THE SANITATION OF THE ISOLATED DWELLING
We are now in a position to consider the sanitation of the isolated
dwelling. Having dwelt upon the evils of putrefaction, it is to
be expected that methods which involve no putrefaction will be
recommended. Further, it must be remembered that there are many
situations which are otherwise suitable for a dwelling, but are
rendered unsuitable by the lack of water; and in these days we have
become so absolutely dependent upon water, that no site for a dwelling
where water is scarce is acceptable.
DRY METHODS
We have come to think that there can be no cleanliness without soap
and water, and it may be necessary to remind the reader that the nomad
Arab cleanses himself with the sand of the desert; that polished floors
redolent of beeswax and turpentine are at least as wholesome as those
that are scrubbed and have their crevices filled with a soapy slime;
and that one of the best ways of washing a flannel shirt is said to be
to hang it in the sun and beat it thoroughly with a stick. Necessity
is the mother of invention, and were there a water-famine to-morrow, I
have no doubt that those who were minded to be cleanly would somehow
manage to be so.
There is no denying that dry methods of sanitation are in this country,
where water is plentiful, far from popular. Dwellers in cities want to
be rid of matters which have no value for _them_ as individuals, and
the luxury of having a scavenger 'laid on,' who can be set at work by
merely turning a tap, and who, albeit that we pay handsomely for his
services, does not hang about to be 'tipped,' are undeniable. Then,
again, our scavenger is a very strict teetotaller and never strikes,
although occasionally he is 'frozen out.' Many of us during a severe
frost have, so to say, been the victims of dry methods and of 'water'
closets, so called, on the principle of _Lucus a non lucendo_.
If dry methods of sanitation are to be successfully carried out, it is
necessary to bear in mind the principles which underlie them.
HUMIFICATION
The change which is produced in excrement when mixed with earth whereby
the excrement is humified—_i.e._, changed to something which is
indistinguishable by our senses from ordinary garden mould, or humus,
is due to the action of fungoid organisms. Some of these belong to the
'mould' fungi, such as penicillium and saccharomyces, while others are
allied to the schizomycetes, otherwise known as bacteria, bacilli, and
micrococci.
A very important organism, or class of organisms, in this connection
are those which bring about the nitrification of nitrogenous matters,
whereby they are oxidised and made soluble, so as to be readily
absorbed by the roots of growing plants. I prefer, however, to use the
word _humification_ in place of nitrification, because it is not likely
that nitrification is the sole change which takes place, and it is at
least highly probable that many of the fungi which grow in nitrogenous
matter play a very important part in producing fertility and in
feeding higher plants. The intestines of animals swarm with bacteria
and allied bodies, and it may be assumed, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, that excrements carry with them, so to say, in the
form of moulds and bacteria, bodies which help in their subsequent
humification.
Which of us has not noticed the excrement of a dog, evenly covered with
exquisitely graceful stalks of fungus as with a crop of erect white
hairs. The greatest of all human observers must have seen this, for he
makes the Queen say to Hamlet:
'Your bedded hair, like life in excrements,
Starts up and stands on end.'
Ordinary humus contains such organisms in countless numbers, and it
is probable that when excreta are mixed with sterile bodies, such as
ashes, the necessary organisms are in part supplied by the excreta
themselves, or possibly gain access from the air around.
In order that humification may take place two things are necessary:—
1. The matter must be tolerably dry—absolute dryness
checks the process, so does excess of moisture. It is stated
that about 33 per cent. of moisture is the amount with
which the humifying change is most rapid.
2. The access of air is necessary, because the organisms
which produce humification are aërobic, and, as much of the
change consists of oxidation, it is evident that the free
access of air is essential.
ACTUAL PRACTICE
It may be well to refer here to what is actually done in my garden at
Andover, in Hampshire.
It should be stated that the garden is close to the centre of the
town of Andover, the chief town in West Hants (a purely agricultural
district), with about 6,000 inhabitants.
The garden abuts on a street and lies very low, being only two or three
feet at most above the average level of the river Anton, which forms
one of its boundaries.
