
15.6

191.6
77.4

88.3
23.7


8.5
2.2

79.8
28.0

S 204.6
84.9

178.4
66.0


Pounds :
Porcen t:


Area


: Unit


Other
S


Total
hog
feed


Total ...........


302.2
100.0


244.6
80.9


34.8
11.5


22.5
7.6


122.2
50.0


8.5
3.5


68.2
2718


45.3
18.5


0.4
0.2


80.1
26.5






- 7 -


Garbage collected by the cities is used most extensively for hog
feeding in the Pacific ahd 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-collected garbage
being used for hog feeding, 60 percent in the latter area 'ind 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 Utilization for Hog FOeding

Combining the proportions of city-collected garbage used for hog
feeding with the proportions of thu total supply collected by hog foedors
and, assumnin tiat 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
&rcat. In the Mountain Status nearly 85 percent of the total garbage
output of the cities reporting is used for hog feeding. In the West North
Central Stans the proportion so used reaches 77 percent; in New England
it is about 75 percent; and in the PE-cific group it is about 66 purce:.t.
In the East Sot: Contral St:.uTLu u,,l:' sli:Jtl, more than 2 percent of the
output is reported as being used for fdirng u.iLd i1L t! Middle Amintic
States about 9 percent is so used. I:; t n6 East Normn Cuntril Sta ao toe
proportion is 15.6 percent and in the South Atlanic annd West Sout, Cuntr2.
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 are used less commonly in the South th:.i in
other regions, and this in itself m;.y 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 appare:itly was not included in the
reports furnished by the cities.








In addition to this northern New Jersey area the feeding of garbage
in the Middle Atlantlo region is concentrated again in a few counties of
southern New Jersey and the wastes used there apparently are obtained
largely from the Philadelphia area. Feeding is done to a limited extent
in scattered localities throughout Pennsylvania and New York State Most
of the garbage 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 Status hog production is already an Importani
enterprise but is associated primarily with corn production. 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 increases 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 tho 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 informatlor
will be made available through co-nmunication 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. Figure
2 shows the regional production graphically and figure 3 sho'.s the quantity
of collections and disposal. These estimates are based on the per capital
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 capital basis. The proportion of the larger cities
that reported and that are included in table 2 is somewhat greater than
the proportion of smallLr cities. As the estimn-ites in table 3 are 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 Garb:-ge Feeding 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. r/ This survey was made in cooperation with the

r/ Extent of Garb-igo Feeding of Hogs. United States Department 3f Agricultu
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, June 1940. (Processed) J









Table 3.- Garbage production, collection, and disposal in 1939 as reported
for the 10 largest cities in the United States I


GPopulation bge produced Collected Collected by Disposal of city-collected garbage by
City Population by Hog Incinera- Reduc- Hog Other
(19410) Total capitala cities feeders Others tlon tion Burial feeding, methods


New York
Chicago
Philadelphia
Detroit
Los Angeles
Cleveland
Baltimore
St. Louis
Boston
Pittsburgh

Total


Number


7,454,995
3, 396, go80g
1,931,334
1, 23, 452
1, 504,271
878,33b
859,100
86,o04g
770, 16
671,659


19,906,.325


Tons Pounds


1,223,780
3 &D, 000
196,252
200,000
214, 637
12, 567
g4, )91
o80,000
112,130
105,00ooo


328
212
203
246
285
281
197
196
291
313


fons


1, 223,780
346,666
41,544
191,000
194,229
100,918
84,591
67,023
33,198
105,000


fons


154,708
9,000
20,408og

12,977
55,370


2,387,949 252,463


Tons


13,334


22,649

23,562


Pons


953,780
12,753
190,000
100, 918
84,591

105,000


59,545 1,447,042


Tons


28,791


33,198


Fons


Tons


Tons


270,000
346,666


1,000
194,229

61,062 5,961


61,9g89 616,666 255,291 6,961


All records for calendar years 1939, except for Los Angeles, St. Louis, and Boston.
Angeles records are for period July 1, 1939 to June 30, 1940. St. Louis records are
period April 1, 1939 to March 31, 1940. Boston records are for calendar ytar 1938.


2/ Estimate of collections by hog feeders not given.


