OS. 
 
 United States F o o d A d m i n 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 9 
 7 i 
 
 5 ! 
 
 7 ! 
 4 i 
 
 JUKI 3 1938 
 
 Garbage Utilizatio 
 
 with particular reference 
 
 to 
 
 utilization by feeding 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 February, 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 1918
 
 The purpose of the Garbage Utilization Division of the Food 
 Administration is to urge the utilization of such waste-food products 
 as are unsuited for human consumption. 
 
 If this can be accomplished, there will result an increased meat 
 supply, an increased production of inedible fats, an increased pro- 
 duction of fertilizing elements, and a decrease in the cost of garbage 
 disposal. 
 
 This bulletin has been largely prepared from data obtained from 
 various publications and from correspondence and conference with 
 men experienced in garbage disposal. 
 
 The portion relating to diseases of garbage-fed hogs has been 
 reviewed by Dr. Edw. A. Cahill, of the Massachusetts Bureau of 
 Animal Industry, and Dr. O. B. Hess, of the United States Bureau 
 of Animal Industry. That portion relating to the municipal hog 
 farm at Worcester, Mass., has been reviewed by Mr. Thomas Home, 
 superintendent of Worcester Home Farm, and Prof. Frederic 
 Bonnet, jr., of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 
 
 t
 
 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 
 
 WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO UTILIZATION BY 
 
 FEEDING. 
 
 The American garbage pail, with its twenty-odd billion pounds of 
 garbage per year, can well be considered one of our expensive lux- 
 uries, and if through high prices, by the efforts of the Food Adminis- 
 tration or otherwise, our per capita waste can be reduced by even a 
 small per cent, no small additional supply of foodstuffs will be 
 available. 
 
 Undoubtedly a large amount of garbage must exist even when 
 the strictest economy is exercised. The garbage pail can not be en- 
 tirely eliminated, but it can be enlisted in the cause of food saving. 
 " Put less in the garbage pail and take more out." If all the garbage 
 now being destroyed in cities of from 10,000 to 100,000 population 
 were disposed of by feeding, approximately 30,000,000 pounds of 
 pork, valued at about $5,000,000, would be available, assuming only 
 50 per cent efficiency. If we add to this the value of grease and 
 tankage destroyed in cities of over 100,000 population, we have over 
 $11,000,000 per annum of potential food values being destroyed. 
 
 Is your community helping to make up this appalling total ? Are 
 you doing anything to cut it down? If not, why not? Because of 
 indifference on the part of your municipal officials? Because of 
 ignorance as to the value being destroyed? Or because of objections 
 on the part of sanitary officials ? If garbage has the potential values 
 indicated it is obviously the duty of every municipal official to inves- 
 tigate the present method of disposal in his city. We doubt greatly 
 whether the nonutilization of garbage can be justified in a majority 
 of cases. It certainly can not be justified on sanitary grounds alone, 
 and its destruction is just as wrong as the wastage of edible food- 
 stuffs. 
 
 MEANING OF THE TERM "GARBAGE." 
 
 The term " garbage " is a general expression for a purely local 
 product. It does not designate any definite material or combina- 
 tion of materials. Its composition and even its general meaning 
 vary in different localities. As used herein the term "garbage" 
 will mean all refuse accumulations of animal or vegetable matter 
 which has been intended for use as food for man. It will not in- 
 clude any material in the nature of ashes, rubbish or refuse, night 
 soil, dead animals, street sweepings, manure, or similar materials. 
 
 DIFFICULTY WITH DISPOSAL METHODS. 
 
 The garbage produced by a given city is determined almost en- 
 lirely by conditions in that city; with southern cities a larger 
 amount of vegetable matter will be found than in northern cities, 
 
 3
 
 4 CABBAGE UTILIZATION. 
 
 where the season for fresh vegetables and fruit is not so long; the 
 peculiar diet of any large number of a foreign population has an 
 important bearing on the contents of the garbage cans; cities on the 
 seaboard show a large amount of refuse from sea food, etc. 
 
 In view of the uncertainty as to what constitutes garbage, no set 
 rules can be formulated for its disposal. The fact that some one 
 city is successful with a certain method of disposal is no criterion 
 that another city can make an equal success of a similar method. 
 
 No doubt a large part of the continual agitation on the part of a 
 majority of our municipalities for a change in their methods of 
 garbage disposal is due to a lack of study of local conditions. 
 Records received from the Food Administration indicate that out 
 of 596 cities of over 10,000 population, 136, or over 22 per cent, are 
 contemplating changes in their method of disposal. 
 
 This point is emphasized as it must be clearly understood that in 
 presenting this bulletin the Food Administration is not attempting 
 to establish set formulas to be followed by every city without excep- 
 tion. General principles that must be followed to assure successful 
 utilization can be set forth, but whether the factors governing suc- 
 cess are present in a particular locality can only be determined after 
 a careful study of the conditions in that locality. 
 
 METHODS OF DISPOSAL. 
 
 The principal methods of garbage disposal at the present time 
 are: 
 
 (1) Incineration. 
 
 (2) Reduction. 
 
 (3) Feeding. 
 
 Incineration is the method whereby the garbage and other mate- 
 rials are destroyed by fire in especially designed furnaces, known as 
 crematories, incinerators, or destructors. 
 
 Reduction is the process whereby the garbage is treated in vari- 
 ous ways to the end that the grease it contains is recovered and the 
 fertilizing elements are made available as a fertilizer tankage. 
 
 Feeding is the method whereby the garbage is converted into 
 food material. This usually refers to pork, although garbage is being 
 successfully fed to chickens, sheep, and cattle. 
 
 There are in existence other methods of garbage disposal, but 
 these can be considered as only temporary; for example, in certain 
 places garbage is successfully disposed of in sanitary fills, or dumps, 
 in which case the garbage when deposited is immediately covered 
 with a layer of earth or other absorbent material. Some cities are 
 having good success with this method; but for this purpose con- 
 siderable land must be available and it is only a question of time 
 before they will have to give up this method for one of the three out- 
 lined above. This is also true of the numerous other ways in which 
 garbage is being disposed of burial, dumping at sea, in large bodies 
 of water, on dumps, etc. 
 
 AMOUNT OF GARBAGE PRODUCED. 
 
 Undoubtedly a big factor in the problem of garbage disposal is 
 the fact that such comparatively small quantities accumulate each
 
 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 5 
 
 day in every household, and that its nature requires removal at fre- 
 quent intervals. From one-half to three-fourths of a pound daily, 
 or approximately 200 pounds per annum, is the per capita produc- 
 tion in the United States. Obviously the frequent removal of from 
 1 to 10 pounds of garbage from each residence is a decidedly more 
 expensive operation than would be the collection of the same annual 
 aggregates in cartload lots. 
 
