Discarded chicken processing method

Abstract

Provided is a discarded chicken processing method that makes it possible to simply prevent or suppress infiltration of water into the ground and maintain safe conditions even after chickens that have been slaughtered or the like have been buried.　A discarded chicken processing method according to the present invention involves an excavation step for digging a hole in the surface of land where discarded chickens are to be buried, a disposal step for casting the discarded chickens into the hole, a burying step for refilling the hole with earth, and a sprinkling step for sprinkling a processing chemical that includes a thermoplastic resin onto the surface of the earth with which the hole has been refilled. The earth is not rolled and compacted at the burying step.

Description

How to dispose of discarded chickens

[0001] The present invention relates to a method for disposing of discarded chickens that have been buried in the ground after being slaughtered or the like.

[0002] For example, in Japan, when highly pathogenic avian influenza (hereinafter simply referred to as "avian influenza") breaks out, a culling order is issued by the prefectural governor, and chickens are culled at poultry farms. The culled chickens are sterilized with lime, packed into flexible container bags (hereinafter referred to as "flexible container bags"), and buried in the ground.

[0003] When chickens are slaughtered, rigor mortis occurs. If such rigor mortis chickens are stuffed into flexible container bags, the rigor mortis carcasses may break through the bag, potentially resulting in the leakage of chicken body fluids from the broken sections. To address this issue, the inventors developed a method for disposing of discarded chickens (Patent Application No. 2024-34144) using a superabsorbent polymer (SAP), which successfully solved the problem before burial (e.g., during transport of the flexible container bags). However, after the flexible container bags are buried in the ground, the weight of the soil exerts significant pressure on the bags, again increasing the likelihood of leakage of body fluids from broken sections. Because chicken body fluids are infectious organic waste, there is a risk of secondary contamination spreading to the surrounding area if soil erosion due to rainfall or flooding causes water to seep into the ground, resulting in the leakage of chicken body fluids.

[0004] Techniques for preventing soil erosion caused by rainfall or flooding are found in civil engineering works, slope revegetation works, etc. For example, the soil surface stabilization method described in Patent Document 1 involves spraying onto the soil surface a chemical agent comprising a mixture containing an acetylene alcohol derivative and a cationic water-soluble polymer to which a polymer emulsion has been added. Patent Document 1 claims that this method can effectively prevent turbid water from occurring during rainfall.

[0005] The soil stabilization method described in Patent Document 2 involves spreading a solution of chitosan obtained from crab shells diluted with water onto the soil as an erosion inhibitor. According to Patent Document 2, adjusting the chitosan concentration to a specific range is expected to have an anti-erosion effect on soil.

[0006] JP 11-80727 A JP 2010-275697 A

[0007] However, the soil surface stabilization method of Patent Document 1 uses a chemical containing a cationic water-soluble polymer, which raises concerns about fish toxicity. In addition, since the chemical preparation requires mixing multiple components, preparation before use is time-consuming.

[0008] The soil stabilization method of Patent Document 2 uses chitosan, a natural biodegradable material, so there is no problem of fish toxicity, but the waterlogging prevention effect is not sustainable. In fact, Patent Document 2 states that "the purpose of the construction method of the present invention is not to stabilize the slope permanently, but to stabilize the slope for a certain period after the slope is formed until plants grow" (see paragraph

[0009] of Patent Document 2), and it is not intended to maintain the waterlogging prevention effect over the long term.

[0009] Furthermore, both Patent Documents 1 and 2 are technologies related to the field of civil engineering work, and are not intended to be used in the treatment of infectious organic waste.

[0010] The present invention has been made in consideration of the above-mentioned problems, and aims to provide a method for disposing of discarded chickens that can prevent or suppress water from seeping into the soil using a simple method, and that can maintain chickens discarded by culling or other means in a safe state even after burying them in the soil.

[0011] The method for disposing of discarded chickens according to the present invention for solving the above-mentioned problems is characterized by comprising an excavation step of digging a hole in the ground of a land where the discarded chickens will be buried, a throwing step of throwing the discarded chickens into the hole, a burying step of backfilling the hole with soil and sand, and a spraying step of spraying a treatment agent containing a thermoplastic resin on the surface of the backfilled soil and sand, wherein the soil and sand are not compacted during the burying step.

[0012] According to the present disposal method for discarded chickens, a hole is dug in the ground where the discarded chickens will be buried (excavation step), the discarded chickens are placed in the hole (loading step), the hole is then backfilled with soil (burying step), and finally, a treatment agent containing a thermoplastic resin is sprayed onto the surface of the backfilled soil (spraying step). This simple process forms a thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) on the surface of the soil, preventing or suppressing water infiltration into the soil. This reduces the risk of infectious organic waste derived from chicken body fluids, etc., being washed away by rainfall or flooding, and allows discarded chickens, such as those culled, to be maintained in a safe state even after burying them in the soil. Furthermore, because the soil is not compacted during the burial step, the discarded chickens in the soil are not crushed by pressure, which also contributes to the safety of the present disposal method for discarded chickens. Furthermore, the present disposal method for discarded chickens is efficient in that the shape of the soil can be sufficiently maintained by the thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) without the need for compaction, eliminating the need for compaction.

[0013] In the method for treating discarded chickens according to the present invention, it is preferable that the burying step forms a mound with the soil.

[0014] According to the disposal method for discarded chickens of this configuration, by forming a mound of soil with soil in the burying step, even if the discarded chickens buried in the ground naturally decompose and create a cavity in the soil, the mound will sink into the cavity, preventing the ground from settling (forming a hole).

[0015] In the method for treating discarded chickens according to the present invention, it is preferable that in the burying step, the soil generated in the excavation step is used as the soil to backfill the hole.

[0016] According to the method for disposing of discarded chickens of this configuration, the soil generated in the excavation step is used as the soil to backfill the hole in the burying step, thereby enabling the generated soil to be effectively reused. Furthermore, since the same soil is used in the excavation step and the burying step, the properties of the land where the discarded chickens are disposed do not change, allowing for safe and appropriate disposal.

[0017] In the method for treating discarded chickens according to the present invention, it is preferable that the content of the thermoplastic resin contained in the treating agent in the spraying step is 3 to 10.5% by weight.

[0018] According to the method for treating discarded chickens of this configuration, by setting the content of thermoplastic resin contained in the treatment agent to 3 to 10.5 wt % in the spraying step, a good thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) is formed on the surface of the soil and sand, which reliably prevents infectious organic waste derived from chicken body fluids, etc. from being washed away by rainfall, flooding, etc.

[0019] In the method for treating discarded chickens according to the present invention, the amount of the treatment agent to be sprayed in the spraying step is 0.5 kg / m ２ It is preferable that this is equal to or greater than this.

[0020] According to the method for treating discarded chickens of this configuration, the amount of treatment agent sprayed in the spraying step is 0.5 kg / m ２ By doing so, the treatment agent penetrates from the soil surface to an appropriate depth, forming a good thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) on the soil surface, which reliably prevents infectious organic waste derived from chicken body fluids and the like from being washed away by rainfall, flooding, etc.

[0021] In the method for treating discarded chickens according to the present invention, the thermoplastic resin contained in the treating agent in the spraying step is preferably ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA).

[0022] According to the method for treating discarded chickens of this configuration, a durable thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) can be formed on the surface of the soil and sand by using ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) as the thermoplastic resin contained in the treating agent. Furthermore, since the treating agent containing ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) can be sprayed on the surface of the soil and sand in the form of a solution (emulsion), it can be said that the workability of the spraying process is excellent.

[0023] In the method for treating discarded chickens according to the present invention, the discarded chickens are preferably chickens that have been culled due to an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza.

[0024] According to the method for disposing of discarded chickens of this configuration, even if chickens culled due to an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza damage the processing container due to rigor mortis and infectious organic waste derived from the chicken's body fluids, etc. leaks out of the processing container, the thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) formed on the surface of the soil can prevent or suppress water from entering the soil, thereby reducing the risk of infectious organic waste leaking out due to rainfall, flooding, etc., and the discarded chickens can be kept safe in the soil.

[0025] FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram for explaining the method for treating discarded chickens of the present invention.

[0026] The following describes embodiments of the method for treating discarded chickens of the present invention, but the present invention is not limited to these embodiments.

[0027] While investigating various methods for preventing water infiltration into the ground, the inventors noticed that compacting soil with a thermoplastic resin could impart water resistance to the soil. They hypothesized that using such a thermoplastic resin would be effective in preventing or inhibiting water infiltration into the ground, thereby reducing the risk of infectious organic waste derived from chicken body fluids, etc., being washed away by rainfall or flooding, even after cull chickens have been buried in the soil. As will be described in detail in the Examples below, a treatment agent containing ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA), an example of a thermoplastic resin, was sprayed onto simulated soil to compact the surface soil, and a water infiltration test was conducted on this simulated soil, confirming that it had a high water infiltration suppression effect. Thus, the inventors discovered that treating soil with a thermoplastic resin allows for safe and appropriate disposal of cull chickens even after burial, leading to the completion of the present invention. That is, the method for disposing of discarded chickens of the present invention involves spraying a treatment agent containing a thermoplastic resin onto the surface of the soil in which chickens to be disposed of have been buried, and is particularly intended for disposing of chickens that have been culled due to an outbreak of avian influenza.

[0028] <Treatment Agent> In the disposal method for discarded chickens of the present invention, a thermoplastic resin or a composition containing a thermoplastic resin is used as a treatment agent to solidify the soil. Examples of thermoplastic resins include ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS), and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer (ABS). Among these thermoplastic resins, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) is preferred. While the ratio of ethylene to vinyl acetate in ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) is not particularly limited, increasing the ratio of ethylene to vinyl acetate can form a flexible film, while increasing the ratio of vinyl acetate can form a hard film. Therefore, the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) used as the treatment agent can be selected from those with an appropriate ratio of ethylene to vinyl acetate depending on the properties of the soil to be treated. For example, by adjusting the ratio of ethylene in ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) to approximately 3-10% (molar equivalent), a film with a good balance of flexibility and hardness can be formed, making it possible to handle a wide range of soils.

[0029] In addition to the thermoplastic resin, the treatment agent may also contain a bactericide, an antibacterial agent, an antiviral agent, a deodorizer, a thickener, a dispersant, and the like.

[0030] The treatment agent is preferably in the form of an emulsion in which a thermoplastic resin is dispersed in a solvent, and an aqueous emulsion in which a thermoplastic resin is dispersed in water is particularly preferred. The content of the thermoplastic resin (solids) in this emulsion (treatment agent) is preferably 3 to 10.5 wt%. Within this range, the soil can be adequately solidified, forming a thermoplastic resin layer that serves as a waterproofing layer on the soil surface. If the thermoplastic resin content in the treatment agent is less than 3 wt%, the soil may not be sufficiently solidified. On the other hand, if the thermoplastic resin content in the treatment agent is more than 10.5 wt%, cracks may occur on the surface of the solidified soil (thermoplastic resin layer).

[0031] When using (spraying) emulsion-type treatment agents, the amount used (spraying amount) is 0.5 kg / m on the soil surface (ground). ２ It is preferable that the concentration is 1 kg / m or more. ２ It is more preferable that the amount of treatment agent used is 0.5 kg / m or more. ２ If the amount of treatment agent used is 0.5 kg / m or more, the treatment agent will reach a moderate depth (for example, 1 to 10 cm) from the soil surface, and a good thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) can be formed on the soil surface as a waterproof layer. ２ If the amount is less than this, the treatment agent will not penetrate into the soil sufficiently and will remain near the soil surface, which may result in the soil not being sufficiently consolidated. On the other hand, there is no particular upper limit to the amount of treatment agent used, but considering the cost of using the treatment agent, it is recommended to use 5 kg / m ２ The extent is realistic.

[0032] <Method for treating cull chickens> The method for treating cull chickens of the present invention using the above-mentioned treatment agent will be described. Figure 1 is a schematic diagram for explaining the method for treating cull chickens of the present invention. The method for treating cull chickens of the present invention includes four steps: an excavation step, a throwing step, a burying step, and a scattering step. Each step will be described in detail below.

[0033] <Excavation Process> In the excavation process, a hole 2 is dug in the ground 1 of the land where discarded chickens (chickens culled due to an outbreak of avian influenza) will be buried (Figures 1(a) and 1(b)). The land where discarded chickens will be buried is usually located within the premises of a poultry farm. Because discarded chickens are disposed of in flexible container bags, the size of the hole 2 need only be large enough to accommodate several to a dozen flexible container bags (1100 mm diameter, 1100 mm height, 1000 L capacity). For the sake of convenience, Figure 1(b) illustrates the excavation means 3 used to excavate the hole 2 as a shovel, but heavy machinery such as a backhoe is typically used. The soil 4 generated by the excavation of the hole 2 is temporarily stored near the hole 2.

[0034] <Adding Step> In the adding step, cull chickens (more precisely, flexible container bags containing cull chickens) 5 are added to the hole 2 (FIG. 1(c)). The added cull chickens 5 preferably fit to a depth of about two-thirds the depth of the hole 2. Furthermore, it is desirable that the cull chickens 5 are added so that they are aligned at the bottom of the hole 2.

[0035] <Burial Step> In the burying step, the hole 2 is backfilled with soil 4 (FIG. 1(d)). Here, in the present invention, it is important not to compact the soil 4. Compaction refers to the process of hardening the ground using tools or heavy machinery, such as rollers or rammers. In road construction, the laid soil is typically compacted to increase the strength of the soil surface, but compaction also transmits pressure to the soil. In the present invention, the backfilled soil 4 is not compacted to prevent the buried culled chickens from being crushed by the pressure. The soil 4 generated in the excavation step is used to backfill the hole 2. This allows the soil 4 to be effectively reused. Furthermore, because the same soil 4 is used in the excavation and burying steps, the properties of the land where the culled chickens 5 are disposed remain unchanged, allowing for safe and appropriate disposal.

[0036] <Spraying Process> In the spraying process, a treatment agent 6 containing a thermoplastic resin is sprayed onto the surface of the backfilled soil 4 (FIG. 1(e)). Ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) is preferred as the thermoplastic resin. Ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) can form a durable thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) on the surface of the soil 4. Furthermore, since the treatment agent containing ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) can be sprayed onto the surface of the soil 4 in the form of a solution (emulsion), the spraying process can be considered to be easy to use. The means for spraying the treatment agent 6 is not particularly limited, and examples include a spraying device 11 consisting of a chemical tank 8, a pump 9, and a shower head 10, as shown in the figure. The content of the thermoplastic resin contained in the treatment agent 6 is preferably 3 to 10.5 wt %. The spray rate of the treatment agent 6 is 0.5 kg / m. ２The above is preferable. These are as explained in the "Treatment Agent" section above. When the treatment agent 6 dries, a thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) 7 is formed on the surface of the soil 4. Note that, when discarded chickens 5 buried in the soil naturally decompose, cavities may form in the soil. However, if an embankment is formed with the soil 4 as shown in FIG. 1(d), the embankment will sink into the cavities as shown in FIG. 1(f), preventing the ground from settling (forming holes).

[0037] As described above, the disposal method for discarded chickens of the present invention involves a simple process of digging a hole 2 in the ground 1 where discarded chickens 5 are to be buried (excavation process), dumping discarded chickens 5 into the hole 2 (loading process), backfilling the hole 2 with soil 4 (burying process), and finally spraying a treatment agent 6 containing a thermoplastic resin onto the surface of the backfilled soil 4 (spraying process). This forms a thermoplastic resin on the surface of the soil 4, which prevents or inhibits water from seeping into the soil, thereby reducing the risk of infectious organic waste derived from chicken body fluids, etc., being washed away by rainfall or flooding, and allowing discarded chickens, such as those slaughtered, to be maintained in a safe state even after being buried in the soil. Furthermore, because the soil 4 is not compacted in the burial process, discarded chickens 5 in the soil are not crushed by pressure. In this respect, the disposal method for discarded chickens of the present invention can be said to be highly safe. Furthermore, the method for disposing of discarded chickens of the present invention can be said to be efficient in that the shape of the soil 4 can be sufficiently maintained by the thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) 7 without the need for compacting the soil 4, thereby eliminating the need for compaction work.

[0038] Furthermore, according to the method for treating discarded chickens of the present invention, even if chickens that have been culled due to an outbreak of avian influenza damage the flexible container bag (treatment container) due to rigor mortis and infectious organic waste derived from the chicken's body fluids, etc., leaks out of the flexible container bag, the thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) 7 formed on the surface of the soil 4 can prevent or suppress water from entering the soil, thereby reducing the risk of infectious organic waste leaking out due to rainfall, flooding, etc., and the discarded chickens 5 can be kept safe in the soil.

[0039] In order to verify the effectiveness of the method for treating discarded chickens of the present invention, a submersion test was carried out on soil treated with a treating agent.

[0040] <Chemicals and materials used> The chemicals and materials used in the test are as follows: Treatment chemical: ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) aqueous emulsion (solid content of the original solution: 21% by weight) Comparative chemical: carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) Clay: clay produced in Tochigi Prefecture (Tochiclay (registered trademark)) Sand: mixed sand made by blending silica sand No. 3 and silica sand No. 5 in a 1:1 (weight ratio)

[0041] <Reproduction of rainfall> According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism website, the average annual rainfall in Japan is 1,718 mm. Also, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency website, a situation in which the rainfall per hour is between 50 mm and 80 mm is considered "very heavy rain," and a situation in which the rainfall is 80 mm or more is considered "severe rain." Based on this information, the target area for this submersion test was set to 120 mm x 120 mm (0.0144 m ２ ) and simultaneously reproduced the amount of precipitation (volume) and intensity of rain (flow rate) by generating a half year's worth of precipitation in a short period of time.

[0042] [Precipitation (volume)] The calculation formula is omitted, but the average annual precipitation in Japan is 1718 mm, which is 0.0144 m. ２ The amount of precipitation (volume) that fell in this area over six months is calculated to be approximately 13 (L).

[0043] [Rain Intensity (Flow Rate)] The above-mentioned six-month rainfall (volume) of 13 L was reproduced by spraying tap water at a flow rate of 1.3 L / min using a garden shower for 10 minutes. Although the calculation formula is omitted, this rainfall (volume) was converted to 78 mm of rainfall per hour, which corresponds to the "very heavy rain" defined by the Japan Meteorological Agency.

[0044] <Preparation of Reproduced Soil> To simulate the soil generated when excavating the ground where discarded chickens are buried, clay and sand were mixed at weight ratios of (1) 100%:0%, (2) 70%:30%, and (3) 50%:50%, and each mixture was hydrated and stirred until it reached a state equivalent to that of general surplus soil, yielding reproduced soils A to C. Note that adding water and stirring the mixed soil results in some of the soil becoming aggregated, resulting in greater variation in particle size. Furthermore, the aggregated soil has larger gaps, which may prevent accurate evaluation of the soil immersion test. Therefore, the soil was sieved using a 2.0 mm mesh sieve, and the material that passed through the sieve was used as the reproduced soil for testing. The compositions of reproduced soils A to C are shown in Table 1.

[0045]

[0046] <Water Immersion Test> A water immersion test of soil and sand was carried out using the treatment agents of the following Examples 1 to 8. For comparison, a water immersion test of soil and sand was also carried out in the same manner using the treatment agent of Comparative Example 1 or under the conditions of Comparative Examples 2 and 3.

[0047] Example 1 A stock solution of an aqueous emulsion of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) with a solid content of 21% by weight was diluted twice with water to prepare the treatment agent of Example 1 (solid content: 10.5% by weight).

[0048] Example 2 A stock solution of an aqueous emulsion of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) with a solid content of 21% by weight was diluted five times with water to prepare the treatment agent of Example 2 (solid content: 4.2% by weight).

[0049] Example 3 A stock solution of an aqueous emulsion of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) with a solid content of 21% by weight was diluted 6 times with water to prepare the treatment agent of Example 3 (solid content: 3.5% by weight).

[0050] Example 4 A stock solution of an aqueous emulsion of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) with a solid content of 21% by weight was diluted 7 times with water to prepare the treatment agent of Example 4 (solid content 3.0% by weight).

[0051] Example 5 A stock solution of an aqueous emulsion of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) with a solid content of 21% by weight was diluted 8 times with water to prepare the treatment agent of Example 5 (solid content: 2.6% by weight).

[0052] Example 6 A stock solution of an aqueous emulsion of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) with a solid content of 21% by weight was diluted 9 times with water to prepare the treatment agent of Example 6 (solid content: 2.3% by weight).

[0053] Example 7 A stock solution of an aqueous emulsion of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) with a solid content of 21% by weight was diluted 10 times with water to prepare the treatment agent of Example 7 (solid content: 2.1% by weight).

[0054] Example 8 A stock solution of an aqueous emulsion of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) with a solid content of 21% by weight was diluted 15 times with water to prepare the treatment agent of Example 8 (solid content: 1.4% by weight).

[0055] Comparative Example 1 An aqueous solution of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) dissolved in water was used as the treatment agent of Comparative Example 1 (solid content: 0.5% by weight).

[0056] Comparative Example 2 No treatment chemical was used.

[0057] Comparative Example 3 No treatment chemical was used, but the soil was compacted.

[0058] The soil and sand infiltration test and evaluation were performed according to the following procedures (1) to (7). (1) A hole with a radius of 3 cm was drilled in the center of a water-impermeable plastic plate (120 mm x 120 mm), and a nonwoven fabric (a repurposed ventilation fan filter) was attached to cover the hole. (2) A polyvinyl chloride pipe (inner diameter: approximately 3 cm, height: approximately 10 cm) was placed on the plate with the nonwoven fabric side facing up, aligned with the hole, with the nonwoven fabric interposed between them. A funnel was placed on top of the polyvinyl chloride pipe, and 100 g of simulated soil and sand were poured into it through gravity. (3) For Examples 1 to 8 and Comparative Examples 1 and 2, the polyvinyl chloride pipe was removed as is. For Comparative Example 3, the hole in the plate was blocked from the opposite side of the polyvinyl chloride pipe, and the plate was compacted (rolled) 25 times with a 2.5 kg rammer before the polyvinyl chloride pipe was removed. (4) The treatment agents of Examples 1 to 8 were sprayed onto the surface of the soil and sand obtained in (3) above at a rate of 1 kg / m ２A sufficient amount was sprayed and allowed to dry naturally for approximately one day in a temperature- and humidity-controlled room (temperature: 20±5°C, humidity: 50±10%). For Comparative Example 1, because the viscosity of CMC makes spraying using a spray bottle difficult, water was first sprayed onto the soil surface, and then the treatment agent was sprayed using a syringe, followed by natural drying for approximately one day. For Comparative Example 2, only natural drying was performed for approximately one day. For Comparative Example 3, compaction was performed (rolling) and then natural drying for approximately one day. (5) After drying, each sample (soil and board) was placed on a beaker with the soil side facing up, and a shower was installed 100 mm above it. (6) Tap water was sprayed from the shower in a shutoff mode (flow rate: 1.3 L / min, time: 10 minutes). At this time, the water that permeated the soil collected in the beaker, while the water that did not permeate the soil flowed out of the beaker. (7) After the water spraying is finished, measure the amount of water W (L) collected in the beaker and calculate the water permeability R (%) using the following formula: Water permeability R (%) = L / 13 x 100 (8) Evaluate the water infiltration suppression effect comprehensively based on the water permeability R and the condition of the soil. Note that for samples where the soil could not withstand the 10-minute water spraying and collapsed midway through, the water permeability R cannot be measured, so the water infiltration suppression effect is evaluated based on the time until collapse. The evaluation criteria are as follows: - A ＋ : The soil does not collapse for 10 minutes or more, and the permeability is 10% or less. 　 : The soil does not collapse for more than 10 minutes. 　 : The time it takes for the soil to collapse is 2 to 10 minutes. 　 : The time it takes for the soil to collapse is less than 2 minutes. 　 : The earth and sand will collapse instantly (in about 1 second).

[0059] <Test Results> Table 2 shows the results of the soil submersion test.

[0060]

[0061] <Discussion> As shown in Examples 1 to 4, when a stock solution (solid content 21% by weight) of an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) aqueous emulsion was diluted 2 to 7 times with water (solid content 3.0 to 10.5% by weight) and used as a treatment agent, the soil did not collapse after 10 minutes of continuous water spraying for any of the replicated soils A to C. Thus, it was confirmed that the use of the treatment agents of Examples 1 to 4 exhibited an excellent waterlogging suppression effect (rating A or higher). In particular, when the treatment agents of Examples 1 to 3, which were diluted 2 to 6 times from the stock solution, were used on replicated soil A, when the treatment agents of Examples 1 to 4, which were diluted 2 to 7 times from the stock solution, were used on replicated soil B, and when the treatment agents of Examples 1 to 4, which were diluted 2 to 7 times from the stock solution, were used on replicated soil C, the permeability was 10% or less, and an excellent waterlogging suppression effect was exhibited (rating A). ＋ ).

