Part 32

Some cities collect and dispose of their garbage by contract, others collect by contract and dispose of it themselves, or vice versa, and still others have all the work done by the municipality. Experience has proved that a city can operate a disposal plant just as efficiently as they can a collection system.

Feeding to Swine

Most of the smaller cities in this country dispose of a part of or all their garbage by feeding to swine, but so far as the State Bureau of Municipal Information has been able to learn, only four maintain municipal piggeries. These are Worcester, New Haven, Brockton, and Taunton, Massachusetts. The others either collect their garbage by contract and sell it or give it to farmers or those operating piggeries, or maintain a municipal collection and sell to a contractor who maintains a piggery.

Among the cities which dispose of their garbage by feeding to pigs and derive a revenue are the following:

Denver, Colo.—Collected by a Hog Growers’ Association which disposes of it by feeding.

Cambridge, Mass.—Sells to hog farmers at 70¢. per cd. foot and has no difficulty in disposing of all. Cost of collection, $50,000 a year; receipts, $16,000 a year.

Grand Rapids, Mich.—Sold to live stock company for 45¢. per ton f. o. b. cars. Last year collection cost $28,659 and receipts were $4,450.20.

Camden, N. J.—Incinerator burned and since then garbage has been collected and fed to hogs.

Brockton, Mass.—Municipal piggery (description below).

Colorado Springs, Colo.—Contractor pays $1,440 a year for the privilege of removing all table refuse from city. Feeds to hogs. Garbage must be sterilized before feeding.

Salem, Mass.—City Poor Farm uses about 200 loads a year. Remainder is sold to contractor, who pays $13,255 for five years. Last year city paid $10,948.30 for collection.

Taunton, Mass.—Municipal piggery.

Somerville, Mass.—Sold to farmers for 50¢. per cord foot. Cost of collection last year, $25,134.80; receipts, $8,865.50.

Lawrence, Mass.—Sold for $1.25 a load. Ready and increasing demand. Two loads used daily at Poor Farm piggery. Cost of collection, $10,000 a year. Estimated receipts, $6,000 a year.

New Haven, Conn.—Cost of collection, $18,000 a year. Fed to hogs on farm owned by city (description below).

Fall River, Mass.—City pays contractor $7,800 a year for the removal of garbage. He feeds it to pigs on farm owned by him.

Worcester, Mass.—Municipal piggery (description below).

Corning, N. Y.—Contractor pays city $122 a year for privilege of collecting at 10¢. a can. Garbage taken by him to his hog farm.

The city of Brockton, Massachusetts, owns the land and buildings necessary for feeding swine, also the horses and teams necessary for collection. The Mayor’s office reports that the city has not been able to make any profit on this method of disposal. In fact, for the last ten years the average cost to the city has been about $5,000 annually.

Taunton, Massachusetts, collects garbage only in the center of the city. The remainder is taken by private parties. The city has only two teams and two men at work. The Secretary of the Board of Overseers says that “in consequence of doing things in this way it is of little or no expense and gives quite good satisfaction.”

The expense and receipts during one year for the piggery were as follows:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │Wages of employees $1,299.90│ │ │ │Expenses, not including board of two horses belonging to 375.92│ │ department │ │ —————————│ │ $1,675.82│ │Receipts from swine 3,260.91│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

New Haven, Connecticut, pays $18,000 a year for the collection of its garbage, which is hauled to a farm rented by the city and fed to hogs owned by the city. The Board of Health reports: “Outside of some complaints from the piggeries we have got along. Our Board has repeatedly recommended the destruction of the same, but as yet nothing has materialized.”

A special commission made an investigation and report on the collection and disposal of municipal waste in Worcester, Massachusetts. After investigating all methods of disposal it reached these conclusions: “That the disposal by feeding is the most economical method; that the greatest intrinsic value of the garbage, the feeding value, is made use of; that the garbage of Worcester can not only be disposed of without cost but that the revenue from the sale of hogs has almost been sufficient to pay for the collection.”

The Commission recommended that the present method of feeding to swine be continued.

In its report it gives the per capita cost of collection and disposal as $.072 for Worcester and $.095 for Brockton.

The Worcester municipal piggery is the largest and most successful. The garbage collected by the city is fed to a herd of hogs numbering about 1700 in winter and 4000 in summer. During the winter practically all hogs are housed.

The necessity for sterilizing garbage before it is fed to hogs is disputed. Salem, Cambridge, Grand Rapids, Taunton and Brockton report that garbage is not sterilized. New Haven reports that some is sterilized. Colorado Springs and Omaha require all garbage to be sterilized.