The interest of the garden lies in the fact that it has been manured
for the last ten years with the excreta and other refuse of some
twenty cottages, the only stable dung which has been used having been
sufficient to make a hotbed in the spring, and no more.
[Illustration: Fig. 14.
A, cottages; B, house and garden (let for a girls' school); C, C,
garden ground used for sanitary purposes, measuring (exclusive of grass
and paths) about 1¼ acre; W, well, D, D, D, D, D, small stream,
supplied partly by springs and partly from river.]
The plan (fig. 14) shows the position of the cottages, which form
a _cul-de-sac_ running from the street to the river, and also the
position of the garden ground. This ground, which is on both sides of
the cottages, measures, exclusive of paths and turf, about one and a
quarter acre. Nearly an acre of the ground has, together with a house,
been let for a girls' school, and in the cultivation of this piece the
writer has no authority.
The cottages are fitted with 'pail closets,' with the exception of
one only, which has a 'dry catch,' which is much superior from every
point of view to a pail closet, and in course of time it is hoped that
all the closets will be converted into 'dry catches,' of which more
will be said hereafter. The contents of the pails are removed every
morning, and are _superficially_ buried in a furrow such as a gardener
makes when turning up the ground with a spade. One must insist that the
covering of the excreta cannot be too light, as it is essential for
the due humification of the organic refuse that the air have access
to the pores of the soil; and one may add that when the pores of the
soil are sealed up by drenching rains, as was the case in the autumn
of 1894, the process of humification is delayed, and certainly the
excreta are not (owing to their sticky, glutinous nature) washed out of
the soil by the heaviest rains experienced in this country. The method
of superficial burial has this further advantage, that the tillage of
the soil and the burying of the excreta are carried on by a single
operation. As the cottages are close to the garden, the process of
removing and burying the contents of the pails is done in less than an
hour. Directly this has been accomplished, in the early hours of the
morning, there is an end of anything which can offend either the eyes
or the nose.
After the excreta have been superficially buried plants of the cabbage
tribe are dibbled in as soon as may be. This is often done within three
days, and the cabbages are sure to flourish. Seeds do not flourish
with any certainty, and, although I have seen fair crops of turnips,
peas, onions, &c., when the weather has been favourable, such crops
are liable to fail, while cabbage as a first crop is practically sure
to succeed. I can call to mind a spot in the Andover garden which had
been sown with turnips and radishes as a first crop after manuring.
The produce was Brobdingnagian, but worthless except to dig into the
ground. The development of green head was very great, the roots were
huge and woolly. When the plan of operations which has been described
(daily superficial burial followed by cabbage planting) was commenced,
some ten years ago, many were the prophecies of failure. The practical
men shook their heads and said I never should succeed that way, but
that I was 'bound to store the stuff in a heap to allow it to ripen
before being put on the land.' As a sanitarian one was naturally
anxious to get the excreta below the surface of the ground as soon as
possible, and I now feel confident in stating that the plan I recommend
is the best from the sanitary, agricultural, and financial points of
view. Sanitarily it is the best because there is no delay in the safe
bestowal of the excreta; agriculturally it is best because no ammonia
or other volatile body is given to the air, but all goes to enrich the
land; and financially it is best because it involves moving the dung
once only instead of twice; the same operation that tills the land
serves to cover the dung, and while the excreta are 'ripening' for
other crops the farmer gets a crop of cabbage. After the cabbage crop
the ground is still very rich and will grow everything or anything, to
which the soil and situation are suited, in high perfection.
The garden is in great contrast to an ordinary sewage farm. It is
used as a pleasaunce, and its luxurious herbage and bright colouring
are very beautiful. The ordinary garden crops show great exuberance
of growth, and the summer fruit trees (apples, pears, peaches, and
nectarines) are usually hung with a very bountiful crop of fruit.
[Illustration: Fig. 15.—Garden at Andover.]
