Housing of Animals

Fig. 20. Urine Filter.Fig. 20.—Urine Filter.

Fig. 20.—Urine Filter.

The first experiments were made with ordinary garden earth, and they were conducted for me by Dr. Wells, of Brondesbury. These, and nearly all the subsequent experiments, were made in the same way, viz., by adding day by day what may be called a natural chance quantity of urine, varying in amount from about a quarter of a pint to two pints in the day. In these experiments, when fresh earth was used, the filtrate was always oflower specific gravitythan the urine added, notwithstanding the considerable evaporation which must have taken place from the surface of the filter. The total solids of the urine averaged 4·44 per cent., of which 3·45 were organic and 0·99 inorganic, while the total solids of the filtrate were 1·78 per cent., of which 1·07 were organic and 0·71 inorganic. How much of the organic and inorganic matters in the filtrate came from the mould it is not possible to say. The urea was probably all reduced, as the hypobromite method gave a percentage of only 0·15 in the filtrate, a quantity which may be disregarded in the face of the fact that the hypobromite method acts upon nitrogenous bodies other than urea.The filtrate was rather deeply pigmented, but the pigment was submitted to spectroscopic examination by Dr. McMunn, of Wolverhampton, and pronounced by him to be not of urinary origin. Further—and this is most important—the filtrate could be evaporated to dryness without offensive odour, and showed no tendency whatever to putrefy when left for months in an ordinary bottle.

In short, the filtrate, although derived from urine, had none of the qualities of that fluid. The earth in the filter when stirred was distinctly ammoniacal, so that the presence of ammonia could be detected by the nose when held quite close to it, but at no time was there any foulness.

When the same earth, after some months of rest, was used a second time for the filtration of urine, the same results were obtained, with the exception that the filtrate was of higher specific gravity than the urine added, and the mineral residue of the filtrate was double that of the urine. This was caused by the solution of nitrates and other soluble salts which were formed in the earth from the residue of the first instalment of urine, but the filtrate had not the properties of urine. It contained no urea, could be evaporated to dryness without offence, and showed no tendency to putrefy.

In the same way, I have used deal sawdust instead of earth, and the following is the result of an analysis made for me by Dr. Kenwood in the Hygienic Laboratory at University College.

July 25, 1895.

Parts per 1,000.

ReactionS.G.SolidsUreaSO3P2O5Cl[1]Faintly acid1·02044·2023·81·382·394·08[2]Alkaline1·034127·9Nil (all reduced)8·3013·4138·00

[1](1) Fresh urine.

[2](2) Urine after filtration through sawdust.

'Physical Characters.—(1) Pale yellow, clear, with a slight opaque zone from mucus, normal urine odour.'(2) Dark mahogany-brown colour—markedly opaque and somewhat turbid. A peculiar woody (resinous) odour, faintly ammoniacal.'The "two ammonias" cannot be estimated by Wanklyn's process in the fresh urine, where there is so much urea, but in the filtrate they amount to—0·032Free and saline}per 1,0000·0016Organic}I have kept two test-tubes half filled with (1) and (2), tightly corked, in the warm cupboard of the laboratory for the past three weeks; the sample of fresh urine has become offensive, but that of the filtered urine is perfectly sweet, and rather pleasant to smell.'

'Physical Characters.—(1) Pale yellow, clear, with a slight opaque zone from mucus, normal urine odour.

'(2) Dark mahogany-brown colour—markedly opaque and somewhat turbid. A peculiar woody (resinous) odour, faintly ammoniacal.

'The "two ammonias" cannot be estimated by Wanklyn's process in the fresh urine, where there is so much urea, but in the filtrate they amount to—

0·032Free and saline}per 1,0000·0016Organic}

I have kept two test-tubes half filled with (1) and (2), tightly corked, in the warm cupboard of the laboratory for the past three weeks; the sample of fresh urine has become offensive, but that of the filtered urine is perfectly sweet, and rather pleasant to smell.'

The filtrates from sawdust were a very dark brown colour, like 'stout' or 'porter,' and these have been evaporated to dryness without offence, and have shown no tendency to putrefy.

Experiments conducted in the same way with peat have yielded a filtrate almost identical in appearance to the sawdust filtrate, inoffensive on evaporation and not putrescible. The filtrates from peat and sawdust were always of$1m> than the urine added.

In order to ascertain how much urine could be got rid of by evaporation, I tried the experiment of using a flannel bag filled with sawdust or peat, and I found that with regard to one of these experiments (the bag being hung under a shed in the open between June 15 and July 20, 1895), only 81 ounces of filtrate having the qualities above given were obtained from 729 ounces of urine added to the filter. In this case 648 ounces of urine (over 40 lbs. weight) disappeared. In another experiment carried on inmy room at University College I added (between May 9 and July 26) 626 ounces of urine, and obtained only 54 ounces of filtrate, so that in this case 572 ounces (nearly 36 lbs. weight) of urine had disappeared.

As far as my experiments have as yet gone, I have not discovered the limit of sawdust for dealing satisfactorily with urine. Thus in 1894 I filtered during May, June, and July, 39 lbs. weight of urine through 6 lbs. of sawdust in a flannel bag, and neither filtrate nor sawdust was in the least offensive. In the same months in 1895 I passed an additional 41 lbs. weight of urine through the same sawdust in the same bag, and practically with the same result. In 1896 I added over 30 lbs. weight of urine to the same sawdust, but as the flannel bag had become too rotten to hold together, I was obliged to have recourse to the metal filter-vessel. The early filtrate obtained in 1896 had a specific gravity of 1·061, but, like its predecessors, could be evaporated to dryness without offence, and the sawdust was not in the least malodorous, although it was distinctly (as it always has been in these experiments) ammoniacal.

One of the most interesting experiments was that in which the filtering material consisted of crumpled paper in a flannel bag. The paper used was such as is familiar to every one, and was derived from old Bradshaw's Guides, the leaves of which were torn out and crumpled up in the hand before being put into the bag. This paper, like most paper used for printing, is sized and not very absorbent. At the end of a week a considerable quantity of filtrate had been obtained, and both filter and filtrate became excessively foul and malodorous, so that it was unpleasantly obtrusive, even when one stood several yards from it. The foul filtrate was returned to the filter, and no fresh urine was added for a time. This was done on October 15, andon October 21 all had become sweet, and four ounces of a perfectly sweet andfaintly acidfiltrate were obtained! The filter never became foul after this date. Between October 21 and November 25, 1894, 434 ounces of urine were added, and 54¼ ounces of filtrate were obtained. Between November 25, 1894, and January 6, 1895, the filter rested; then, between January 6 and March 31 urine was added only occasionally, so that the total only amounted to 560 ounces (35 lbs. weight). Three and a half pounds weight of filtrate were obtained. The filtrate was more ammoniacal than that obtained from sawdust, earth, or peat, but it never has shown any tendency to putrefy. The paper became blackish, and was riddled with fungi, and ultimately was scarcely distinguishable from garden mould.

Thus I have shown that these absorbent materials exercise a strangely purifying power upon urine, and its behaviour with these bodies is very different to what is observed when urine is mixed with water.

Now for the practical application. I am not going to advocate that all houses in cities should be fitted with absorbent urinals, but it will occur to many that there are circumstances when such urinals may be very useful.

They are admirably suited for use on race-courses, cricket and football grounds, and other places where people congregate occasionally. On my advice they have been placed on two cricket grounds near London, and have given great satisfaction; they have been used also in the engineers' yard attached to the Twickenham Station of the London and South-Western Railway, which is visited by a large number of men (averaging perhaps 150) every day, and the South-Western Railway have fitted them up at one of their country stations.

Again, in country houses a urinal for gentlemen placed in some accessible but secluded spot, and formed of abasket or barrel of convenient height, filled with peat or sawdust, will be found both economical and inoffensive. In the garden of a little cottage I have such a urinal, consisting of a small barrel filled with peat, which has been in use for nearly eighteen months, and which has never been changed, and is yet perfectly free from offensive odour. It is only when the top layers are removed that the nose perceives an ammoniacal odour, and then only when placed almost in contact with the peat.

I am accustomed to advise that such urinals for public use should be in the form of troughs made of basket-work or hurdling, or of wood panelled with perforated zinc, the trough to be triangular in section, with apex downwards, 3 feet 6 inches wide at the upper part, and 2 feet 4 inches in depth.

The shape of the trough and the material of which it is made facilitate evaporation. Such a trough should be under cover to prevent the access of rain, and it is obvious that with a width of 3 feet 6 inches it might be used from either side, provided a match-board screen were placed vertically along the centre (see fig.21).

Allowing 2 feet of length for every 'place,' it follows, there being a 'place' on either side, that each foot of length would afford one place.

It might be necessary to allow the wicker-work trough to have an open gutter beneath it, but it is only exceptionally that any effluent would be afforded.

If such a trough is in constant use the sawdust must be turned over and stirred occasionally, and if this be done it will never be foul, and the sawdust can be used for surprisingly long periods of time without emptying.

If sufficient sawdust, or peat, or dry earth be provided for a double charge, so that one charge may be drying in ashed while the other is in use, my belief is that this might be used for indefinite periods.

A final question, and one of very great importance, is the ultimate destination of the absorbent material.

Sawdust has a very bad reputation with agriculturists, who assert that when used in large quantities it grows fungi and poisons the land. If fresh sawdust be used, and if it be employed in relatively large quantities, and especially if it be buried too deeply, I can well understand that it would prove prejudicial to crops.

Fig. 21. Dry Urinal.Fig. 21.—Dry Urinal.

Fig. 21.—Dry Urinal.

I can positively assert, however, that deal sawdust or peat, after being soaked with urine, shows no disposition whatever to become mouldy. I have never seen mould upon deal sawdust, but I have seen it upon oak sawdust.

My experiments further show that when sawdust or peat has been used as a top-dressing good crops have followed, whether on grass or garden ground. The cricket clubs which have, in accordance with my advice, put up dry catch closets and dry urinals have used the products as a top-dressing at the end of the season, and with the result that their wicket pitches have been the envy of their neighbours.

Chemists tell us that urine is of high manurial value because of the large amount of nitrogen which it contains. This is doubtless true, but we all know that the immediate effect of pure urine is fatal to herbage. Whether this be due to the heat of the fresh urine or the salts, I do not know, but I fancy the latter. In the same way we know that a sprinkling of salt, or salt and water, kills weeds; but we are told that salt is a bad weed killer, because it ultimately acts as a manure, and causes increased growth. Now urine does the same thing.

The farmer who uses the urine and dung of his animals mixed with absorbent material (generally straw), and ultimately places it on the land as a top-dressing, gets nothing but good from it.

The practices I advocate are exactly analogous to those which have been used by agriculturists in every age, and with the best results. I am merely advocating a return to customs which have been tried again and again and have never been found wanting.

In the 'Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society' (vol.vii., partiv., December 1896) I find a statement (p. 631), that in the delta of the Nile a compost of earth and cattle urine is generally used as a manure.

'Owing to the lack of wood, the people are compelled, as in India, to use the solid droppings of their cattle as fuel, but they conserve the urine on a very ingenious system. Loose earth, shifted and renewed from time to time, is used as a covering for the stable floor, and earth is so much in demand for this purpose that the irrigation officers can hardly prevent the people from carrying away the canal banks.' Analyses show from 1·25 to 2·5 per cent. in equivalent of nitrate of soda. It is obvious, however, thata chemical analysis gives but a poor idea of the value of the compost. It is applied at the rate of eight tons to the acre for growing sugar and maize.

In country places and in connection with country houses provision has to be made for the proper housing of animals.

Speaking broadly, there can be no doubt that the more fresh air we give our animals (the more they are in the open and the less they are under cover) the better.

Sheep are rarely housed, unless it be with a view to their getting prizes for being in a condition of diseased obesity.

On Mr. Stephens's farm at Cholderton one may see not only sheep, but herds of cattle and numerous brood mares and foals, all in the rudest health, notwithstanding that they never go within doors from year's end to year's end.

It is the same with poultry. If they are to be kept healthy they must be confined indoors as little as possible. 'Who,' says Cobbett, 'can get up as early as the birds?' and it must be remembered that birds are out nearly an hour before sunrise all the year round. If poultry be locked up, with a view to forcing egg-production by keeping them warm, it is probable that they will become tuberculous.

Sir Frederick Fitzwygram, in his exhaustive treatise on the Horse, is very careful to insist on the perfect ventilation of stables, and tells us of certain London cab stables where the health of the horses became excellent after the doors and windows were removed.

In the construction of stables, Sir Frederick Fitzwygram insists on the danger of underground drains, and advises that the drainage of a stable shall be by open gutters only, and that these gutters shall lead to gullies removed many yards from the stable door. This is rational commonsense, and must be applied not only to stables, but to human habitations also.

Trapped gullies are only miniature cesspools, and the presence of such contrivances within stables or cow-houses means that the animals are breathing the gases of putrefaction whenever they are within doors.

It is a question whether, in such places, we do not often go to a huge expense in order to do things wrongly.

I call to mind three cow-houses which I visited in the autumn of 1895. One was at a very old-fashioned manor-house near Alresford, Hants, and was a high-pitched, thatched, barn-like building, which had been used for cows 'time out of mind.' There was an open door at either end; the floor of the stalls was of beaten earth, and the middle passage between the stalls was of flint pitching. The stalls had a very slight slope from head to tail, and there was no drain of any kind, and no water-tap for the adulteration of the milk or the 'swilling down' of the building. The dung was removed every morning with shovel and besom, and, if necessary, some earth was thrown upon the floor of the stalls. This house was fragrant, and filled with the sweet breath of kine and the aroma of good upland hay. There was no suggestion or suspicion of foulness. The urine in this case must have soaked away to a great extent into the earth and between the pitching, and had done so in this place, perhaps, for centuries.

The other two cow-houses were of a different order. One was at an establishment devoted to giving technical instruction in dairying, and the other belonged to a milkman in a country town. Both had cost much money, with impermeable bricked floors, water-taps for swilling down, and drains within the building for carrying away the valuable dung and urine. They both were damp, with waterlying between and in the grooves of the bricks, and both had a sickening smell of putrefaction. Neither of these two last cow-houses were desirable places in which to collect milk. I have little doubt that the Bacterium coli, which lives in water, was very abundant in both of them.

Water (unless it be boiling hot and used with abundance of soap and a scrubbing-brush) is entirely out of place in cow-houses, dairies, and butchers' shops.

Putrefaction is easily attained by swilling with cold water. Real cleanliness is unattainable in this way.

The dung and urine of all domestic animals is invaluable for the farm and garden, and it all ought to be carefully preserved. I feel that the best way of doing so would be to allow the stalls of stables, cow-houses, piggeries, &c., to have a very gentle slope to a gutter or trough filled with absorbent material, such as earth or peat moss, and protected by a grating. This trough would be cleaned out whenever it became in the least offensive, and thus the whole of the urine would be saved for the farm.

I have not given a special figure, but a reference tofigs.29and30, on pp.87,88, will show the reader what is meant.

It needs hardly to be said that all animal houses must be kept scrupulously clean. There must be no accumulations of dung, and all such ordure must be removed daily. The besom and shovel and wheelbarrow are the only proper tools for doing this.

If 'water-carried sewage' be introduced on the farm the ruin of the farmer is more certain than it is at present.

It is admitted that humus is one of the best filtering materials for water, and that water from a river full of living organisms is to a large extent freed from them byfiltering through a few feet of the humus on its banks. In the past few years Professor E. Frankland has shown that water of singular microbial purity has been obtained from the gravel beds which in places flank the Thames. Such water, one must suppose, is obtained from ground water which has fallen upon the earth, has filtered through it, and is slowly flowing towards the river. The purifying agent in these cases is mainly the living humus which lies upon the surface, although the subsoil cannot be without some effect. These facts must alter our attitude towards surface wells, and must teach us what to a great extent has been admitted—that the purity of surface wells must depend more upon the mode of construction and the surroundings of the well than upon its depth. Wells are polluted by foulness which has reached the subsoil without being subjected to the purifying influence of the humus; and there are many facts which go to show that if foul water gets to the under side of the humus without going through it its purification in the subsoil is far from certain. The Lausen epidemic, the Worthing epidemic, and the pollution of the deep well sunk in the sandstone at Liverpool, seem to show us that percolation through a mile of underground strata entails no certain purification, and that wells 80 ft. or 400 ft. deep are not safe if fissures allow the contents of cesspools, leaking under pressure, to trickle into them. The almost universal condemnation of surface wells and their frequent pollution are mainly due to the fact that we take our filthy and dangerous liquids through the humus in pipes, and thus ensure at great expense that they cannot be subjected to purification by it. If these underground pipes leak, the mischief caused by pollution of wells may be very far-reaching. It is very probable that foul water continuously thrown on the same spot of ground may in time work its way to a well and thus pollute it. Suchground, which is constantly soaked, be it remembered, is never tilled, because tillage is impossible. For ground to be tillable it is essential that reasonable breathing-time should be allowed. I am not altogether sure (although I hardly dare utter such a heresy) that a properly constructed surface well in a selected situation may not prove to be one of the safest sources for water, because it can be inspected with perfect ease, and the fact of accidental leakage into it would become apparent. In this connection it may be well to describe in full detail the well which I have sunk in my garden at Andover, a garden which is rather handsomely manured with human excreta. The well is placed in the very centre of the garden (seefig.14, p.35,W) at the intersection of two paths—a broad green path and a narrow asphalted path. This situation was chosen for two reasons: (1) that it was as far as possible removed from any accidental pollution from the sewer in the street; and (2) that in the centre of the garden it would theoretically run the greatest chance of fæcal contamination from the manure used. As the well was sunk solely for experimental purposes this was essential. The garden is on a river-bank and very slightly raised above the level of the water. The well is only some 5 ft. deep, and the water stands at a level (which varies very slightly) of about 3 ft. 6 in. from the bottom. The well is lined throughout from the very bottom to a point some 15 in. above the ground with large concrete sewer-pipes 2 ft. 3 in. in diameter, and these pipes have been carefully cemented at their junctions. Outside the pipes a circle of cement concrete about 4 in. thick has been run in. It will thus be evident, the sides being perfectly protected, that no water can possibly enter this well except through the bottom, all contamination by lateral soakage through the walls being rendered impossible. The well is surrounded by an asphaltepath about 3 ft. wide and slightly sloping away from it, and it is encircled by a clipped privet hedge about 5 ft. high, except at those points where the circle of privet is cut by the paths. There is a closely fitting cover of oak, which has an outer casing of lead, and thus all contamination from above is prevented. The water is drawn off through a 2-in. leaden pipe which passes through the outer concrete and the concrete lining pipe, the cut passage for the pipe being carefully closed with cement. The pump is behind the privet hedge, and is provided with a sink and waste pipe which takes the overflow some twenty or thirty yards to a neighbouring stream. In this way the constant dripping of water in the neighbourhood of the well is prevented; for I am very much alive to the dangers attending a constant water-drip, which might be able in time to worm its way through soil and concrete into the well itself. I regard this question of the overflow as one of great importance which is too often neglected.Figs.22and23show this well in section and plan. The nearest point to the well upon which any manurial deposit of excreta is likely to be made is on the far side of the privet hedge, and the distance of this point from the bottom of the well is 7 ft. All water which finds its way into the well must have passed through at least 6 ft. or 7 ft. of earth, and, of course, the great bulk of the water has passed through a far greater length. Three chemical analyses of this water, one by Professor Frankland and two by Dr. Kenwood, testify to its organic purity, and three bacteriological investigations have given similar indications of purity. A bacteriological examination of the water from the river Anton and the well water, made on April 11, 1895, gave 1,133 growths per cubic centimetre for the river and only 7·5 for the well. Of course there may be a dangerous microbe among this small number, but, on the whole, I think the best guarantee of the purity of thewater is the condition of the well, which after four years is as clean on the bottom and sides as it was the day it was made. There has been no appreciable increase of sediment on the bottom, and the pebbles are as plainly visible as they ever were. The well is for experimental purposes mainly, but water for garden use is drawn from it, and during the severe frost of 1895-6 my gardener and some of his neighbours were entirely dependent upon it for household purposes. I seldom go into my garden without drinking some of the water, which is clear and delicious, and my visitors seldom escape without drinking some also. I think the well is a very safe one. It must be mentioned, however, that after very excessive amounts of rain, such as occur occasionally, when the water comes down in aperfect deluge and lies for hours in big pools upon the ground, the water in the well becomes turbid. My belief is that under these circumstances the fine sediment on the bottom is driven upwards by the suddenly increased pressure of the water outside; and I have no reason to think that after these storms there has been any actual increase of sediment, the stones at the bottom remaining as visible as ever. I have never been able to make a bacteriological examination after one of these floods, but hope to be able to do so.

Fig. 22. Plan of Well, showing its Relation to Paths and Hedge.Fig. 22.—Plan of Well, showing its Relation to Paths and Hedge.

Fig. 22.—Plan of Well, showing its Relation to Paths and Hedge.

Fig. 23. Section of Well, showing Concrete Lining and Position of Pump.Fig. 23.—Section of Well, showing Concrete Lining and Position of Pump.

Fig. 23.—Section of Well, showing Concrete Lining and Position of Pump.

The question whether such a very shallow well becomes dangerous after a flood is a most important one. It is clearly understood that with my well there is no possibility of flood water entering at any point except through the bottom. It must be recognised that in times of flood with a drowned humus the power of purification may be lessened. On the other hand, my experience leads me to say that it is very difficult (if it be possible at all) to wash fæces out of well-tilled humus by any rain which we get in this country. In the autumn of 1894, in the south of England, we had very severe floods, and I was able to note that the humification of fæces in my garden was, as a consequence, very much delayed. Fæcal matter was visible on turning up the soil for nearly three months after it had been deposited, and the masses of fæcal matter were enclosed in crusts of humus which had been rendered airless and clay-like by the excessive amount of water. This naked-eye test seemed to show that the well had not been endangered, for there were the fæces, and most certainly they had not been washed downwards. When the pores of the soil had been opened by frost the humification of the fæcal matter went forward as usual. This experience seems to enforce what I have said before—that a drowned humus cannot deal with dung. That floods may be dangerous to surface wells we all know,but it will be recognised that the conditions and circumstances of my well at Andover are distinctly different from those of the wells mentioned in the following extract, which were filled with flood water by leakage through their tops and sides.

In the Twenty-third Annual Report of the Local Government Board (1893-94) reference is made by Dr. Thorne Thorne to certain investigations on outbreaks of typhoid fever in certain riverside populations in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. These investigations by Dr. Bruce Low seem to prove conclusively that the fæcally polluted water of the Rye and the Trent had infected with typhoid fever a certain proportion of the inhabitants who consumed the raw river water. Dr. Thorne Thorne goes on to say: 'Incidentally it transpired during the course of this inquiry that the town of Malton had an altogether exceptional history in so far as enteric fever and diarrhœa in fatal form are concerned. Situated on the Derwent, four miles below the confluence of the Rye with that river, Malton was found to derive its water-supply from the Lady Well, sunk to a depth of 14 feet in the middle oolite rock, and occupying some low-lying land close to the river bank. Into this well river-water gained access as soon as the Derwent rose above a given point, the amount of river-water reaching the well varying from mere leakage through holes and crevices in the banks to complete submersion of the Lady Well by the swollen stream. Gradually it had come to be noted that the outbreaks of fever and of diarrhœa followed on seasons of flood in the Derwent, a river which was referred to locally in 1890 as containing "the sewage of all the towns and villages situated near the Rye and its numerous tributaries.'"

In country places where surface wells are the onlyavailable source of water, I strongly recommend that they be made on the pattern which I have been describing.

It is the top of the soil which can break up and assimilate organic matter; the subsoil has no such power. It is a common mistake to bury deeply any organic matter which seems to us to be particularly offensive. In this way we ensure its preservation and endanger the wells. The safety of our wells is directly proportionate to the thickness of the humus, and to place organic matter below the humus is like throwing the dog's bone beneath the kennel instead of into it. The inefficiency of deep burial hardly requires to be mentioned. Bodies buried deep in the subsoil last for years, while those which are placed in the living humus are rapidly destroyed.

I should like to mention that when my well was dug there was found beneath a turf path and about three feet below the surface a large quantity of dead leaves which had probably been deposited in a pit at some long antecedent date. They had undergone scarcely any decomposition although they had been in that position very many years. Again, when engaged in pulling down a cottage my man unearthed an old privy some four feet below the surface. In this privy unmistakable fæcal matter was recognisable. Neither he nor I nor any of the neighbours had any knowledge of any such privy having been in use of late years, and my belief is that these recognisable excreta had been deposited at least half a century ago. Who shall say that these excreta did not still contain spores of all the ills that flesh is heir to? Under natural conditions all dead organic matter falls upon the surface of the ground, and nature is a very sure guide.

It is often stated that to deal with excremental matters separately from the slop-water is no advantage either from a pecuniary or sanitary point of view, because:

The following tables, from the 'Report of the Royal Commission on Rivers Pollution in 1868,' are given by most sanitarians to show that the difference in degrees of impurity between a water-closeted town and a non-water-closeted town is very slight.

Average Composition of Sewage

In Parts per 100,000

DescriptionTotal Solid Matters in SolutionOrganic CarbonOrganic NitrogenAmmoniaTotal Combined NitrogenChlorineSuspended MattersMineralOrganicTotalMidden Towns82·44·1811·9755·4356·45111·5417·8121·3039·11Water-Closet Towns72·24·6962·2056·7037·72810·6624·1820·5144·69In Grains per GallonMidden Towns57·682·9261·3823·8044·5158·07812·46714·91027·377Water-Closet Towns50·543·2871·5434·6925·4107·46216·92614·35731·283

DescriptionMidden TownsWater-Closet TownsTotal Solid Matters in Solution82·472·2Organic Carbon4·1814·696Organic Nitrogen1·9752·205Ammonia5·4356·703Total Combined Nitrogen6·4517·728Chlorine11·5410·66Suspended MattersMineral17·8124·18Organic21·3020·51Total39·1144·69In Grains per GallonTotal Solid Matters in Solution57·6850·54Organic Carbon2·9263·287Organic Nitrogen1·3821·543Ammonia3·8044·692Total Combined Nitrogen4·5155·410Chlorine8·0787·462Suspended MattersMineral12·46716·926Organic14·91014·357Total27·37731·283

This table being not unfrequently quoted in support of the contention that slops alone = slops + excrement, I may be excused if I examine it somewhat critically.

I will take the table in grains per gallon and simplify it somewhat.

Grains per GallonDescriptionTotal Solids in SolutionSuspended MatterTotal Solids in Solution and SuspensionOrganic CarbonAmmoniaTotal Combined NitrogenChlorineMineralOrganicMidden Towns57·6812·46714·91085·0572·9263·8044·5158·078Water-Closet Towns50·5416·93614·35781·8233·2874·6925·4107·462

Grains per Gallon

DescriptionTotal Solids in SolutionSuspended MatterTotal Solids in Solution and SuspensionOrganic CarbonAmmoniaTotal Combined NitrogenChlorineMineralOrganicMidden Towns57·6812·46714·91085·0572·9263·8044·5158·078Water-Closet Towns50·5416·93614·35781·8233·2874·6925·4107·462

DescriptionMidden TownsWater-Closet TownsTotal Solids in Solution57·6850·54Suspended MattersMineral12·46716·926Organic14·91014·357Total Solids in Solution and Suspension85·05781·823Organic Carbon2·9263·287Ammonia3·8044·692Total Combined Nitrogen4·5155·410Chlorine8·0787·462

We shall all of us be ready to grant that the addition of excremental matters must be somethingextraadded to the sewage, and that such extra matter must be either in suspension or solution. The fact, therefore, that the total solid and suspended matters is less by 3½ grains in the water-closet towns than in the midden towns can only be accounted for by the enormous dilutions of the excremental matters in the sewage. Notwithstanding this dilution we find that the water-closet town sewage contains 20 per cent. more combined nitrogen than midden town sewage, 23 per cent. more ammonia, and, what is very remarkable, 35 per cent. more suspended mineral matter.

This excess of mineral matter in suspension could only be caused by the precipitation of mineral matters by the ammonia and sulphuretted hydrogen formed by decomposition of the albuminous and other organic matter. This excess of mineral matter in suspension must therefore be taken as a measure of the enormously increased putrefaction in water-closet sewage, a putrefaction probably to a great extent brought about by the millions of microbeswhich are provided from the human intestines with the excrement, and we must therefore assume that the increase of mineral matter in suspension is an indication that a large quantity of foul putrefactive gases has been given off into the streets and houses of water-closet towns.

This table, therefore, seems to me to conclusively demonstrate that the sewage of water-closet towns is far more bulky and far more filthy and dangerous than the sewage of midden towns.

Sewage is not to be regarded too absolutely from its chemical side. We must use our senses, inclusive of our common sense, in coming to a conclusion, and we must not pin our faith on analyses alone. When I am told that it is of little use to deal with solid excreta, because the liquid household slops alone are as foul and difficult to treat as the complete mixture, I confess I am incredulous.

When I see the housemaid's pail filled with three gallons of soapy water and perhaps a pint of urine, am I to believe that the addition thereto of five ounces of solid excrement, a second half pint of urine, and a square foot of paper, will make no difference to its foulness and cause no increase of difficulty in its purification?Credat Judæus Apella!Such a statement is manifestly absurd.

Again, we must remember that it is the solid excreta which constitute not only the foulest but the most dangerous ingredient of sewage, the only one which has caused widespread epidemics again and again, the one which has hung a load of debt round the neck of every municipality in the country.

The other ingredients of household slops, unlike the fæces, are little liable to contain pathogenic microbes. The urine of a healthy man is, as we all know, sterile when passed. In diseased conditions it may occasionally possess infective power, but this is a speculation ratherthan a practical fact acknowledged by the sanitarian. A large proportion of cooking-water has been boiled, and is therefore sterile, and the same may be said of the water in which our linen has been washed. Household slops, therefore, are not liable to be really infective.

They are nitrogenous, and consequently, if allowed to stagnate by mismanagement, they become very foul from decomposition, but that they are capable of producing epidemics has not yet been proved. Between excrement and slop-water there is this difference, that solid excreta are foul-smellingab initio, but slop-water (if we except the smell of water in which cabbage has been boiled) only becomes foul if it is mismanaged.

In places which are not overcrowded a great deal has been done when the wholesome treatment of the solid excreta has been arranged for, and I feel that to neglect the doctrine that 'half a loaf is better than no bread,' and to discourage people from dealing with solid excreta, because they do not see their way quite clearly for the disposal of slops, is most dangerous.

One thing is certain, viz., that if the solid excreta are dealt with by dry methods the liquid sewage will be 25 per cent. less bulky than otherwise would be the case.

I feel sure that if, in our anxiety to prevent the pollution of rivers, we fail to appreciate the biological differences between excrement and slop-water we shall make a mistake, which in the end will be no real advantage to the streams. If, therefore, villages and places where the population is sparse make serious efforts to deal with excreta, they should have at least some breathing-time allowed before the fish in their streams are deprived of the luxuries which they doubtless obtain from kitchen slops.

When fæcal matters are mixed with the slops, the mixture is so offensive that we are compelled to place it atonce beyond the reach of the nose or eye, and the presence of sticky fæces and large quantities of paper makes any attempt at filtration practically impossible. Domestic slop-water when fresh is not offensive, and is very rarely dangerous; and by attention to certain details it can be easily dealt with.

Domestic slop-water consists of:

Assuming the clothes-washing is not done at home we should have fifty-nine gallons per household of seven per diem without fixed baths, and 119 gallons with fixed baths; and if the washing be done at home, then three gallons per head per diem must be added, or twenty-one gallons for a household of seven, giving a maximum of 140 gallons per diem for a household of seven.

Fifty-nine gallons per diem would put upon an acre of land the equivalent of an inch of rain (22,624 gallons) in 384 days, and the equivalent of an inch of rain on a quarter of an acre in 96 days.

One hundred and forty gallons per diem would be the equivalent of an extra inch of rain on an acre in 162 days.

These amounts are trivial, and if the water be supplied from a private well in the grounds it is evident that, allowing for evaporation,we should pump from the subsoil rather more than we return to the surface. Again, it must be remembered that the house with the greatest amount of slops has, as a rule, the largest curtilage. A mansion containing twenty persons with unlimited baths, laundry, and stables would not probably give more than 40 gallons per head, or 800 gallons a day, which is a trivial amount when considered in connection with a park of 20 or perhaps 200 and more acres.

It is necessary to insist that the amount of slop-water to be dealt with in isolated houses is usually trivial in proportion to the land available for its purification. Tidy was of opinion that, employing intermittent downward filtration for the purification of previously precipitated crude sewage, an acre might be sufficient for 7,000 persons. This would give 1/1000 acre, or about 44 square feet, for a household of seven. At this rate my consulting room inLondon, which measures 24 × 18 = 432 square feet, would be an area large enough for nearly 70 persons. I think the estimate is too small; but even if one multiplies it by ten it is evident that the amount of land necessary for treating the domestic slop-water of a house is much smaller than might be supposed.

In places where unlimited water is obtained by merely turning a tap these estimates are very liable to be exceeded, especially when those who turn a taponare too forgetful or lazy to turn itoff.

I feel certain that anyone who experiments on this matter as I have done will be simply astounded at the small amount of ground which is necessary.

Critics of the plans which I have advocated, and am now about to advocate, sometimes hint that the whole curtilage of one's house must be unwholesomely sloppy.

Such a statement shows a complete ignorance of the whole subject.

Few, if any, of the writers of hygienic text-books seem to have really studied the life-history of slop-water, and it is matter for regret that in some of these books the chapters devoted to domestic hygiene deal more with patents than with principles, and are illustrated more by woodcuts culled from tradesmen's catalogues than by any practical knowledge possessed by the writer.

If domestic slop water is to be dealt with successfully it is necessary—

1. That all waste pipes terminate well above the level of the ground.

This is a point too much neglected by architects, who are very prone to carefully put all waste pipes belowground level, so that any purification of slops without pumping is impossible.

Allowing a fall of, say, 1 in 10, it is evident that for every foot above ground at which a waste pipe terminates it is possible to deliver the waste on to the surface of the ground at 10 feet from the house. Thus the bedroom sink waste at a height of 10 feet above ground level might be made, if so desired, to deliver its waste 100 feet from the house. It is often necessary to take the waste pipes from the first floor over the path surrounding the house. This is easily accomplished without causing any unsightliness by placing an arch over the path. Such arches may be of galvanised iron for a cottage, or of masonry for a mansion, and are soon hidden by creepers.

Figs.24and25illustrate how this principle may be carried out; in the one case by a rustic arch costing a few shillings, and in the other case by a porch and arcading of a more ambitious description. Fig.24is from a photograph of an arch in actual use.Fig.25has been furnished by Mr. Cutler.

Back to Index Next