In his report of the sanitary survey of St. Joseph, Missouri, J. H. White, Surgeon, United States Public Health Service, makes the following statement with regard to the disposal of garbage in that city:

“Kansas City, Providence, Denver, Omaha, Colorado Springs and other cities have their garbage fed to hogs, with the uniform result that the cost of removal is reduced to some extent to the city and that the contractor, according to his business capacity, is able to make more or less profit from the feed so obtained. There is no danger in this system under proper handling. Any supposed danger to the hogs can be prevented by prompt handling of the garbage to prevent unnecessary fermentation and by the use of the hog cholera serum to prevent disease. The proper cleaning of the pens, if in the city, eliminates any danger to man. The Board recommends this system and I heartily concur with them that it offers the best available solution of the garbage problem.”

The Worcester Commission reports the figures for hogs sold to a packing company during the last year from the Home Farm. Of the 2,276 hogs sold, the Commission says only 11 were condemned by the United States Government Meat Inspectors, an average of only 0.48 per cent. of one per cent., which average is much lower than it is on hogs shipped in from the West to the same packing house. It further says: “The feeding method, however, has been practised with success in many cities, especially those in New England, for many years. The great difference of opinion is explained by the efficiency with which the sanitary conditions at the farm are maintained.” It emphasizes the fact that farms must be kept clean and in a sanitary manner, and that this method of garbage disposal requires careful and intelligent supervision, as is the case with any other method of disposal. No method of disposal will run itself.

Following are comments received regarding this particular plan of disposal:

Health Officer C. C. Slemons, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, says: “From observation I am of the opinion that one of these farms (municipal piggery), properly conducted, is a paying proposition, but I do not think to the extent of paying for collection. From my observation I would be rather skeptical of a city going into this business. It is a business that needs very close supervision and unless a person is financially interested in it I doubt very much if the experiment would pay.”

Mayor Fred. W. Keller, South Bend, Indiana: “Some of this work was done several years ago. However, there was some objection on the part of taxpayers to it being hauled out of the city with municipal teams. It should be fairly profitable, but the farm and hogs should be owned by the city or the garbage disposed of to the concern that does own the hogs and farm and this done by receiving competitive bids. I make this latter suggestion in order to avoid criticism by taxpayers.”

Lawrence, Massachusetts, reports: “Those who have looked into this question contend that the city swill can be utilized to support a municipal piggery at considerable profit.”

In a recent report, the Iowa State College says of this method of disposal: “The only advantage which may be stated in favor of this method is that it probably costs less, under existing conditions about most of our cities, than any other available method.”

In one of its annual reports, the Massachusetts State Board of Health says: “It is objectionable and unsanitary in the extreme, as health authorities are constantly pointing out. Prominent among the objections to this method are the great nuisance it usually creates and the uncertainty of its operation.” The Board says epidemics among pigs create the uncertainty of operation. It also says that they are breeding places for flies and rats.

The Chicago Waste Commission’s comment on this method is that it is not applicable or desirable in a large city, except under inspection and for restricted private collection.

The _New York Medical Journal_ reported that the garbage collected by Grand Rapids, at cost of $26,320, is taken by a contractor who last year paid 45 cents per ton and fed to hogs. It says that over 10,000 hogs are sold yearly at a value of $135,000 and that 2,400 tons of fertilizer are produced at a value of about $36,000.

Samuel A. Greeley, Sanitary Expert, says that 75 pigs are required to dispose of a ton of garbage per day. The equipment at the farm prescribed by him is: Tracks and cars for distributing the garbage along concrete feeding platforms; substantial and well-kept sleeping and warming pens; tanks for sterilizing garbage; apparatus for vaccinating pigs against cholera; a means of disposing of unconsumed garbage by burial or incineration and plenty of washing facilities. He further says: “There should be some method of sorting the garbage before feeding it to pigs so that the stale garbage may be discarded and buried or burned. Some places disinfect it by boiling in large caldrons before feeding. In such cases the cooked garbage is commonly used only as a base for the feed given to pigs. The method is a most profitable one and warrants consideration in small cities where isolated farm sites are available.”

Dumping on Land

It is the consensus of opinion in all reports and of all experts that this method is objectionable especially where there is a large quantity to be disposed of. A long haul is necessitated by the location of the dumps at a remote distance where the decomposition of any part of the refuse will not be offensive to neighboring property owners. When the garbage is deposited in sufficient quantity offensive odors due to fermentation and decomposition may create a nuisance. Unless special attention is given to the treatment of these dumps, this method will not be found desirable. A thorough mixing of garbage with ashes and rubbish will prevent the nuisance and the fires that are otherwise liable to occur, creating odors and nuisance from the smoke and unconsumed gases.

A report of the Iowa State College states that dumps where ashes and rubbish and other refuse are deposited are not only unattractive in appearance, but are detrimental to the health of those living in the immediate vicinity, and as a city grows, it usually becomes increasingly difficult to find locations where these dumps can be maintained without incurring the objections of those living in the neighborhood.

The _Scientific American_ says this method “is one that cannot be defended either from an æsthetic or sanitary standpoint. The dumps become an ideal breeding place for flies.”

Dumping in Large Bodies of Water

Only a few cities use this method. In most places where it has been tried, it has been prohibited because the material is washed on the neighboring shores.

Disposal by Sanitary Fill

This method is practised by some cities, among them Seattle, Davenport, and New Orleans, which report its success. It is given more serious consideration than heretofore by several large cities. The method is different than that of burial, in that it is carried on by filling excavations, vacant low lying ground and natural ravines.

The garbage, rubbish and ashes are dumped and then mixed with sufficient earth to insure oxidation and thorough digestion of the decomposable wastes. The activity of the bacteria of the soil breaks down and mineralizes the organic matter and when there is sufficient oxygen, i. e. air, no putrefaction or other odors result. Success depends upon the following treatment:

(1) The garbage must not be buried so deep that bacterial activity is reduced.

(2) The garbage must not be spread in a thick layer on the surface of the ground.

(3) The ground must be sufficiently open and drained so that air can penetrate to a sufficient depth.

(4) The garbage must not overload the soil, but must be sufficiently diluted with earth, ashes and rubbish, so that putrefaction may take place, due to the presence of an ample supply of air in the pores of the soil.

The Chicago Waste Commission believes that this method “has been demonstrated to be not only sanitary, free from nuisance when properly carried out, but economical as well.” Incidentally, adds the Worcester Commission, it adds valuable taxable property from which the city subsequently derives an income.

At Davenport, 1.3 cubic yards of materials are required per ton of garbage and the total cost of upkeep, including rent of land, labor, etc., was 50 cents per ton. The garbage is received and buried by one foreman and three men in summer and one foreman and one man in winter. The city by this method is creating a valuable river front.

New Orleans seeds its dumping grounds as soon as a sufficient filled area is available, and later trims and plants the land for use as small parks and play grounds.

The Health Commissioner of Seattle, in a letter to the _Municipal Engineering Journal_, describes the system and results as follows:

“This method of filling works very satisfactorily in this climate, but I believe it necessary to include all waste materials, as ashes, boxes, tin cans, etc. These all assist oxygenation and nitrification. I do not believe pure garbage can be handled in this way.

“We also find that it is best to keep as little of the face of the fill exposed as possible. It is always best to keep a man constantly on the job, whose duty it is to rake down to the bottom of the fill all boxes, rough materials, etc., thus leaving the ashes to form a covering on top. When this is not sufficient, we cover with a layer of earth about five inches thick.

“The success lies in the proper mixtures of waste materials, and next the fill must be properly covered to protect from flies. Chemicals can also be used to protect it. This covering also prevents the slight sour odor of fresh garbage and by keeping out the sunlight, at the same time encourages bacterial growth by increasing the warmth inside the fill. People residing within one hundred feet of these fills make no complaint, but the public has to be educated when you first adopt this method. We aim to fill city property, as ravines, swampy lands or docks on the lake or salt water front.

“Our laboratory findings show that the process is simply one of slow incineration by nature, instead of the expensive method of burning by incinerators, and at the same time help prove that there is nothing detrimental to public health in these fills.

“We have eleven fills distributed over our city, thus making short hauls, and these are taken care of by eleven laborers disposing of approximately three hundred and fifty tons per day by this method alone, while one incinerator with about an equal payroll will only dispose of sixty to seventy-five tons per day, running twenty-four hours. A fill increases the value of property, while the refuse from our incinerator has to be hauled away at an added cost.”

After spreading, there is applied to the garbage an antiseptic spray of crude carbolic acid, rosin and caustic soda to kill eggs and larvæ of flies, mosquitoes and other insects that might breed.

Burial

Garbage may be buried by putting it in shallow trenches and covering with the excavation from the trenches for the next day’s deposit, or by plowing under. It digests and is thoroughly taken up by or oxidized by the action of the soil. Experience has shown that for open soil 1.5 acres are required to handle each daily ton of garbage for one year, the same soil being in shape to re-use after two years. For heavy soils and those containing clay, about three acres are required and this can be used again after three years.