 GARBAGE COLLECTIONS. 
 
 In making garbage collections two general systems are employed, 
 separate collections and combined collections. With separate col- 
 lections one set of vehicles remove only the garbage, another set the 
 ashes, and a third the rubbish. With combined collections the garb- 
 age, ashes, and rubbish are all placed in the same receptacle and re- 
 moved by a single set of collection vehicles. 
 
 Much has been written on the advantages of combined collections 
 over separate collections, and vice versa. All sorts of sanitary and 
 economic claims have been made for each system. In a general way 
 separate collections permit- the utilization of the salable portion of 
 the rubbish, the removal of the unconsumed fuel from the ashes, and 
 the utilization of the garbage. Consequently combined collections 
 are generally used where the material is to be incinerated, although 
 in some cases separate collections are made even when incineration is 
 employed. 
 
 The principal advantages claimed for the combined method of 
 collections are that this S3 r stem is more convenient to the householder, 
 that liquids in the garbage are absorbed by the other materials, that 
 the fly nuisance and odors are thereby lessened, that less frequent 
 collections of garbage need be made, and that the cost of collection is 
 less. All are advantages to a certain extent. Combined collec- 
 tions are undoubtedly more convenient to the householder and are 
 less trouble to the city officials, but in most cases mean more taxes to 
 the public. Whether the liquids of the garbage are absorbed by 
 other materials and the odors, etc., are diminished thereby, is a ques- 
 tion of the relative quantities of the respective ingredients in the 
 receptacle. With a properly enforced regulation relative to water- 
 tight covered cans, there should be no odor or fly nuisance with 
 separate collections. 
 
 It is also practical that the garbage need not be collected as fre- 
 quently with combined collections as with separate collections, but 
 the converse is also true, that with the combined collections the 
 ashes and rubbish must be collected more frequently, due to their 
 intermixture with garbage. 
 
 SEPARATE V. COMBINED COLLECTIONS. 
 
 Comparative costs of combined and separate collections at Wash- 
 ington, D. C., based on extensive investigation during 1915 indicate 
 that combined collections would cost about 7 cents per capita per 
 annum less than separate collections. The value of the by-products 
 recovered by utilization after separate collections would absorb this 
 7 cents and leave a comfortable balance. The total cost of combined 
 collection with incineration was estimated at 68 cents per capita per
 
 6 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 
 
 annum. With separate collections and utilization the per capita 
 figure was 33.4 cents per annum. 
 
 INCINERATION. 
 
 Out of 620 cities having thus far reported their method of dis- 
 posal, 102, or about 16 per cent, are destroying their garbage by 
 burning in some form of incinerator. These 102 cities include 19 of 
 the 66 cities reported by the Census Bureau as having over 100,000 
 population in 1916. 
 
 These cities are destroying about 600,000 tons of garbage per an- 
 num, as well as enormous quantities of paper, rags, and other readily 
 salable materials. 
 
 The theory of this method of disposal is that all putrescible wastes 
 are to be subjected to high temperatures and converted into a sterile 
 ash. Its use is therefore based on its alleged sanitary advantages 
 over other methods. The fact remains, however, that this method 
 of disposal, like other methods, is only sanitary when properly man- 
 aged. Because a given city has an incinerator of one sort or another, 
 it does not follow that the putrescible wastes from that city are being 
 reduced to an innocuous ash or clinker. 
 
 The cost of installation is comparatively high, as is the cost of 
 operation. While some plants are selling the steam generated, no 
 plant is returning sufficient revenue to offset the cost of operation. 
 
 While incineration has proved a failure in a number of cases and 
 a large number of plants have been abandoned, it should be noted that 
 this method is capable of being conducted on a high sanitary plane. 
 
 REDUCTION. 
 
 Garbage containing no free moisture has a water content of about 
 70 per cent, or, in other words, by drying a given quantity of gar- 
 bage its weight can be reduced about three-quarters. Any garbage 
 by-products must be practically free from moisture, and to obtain 
 any appreciable revenue considerable garbage must be available. 
 The necessary apparatus is costly and the operating charges are high. 
 These factors in a majority of cases limit garbage-reduction plants 
 to cities of considerable size. Approximately 100,000 population 
 must be available before a reduction plant is commercially feasible 
 with present-day -methods. 
 
 Disregarding the numerous rendering plants throughout the coun- 
 try, some of which treat garbage in addition to dead animals and 
 meat trimmings, 29 of the larger cities are having their garbage 
 disposed of by the reduction process. The plants used for this pur- 
 pose are producing about 72,000,000 pounds of grease and 150,000 
 tons of fertilizer tankage per annum. The total value of the mate- 
 rial recovered at present prices is over $11,000.000. 
 
 The grease now being produced is particularly valuable for its 
 glycerin content, which is estimated to be sufficient to produce 
 10,000.000 pounds of nitroglycerin. The fatty acids contained in the 
 grease are equivalent to the fatty acids in the manufacture of two 
 hundred million 12-ounce cakes of soap. It is therefore obvious that 
 the reduction process occupies a considerable field in our national 
 resources, particularly since, were this grease not available, an equal
 
 GARBAGE UliJLl/AliON. 7 
 
 amount of edible and cooking oils would be required for the purposes 
 to which the garbage grease is applied. 
 
 Garbage grease therefore is indirectly a food supply, and any 
 additional grease recovered augments our available resources. In this 
 connection it is important to note that 25 cities of over 100,000 popu- 
 lation are either burning or dumping their garbage; the grease and 
 fertilizer ingredients contained are not being utilized. It is estimated 
 that this garbage would produce 30,000,000 pounds of grease and 
 60,000 tons of fertilizer tankage, the sum of me values of these two 
 by-products being nearly $5,000,000. The grease being destroyed is 
 sufficient for the manufacture of over 4,000,000 pounds of nitro- 
 glycerin and sixty-five million 12-ounce cakes of soap. 
 
 As an example of the value of the fertilizer tankage, the amount 
 now produced per annum contains approximately 9,000,000 pounds 
 of nitrogen, 22,000,000 pounds of phosphate of lime, and 2,000,000 
 pounds of potash enough to replace the soil depletion of about 
 8,000,000 bushels of wheat. The fertilizer from 25 cities not now 
 utilizing their garbage would replace the nitrogen removed from the 
 soil by about 2,600,000 bushels of wheat. 
 