The illustration (fig. 15) shows the central green path of the garden,
and although the rich colouring of the tritomas, gladioli, stocks,
phloxes, asters, lobelias, calceolarias, roses, and dahlias, cannot
be reproduced, the illustration will serve to give some idea of the
general luxuriance. The writer claims to have proved (all chemical
analyses to the contrary notwithstanding) that human excreta have a
very high manurial value, and this will be borne out by the picture.
THE 'DRY CATCH'
Seeing that moderate dryness and free access of air are essential for
humification, it becomes necessary so to construct our receptacle that
these ends may be attained.
This end is not attained in an ordinary pail, because all the urine
is retained; there is an excess of moisture, and the mixture becomes
putrid and sloppy, unmanageable and offensive.
The best method of treating excreta is to allow them to be deposited in
the 'dry catch,' suggested by Mr. Richardson, of Clifton (see fig. 16).
In this arrangement the seat is raised on two or three steps, and the
excreta are caught on a slightly sloping concrete floor; the excreta
are freely exposed to the air, and the urine flows away down the slight
slope and is caught by an absorbent material, of which the best is
garden humus.
With this arrangement no putrefaction takes place. It is not a matter
of much practical moment whether or not earth be thrown into the
dry catch after the excreta, because the arrangement ensures that
offensiveness is reduced to a minimum.
If earth be used this humification will go on in the catch itself, and
the longer such a catch is used the better it will act, always provided
that moderate dryness and free access of air are ensured.
I speak with great confidence as to the success of this arrangement,
and with an experience of some years' standing. With a dry catch of
this kind used, let us suppose, for the lowest class of property and
with daily removal of the excreta, the bulk and weight of the excreta
are reduced to a minimum; there is no sloppiness or putrefaction.
Collection and transport are easy, and the work is, with suitable
tools, not repulsive. If we adopt the estimate of Parkes, that the
solid excreta average for both sexes and all ages not more than 2½
ounces per diem, then the household of five persons would provide
considerably less than 1 lb. weight per diem.
[Illustration: Fig. 16.—Section of 'Dry-Catch' Privy, with Gutter
filled with Absorbent Material to absorb Excess of Urine.]
Now a dry catch may in country places be used with the addition of dry
earth, and where the householder has a garden he can have no difficulty
in managing everything for himself, and must be little better than an
idiot if he allows any sanitary authority to rob him of the finest
manure the world produces, the excreta of the 'paragon of animals,' and
withal the most highly fed.
Where the sanitary authority is responsible for the disposal of
excrement, I believe it will be found more economical to carry the
excreta to the earth than to take the earth to the excreta.
If there be cultivable land at hand, and the nearer such land is to the
houses the better, I believe the best course to pursue is to bury the
excreta daily in superficial furrows, as recommended above.
If there be no cultivable land at hand, then the excreta would have
to be taken to a rough shed (sufficient to keep off the rain) and
mixed with earth. The process of humification would be completed in
three months, and the humus thus formed might be used over and over
and over again _ad infinitum_. The great advantage which follows from
the scientific use of 'dry methods' is the continuity of the process.
Nature turns all the excrement to humus, and humus is acknowledged
to be the very best purifier of offensive nitrogenous matter which
the world affords. The dark humus which is found everywhere, and
which provides for all our needs, is nothing but excrement which has
suffered a natural transformation brought about by a process which
is purely biological. The oftener such humus is used the better it
acts, and, further, it slowly increases in bulk. There can be no doubt
as to its horticultural value, and if the authority cannot use it,
the neighbouring farmers and gardeners will gladly do so. One of the
difficulties connected with the dry-earth system is the procuring of
earth, but from what I have said it is evident that an initial store
of earth sufficient for six months' use, if judiciously, carefully,
and scientifically used, would for ever take away the necessity of
providing a fresh store.
