an overview of - world bank...poultry in the philippines, 2015 ..... 14 table 3: acidification...

An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the PhilippinesThe Livestock Sector2016

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines The Livestock Sector2016

Submitted to

The World Bank’s Agriculture and Environment & Natural Resources Global Practices

© 2016 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NWWashington DC 20433Telephone: 202-473-1000

Internet: www.worldbank.org

This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent.

The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given.

Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: [email protected].

Cite this report as:Calub, A.D., R.B. Saludes, and E.V.P. Tabing. 2016. “An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector.” Prepared for the World Bank. Washington, D.C.

Publication design and typesetting by The Word Express, Inc. Cover photos courtesy of shutterstock.com and the authors of this report.

CONTENTS

Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

1 History of Livestock and Poultry Farming in the Philippines . . . . 1

2 Growth and Concentration of Livestock and Poultry in the Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 Swine Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2 Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.3 Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.4 Carabao or Water Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 Operations of Slaughterhouses, Poultry Dressing Plants, and Meat Processing Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 Current Management Practices of Livestock and Slaughterhouse Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134.1 Manure Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134.2 Swine Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144.3 Poultry Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.4 Cattle and Carabao Manure Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.5 Disposal of Carcasses of Dead Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.6 Management of Slaughterhouse Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5 Environmental Impacts of Livestock Production in the Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.1 Pollution Implications of Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.2 Air Pollution from Livestock and Poultry Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.2.1 Ammonia Emission from Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sectoriv

5.2.2 GHG Emissions from Enteric Fermentation and Manure Management . . . . . . . . . 185.3 Soil Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5.3.1 Nitrogen Overload from Manure Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215.3.2 Accumulation of Heavy Metals from Livestock Manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5.4 Water Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.4.1 Surface Water Contamination due to Nutrient Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235.4.2 Microbial Contamination of Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245.4.3 Groundwater Contamination due to Nitrate Leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6 Pesticide Use in Confinement Rearing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

7 Use of Antibiotics in Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

8 Status of Racehorses and Game Fowl Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318.1 Racehorses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318.2 Game Fowl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318.3 Use of Performance Enhancers for Racehorses and Game Fowls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

9 Socioeconomic Impacts of Livestock Production in the Philippines . . . . . . . . . 339.1 Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339.2 Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359.3 Consumer Demand Vis-a-Vis Poor Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

10 Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3710.1 Policies and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

10.1.1 Livestock and Poultry Feeds Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3710.1.2 Food Safety Act of 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3710.1.3 DENR Administrative Order No. 30, Series of 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3710.1.4 LLDA Resolution No. 169, Series of 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3810.1.5 Philippine Agricultural Engineering Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

10.2 Farm-level Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3810.2.1 Manure Management and Utilization vs Potential Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3810.2.2 Organic Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3910.2.3 Composting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4010.2.4 Vermicomposting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4010.2.5 Biogas Digesters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

List of Figures

Figure 1: Percentage contribution of Various livestock subsectors in terms of value of production, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

vContents

Figure 2: Percentage contribution of chicken and duck in the poultry subsector in terms of value of production, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 3: National inventory of backyard and commercial swine in terms of percentage of total population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 4: Regional distribution of backyard swine in the Philippines, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Figure 5: Regional distribution of commercial swine in the Philippines, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Figure 6: National inventory of native, layer, and broiler chicken in terms of

percentage of total population, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Figure 7: Regional distribution of broiler chicken in the Philippines, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Figure 8: Regional distribution of layer chicken in the Philippines, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Figure 9: Regional distribution of native chicken in the Philippines, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Figure 10: National inventory of backyard and commercial cattle in terms of

percentage of total population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Figure 11: Regional distribution of backyard cattle in the Philippines, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Figure 12: Regional distribution of commercial cattle in the Philippines, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Figure 13: Regional distribution of carabao in the Philippines, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Figure 14: Mass balance approach for estimating values of excreted manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Figure 15: Summary of GHG emissions from agricultural sector, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Figure 16: Summary of methane emissions of livestock industry from

enteric fermentation, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Figure 17: Summary of methane emissions of livestock and poultry from

manure management, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Figure 18: Summary of nitrous oxide emissions of manure management, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 19: Summary of nitrous oxide emissions of livestock and poultry, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 20: BOD contribution from point sources, 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 21: BOD load (in thousand tons) in relation to population, 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Figure 22: BOD contribution from nonpoint sources, 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Figure 23: Percentage nitrogen estimation from Laguna Lake, 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 24: Distribution of game fowls per region in the Philippines, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 25: Changes in vermiculture/earthworm culture from 1991 to 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

List of Tables

Table 1: Distribution of accredited slaughterhouses, poultry dressing, and meat processing plants by region, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 2: Estimated manure production from livestock and poultry in the Philippines, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 3: Acidification potential of livestock and poultry for different manure management scenarios, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 4: GHG emissions of livestock and poultry from enteric fermentation and different manure management scenarios, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 5: Percentage distribution of nitrogen emission into Laguna de Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Table 6: Antibiotics and estimated volume of use, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Table 7: Horse inventory, 1994–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Table 8: Total inventory of chicken by farm type, by classification,

in the Philippines, as of July 1, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Table 9: Estimated manure management from estimated manure in

different scenarios in 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AMR Antimicrobial ResistanceAPS Aviary Population SurveyBAI Bureau of Animal IndustryBAS Bureau of Agricultural StatisticsBOD Biological Oxygen DemandCAR Cordillera Administrative RegionCH4 MethaneCO2 Carbon DioxideCOD Chemical Oxygen DemandDA Department of AgricultureDENR Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesDOH Department of HealthDOST Department of Science and TechnologyEMB Environmental Management BureauFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGHG Greenhouse GasIFPRI International Food Policy Research InstituteIMO International Maritime OrganizationIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeJICA Japan International Cooperation Agencykg KilogramLLGU Liter Local Government UnitLLDA Laguna Lake Development Authoritym3 Cubic meterMADECOR Mandala Agricultural Development Corporationmg milligramN NitrogenN2O Nitrous OxideNO2 Nitrate

An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sectorviii

NCR National Capital RegionNEDA National Economic and

Development AuthorityNH3 AmmoniaNMIS National Meat Inspection ServiceNVRQS National Veterinary Research and

Quarantine ServiceNWQSR National Water Quality Status

ReportPAES Philippine Agricultural

Engineering StandardsPARRFI Philippine Agriculture and

Resources Research Foundation Inc.PCAARRD Philippine Council for Agriculture,

Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development

PCARRD Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development

PO4 PhosphatesPSA Philippine Statistical AuthorityRA Republic ActSIDC Sorosoro Ibaba Development

CooperativeSO2 Sulfur DioxideSO4 SulfateUPLB University of the Philippines Los

BañosVOC Volatile Organic Compound

Regions of the Philippines

Region 1 Ilocos RegionRegion 2 Cagayan ValleyRegion 3 Central LuzonRegion 4 Southern Tagalog RegionRegion 4A CalabarzonRegion 4B MimaropaRegion 5 Bicol RegionRegion 6 Western VisayasRegion 7 Central Visayas

Region 7A Negros IslandRegion 8 Eastern VisayasRegion 9 Zamboanga PeninsulaRegion 10 Northern MindanaoRegion 11 Davao RegionRegion 12 SoccsksargenRegion 13 Caraga RegionCAR Cordillera AutonomousNCR National Capital Region

FOREWORD

This report is part of a national overview of agricultural pollution in the Philip-pines, commissioned by the World Bank. The overview consists of three “chapters” on the crops, livestock, and fisheries sub-sectors, and a summary report. This “chap-ter” provides a broad national overview of (a) the magnitude, impacts, and drivers of pollution related to the livestock sector’s development; (b) measures that have been taken by the public sector to manage or mitigate this pollution; and (c) exist-ing knowledge gaps and directions for future research.

This report was prepared on the basis of existing literature, recent analyses, national and international statistics, and interviews. It did not involve new primary research and did not attempt to cover pollution issues that arise in the broader live-stock value chain, outside the farmgate—for instance from slaughterhouses, feed processing plants, or veterinary drug factories.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The livestock subsector is subdivided into animal classes, that is, large and small ruminants, swine, and poultry. Large ruminants include cattle and carabao (water buffalo), small ruminants are goats and sheep, while poultry includes layer, broiler, and native chickens; ducks; and limited rearing scale of pigeons, turkey, and quail. There also exist limited rearing of rabbits for meat. The Philippine Statistical Authority (PSA) classifies farm scale of operations as backyard or commercial: both large and small ruminant animal holdings of up to 20 heads are backyard; similarly, up to 20 heads for swine and up to 100 bird holdings for poultry farms are back-yard. Commercial farms raise more than the mentioned holdings.

In general, animal waste—which includes manure, urine, and attendant waste such as bedding and leftover feed—could be treated as a fertilizer resource. More than 39 million tons of manure is generated annually from livestock and poultry farming. Aside from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from natural deg-radation, it is the improper manner of treatment, handling, and disposal where ‘pollution’ occurs. Air quality pollutants from manure include ammonia, hydro-gen sulfide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Major GHGs emitted from livestock farming, that is, enteric fermentation and manure management, include methane and nitrous oxide. Manure also contains significant amount of nitrogen and phosphorus, which, if not used as fertilizer, can contribute to the eutrophi-cation of surface water and groundwater contamination as caused by runoff and leaching, respectively.

In backyard farms with animal holdings of one to a few chickens, pigs, or mature cattle, manure could be used as mulch or left to dry before it is applied as fertilizer. Scattered manure eventually settles on the ground if it is not washed out into waterways. In commercial feedlots or swine farms with holdings up to several thousand heads, manure needs to undergo a series of physical treatments (for exam-ple, drying or solid separation) and biological treatments (composting or anaerobic digestion) before residues can be used as fertilizer and wastewater can be released to irrigate field crops or to waterways. Treatment facilities may also be improperly designed and subject to flooding or inundation by heavy rains or storms leading to runoff.

An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sectorxii

proper manure use into organic fertilizer, through com-posting and/or vermiculture. It gives added earnings to the farm and easily offsets added labor and investment on manure handling and treatment facilities.

Especially in backyard scale, proper manure dis-posal or reuse as fertilizer helps cut down on fertilizer cost and, if pursued through, adds value to certified or-ganic products. In backyard pig farms, a built-up-litter rearing system uses sawdust, rice hulls, and other dry biomass instead of the wash-and-flush practice. Appli-cation of ‘effective’ or ‘indigenous’ microorganisms to the litter facilitates odor-free degradation.

The government has instituted various laws to control pollution. The main problem in minimizing pollution through these laws is the difficulty in coor-dination between local government units (LGUs) with the mandated implementing national agencies. This is in turn confounded by other pollution concerns from crops, domestic waste, and industry from factories to power plants and motor vehicles. Minimizing livestock pollution ultimately depends on combined efforts at increased recycling into fertilizer, along with improved monitoring on conformance to waste disposal. The lat-ter also includes regulating implementation of design specifications of structures to incorporate waste han-dling and management.

From the late 1960s, cattle and carabao produc-tion has shifted to small backyard holdings, accompany-ing the decline of large ranch operations in grasslands, partly from the government’s reforestation efforts. Land conversions into settlements and industrial estates along with a growing human population further add pressure on available arable land. Even as backyard pig and poul-try farms still contribute more than 50 percent to total meat production, commercial operations have prolifer-ated near urban population areas and steadily increase their share by about 5 percent annually to total produce.

Various studies have pointed to swine raising, es-pecially for backyard scale, as the source of most pollut-ants—mainly due to the conventional wash-and-flush mode of cleaning manure and indiscriminately con-veying this on the ground or through waterways. The potential methane production from livestock and poul-try is more than 500,000 tons per year based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines. However, a large volume of livestock waste enables direct utilization as fertilizer, as in the case of poultry waste, which is relatively dry. Likewise, swine or cattle/buffalo manure could be conveyed through biogas digesters, to enable the use of methane as fuel and then the residue as fertilizer.

