Mortality Disposal Analysis

dc.contributor.author Glanville, Thomas
dc.contributor.author Schwager, Marty
dc.contributor.author Baas, Thomas
dc.contributor.author Lawrence, John
dc.contributor.author Glanville, Thomas
dc.contributor.author Lorimor, Jeff
dc.contributor.author Lawrence, John
dc.date 2018-02-13T00:35:12.000
dc.date.accessioned 2020-07-02T07:01:24Z
dc.date.available 2020-07-02T07:01:24Z
dc.date.copyright Tue Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2002
dc.date.issued 2002-01-01
dc.description.abstract <p>Pork producers were surveyed to gather data regarding mortality disposal methods currently used in Iowa. Capital investment, labor, operating costs and satisfaction with the method used were analyzed. Comparing capital expenses for each of the methods indicate that incineration requires the largest investment. Burial requires the least investment for most pork producers according to the survey, however, if land is not readily available, this estimation could be easily challenged. Composting bins typically require an initial capital investment, however, a large portion of the surveys indicated that a structure, formerly used foranother purpose, was simply converted to composting. Labor costs for burial exceeded labor requirements for other disposal options. Rendering required the least amount of labor because beyond removal of the carcass, no additional labor is required. Depending on the actual cost for labor or whether labor is an available resource, labor could become a critical factor in determining disposal. Composting is a very new method of disposal for most of the respondents, therefore, the labor efficiency could improve over time. This area may need to be further reviewed in several years to determine how composting efficiency changes over time. Total operating costs were the highest for burial with composting a close second. The reason these operating costs are higher than for incineration and rendering is due to the equipment requirements for burial and composting. If the producer already owns or leases the equipment that is required for burial and composting, there would be greater justification for one or both of these disposal methods. The total cost per 100 head marketed was the lowest for rendering, yet rendering and burial provided the least satisfaction. Total costs for composting were higher but this method resulted in the highest satisfaction level.</p>
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.identifier archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/swinereports_2001/24/
dc.identifier.articleid 1023
dc.identifier.contextkey 3234249
dc.identifier.s3bucket isulib-bepress-aws-west
dc.identifier.submissionpath swinereports_2001/24
dc.identifier.uri https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/91300
dc.language.iso en
dc.relation.ispartofseries Animal Science Research Reports
dc.source.bitstream archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/swinereports_2001/24/asl_1788.pdf|||Fri Jan 14 22:50:12 UTC 2022
dc.subject.disciplines Agriculture
dc.subject.disciplines Animal Sciences
dc.subject.disciplines Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering
dc.subject.keywords ASL R1788
dc.title Mortality Disposal Analysis
dc.type article
dc.type.genre management_economics
dspace.entity.type Publication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication a5f12b36-10ea-4059-ac84-5008540124b9
relation.isAuthorOfPublication e1250d2e-b627-4fa9-b26b-252c2b257ef9
relation.isSeriesOfPublication 7f3839b7-b833-4418-a6fa-adda2b23950a
File
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
asl_1788.pdf
Size:
65.16 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Collections