2,699,957


IV
Los
for














Table 4.- Estimated garbage production, collection, and disposal for the 412 cities having
populations of 25,000 or more, based on per capital figures shown in table 2,
1939-40


Section


-4


New England
Middle Atlantic
Erst North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific


4 I --


Popula.tion '


Number


4,640.655
16,093,985
13,i112,140
,,661,503
616,676
1,891,962
3,037,883
835,805
4,858,390


Total
produc-
tion


1, 000
tons

562
2, 464
2,068
453
862
363
434
101
657


Uoiiected. by Disposal of garbage collected


Collected ^ Collected by Disposal of garbage collected
olece other groups T .by the cities
by Hog Incin- Feduc- BIy 7 Hog ther
cities feeders Other ertionI tion BurI e fCedi Other
1,000 1i,07)0 1,000 1o000 1,000iooo 1,000 1,000 1,000ooo


tons

261
2,181
1,776
333
750
276
379
36
411


tons


256
202
165
83
62
9


tons


44
82
127

80
36
1
152


tons

20
1,490
711
31
529
181
231
14
18


tons tons tons


52
107
4o

28


27
557
86

56


tons


162
27
158
268
142

102
22
340


226 1,719 1,220 10


. .. .. .... ................ ......... ... ........... .. .. .. .ii.


7,963 6, 4.02 953


b09 3,226


Totel


52,748,999





U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


NEG. 39040 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS


FIGURE 2


.. ...:..: ..... .


















































U.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


NEG. 39041 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

FIGURE 3


J


..... ............. .... .................. ..... ..... ...... .... ...................
k1l"I'll", ............




- 13 -


Agricultural Extension Service and the reports received from county agents
Indicated that the number of hogs fed on garbage annually in this country
is probably around 1-1/4 million head, arid that nearly half of these are
fed exclusively on garbage.

The regional data from the survey on the number of hogs fed are
in fairly close agreement with the regional data on the quantities of garbage
fed (table 3). Whore discrepancies exist, they appear to bu due mainly to
the omissions of reports from particular localities in one or the othsr of
the surveys, thus impairing comparability in such instances.

The total yearly production of garbage in the 412 cities of 25,00C
population and over is estimated to be nearly 8 million tons, 'md of this
quantity approximately 2,173,000 tons is indicat-ed as being used for
feeding hogs. Feeding experiments indicate that, on the average, a gain of
* 100 pounds of live weight can be obtained from feeding 3 tons of garbage.
An increase of 100 pounds live weight per head is probably about the average
weight gain obtained by most hog fbeders who use these waste materials, as
the general practice is to start feeder pigs on garbage when they reach a
weight of 75 to 125 pounds and to sell them for slaughter at a weight of
175 to 250 pounds. If 3 tons of garbage without supplemental feeds will
produce 100 pounds live weight gain in hogs where. used for hog feeding, this
is equivalent to saying that this quantity will .produce about 55 pounds of
pork and 15 pounds of lard, as these are the average yields of these products
obtained from 100 pounds of live hog. A ton of garbage, therefore, avhen
used for hog feeding may be considered as sufficient feed to producee 18
pounds of pork and 5 pounds of lard. Using these figures as conversion
factors, one can arrive at a rough approximation of the maximum possible pro-
duction of pork and lard that could be obtained by feeding urban garbage if
the entire output were utilized for this purpose.

The estimated yearly production of 8 million tons in the 412 cities
of 25,000 population and over, if used entirely for hog feeding, would produce
approximately 144 million pounds of pork and 40 million pounds of lard.
These 412 cities include 71 percent of the total urban population of the
country. If the garbage production per capital in the smaller urban units is
of about the same proportions as in the larger cities, the maximum output of
pork from all urban garbage if used entirely for hog feeding would be around
200 million pounds, or the equivalent of 'about 2 percent of the total pro-
duction of pork from all hog slaughter in the United States in 1940.

The actual production, at present, is probably between one-fourth -:nd
one-third of this indicated maximum, or around 50 to 60 million pounds,
since only about 27 percent of the total garbage output of the cities of
25,000 and over was indicated as bo'ng used for hog feeding and the proportio
for the smaller urban units are probably not very different from those of the
larger.

In some localities a larger proportion of the urban output probably
could be used for hog feeding, but in others conditions are unfavorable for
utilization in this way and little expansion in this kind of feeding appears
possible. As approximately 40 percent of the output of the cities is now
disposed of by incineration and nearly 23 pcrcnt by burial, any very lArge
expansion in the use of garbage for hog funding would have to be done with
that now disposed of by these, two methods.






- 14 -


A majority of the reporters replied in the affirmative to question
7 on the schedule;

"If a demand for garbage should develop from pig feeders in your vicinity
could your garbage collections be made available to them?"