 The reduction process is primarily a manufacturing process and 
 has undergone radical improvement during the past few years. 
 Reduction plants have been justly famous for their odors, but at 
 the present time a number of plants are being operated with efficient 
 management, improved apparatus, and no nuisance. 
 
 Recent developments in garbage reduction include the production 
 of alcohol by processes similar to those used in distillation. As much 
 alcohol has been recovered from a ton of garbage as from 4 bushels 
 of corn. This is an additional recovery, as the process does not 
 materially decrease the amount of grease recovered, or the amount of 
 bone phosphate of lime, potash, and nitrogen in the tankage. If 
 anything, the tankage is improved as a more concentrated fertilizer is 
 produced. 
 
 COMPARISON OF VALUE BY REDUCTION AND FEEDING. 
 
 We have indicated that the reduction process is hardly suitable 
 for cities of under 100,000 population. A proper question would be, 
 " Is pig feeding more applicable to cities now reducing than the re- 
 duction process?" 
 
 In as far as the monetary return applies, the two methods are 
 practically identical. The reduction process possibly has the advan- 
 tage of improvement to a greater extent than pig feeding. By im- 
 proving the breed of the hog, gains might be made more economi- 
 cally, but the reduction process requires only simplified machinery or 
 additional recoveries to make a ton of garbage more valuable. 
 
 It also seems that the larger the city. the less adapted its garbage 
 to pig feeding. One might say that smaller cities were better man- 
 aged, but it is obvious that the difficulties of controlling materials 
 placed in the garbage increase more rapidly than does the population. 
 Although a pig is blessed with a digestive system capable of assimi- 
 lating almost anything, its efficiency can not be compared with the 
 mechanical digesters of the reduction plants.
 
 8 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 
 
 While from a purely conservation standpoint pork production 
 may seem more important than the production of grease and ferti- 
 lizer tankage, the use of the grease recovered releases an equivalent 
 amount of edible oils, while our stock of agricultural fertilizers is so 
 depleted at the present time that fertilizer tankage is a national re- 
 source not to be overlooked. 
 
 DISPOSAL BY FEEDING. 
 
 PRESENT STATUS OF GARBAGE FEEDING. 
 
 The test of the practicability of the feeding method of disposal is 
 the selling possibilities of the pork produced. There is no benefit 
 in feeding if the pork is unfit for food or if a popular prejudice will 
 prohibit it from selling freely. 
 
 There undoubtedly is a prejudice in the public mind against " gar- 
 bage " not particularly against garbage-fed pork, nor reduction or 
 incineration plants, but against the word "garbage" and anything 
 connected with garbage. One might say its disposal was regarded 
 as an illicit business. It is not strange therefore that there is so little 
 general knowledge of the possibilities of garbage utilization and par- 
 ticularly of the feeding method. 
 
 Of the G6 cities estimated to have in excess of 100,000 population 
 in 1916 by the United States Census Bureau, 20 or over 30 per cent, 
 report that their garbage is being disposed of by feeding to hogs. 
 Of the 544 cities having between 10.000 and 100,000 population in 
 1916, from which reports have been received, 200, or over 36 per cent, 
 report their garbage likewise being fed. 
 
 This means that even when the production in cities of under 10,000 
 inhabitants is not considered, nor the suburban and farm population 
 which disposes of almost all its garbage by feeding, the waste food 
 products from over 8,000,000 people are being fed to hogs. This 
 would be sufficient to produce approximately 80,000,000 pounds of 
 pork per annum. But assuming only half of this amount actually 
 slaughtered and data available indicate that more than 50 per cent 
 efficiency can be expected it would mean that more than 40,000,000 
 pounds of garbage-fed pork is being sold each year. At the present 
 price of pork this would have a value of $6,000,000. 
 
 QUALITY OF PORK PRODUCED. 
 
 If garbage-fed pork is inferior to grain-fed, the price paid by the 
 packers, who are naturally adverse to paying full price for an in- 
 ferior article, should indicate the fact. We have not been able to 
 find any market where garbage-fed hogs are being generally sold at 
 a lower price than grain-fed animals. When cases of " softer " pork 
 have been noted it has generally been found that the animals were 
 improperly raised, kept in small pens and not allowed to exercise. 
 There is no theoretical reason why garbage should be bad for hogs. 
 Even putrefying materials may be transformed into delicious human 
 food; for example, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, etc., feed almost exclu- 
 sively on. decaying fish ; and the common barnyard chicken will eat 
 and thrive on almost all kinds of so-called filth.
 
 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 9 
 
 Eecently garbage-fed hogs were raised at the experimental station 
 of a Middle Western State and marketed at the same time as hogs 
 fed corn and other grains. The carcasses of these garbage-fed hogs 
 could not be distinguished by the officials of one of the large packing 
 houses from corn-fed hogs, and were even given a higher grading 
 than some of the hogs fed on certain grains. 
 
 POSSIBILITY OF DISEASED MEAT. 
 
 The chief objection to garbage-fed hogs is that such hogs ara 
 alleged to be infected with trichinosis. There are no data available 
 to support such claims; isolated cases have been found, as with 
 grain-fed stock, but we do not believe that there is any evidence 
 to-day that shows garbage- fed hogs, as a class, to be more susceptible 
 to either trichinosis or tuberculosis than grain-fed. The health 
 officer of a large New England city, which disposes of its garbage 
 by feeding, says: 
 
 I believe garbage-fed pork is as wholesome as any that can be obtained. 
 I eat it myself when I can get it, and I wish I could afford more of it. I 
 do not see any grounds for the belief that such pork is unwholesome. 
 
 Xo inspection for trichinosis is made by the Government inspectors 
 at the packing houses. Thoroughly cooking the pork destroys all 
 danger from this parasite and likewise all danger from tubercular 
 germs. The Government urges thorough cooking and condemns the 
 practice of eating raw pork. Some garbage-fed pork from a south- 
 ern pig farm, claimed to be infected this year, was sent to Washing- 
 ton for examination by the Bureau of Animal Industry, and found 
 to be absolutely free from all traces of trichinosis infection. 
 
 Recently, at a meeting in Chicago, the statement was made that 
 garbage- fed hogs were particularly likely to be infected with tuber- 
 culosis. This statement was promptly challenged by an official of 
 the Massachusetts Bureau of Animal Industry, a specialist in the 
 diseases of garbage-fed hogs. He said that such a statement was 
 no more justified, from available data, than a statement that because 
 90 per cent of the hogs from a certain county of a Western State 
 showed lesions of tuberculosis 011 autopsy, it followed that the feed- 
 ing of grain caused tuberculosis. There is a well-known reason for 
 the large percentage of corn-fed hogs found infected, and there is 
 likewise a well-defined reason for the few cases where garbage-fed 
 hogs have been found with a large percentage of tuberculosis. 
 