[0062] As shown in Examples 5 to 8, when a concentrate of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) aqueous emulsion (solid content 21% by weight) diluted 8 to 15 times with water (solid content 1.4 to 2.6% by weight) was used as a treatment agent, none of the simulated soils A to C could withstand 10 minutes of continuous water spraying, but since it took more than 2 minutes for them to collapse, a certain degree of water seepage suppression effect was recognized (evaluation B).

[0063] The results of Examples 1 to 8 showed that when a treatment agent containing ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) was used, the higher the solids concentration of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) contained in the treatment agent, the greater the water seepage suppression effect. Furthermore, for simulated soils A to C, Example 1 (solids content 10.5% by weight), in which the stock solution was diluted two-fold, had a slightly lower water permeability than Example 2 (solids content 4.2% by weight), in which the stock solution was diluted five-fold. The reason for this is thought to be that when the solids concentration of the treatment agent exceeded a certain level, cracks developed in the waterproof layer (EVA layer) formed on the soil surface after drying, allowing some water to seep in through these cracks.

[0064] In contrast, as shown in Comparative Example 1, when a carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) aqueous solution (solid content 0.5 wt%) was used as the treatment agent, the reproduced soils A to C collapsed in about 1 minute, and no waterlogging suppression effect was observed (Evaluation C).

[0065] As shown in Comparative Example 2, in the case where no treatment chemicals were used, the reproduced soils A to C collapsed instantly (in about 1 second), and no effect of suppressing flooding was observed at all (rating D).

[0066] As shown in Comparative Example 3, when no treatment chemicals were used but the soil was compacted, the soil collapsed in about 30 seconds for all of the reproduced soils A to C, and no effect of suppressing waterlogging was observed (Evaluation C).

[0067] As described above, according to the disposal method for culled chickens (Examples) of the present invention, the thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) formed on the surface of the soil can prevent or suppress water infiltration into the soil, thereby reducing the risk of infectious organic waste derived from chicken body fluids, etc., being washed away by rainfall, flooding, etc., and chickens discarded by slaughter, etc., can be maintained in a safe state even after being buried in the soil. Furthermore, by not compacting the soil, the discarded chickens in the soil will not be crushed by pressure, so in this respect too, the disposal method for culled chickens of the present invention can be said to be highly safe. Furthermore, the disposal method for culled chickens of the present invention can be said to be efficient in that the shape of the soil can be sufficiently maintained by the thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) without compacting the soil, and therefore compaction work can be omitted.

[0068] The method for disposing of discarded chickens of the present invention is used to dispose of chickens that have been culled due to an outbreak of avian influenza, but it can also be used to dispose of chickens that have been culled for other reasons.

[0069] REFERENCE SIGNS LIST 1 Ground 2 Hole 3 Excavation means 4 Soil 5 Discarded chickens 6 Treatment chemical 7 Thermoplastic resin layer (waterproof layer) 8 Chemical tank 9 Pump 10 Shower head 11 Spraying device

Claims

1. A method for disposing of discarded chickens, comprising: an excavation step of digging a hole in the ground of a plot of land where discarded chickens will be buried; a throwing step of throwing the discarded chickens into the hole; a burying step of backfilling the hole with soil and sand; and a spraying step of spraying a treatment agent containing a thermoplastic resin onto the surface of the backfilled soil and sand, wherein the soil and sand is not compacted in the burying step.

2. The method for disposing of discarded chickens according to claim 1, wherein the burying step comprises forming a mound with the soil.

3. The method for treating discarded chickens according to claim 1, wherein the soil generated in the excavation step is used as the soil to backfill the hole in the burying step.

4. A method for treating discarded chickens as described in claim 1, wherein the content of the thermoplastic resin contained in the treatment agent in the spraying step is 3 to 10.5% by weight.

5. In the spraying step, the amount of the treatment agent sprayed is 0.5 kg / m ２ The method for treating discarded chickens according to claim 4, wherein the method is as described above.

6. A method for treating discarded chickens according to any one of claims 1 to 5, wherein in the spraying step, the thermoplastic resin contained in the treating agent is ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA).

7. The method for treating discarded chickens according to claim 6, wherein the discarded chickens are chickens that have been culled due to an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza.

Images