This continuity of action is a most important matter, and one which
has been hitherto almost wholly unappreciated. This arises from the
fact that those who have not carefully studied these dry methods are
unable to believe that what I have stated is really true. That it is
absolutely true I have no doubt whatever. Every sanitary authority
should have a garden of its own for the purpose of practically
demonstrating the excellent results obtained by using this 'dry'
material as a manure. Such a garden, if properly cultivated, could
not fail to be both beautiful and productive, and, if managed on the
profit-sharing principle, would yield at least enough to pay wages.
Such a garden should not have the customary notice, 'No admittance
except on business,' but it should be the business of everybody to walk
by it or through it while going to and from their daily work, and in
so doing receive an object-lesson which would do more to enhance the
health and prosperity of the country than any number of Board Schools
and Free Libraries. In the last edition of 'Rural Hygiene' I have given
some statements as to the financial results of my garden at Andover,
which, I think, will be regarded as satisfactory. My experiments point
to the fact that 600 square yards are enough for the disposal of the
excreta of about 100 persons per annum.
THE 'PAIL' SYSTEM
The causes of the ill-success of the pail system appear to me to be in
large measure due to the great weight of the pails, and, in consequence
of the exceeding foulness of the material, the great distances which
they have to be carried.
By the adoption of the 'dry catch' the weight of material would
be enormously decreased and its daily transference by means of a
proper shovel and travelling receptacle would be found both easy and
economical.
If the material removed be buried superficially every day with a view
to cultivation and production, the land to which it is removed _cannot
be too near to the houses_. This may seem a strong assertion, but I
make it without any hesitation whatever. Should the necessity ever
arise, I feel sure that all the parks and square gardens might be used
in the manner I have indicated for sanitary purposes, not only without
offence, but with a certain great increase in the productiveness of the
ground, always provided that the atmosphere be not too foul (as is the
case in central London) to permit of horticulture or agriculture in any
form.
If the dry catch be used the material is not sloppy and liable to
spill, and thus the great hindrance to its transport is removed.
Finally, the initial expenses and repairs of pails would no longer fall
on the sanitary authority, and the huge cost of lugging about these
absurdly clumsy putrefaction boxes would be at an end.
We have three specimens of municipal pails in the Parkes Museum, and
these vary in weight from 40 lbs. to 50 lbs. The 50-lb. pail, which
is 18 inches in diameter and 15 inches deep, weighs, when filled with
water, 187¼ lbs.
If, by the help of two men, a horse, and a lorry, one has to take, in
addition to the excreta, fifty pounds weight of galvanised iron, or
wood and iron, a mile each way, the expense becomes huge, and anything
like a daily removal is impracticable; but if one has to transport a
pound of solid excrement a few hundred yards only, then the problem is
a very different one.
Any sanitary authority which adopts 'dry method' should endeavour to
arrange for a daily removal. I am no advocate of 'conservancy,' but
would rather see the immediate utilisation of the excreta. It is only
by immediate burial that one gets the full manurial value of them.
The burial must be done with a view to the cultivation of the land.
_It must be superficial._ The excreta must be merely covered with the
earth, no more. Furrows half a spit deep are ample. It is in this way
only that one insures the oxidation of the excrement and the protection
of the wells.
It is the almost universal custom to bury night soil deeply, and I
could quote many instances in which excreta have been buried three or
four feet deep, and have been exhumed some months later unchanged and
still foul. If they be buried deeply, the farmer or gardener gets no
benefit and the wells are endangered. The farmer, be it remembered,
spreads his dung on the surface of the ground, with a maximum exposure
to light and air and then ploughs it in; nothing could be more truly
scientific.
We hear that in India, in spite of the earth system, typhoid is rife,
and the opinion is very general there that typhoid spreads through the
air. I have never been in India, and am not competent to express any
opinion, but I have heard that in some places in India the excreta are
_deeply_ buried, and if this be the case, it appears to me that if the
ground gets deeply fissured during drought, the torrential rains which
follow may very well wash this too deeply buried and unchanged excreta
into the water sources.
If excreta are to be used for agricultural purposes, no chemical
antiseptics must on any account whatever be mixed with them.
Antiseptics are a source of serious danger to the agriculturist. The
best antiseptic for such a purpose is earth.