The Worcester Commission reports that cities which have buried by plowing have experienced more than occasional nuisance. Milwaukee and Columbus successfully disposed of their garbage by burying in trenches, before they constructed disposal plants. Milwaukee paid forty cents a ton to dispose of its garbage by this method.

A summary of the opinions indicates that disposal by burying when properly conducted and when the point of disposal is suitably located gives no cause for objection from a sanitary standpoint. The principal objections are the extremely long haul, the amount of land necessary and no direct income. In small communities this method is entirely satisfactory. It is usually not applicable to large communities.

Disposal Plants

There are two methods of disposing of garbage in plants—incineration and reduction. There is a wide diversity of opinion among experts and city officials as to which is the better from a sanitary and financial standpoint. There is, however, nearly universal opinion upon the following:

1. That the revenue from the by-products of municipally owned and operated plants will not pay the combined cost of collection and disposal.

2. That with only a few exceptions the revenue from the by-products of municipally owned plants does not pay the cost of disposal.

3. That the price received by cities from contractors is, with very few exceptions, not sufficient to pay the cost of collection.

4. That the disposal of garbage by the reduction process is uneconomical for a city with a population of less than 100,000. Some experts increase the size to 150,000 and one to 200,000.

5. That incineration is better than reduction for a city with a population less than 100,000.

The reduction in the per capita production of garbage, due to less wastage of food in the American home since the war, may make it necessary in the future to increase the size of the city which can profitably employ the reduction method, or should use the reduction method.

In the report of the Chicago Waste Commission, some general rules are laid down for the design of a disposal works, irrespective of method. It says that the design should permit the plant to be operated as a whole, or in part, so that each part can be operated as an independent unit. This will permit one or more parts to receive attention and be repaired during the season when the minimum quantity of refuse is to be disposed of. The details of the plant should be such as to permit cleanliness at all times and hosing and washing so as not to permit garbage dust or dirt to accumulate, flies to breed and material to decompose. All material, so far as possible, should be enclosed during the process of disposal, and the odors eliminated or confined or deodorized. The handling of material in the plants, so far as possible, should be eliminated, where mechanical means can economically be adopted. Special attention should be paid to ventilation and the elimination of dust where men are required to work.

The odors or nuisances caused from disposal plants will usually arise from one or more of the following sources: Garbage or refuse, incomplete combustion or combustion temperatures not sufficient to eliminate odors, congestion of carts in one locality and creation of dust. The odors arising from raw garbage which are found in all plants are mostly local and will not create a nuisance a short distance from the point of handling and the housing of equipment used in hauling.

A method of determining the kind of a plant to be built and operated which will meet with local conditions is described as follows by Rudolph Herring, sanitary engineer.

“Locate suitable central points where incinerators can be built convenient for reception of refuse and delivery of steam and clinker. Estimate annual cost, including fixed charges and operation, as follows: First, of wagons and other means of collecting from house to works all garbage, ashes and rubbish combined; and, second, of the works for incineration. The sum of these two estimated costs will give probable annual cost of entire plant from origin to finish. This sum must then be credited with the annual value of steam and clinker. The result will be the net annual cost to the city of collecting and finally disposing of the above parts of general refuse.

“A. Locate suitable place where reduction process can be carried on economically and conveniently for reception of garbage and delivery of products, with a capacity to serve, if practicable, the entire city. Estimate annual cost, including fixed charges and operation, as follows: First, of wagons and other means of collecting the garbage from house to works; second, works for reduction. The sum of these two estimated costs will be the probable annual cost to the city of the collection and reduction of the garbage. This sum must be credited with annual value of products of reduction, as derived from sale of oils, grease and fertilizers. The result will be the net cost, perhaps profit, of disposing of city garbage.

“B. Locate suitable central point where incinerator can be built, which will be convenient for the reception of ashes and rubbish and the delivery of steam and clinker. Estimate annual cost, including fixed charges of operation as above of the collection and works for disposal of ashes and rubbish, if these are to be incinerated together.

“If only rubbish is to be collected and delivered for incineration, then there should be added the cost of collection and final disposal of ashes by dumping. This cost should again be credited with annual value of steam and clinker and perhaps of land-making by dumping of ashes.

“By adding results of A and B, we obtain the total net cost to a city of collecting and finally disposing of the above parts of general refuse. A comparison between these estimates of cost, of both collection and incineration of garbage, ashes and rubbish as one project and of both collection and reduction of garbage and the collection and incineration of rubbish and dumping of ashes as the other project, will indicate the most economical method in the city for which these cost estimates have been made. It is necessary to analyze carefully local conditions to determine the most economical method.”

Incineration