Could Kentucky researchers compost chicken carcasses under the animal disposal statute as the AG read it in 1992?

Plain-English summary

The Commissioner of Agriculture asked whether the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture and others could test composting poultry carcasses. The AG said the animal-carcass disposal statute listed cremation, boiling, and burial, none of which included composting. Its answer changed when it considered whether the statute covered chickens at all.

The AG relied on its earlier view that a 1980 amendment to Kentucky's general definition of “animal” excluded birds. It acknowledged that statute compilations omitted the amendment because they treated a governor's veto as valid, but the AG believed the veto arrived after the deadline. On that understanding, the disposal statute did not apply to chicken carcasses, and the proposed chicken composting did not violate that statute.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Agriculture researchers

The AG concluded that the university's College of Agriculture could dispose of chicken carcasses by composting without violating KRS 257.160. The opinion's conclusion rested on its reading of the definition of “animal,” rather than on any permission for composting within the listed disposal methods.

Poultry producers

The opinion said the statutory disposal methods would have excluded composting if the carcasses were covered animals. Its chicken-specific answer depended on a disputed amendment that the AG considered effective unless a court ruled otherwise.

Common questions

Did the 1992 opinion allow composting of chicken carcasses?

Yes, under the animal-carcass disposal statute the AG analyzed. It reasoned that chickens fell outside the statute because the governing definition excluded birds.

Did the statute list composting as an approved disposal method?

No. The opinion said the statute listed cremation, boiling, and burial. It found an exclusion from that statute for chickens, not a fourth listed method.

Why did the AG's reading differ from compiled statutes?

The opinion said compilations treated a 1980 veto as effective and therefore omitted an amendment excluding birds. The AG believed the veto message reached the Senate clerk too late, making the amendment effective at least until a court ruled otherwise.

Background and statutory framework

KRS 257.160(1) specified methods for disposing of domestic animal carcasses. The AG applied a 1980 amendment to the general definition in KRS 446.010 that excluded birds, despite the contrary treatment in compiled statutes noted in the opinion. It confined its conclusion to chicken carcasses under the animal disposal statute. The opinion did not analyze other possible disposal rules.

Citations and references

• KRS 257.160(1): animal-carcass disposal methods quoted in the opinion.
• KRS 446.010: general definition of “animal” and disputed 1980 amendment discussed by the AG.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG92-097.htm

Original opinion text

OAG 92-97

June 15, 1992

Ed Logsdon

Commissioner of Agriculture

Seventh Floor, 500 Mero Street

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Dear Mr. Logsdon:

You have asked whether certain parties, including the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, may experiment with the disposal of poultry carcasses by composting them.

The disposal of animal carcasses is regulated by KRS 257.160(1), which states:

All carcasses of domestic animals which have died or which have been destroyed on account of any disease, except those destroyed on account of tuberculosis and slaughtered under the supervision of the state veterinarian or other representative of the board [of agriculture], shall be disposed of by:

(a) Complete cremation of the entire carcass and all of its parts and products;

(b) Boiling the carcass and all of its parts and products in water or heating it with steam at a temperature above boiling, continuously for two (2) hours or more; or

(c) Burying the carcass and all of its parts and products in the earth at a point which is never covered with the overflow of ponds or streams and which is not less than one hundred (100) feet distant from any watercourse, well, spring, public highway, residence or stable. The carcass shall be placed in an opening in the earth at least four (4) feet deep, the abdominal and thoracic cavities opened wide their entire length with a sharp instrument, and the entire carcass covered with at least two (2) inches of quicklime and at least three (3) feet of earth.

By the plain terms of the statute none of the three options for disposal of animal carcasses would include composting. Animal carcasses must be cremated, or boiled, or buried under three feet of earth. Any other method of disposal would be in violation of the statute.

However, your question implicates a peculiar situation that exists with regard to the status of birds as animals. In a letter dated March 16, 1990, the Attorney General advised state senator Kelsey Friend that the Kentucky statutes apparently say that a bird is not an animal. Here is how that conclusion was reached:

In 1980 the General Assembly amended the general definitional statute, KRS 446.010, as follows:

Before amendment:

“Animal” includes every warmblooded living creature except a human being.

After amendment:

“Animal” includes every warmblooded living creature except birds and human beings.

Although the amendment was touted as a means to allow farmers to destroy blackbirds, Governor John Y. Brown perceived that the amendment would also apparently authorize cockfighting. The Governor vetoed the bill, but the veto message reached the clerk of the senate after the veto deadline had passed. Thus, although current compilations of our statutes assume that the veto was valid and therefore omit the 1980 amendment, the Attorney General concluded that the amendment is, indeed, in effect, or at least it should be deemed to be in effect until a court rules otherwise.

And so, in Kentucky, a chicken is not an animal.

Since KRS 257.160 deals with the disposal of carcasses of animals, it does not apply to the disposal of carcasses of chickens. Therefore we conclude that the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture may dispose of chicken carcasses without running afoul of the statute.

Sincerely,

Chris Gorman

Attorney General

Ross T. Carter

Assistant Attorney General