Replies to question 6,

"Do you have an effective local ordinance prohibiting the inclusion of glass,
crockery, metal, etc., with garbage?"

indicate that in some municipal areas collection methods and regulations
would have to be changed to permit hog feeding. However, a majority of
the reporting cities are already trying to keep garbage freb from articles
injurious to hogs. Replies to question 5 covering technical details of
handling disposal of garbage indicate that additional difficulties may be
encountered from present systems of collection but these difficulties are
not insurmountable.


Problems Associated Aith 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 overlapto such an extent as to hinder the most effective accomplish-
ments in disposal and utiliz-.tion 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 us follows:

Public-health officials are perhaps the most deeply concerned with
garbage disposal at the present time. They have shown how 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 show that this
parasite is destroyed when subjected to a temperature of 137 F. A/
It is also destroyed when pork containing it is subjected to extremely low
temperatures or to certain 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 forml
whether fresh or cured.

Animal husbandry specialists at various tims have been interested
in testing the feeding value of garbage and the best methods of handling it
from the standpoint of economy, prevention of disease, and obtaining the
maximum gains in weight,


,/ U.S.D.A. Service ind Regulatory Announcements, B.A.I. January 1940,
and Luaflet No, 34 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 eduction process of disLosal, and the other is the analysis of
cost and management problems in connection with the use of garbage for h.og
feeding. V/

The cooperation of all these gr.;-ups would be necessary for the attain-
ment of greatest gain, if a definite program for complete-; utilization of
garbage waste AerL 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 :f food wastes.

The purpose of this report is to disseminate certain facts concerning
the production, collection, and disposal of garbage. Beyond this objective
lie many questions. What dbvelzopmrnts 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 wast:. This survey gives E.stimates of it: volume and present utilization.



/ For a more complclte account of some of the ;,ork in the abovw fields,
reference is made to the following publications:

Amn.rican Journal of Public Health, Vol. 29, No. 2, Februar,' 1939.
Studies on Trichinosis XI, The Epidcmiology of Trichinella Spiralis
Infestation and Measures Indicated for the Control of Trichinosis.

Public Health Rcports,Vol. 55, No. 24, Jun. 14, 1940. Studies on
Trichinosis XIV, A Survey of Municiporl Garb;gc Disgusal Methods as Relnted to
the Spread of Trichinosis.

Feeding Garbage to Hogs. (Processed.) U.S. D-.pt. of Agr., Bureau of Animal
Industry, March 1938.

Refuse Disposal in American Cities, Apri2 1931 U. S. Chamber of Commerce

Extent of Garbage Fe6ding of Hogs. (Processed.) U. S. Dept. of Agr.,
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, June 1940.




-7



16 -


Summary

(1) Estimatos of garbage production, collection, and disposal
given in this report apply to the 412 cities in thc United States with
population of 25,000 or moro persons, as compiled in the 1940 census.
Out of a total urban population of 74,423,702 persons, 52,748,999 live
in these cities.

(2) Out of an estimated annual total of nearly 8 million tons of
garbage produced in these 412 cities, 2 million tons is indicated as
being used for feeding hogs.

(3) If the per capital garbage production for the remainder of
the urban population (cities and towns of 2,500 to 25,0C0O persons) is
of about the same proportions as in the larger cities, the maximum out-
put of all pork and lt'rd from all urban garbage, if it were used
entirely for hog feeding, would be around 200 million pounds and 56
mLllion pounds, respectively; 200 million pounds of pork is the equiva-
lent of about 2 percent of the total production of pork from all hog
slaughter in the Unitbd States in 1940. This represents the maximum
potential possibilities of garbage hog feeding in the United States.
The actual quantity of pork -nd lard production would be somewhat less
because in some areas garbage feeding of hogs would not be feasible.
Already, production from garbage feeding amounts to one-fourth of this
maximum.

(4) The coopcrition of public-health officials, animal husbandmen,
sanitary engineors, and economists is necessary for the effective utiliza-
tion of food waste materials in the United Stat.s.

















A




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1~l3211111921511111
3 1262 08921 5130




























: 'ii|l~
















., r
*
I




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EKNVK2UGS_AO8ACX INGEST_TIME 2014-04-25T02:34:20Z PACKAGE AA00017392_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EJY5GQCMO_I59AGY INGEST_TIME 2014-04-21T23:12:06Z PACKAGE AA00017392_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES