July 31, 2002

By Ray Kirsch

Illustration by Sean Sheerin

It is a sad truth that we are in this modern age up to our elbows with difficulties of excess. One can hardly throw a brick without hitting some young scribe or singer drabbling out the too much of this and the overflow of that. Particularly distressing of late in this river of discontent is the overflowing of animal manures in the kingdom.

The number of livestock farms in the country is reckoned to be very near one million. And in an indication of the depths to which we're being submerged, these farms are home to 95 million "animal units," excreting 2.2 trillion pounds of manure each year. By most any estimate, a goodly amount of excrement.

And here good reader, the author is sorely tempted to pursue a digression on "animal units." In lieu of such a lengthy and involved pursuit, let us resolve with the following. Beyond any modicum of accounting usefulness, these "units" are far more an indication of the gross failure of one species, homo sapiens, in its evolutionary contract with the other species of the earth. As Mr. Kundera sums, "In this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it." So braced, let us proceed then and return to the subject at hand.

Given this tremendous excrement burden, let not the gentle reader jump too far to a conclusion. Most of this manure poundage is put to good use fertilizing and improving the country's land. Indeed the manure is a treasure of nutrients, most particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. And when used on farms, these nutrients produce a bounty that keeps the urban citizenry at bay, though they whine and complain the dollar day through.

Nonetheless, there is an excess, a leftover slice of this 2.2 trillion pounds that must be dealt with. A primary reason for this slice is the demise of the farm and the rise of the confined animal feeding operation. The alert reader will note that the latter is not a farm. Not in a literal or figurative sense. It is a feeding operation. And thus (let us proceed together, do not fear) an excrement operation.

These operations and their like are not, as a farm may be, in nutrient balance. Indeed, because of the confining of animals (not to mention our ferocious appetite for animal flesh), the country has an excess of 1.4 billion pounds of nitrogen and 900 million pounds of phosphorus. And here "excess" means these operations don't own or control enough land to appropriately use these manure nutrients.

To be thorough in our analysis, however, we must go one step further. What about the neighbors? Couldn't the neighbors use some of these excess nutrients? And the answer is-a qualified yes. Yes, they can use some of the nutrients. But even here there are whole counties that cannot absorb these wastes. Counties submerged in manure. Counties that to date have survived only by hauling these wastes to terra incognita within the union. Or over-applying excrement to the lands and streams of terra locale complete with aquatic dead zones of all shapes and sizes.

These rivers of excrement, these counties submerged, these hauling endeavors-to be sure-they have not gone unnoticed. The brightest minds and patriots of the kingdom have turned their attentions bootward. Proposed solutions include energy production, industrial uses and central facilities for treatment and processing. And indeed, as these are biological nutrients of the first-order, practical, effective solutions are in demand.

Therefore, I shall now humbly propose my own solution which I hope shall meet with little objection.

In light of the valuable nutrients involved and the poor nutrition of the citizenry, particularly those whose poverty of time subjects them to the miseries of fast food, I suggest that these nutrients be consumed as a nutritious, wholesome food under the guise of the popular burger.

Thus, with approximately 290 million citizens in the land and roughly 2.3 billion pounds of excess excrement nutrients, the dividend is eight pounds per person each year. Or in the more familiar language of quarter-pound sandwiches-32 manure burgers.

Granted, burgers composed completely of manure may be off-putting for even the hungriest of scribes. Thus, I propose, that the manure be mixed with real meat and other constituents in proportions that are practical. If we assume a modest goal of 25 percent manure in our burgers, we have a total of 128 burgers per year, or a little over two burgers per week per person. For all parties concerned, an almost ideal rate of consumption.

And certainly I draw here on the work of others who have proposed central processing solutions of one sort or the other. Already food corporations in the land are mixing lean, foreign meats with fatty, domestic meats to create burgers a la mode. It would require little retrofitting to include a nutrient rich third stream of manure in the mix.

Now I am certain there are readers who are skeptical of the solution I propose. That it may not, among other concerns, be safe or acceptable to the general public. And I must confess that I too had my initial doubts. However, the dark clouds have been cleared away for me by the most fascinating application of nuclear age technology-irradiation.

I must confess that I had not intentionally pursued this breath of fresh air. However, one can hardly avoid of late stumbling over what is certainly an irradiation brouhaha on the streets and in the press. And such a stumble I have taken. And though it seems there are competing views of this technology that have brought its particular use with meat-like products to a zero sum standstill, it is my intention to rise above this slinging, to proceed upon that highest of plains-the public good.

And here, as is frequently the case, the public is far ahead of the punditry. It turns out that citizens of this great land are already participating in an unscientific study of consuming irradiated manure burgers. Safety-conscious fast food-eating consumers are gobbling up burgers that are zapped with electron beams to kill lurking E. coli bacteria. And here good reader, I pray, do not accept euphemisms. This is the real deal-excrement. As Mr. Schlosser succinctly lassoes the subject, "There's shit in the meat." The E. coli is not part of the animal; it's part of the manure.

The good news is that the irradiation is effective at neutralizing the detrimental effects of the manure and loathsome manure-riding bacteria. Granted, current manure levels are very low, mere droplets here and there. Research will be necessary to examine the safety of burgers as the manure level is increased. I propose rigorous studies at 5 percent increments until we reach our goal of 25 percent manure content. Certainly safety will be the focus of these studies. However, I see no reason why food scientists could not also focus on other attributes-e.g. the possible flavorful marinade effects that the manure might impart.

Some consumers are wary-drawing the conclusion that irradiated burgers might be radioactive or in some manner full of unhealthy by-products. However, initial consumer survey results show this to be a small, over-educated faction. Moreover, most customers feel that if the radiation has sufficiently pummeled the manure and associated fiendish life forms into submission, then the burger is most likely sterilized and safe for consumption.

As for the taste or general acceptability of manure burgers, fast food consumers are once again quashing all naysayers. Indeed, the primary concern of fast food operators is that the burger tastes good. Fortunately, the consumer response to date is just that-the burger does indeed taste good. Here again, more research is needed. These burgers contain small manure amounts and flavors may change as manure levels are increased. By all means, we want to avoid any undesirable epicurean experiences. Again, food scientists may aid our cause. Certainly there are tinctures and compounds that could elevate an irradiated manure mélange into a mouth-watering sandwich.

I must remark that current efforts focused on fast food consumers are directly on target. It should be noted that whereas the grocer must display these irradiated manure products with a symbol to indicate their sterilization, no such notice is needed at restaurants. Restaurants may sell all manner of manure-laden products with nary a squeak. And at fast food restaurants we combine this freedom with the most advantageous of consumers. For here we find children and parents whose concern for their children's health is ambivalent at best, providing what is almost certain to be a positive response to these manured products and thus a springboard for further societal acceptance, even acclaim.

Thus, I believe the proposal here put forth has great promise and many advantages.

First, it will unburden our lands of animal excrement-especially those counties currently hauling furiously to remain above the brown.

Secondly, the bounty of nutrients in these manures shall be put to good use nourishing the citizens of the kingdom. And here we might also include our heartfelt concern for the poor and hungry in developing counties to whom we may be able to export those products deemed inedible in our own land.

Thirdly, this proposal draws upon technologies already in use-namely irradiation and the central processing of meat and related products. Indeed, we should not be limited to manure in our thinking about burger constituents. As I have previously noted, this is an age of excess. Certainly there exist other looming crises that might be averted by piggybacking on this proposal. Examples that quickly (and most unfortunately) come to mind include heavy metals, sewage sludge and radioactive waste. The last is a particularly interesting case as one can imagine a specific matching of radioactive waste content to manure content such that the process of irradiation may be unnecessary. The logistics and economics of such a scheme are worthy of investigation.

Fourthly, by appealing to fast food operators and consumers we sidestep bothersome labeling requirements and those factions charged by such indicators and instead engage time-challenged consumers-consumers who need not know beyond taste and price. Thus, we greatly increase our chances for solving a truly vexing problem in the kingdom.

Finally, I am not so wedded to my own solution as to reject others proposed by wise patriots of the union that are equally innovative, cheap and effective. But before such authors advance their own schemes, I ask them to consider thoroughly the merits of this proposal and the dire situation in the countryside calling for direct and early action.

I must profess that I offer this proposal with no other motive than the public good of my country-to see our land and people freed of this excrement excess and provided for with safe and nutritious foods. I myself have no conflicts of interest, no financial stake in any processor, meat packer, irradiator, or fast food operation, and no stocks of animal manure seeking shelter.

Thus, I ask the reader to look kindly upon this proposal and recommend it as they see fit.