 It is interesting to note that in a western city the percentage of 
 garbage-fed hogs found infected as compared with grain-fed hogs 
 found infected by the same Government inspectors, ran about 1 to 
 20. In an Eastern State, out of about 100,000 pounds of garbage-fed 
 pork, only 41 pounds was condemned by the Federal inspectors. 
 Over 90 per cent of the total number of hogs raised in Massachusetts 
 are said to be garbage- fed, but the percentage condemned is not 
 nearly as high as in certain other States with less stringent inspec- 
 tion laws. 
 
 COMPARISON WITH GRAIN -FED HOGS. 
 
 In what way does the garbage-fed hog differ from his grain-fed 
 brother? What steps are necessary to make a successful hog raiser 
 
 50184^18 2
 
 10 
 
 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 
 
 likewise successful with garbage-fed hogs? What is the secret in 
 this method of feeding ? 
 
 In very general terms, the following comparisons of garbage-fed 
 hogs with those fed grain can be made. 
 
 1. Garbage-fed hogs do not make gains as rapidly. 
 
 2. Garbage-fed hogs show greater shrinkage in long shipments. 
 
 3. Garbage-fed hogs do not dress quite as high. 
 
 4. With proper management the meat produced is equal, and can 
 not be distinguished from that of grain-f3d hogs. 
 
 5. Garbage-fed hogs are exposed to cholera constantly, and inoc- 
 ulation is indispensable. 
 
 6. Cholera in garbage-fed hogs is generally associated with sec- 
 ondary infection but can be controlled by immunization. 
 
 7. Garbage-fed hogs are not peculiarly susceptible to trichinosis 
 and tuberculosis. 
 
 The secret of success with garbage-fed hcgs is, as with grain-fed 
 hogs, largely one of management. The man behind the hcgs is the 
 prime consideration. It requires hard work, no little knowledge 
 of hogs, and a large amount of common sense to raise garbage-fed 
 hogs. Cities undertaking municipal hog-raising must remember that 
 the pigs are to be fed on garbage; not on politics. The men who 
 are making a success in this work are up early and late, are progres- 
 sive, know their hogs, and have a distinct knowledge of what they 
 are doing and how they are doing it. 
 
 SIZE OF HERD REQUIRED.. 
 
 One hundred animals, ranging from pigs to big sows, will eat a 
 ton of garbage per day. This means an average ration of 20 pounds 
 per animal per day. Since the average per capita production of 
 garbage per year is about 200 pounds, this means that the garbage 
 from every 1,000 population will support from 20 to 30 pigs. It 
 must be remembered, however, that the greater part of the garbage 
 is produced in the summer and that a larger herd will be required 
 during that sason. The feed value of the garbage produced during 
 the summer months, however, is not as high, thus to a certain extent 
 offsetting the increased quantity. The average monthly percentage 
 of the yearly production for cities in the United States runs about 
 as follows : 
 
 Per cent 
 
 January 7 
 
 February 6} 
 
 March 7 
 
 April : 7i 
 
 May 8 
 
 June 8$ 
 
 July 9} 
 
 Per cent 
 
 August 11 
 
 September 10i 
 
 October 9 
 
 November 8 
 
 December 7$ 
 
 Total for year 100 
 
 The figures vary somewhat with the location of the city, character 
 of the population, etc., but give a general idea of the variance which 
 may be expected. 
 
 GAIN IN WEIGHT PER POUND OF GARBAGE EATEN. 
 
 A number of tests have been made which establish that a gain of 
 about a pound per day can be expected with growing hogs. This
 
 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 11 
 
 means roughly that a ton of garbage is equal to 100 pounds of live 
 weight gained. It does not mean, however, that tons of garbage as 
 produced multiplied by 100 equals the live weight to be put on the 
 market. A certain percentage of loss in stock is always to be expected 
 and even with the fullest cooperation with householders, city officials, 
 etc., a certain amount of inedible material, and even inedible garbage, 
 will always be present. 
 
 Some feeders are stating that the quality of the garbage now pro- 
 duced is not as good as that of a year ago that more garbage must 
 be eaten to produce a pound gain." This is not definitely established 
 but it is reasonable to suppose that with high prices, etc., the quality 
 is not as good. We recommend that to cover losses and a possible 
 decrease in the quality of the garbage fed, the amount of market- 
 able live weight be assumed at 1 pound to 50 pounds of garbage. 
 With careful management the ratio could be lowered considerably. 
 
 HOUSEHOLD TREATMENT. 
 
 Householders should be required to keep garbage free of cans, 
 papers, sawdust, oyster shells, glass, etc. Garbage mixed with any 
 of these foreign materials should not be collected, and an ordinance 
 to this effect should be provided and enforced without fear or favor. 
 Numerous losses can be traced to such foreign matter, particularly 
 such finer particles as readily become embedded in edible materials. 
 Two objects which find their way into the garbage pail in consid- 
 erable quantities are the very thin glass from electric-light bulbs and 
 phonograph needles. 
 
 Undoubtedly a great deal of the difficulty with mixed material is 
 due to carelessness, but the admixture of the objects mentioned above 
 could hardly be due to carelessness. They are not broken crockery, 
 cutlery, paper, meat skewers, etc., which would naturally be associ- 
 ated with garbage. A large part of the trouble is due to the house- 
 holder's ignorance that the garbage is being fed and that such things 
 are injurious. Surely very few phonograph needles would find their 
 way into the garbage pail if the householders could imagine the 
 tortures suffered by the unfortunate animals, their intestines punc- 
 tured and torn by the sharp points. 
 
 It is unquestionably wise to keep the public continually advised 
 that the garbage is being fed. Individual cases can be easily handled 
 by a courteous notice that the materials found with the garbage are 
 very injurious to the hogs. Word to the local press that an autopsy 
 shows one or more hogs have died through eating foreign material 
 will generally be treated as " news," and the public will be reminded 
 of their responsibilities. The various civic officials must give their 
 hearty cooperation and their notices to the public should explain 
 that the garbage is being fed to hogs. When the public knows that 
 there is a reason for the various ordinances, that they are not simply 
 " red tape," a great improvement will be noticed. 
 
 The garbage should be carefully drained by the householder before 
 being placed in the receptacle. The ordinance should prohibit all 
 dishwater, and garbage containing free water of any description 
 should be noncollectible. The water not only adds to the per ton
 
 12 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 
 
 cost, of collection but is very apt to contain lye, strong soap, etc., 
 things which are none too good for the digestive system of the hogs. 
 In line with the policy of keeping out moisture, the receptacles 
 should be kept covered. This should be done for the further reasons 
 that garbage in a well-covered receptacle is inaccessible to stray cats 
 or dogs, is fly proof, and confines odors. Obviously such receptacles 
 should be made of metal and kept water-tight, although from the 
 feeding standpoint a pervious receptacle would eliminate all free 
 moisture. 
 
 FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION. 
 
 Aside from the sanitary aspect, the interval of collection is im- 
 portant in that the fresher the garbage the greater its feeding value. 
 In northern cities collection should certainly be made three times per 
 week during the summer months. Once per week during cold 
 weather might be sufficient from the feeding standpoint, but house- 
 hold requirements warrant at least two collections per week. In 
 southern cities daily collections should be made during hot weather, 
 while three per week may be sufficient in the winter. Garbage from 
 hotels and restaurants should be collected daily. 
 
 If the disposal of garbage by feeding lowers the cost of disposal 
 in any city, the question of applying such savings to household con- 
 venience by more frequent collections is worthy of serious considera- 
 tion. The big factor at the present time is that the valuable in- 
 gredients of the garbage be conserved rather than destroyed. Even 
 if the cost is equal to that of nonutilization, the additional food 
 values recovered are an important item when the amount thus re- 
 claimed is calculated. 
 
 BY WHOM SHOULD COLLECTIONS BE MADE? 
 
 Special efforts should be made on the part of the city to collect by 
 municipal forces even though disposal by contract is deemed advis- 
 able. The municipality can generally overcome collection difficulties 
 better than a contractor. With contract collections, details must be 
 definitely stipulated and can not readily be changed as conditions 
 alter. With municipal collections changed conditions can be readily 
 met. 
 
 It is also believed that more competition can be obtained on a 
 contract for disposal only than on a contract for both collection and 
 disposal. The difficulties experienced with disposal are not so de- 
 tailed as with collection. Collection of garbage is a public utility, 
 whereas disposal is a private affair in which the public is not inter- 
 est od and. up to the present, has had no wish to be interested. 
 
 METHODS OF UTILIZING GARBAGE AS HOG FOOD. 
 
 There are but two feeding methods worthy of consideration; the 
 first by the municipality, the second by one individual, association, 
 or corporation. In no event should contracts be made with a number 
 of feeders. This has b?en tried in a number of places and found dis- 
 advantageous to both the citv and the contractors. In the first place 
 the amount of garbage produced varies from season to season, and 
 even from day to day. It is difficult to proportion this varying
 
 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 13 
 
 quantity among a number of feeders, when each feeder must provide 
 sufficient stock to consume the maximum amount which he might 
 receive on any given day. It is impossible to prevent a surplus if 
 a certain feeder kills off his stock and leaves the city with an accumu- 
 lation of garbage and no way of disposal. With a number of indi- 
 vidual feeders no heavy bond can be obtained by the city. A con- 
 tract could safely be let to a single individual, permitting him to 
 sell whatever garbage he choses to sell. The city could then be 
 protected by adequate bond. 
 
 VALUE OF GARBAGE FOR FEED. 
 
 In considering disposal contracts it should not be overlooked that 
 the individual is preparing to take certain risks and that these risks 
 warrant him a return on his money commensurable with the risk. 
 
 There is at present a mistaken idea throughout the country as to 
 the value of garbage. In a large number of cases it is a question 
 whether the value will be sufficient to pay the cost of collection and 
 transportation. Where collection and disposal both are to be made 
 by the contractor, we doubt if the work will be done without cost to 
 the city unless the quality of the garbage is exceptional and there 
 is keen competition for the material. 
 
 The ratio of 1 pound of marketable pork to 50 pounds of garbage 
 has already been established. With pork on the hoof at 15 cents 
 this would give gross feed value of $6.20 to a ton of garbage. From 
 this amount must be deducted the cost of labor and materials at the 
 farm, any haul involved, interest on investment, depreciation on 
 buildings, and profit. 
 
 DISPOSAL STIPULATIONS. 
 
 In making contracts for disposal by feeding, a comparatively long- 
 time contract is advisable. It is obvious that with one-year contracts 
 the cost to the city must be excessive as compared with a longer 
 period, since the contractor must cover the cost of his equipment in 
 the price bid. Upon again bidding he is in a position to take a large 
 profit, his plant being practically paid for and his competitors com- 
 pelled to add at least a considerable portion of the plant cost to their 
 price. 
 
 An additional advantage of comparatively long contracts or mu- 
 nicipal operation is that sanitary standards can be insisted on which 
 would be prohibitive with a one-year contract because of their cost. 
 With a one-year contract almost any kind of shelter will have to 
 suffice. The feeding grounds, fences, etc., will all be of the cheapest 
 type obtainable. With a contract for a longer period the city can 
 stipulate and the contractor would be willing to furnish structures of 
 a more permanent type. Any contract to be awarded, however, 
 should require such standards that no nuisance would be maintained 
 at the plant. Obviously in a settled community the opportunity for 
 a nuisance would be greater than in strictly suburban territory and 
 stricter standards would be needed. A suburban location for a farm 
 is therefore more desirable but lengthens the haul and thus increases 
 costs. If the garbage has to be transferred from the collecting ve- 
 hicles to rail transportation, however, the distance of the farm from
 
 14 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 
 
 the municipality is not so important, the cost to transport 5 miles 
 being very little less than to transport 20 to 25. 
 
 With the present popular demand for this method of disposal there 
 is unfortunately a tendency to lose sight of the advances made in the 
 art. Various statements and newspaper items refer to the success of 
 this method but call little attention to the dangers met with in the 
 farms of 25 years ago. Unless cities adopting feeding disposal give 
 careful attention to sanitary features, a throwback to the old-time 
 farms will be inevitable. It costs money to keep down garbage odors. 
 
 LOCATION OF FARM. 
 
 The distance of the farm from the municipality naturally depends 
 on local conditions. With wagon or truck haulage, distance is an 
 important factor, but with carload lots an additional 10-mile haul 
 adds very little to the freight rate and a more ideal location may be 
 selected. 
 
 The pig farm should be located on soil that drains readily, prefer- 
 ably sand or gravel. For the same reason it is advisable that the 
 land be rolling; the houses should then be located for warmth in 
 winter and coolness in summer. Good drainage is essential at all 
 seasons. 
 
 Garbage-fed hogs require abundant drinking water. If any 
 streams or brooks are included in the property they should be care- 
 fully traced and their purity established or else fenced off so that the 
 animals will drink pure water otherwise supplied. 
 
 The size of the farm necessary varies with the system of handling. 
 With feeding out of dcors in all but extreme weather, assume 50 pigs 
 per acre. Under cover the number can be increased to from 400 to 
 600 an acre. 
 
 EQUIPMENT. 
 
 The type of shelter to be provided depends on the length of the 
 contract and the climate of the locality in which the farm is to be 
 located. With a short-time contract, the idea should be to give the 
 pig a dry place in which to sleep and keep warm. The types of shel- 
 ters developed by various experimental stations are well adapted to 
 this end ; particularly a type placed on skids for moving about, fac- 
 ing north in summer and south in the winter and with sides so ar- 
 ranged as to be opened for ventilation and shade. Any shelters 
 should be so low as to prohibit any great degree of piling up, with 
 its subsequent suffocation or heated condition conducive to pneu- 
 monia. With houses of this type the feeding arrangements will 
 naturally be somewhat primitive and should at least consist of the 
 feeding platforms hereinafter discussed. 
 
 With Ions-time contracts more pretentious equipment can be in- 
 stalled, permanent rather than temporary houses may be erected, 
 and concrete rather than board platforms provided. In such event, 
 the breeding and raising of the stock would probably be undertaken 
 and at least one of the houses provided with heat and artificial light. 
 Under no condition, however, should the animals be kept in small 
 pens. Considerable range is absolutely necessary for the successful 
 operation of a garbage-fed piggery. Fattening stock can be success- 
 fully kept in close confines for a limited time.
 
 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 15 
 
 The other equipment developed for use with grain-fed hogs is like- 
 wise used for those fed garbage. No troughs should be used, how- 
 over, and provision for a feeding floor must be made. These feeding 
 floors and the range required constitute the main difference in the 
 equipment for the two types of animals. 
 
 METHODS OF FEEDING. 
 
 The two general methods of feeding depend primarily on how the 
 material is delivered to the farm. When in wagonloads or by motor 
 truck it will probably be advantageous to have what are known as 
 feeding lots. These lots are about an acre in size and contain one or 
 more feeding platforms made of lumber and of sufficient size to hold 
 n load of garbage as delivered. The platforms are on skids and have 
 a low rail, a 2 by 4, nailed on edge, to help prevent the garbage being 
 shoved off the platform. 
 
 The pigs are permitted to enter the feeding lot only after the gar- 
 bage has been dumped and the vehicle has left the lot. This prevents 
 injury during unloading and avoids garbage being thrown on the 
 pigs. 
 
 After feeding, the pigs are shut out of the lots, the bones gathered, 
 the platforms cleaned and skidded to a new location. The ground 
 beneath and around the old site is plowed under and danger of odors 
 from all spilled garbage or moisture eliminated. The feed lots are 
 changed from time to time and various forage crops grown on the 
 lots thus fertilized by uneaten garbage and manure. This apprecia- 
 tion of the soil is important and land that will benefit by such fertili- 
 zation can well be purchased rather than land totally unsuited for 
 tillage and the raising of crops. 
 
 Where delivery is made in carload lots, the labor expense or rehan- 
 dling may eat up a large part of the feed value. Under such condi- 
 tions the hogs are brought to the garbage and the feeding platforms 
 are adjacent to the railroad tracks. Cement platforms soon become 
 eaten by the acid in garbage, but some impervious material must be 
 used where the platforms can not be moved about and the ground 
 underneath turned over. The use of narrow troughs is objectionable. 
 Not only do they become so eaten by the acid as to be hard to clean, 
 but it is much better to spread the material out on a flat surface where 
 the hog will have an opportunity to sort and reject any injurious 
 matter. 
 
 The best garbage should be fed to fattening stock or to sows with 
 young pigs. When open-lot feeding is practiced this is a simple 
 procedure, since the material collected in the better portions of the 
 city can be reserved for these particular purposes. With carload 
 lots the same effect is produced by first permitting only the fattening 
 stock to the platforms. After these have become satisfied a second 
 lot, say, young shoats, are let in In the same way a third or even a 
 fourth lot are given an opportunity. Not only is the better garbage 
 eaten by the most important portion of the stock, but the garbage is 
 eaten more closely. The last lot, generally brood sows, are kept hun- 
 gry and can be relied upon to clean up all edible material remaining. 
 
 The feeding of frozen garbage during the winter months is not 
 considered advisable. It may be unavoidable, but it must be remem-
 
 16 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 
 
 bered that before this food can be digested its temperature must be 
 raised to that of the stomach. This requires a certain amount of 
 energy, more cheaply supplied by mechanical means than by the body 
 heat of the animal. Considerable frozen garbage is being fed, but 
 not as good gains in weight are obtained. Where the material is 
 thawed before feeding the gains are said to equal those of other 
 seasons. 
 
 All authorities agree that abundant fresh water must be available 
 at all times. If possible, some sort of heater should be provided to 
 prevent freezing during severe weather. 
 
 STERILIZED V. RAW GARBAGE. 
 
 There has been a great deal of agitation throughout the country 
 on the desirability of sterilizing garbage before feeding. In certain 
 localities where feeding was frowned upon up to a short time ago, for 
 alleged sanitary reasons, permission is now granted on condition that 
 the garbage be first sterilized. There is no great objection to feeding 
 sterilized garbage except that people actually having used it state 
 that the animals do not do so well that the losses are heavier than 
 when feeding the raw material. 
 
 At practically all of the large farms sterilizing apparatus has been 
 installed at considerable expense, but such apparatus is not being used 
 at the present time. The difficulty is said to be that sterilization 
 eliminates the opportunity for selection, that any objectionable mat- 
 ter is incorporated into the edible garbage, and can not be refused by 
 the animals. 
 
 With so heterogeneous a material as garbage, no definite rule can 
 be stated. Experiments should be conducted in every case to estab- 
 lish the better method. As regards garbage from hotels, restaurants, 
 and Army camps, sterilization does not seem to be objectionable. 
 This, however, is a special type of garbage, and the grease recovered 
 is appreciable. From a financial standpoint the cost with municipal 
 garbage is about equal to the revenue obtained from the sale of grease 
 recovered. 
 
 USE OF SUPPLEMENTARY FEEDS. 
 
 Most garbage is more or less a balanced ration and no supplement- 
 ary feeds are required. We find, however, in a number of places that 
 animals are finished off with corn ; in others wheat, middlings, or sim- 
 ilar feed is given to brood sows, or corn silage is fed on Sundays. As 
 a rule, however, no feed other than garbage is provided. Other feeds, 
 and particularly pasturage, may cause gains to be made in quicker 
 time. With hotel and other special garbage a certain amount of 
 roughage may be desirable and even necessary. The opinions of dif- 
 ferent raisers vary greatly, with the personal qualifications of the 
 man feeding providing the most important factor. No differences in 
 results are claimed by those supplementing garbage as compared with 
 those feeding garbage alone. 
 
 AMOUNT TO FEED. 
 
 In using grain feeds it has been conclusively shown that greater 
 gains can be made per pound when the feed is available to the ani-
 
 GABBAGE UTILIZATION. 17 
 
 mals at all times. The same result not unnaturally seems to hold with 
 garbage feeding. It must be remembered that the percentage of 
 water in garbage is much higher than in grain feed. The animal 
 must, therefore, fill up oftener to obtain the same amount of sus- 
 taining matter. This means that the garbage must be available to 
 the animals for a considerable portion of the day. 
 
 COST OF FEEDING. 
 
 The cost of operation at a farm depends almost entirely on condi- 
 tions at the piggery in question; any comparisons would be mis- 
 leading unless a careful analysis of all factors leading up to and 
 depending on such costs were considered. 
 
 In a general way it is safe to assume that the cost of disposal after 
 the farm is reached, including overhead charges at the farm, would 
 not exceed $3 per ton. Less costs are reported and the above figure 
 permits of reduction with careful management. A supplementary 
 source of revenue at a farm is the bones recovered. These are col- 
 lected preparatory to cleaning up the platforms each day. The 
 amount recovered runs from 75 to 100 pounds per ton of garbage. 
 
 NUMBER OF ANIMALS PER PEN. 
 
 The losses due to " piling up '' are so heavy that each hog raiser has 
 very positive ideas as to the number of animals per pen. Some say 
 that as low as 10 is the number to be allowed in a shelter. 
 
 Individual pens should be provided for each brood sow, or at the 
 most two sows should share the same pen. Upon being weaned the 
 young pigs should be kept 8 or 10 to a pen until about 8 or 10 weeks 
 old. Efforts should be made to keep in each pen pigs of approxi- 
 mately the same size. When over 60 to 75 pounds in weight they can 
 be turned out into comparatively large lots. The larger the animals 
 the more can be put together in a single inclosure without danger. 
 Our records indicate that as high as five to six hundred animals have 
 been kept in a single inclosure without sufficient piling up to cause 
 harm. 
 
 BREEDS TO BE USED. 
 
 Practically every breed of hog is being successfully fed on garbage. 
 The tendency is to cross the short-bodied hog with the bacon type. 
 In some instances the boars are of the short-bodied type while in 
 other cases short-bodied sows are used. 
 
 With short-term contracts, the tendency is to buy stock at from 
 75 to 100 pounds in weight and the effort is to secure a thrifty hog 
 that will put on weight rapidly. Practically every grade of hog is 
 being used for this purpose. 
 
 The number of pigs raised to maturity with garbage-fed stock is 
 about the same as with grain-fed ; namely, from 5 to 7. 
 
 BUTTING FEEDERS V. RAISING. 
 
 There is much controversy between garbage feeders as to the rela- 
 tive merits of hogs raised on garbage from birth and those purchased 
 on the market when at around 100 pounds in weight. Some claim
 
 18 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 
 
 that the garbage-fed hog has not the strength of the other hog; 
 others will only handle feeders when their regular stock proves in- 
 adequate to consume the amount of garbage being produced. 
 
 Unquestionably a hog raised from infancy on garbage should 
 be the more successful.- The feed is much more bulky than with 
 grain and requires a greater stomach capacity if the same amount 
 of nourishment is to be assimilated. The hog raised on garbage 
 is started as a garbage-feeding pig, his stomach is capable of being 
 distended far beyond that of a grain-fed hog of equal age. 
 
 The men who purchase the greater part of their stock point 
 out that they take off the market immature animals at the time 
 they are susceptible to their greatest gains, and that there is con- 
 siderable difference in the prices per pound for these light hogs 
 and what they obtain later, after feeding to regulation weights. 
 To successfully buy such pigs means that the buyer must be located 
 near a point where considerable numbers of such hogs are put on 
 the market, as the general practice throughout the country is not 
 to market hogs at such light weights. 
 
 Local conditions will undoubtedly be the greatest factor in de- 
 ciding this question. If the farm is operating on a one-year basis, 
 the expenditure for equipment necessary for raising is not justified. 
 Pigs can be purchased more cheaply. If several years of operation 
 are certain, raising the animals may prove the cheaper. Satisfac- 
 tory results are being obtained under both systems. The manage- 
 ment is the essential factor. 
 
 CHOLERA OF GARBAGE-FED HOGS. 
 
 Practically every garbage feeder believes that the material he 
 is feeding contains considerable hog-cholera virus, and that instead 
 of being exposed to the disease once or twice during their lifetime 
 his animals are exposed daily. Immunization is accordingly of far 
 greater importance than with grain-fed stock. 
 
 Constant exposure to cholera virus will undoubtedly build up a 
 considerable resistance to the disease. Where garbage with its 
 virus content has been fed for a number of generations, a higher 
 resistance is to be expected than in grain-fed herds. This higher 
 resistance causes the disease to be less acute, but the garbage feeder 
 must recognize that his hogs are exposed to considerable hog cholera 
 and that immunization is absolutely required. 
 
 Certain successful garbage feeders are using the single or serum 
 treatment alone and aim to repeat the treatment about every six 
 or eight weeks. This is expensive from the standpoint of both 
 labor and cost of serum used, but is effective. It would seem, how- 
 ever, that equally good or better results could be obtained by using 
 the simultaneous, or virus and serum, treatment. Experience indi- 
 cates that the danger of this treatment is largely due to incompetent 
 methods of inoculation and serum of low potency. As much as 80 
 cc. of virus have been given on one side of pig and 100 cc. of serum 
 on the other side without injury, but 2 cc. of virulent virus is suffi- 
 cient. It must not be forgotten, however, that this treatment must 
 be properly applied by a competent veterinarian or other person par- 
 ticularly qualified. While it is a sure preventative when properly 
 handled, incompetence with this treatment is one of the surest ways 
 of spreading the disease.
 
 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 19 
 
 Immunity in breeding stock is transmitted to the offspring as a 
 passive or temporary immunity, which generally disappears soon 
 after weaning. It has been definitely established that a pig with 
 passive immunity can not be actively or permanently immunized. It 
 is therefore recommended that a first treatment be given at about 6 
 weeks of age and the animals be re-treated, with both virus and serum, 
 when at approximately 50 pounds weight. By that time any passive 
 immunity will have had an opportunity to wear off and the hog can 
 be made permanently immune. 
 