IN-DOOR EARTH CLOSET.
It has been supposed that the method of excrement disposal which I
advocate necessitates the compelling of delicate persons to go out
of doors in all weathers. I do not believe that it is necessary to
ask delicate persons to run the risk of exposure in houses where dry
methods of excrement disposal are employed. If a very small amount of
the ingenuity which has been lavished upon water carriage had been
devoted to overcoming the difficulties which attend the safe and decent
management of dry methods, these difficulties would, I believe, have
long since disappeared. If architects and builders can be impressed
with the _necessity_, on scientific, moral, sanitary, and economic
grounds, of overcoming these difficulties, the thing is done.
The house which I own at Andover (see fig. 14, B) becoming vacant, I
tried the experiment of giving it a dry privy, which should be of such
a kind that no lady would object to use it.
Now I hold that every closet, whether a dry closet or a water closet,
should be sequestered from the main structure of a house, and should
be approached by a lobby having cross ventilation. Those who in the
present day put closets and waste-pipes within the four walls which
enclose the living-rooms are not abreast of modern civilisation. The
simplest plan for effecting my object in the present case seemed to be
to throw an arch across the entrance to the stable yard, to place the
ventilated passage on the top of the arch, and the closet on the far
side of it, on a level with the first floor, and with a capacious vault
or 'catch' beneath it. (See figs. 17 and 18.) The catch, though larger,
is exactly on the same principle as that which has been described, and
it has been provided with eight large air bricks, three of which are
just below the level of the closet seat, three near the ground level,
and two intermediate in position. The bottom of the door of the catch
is about an inch above the ground level, and in addition there is an
opening for a dust-shoot, protected by a fine grating, so as to insure
that only dust and ashes and not cinders or clinkers are thrown into
it. There can be no doubt that plenty of fresh air will get access to
this receptacle.
Without special precautions such a closet would be cold and draughty,
and I have endeavoured to overcome this difficulty by a specially
constructed pan, closed at the bottom by a hinged flap, which opens and
shuts automatically by means of a counterpoise. (See fig. 19.)
[Illustration: Fig. 17.—E.C. with Ventilated Lobby.]
By means of this specially-devised pan all up-draught is prevented;
the stuff drops out of sight, and the urine, owing to the obliquity of
the bottom of the pan, runs away instantly. When the closet has been
used, some earth is thrown in, and this has the effect of carrying away
any paper which may lodge, and of deodorising any soiling of the pan
which may have taken place. There are some points connected with this
closet-pan and seat which require to be mentioned:—
1. The seat and accessories are made of the best polished mahogany,
because I am very strongly of opinion that smartness leads to
cleanliness.
[Illustration: Fig. 18.—Section through Chamber Floor E.C. and Dry
Catch.]
2. The seat is only 14 inches above the ground, which is some 4 inches
less than is customary. Closet seats are, as a rule, too high, and the
low seat, with the position it necessitates, has certain physiological
advantages, among which may be mentioned the fact that the dejecta
fall vertically downwards. It has one disadvantage, viz., that elderly
people find a difficulty in rising; but this objection is easily
overcome by fixing a handle in the wall, so that the arms may assist
the feeble legs in the act of resuming the erect position.
[Illustration: Fig. 19.—Section of Pan for Dry Closets.]
It will be observed that the back part of the pan is 3 inches beyond
the rim of the seat and is nearly vertical, while the front part is set
only 1 inch beyond the rim of the seat, and runs obliquely from above
down and from before back. The object of this is to still further
lessen the chance of the soiling of the back of the pan. The lower
opening is slightly oblique, so that urine shall flow away instantly.
The supply of earth for this closet is kept in a box alongside the
seat, and this box is filled from the outside by means of a hopper so
arranged that the man who brings a fresh supply of earth cannot see
or be seen by any chance occupant of the closet. The supply of earth
is very large, being sufficient for a month or more, and there is no
traffic through the house either with earth or excrement. This, again,
is an important trifle.
