private service. In the absence of municipal col- 
lection and disposal services, these people dispose 
of rubbish and garbage in their back yards, alleys, 
and streets, thereby creating the most favorable 
conditions for rats, flies, and mosquitoes. 
City contract collection overcomes the major 
disadvantage of the individual method. With this 
system the city signs a contract with one or more 
individuals or firms to provide city-wide collection. 
Since service is scheduled for the entire city, 
complete coverage should result. 
In some towns the municipal authorities contract 
with a hog feeder for collection of garbage. The 
incidental collection of rubbish may or may not be 
included in this contract. If collection of rubbish 
is not included and the city makes no other pro- 
visions for its removal, the householder must 
handle his own rubbish problem. Frequently, this 
permits an accumulation of rubbish, which provides 
rat harborage and a source of mosquito breeding. 
It also results in the use of large numbers of back- 
yard burning cages and drums. When improperly 
operated garbage-feeding hog farms are located 
within a radius of 3 or 4 miles from a town, they 
may contribute to the fly and rat populations in 
that community. Flies and rats breed in large 
numbers where insanitary conditions exist and 
will travel considerable distances. 
Other variations of the contract system are in 
use in a number of cities. For example, some cities 
own all the collection equipment but the collection 
service is operated and supervised by a private 
individual or firm under contract. Many fringe areas, 
basically urban, yet not within the corporate limits 
of any municipality, are being served by county or 
district refuse collection systems. Some of these 
also serve numerous unincorporated communities 
not in fringe areas of a metropolis. A few cities 
will collect refuse immediately outside their corpo- 
rate limits, charging a monthly fee for this service. 
Municipal collection by city personnel using 
city-owned equipment is probably the most desira- 
ble and satisfactory method of collection from the 
public health viewpoint, and when operated on a 
reasonably efficient basis, should be more economi- 
cal than any of the varibus contract methods. In 
addition, it gives the city complete control over the 
operation of the collection service and the disposal 
method, and it facilitates close supervision of 
refuse storage. Each year more cities are operating 
their own refuse collection service and fewer are 
using contract collection. Current practices re- 
garding responsibility for collection of refuse is 
shown in table form in “Refuse Handling Practices 
in the U. S.” (27). 
Type of Collection 
The type ol collection is determined largely 
by the method of disposal. Separate collection fol- 
lowing segregated storage is necessary if hog 
feeding of cooked garbage is the method of dis- 
posal. Household garbage may require some sorting 
before it is safe to feed. Institutional garbage and 
garbage from hotels and restaurants is usually more 
suitable for hog feeding. Most State laws require 
that garbage used for hog feeding must be ade- 
quately heat-treated to kill animal disease 
organisms. 
Combined collection of mixed refuse is the most 
practical and economical method and is possible 
where disposal is by sanitary landfills or by modern 
incinerators. Combined collection usually permits 
combined storage, thus preventing some abuses and 
conditions conducive to higher pest and vector 
populations that often exist where separate storage 
is practiced. Since garbage must be collected 
frequently, this combined collection allows no 
excuse for an accumulation of rubbish that might 
serve as harborage for rats or as a breeding place 
for mosquitoes. 
Point of Collection 
Alley or curb collection is probably the most 
economical because it reduces the pickup time 
for each premise. According to the information 
presented by Hope (27), 43 percent of the reporting 
cities specified either curb or alley, or both, as th<- 
point of collection. Forty-five percent reported the 
points of pick-up to be various combinations of 
curb, alley, front houseline, and rear houseline, or 
front or rear houseline exclusively. Where curb 
collection is practiced, communities should urge 
the occupants of premises to return contain'-rs to 
their customary storage area as soon as convenient 
after the contents have been removed by the col- 
lection crews. 
9 