 We find that even where selected garbage is fed, although efforts to 
 sterilize by cooking have been made, a great deal of trouble is ex- 
 perienced when immunization is not practiced. 
 
 Because of the lasting immunity conferred, the simultaneous treat- 
 ment for cholera control is always preferable to the "serum only" 
 treatment. The cost is practically the same. 
 
 The higher resistance built up in hogs bred under garbage feeding 
 conditions makes it more difficult to permanently immunize and the 
 virus used must be the most virulent that can be procured. The doses 
 should always be ample. 
 
 TUBERCULOSIS AND OTHER DISEASES. 
 
 We have already mentioned that 90 per cent of the hogs in Massa- 
 chusetts are estimated to be fed on garbage, and statistics show that 
 of over 10,000 hogs slaughtered last year under inspection in that 
 State, only 169 were found infected with tuberculosis. The statement 
 has recently been made that 8 per cent of the animals coming from 
 a well-known pig farm are infected with this disease. It is reported 
 that the animals referred to were not garbage bred, but were pur- 
 chased by this farm and may have been infected at the time of 
 purchase. Some were found to be tubercular and have died of 
 tuberculosis. Prior to purchasing these hogs, this farm sold over 
 2,500 hogs and had but 11 condemned. 
 
 With pneumonia, the main effort, as with grain-fed hogs, is to 
 prevent the animals from becoming overheated and then cooling off 
 too rapidly. A large number of cases can be expected if the sleeping 
 quarters are permitted to become wet and foul. Good ventilation 
 is also important for the same reason. 
 
 In connection with the feeding of frozen garbage, it must not be 
 overlooked that if this practice is continued over a considerable 
 period, the vitality of the animals is likely to be lowered materially ; 
 a condition favorable to cholera, pneumonia, or any of the other 
 diseases to which hogs are susceptible. For example, although hog 
 cholera generally diminishes with cold weather, the season of maxi- 
 mum cholera in New England, where frozen garbage is almost ex- 
 clusively fed, occurs during the extreme winter months. 
 
 Aside from cholera, and it is believed that immunization will also 
 control the swine plague frequently associated with it, diseases can 
 be expected in about the same degree as with grain- fed stock. The 
 treatments are identical and the same care is required. 
 
 SANITARY STANDARDS. 
 
 With a highly putrescible material rather than a practically sterile 
 grain, sanitary measures are relatively more important. Manure and
 
 20 (JARBAGE UTILIZATION. 
 
 uneaten garbage should be cleaned up every day and either com- 
 posted with dry earth or spread on the ground and immediately 
 plowed under. 
 
 The paint pot and whitewash brush can not be too much in evi- 
 dence for the safety of the herd. They are even more needed than 
 with grain-fed stock. 
 
 Rats and crows are unnecessary at a pig farm and should be kept 
 under control. Rat proofing should be carefully considered when 
 new construction is to be undertaken. The foot-and-mouth disease 
 several years back in a fine herd is believed to have been Brought 
 over by crows from a near-by herd of cattle. 
 
 Any estimate of the cost and returns from garbage disposal is so 
 dependent on the conditions in the community as to be practically 
 valueless to another municipality. 
 
 A general statement of disposal by feeding as practiced in Worces- 
 ter, Mass., follows. This city is selected because of the successful 
 operation of its municipal piggery and more particularly since it can 
 be used to illustrate the values recoverable in successive years of 
 operation. 
 
 DATA ON WORCESTER, MASS. 
 
 Population, 185,000. 
 Area, 38.4 square miles. 
 Topography, hilly. 
 
 Frequency of collection, twice per week. 
 Distance of farm from the city, 3 miles. 
 Distance of farm from the center of production, 6 miles. 
 Cost of collection, $7.25 per ton (includes haul to farm). 
 Area actually used for pig farm, 40 acres. 
 
 Amount fed, 1917, 6,514 tons (only about 60 per cent of garbage 
 produced is fed at farm. Remainder fed by private collectors). 
 Minimum head in herd, 2,000. 
 
 Approximate capital costs, disposal equipment only. 
 
 40 acres, at $100 $4, 000. 00 
 
 Buildings, platforms, fences, etc 3C 000.00 
 
 Other equipment 1, 000. 00 
 
 40, 000. 00 
 Operating expenses for 1917. 
 
 6 caretakers, at $840 $5,040.00 
 
 Additional labor 900. 00 
 
 Grain and bedding 1, 896. 65 
 
 Serum and virus 2, 581. 26 
 
 Repairs to buildings 1, 000. 00 
 
 Miscellaneous, supervision, light, heat, interest, teaming, etc 3, 500. 00 
 
 14, 917. 91 
 Revenue for 1917. 
 
 Swine sold 44. 487. 33 
 
 Insurance on 435 swine lost by fire 4. 350. 00 
 
 Increase in inventory, 1917 over 3916 2,900.00 
 
 51, 737. 33
 
 GARBAGE UTILIZATION. 
 Summary. 
 
 21 
 
 
 Total. 
 
 Per ton 
 fed. 
 
 Revenue 
 
 $51,737.33 
 
 S7.94 
 
 Expense .. . . 
 
 14,917.91 
 
 2.29 
 
 
 
 
 Profit 
 
 36,819.42 
 
 5.65 
 
 
 
 
 In 1915 the entire herd either died of the foot-and-mouth disease, 
 were killed because infected with this disease, or were sold; the en- 
 tire herd was wiped out, and Worcester started in to build up a new 
 herd, under conditions almost similar to those to be faced by anyone 
 first going into the proposition. 
 
 Revenue, September, 1915, to Dec. 1, 1917. 
 
 Swine sold, 1916 $13, 212. 84 
 
 Swine sold, 1917 44, 487. 33 
 
 Insurance on stock lost by fire 4, 350. 00 
 
 Stock on hand Dec. 1, 1917 (2,110 head) 42,000.00 
 
 Less stock purchased September. 1915, to December, 1917. 
 
 104, 050. 17 
 10, 727. 61 
 
 93, 322. 56 
 
 The estimated operating expense during this period, based on the 
 above statement of expense for 1917, is $33,750, making a net profit 
 of over $59,000 for the two years and three months of operation. 
 
 None of the above figures include depreciation or interest on money 
 invested in live stock. Depreciation on buildings is covered by the 
 repairs made, while the farm suffers no depreciation. 
 
 No credit has been allowed for manure produced, although its 
 value is so high that no other fertilizers are purchased for use on the 
 entire farm of 596 acres. 
 
 o
 
 nni ?97 574 4