The pans hitherto constructed on this pattern have been made of
japanned iron. They have not to bear any weight or strain, and may be
made very light. Enamelled iron or copper seem to me to be the best
materials, but I have no doubt they could be effectually contrived in
earthenware. The pans have been made for me by Messrs. Righton, 376
Euston Road. The pattern is registered.
DRY METHOD OF TREATING URINE
Most of us must have remarked, either in London or some other centre of
population, how little annoyance arises from cabstands. One must know
of cab ranks where dozens of horses stand for hours daily from year's
end to year's end, and where tons of dung and thousands of gallons of
urine are spilled upon the same spot and practically without annoyance.
I do not mean to say that occasionally one may not get a strongly
ammoniacal whiff from such a spot when the weather is hot and muggy,
but it is notorious that they are seldom foul, and that on passing them
we are never prompted to hold the nose and quicken our pace.
The condition of a cabstand is in strong contrast with the average
urinal with an ordinary water supply. Such places are always pervaded
with a sickening odour, and the mere addition of practically an
unlimited amount of water is insufficient to keep this smell of
decomposing urine (than which nothing is more offensive) in abeyance.
It is hardly too much to say that water urinals are always offensive,
and that even in clubs and similar smart places the tablet of camphor,
which is intended to assert itself over the head of the other smells,
is not always successful.
It may, I think, be said that water urinals are never sweet except in
those rare instances in which they are constantly wiped perfectly clean
by an attendant. The decomposition of urine is due to micro-organisms,
and it is well-known that if urine be passed into an impure vessel,
its decomposition takes place with great rapidity, especially if the
temperature be moderately high. All vessels intended for the reception
of urine require a thorough washing and cleansing every day. The form
of 'bottle' which is habitually used for bed-ridden patients is most
difficult to clean, and is a very undesirable apparatus. If water
urinals be provided with 'traps' in which urine, or urine and water, is
allowed to stagnate, such traps must be permanently foul and become a
source of annoyance if not of danger.
If urine be allowed to filter through absorbent material, the effect
produced upon it is as remarkable as it is interesting. I have
experimented with a variety of absorbent materials during the last six
years, and now propose to shortly set forth the results, some of which
have been previously published in 'Essays on Rural Hygiene' (2nd ed.:
Longmans, 1894). The vessels used have been of conical form, tapering
from one foot in diameter at the upper and wider end to an opening
large enough to admit a big quill at the lower end (fig. 20.) The
length of these vessels is 30 inches, and they are supported on a metal
tripod.
Some of the vessels have been made of metal—galvanised iron—and
others have been made of flannel.
[Illustration: 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 of _lower specific gravity_ than 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._
+---------------+------+-------+-----------------+------+----------+-----+
| Reaction |S.G. | Solids| Urea |SO₃ |P₂O₅ | Cl |
+---------------+------+-------+-----------------+------+----------+-----+
|[1]Faintly acid|1·020 | 44·20 | 23·8 | 1·38 | 2·39 | 4·08|
| | | | | | | |
|[2]Alkaline |1·034 | 127·9 |Nil (all reduced)| 8·30 | 13·41 |38·00|
+---------------+------+-------+-----------------+------+----------+-----+
FOOTNOTES:
[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—
0·032 Free and saline } per 1,000
0·0016 Organic }
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 _higher specific gravity_ 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 in my 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, and on October
21 all had become sweet, and four ounces of a perfectly sweet and
_faintly acid_ filtrate 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 a basket 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 a shed 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.
[Illustration: 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., part
iv., 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, that a 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.
HOUSING OF ANIMALS
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
common sense, 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 water lying 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 to figs. 29 and 30,
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.
CONSTRUCTION OF WELLS
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 by filtering 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. Such
ground, 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 (see fig. 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 asphalte path 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. 22 and 23 show 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
the water 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 a perfect 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.
[Illustration: Fig. 22.—Plan of Well, showing its Relation to Paths
and Hedge.]
[Illustration: 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
diarrhoea 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 only available 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.