What started as the ‘Natural’, and now the ‘Or-ganic Agriculture’, movement has added impetus to

HISTORY OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY FARMING IN THE PHILIPPINES

Pigs and chickens are indigenous animals in the Philippines. These animals were raised by indigenous Filipinos for their ritualistic importance. Pigs are offered to the anito as part of the maganito ceremony—a ritual practice among people in the 1500s, to ensure successful harvest and also for thanksgiving. The tagalog word ‘baboy’ has some variations in Indonesian, ‘babi’, and Malayan, ‘bawi’. Chickens, on the other hand, were offered by the Ilonggos to the underworld people as part of lampong—a dwarf shepherd of the wild. The Maranaws also use wild chicken not only as food but also for ritual offerings as totem chicken (Velasco 2014).

Some of the early cattle introductions were brought to the Philippines from Mexico by the Spaniards in 1586, other than breeds that were brought in through trade with India, China, and Indochina. Cattle then were commonly raised by households wanting to raise their own animals. Traditional native Filipino houses during that time had an elevated floor and underneath it was where the cattle, pigs, and fowls were raised or sheltered for the night (Velasco 2014).

Philippine carabaos were imported from China in the mid-1500s. These animals were domesticated some 7,000 years ago in Checkiang Province of China. There are two types of buffaloes—the swamp and riverine buffaloes. The swamp type was brought to the country and is known for its draft ability. The riverine type, like those found in India and Pakistan, is known for its meat and milk. The name carabao may have originated from the Visayan or Cebuano word ‘kerabaw’, apparently from the word ‘kerbau’, the Indo-Malay name for water buffalo (www.pcc.gov.ph). Over the years, native carabaos have been continuously domesticated and further improved by crossbreeding with the murrah as a source of meat, milk, and draft power, as well as savings from farm labor cost.

1

http://www.pcc.gov.ph

http://www.pcc.gov.ph

GROWTH AND CONCENTRATION OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Delgado et al. (1999) described a demand-driven ‘revolution’ in livestock development globally due to continuing population growth, widening urbanization, and income growth. They projected that by 2020, developing countries will be producing 60 per-cent of the world supplies of meat and 52 percent of milk in response to massive increase in demand for food of animal origin, a parallel development in the Philippines (Baconguis 2007). However, intensification and expansion of livestock and poultry pro-duction systems can lead to environmental and socioeconomic issues such as pollution, livelihood, and human health hazards. These issues should be taken seriously through strict implementation of laws, policies, regulations, and technological interventions.

In 2014, the Philippine livestock and poultry subsector contributed 32 per-cent of the total agricultural output (Figure 1). The livestock group is dominated by the swine industry, which accounts for 82 percent of the total value of production, followed by cattle (9.54 percent), carabao or water buffalo (4.33 percent), and goat (3.49 percent). Dairy animals are about 26,000 heads or 0.25 percent of total cattle and carabaos, as well as a minimal number of dairy goats.

The chicken industry, on the other hand, has consistently led the poultry group, contributing 75 percent of the total value of production (PSA 2015), followed by chicken eggs (21.18 percent), duck eggs (1.93 percent), and duck (1.48 percent) (Figure 2). Combining chicken meat and eggs, the contribution is about 95 percent.

2

An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector4

near Metro Manila to meet the area’s growing demand for food (Global Methane Initiative 2009). On the oth-er hand, 15 percent of the backyard swine population is found in Region 6, followed by Region 5 (9.2 percent) and Region 7 (9.0 percent). (BAS 2014). Figures B-4 and B-5 present the distribution of swine population in the country for backyard and commercial farms.

Most of the large-scale swine operations are lo-cated far from densely populated areas to prevent envi-ronmental and health problems due to waste produc-tion and management. In addition, the number of hogs raised per farm near the urban areas is regulated by local government (LGU) ordinances (Rola et al. 2003).

2.2 Poultry

The poultry industry in the Philippines is likewise com-posed of commercial and backyard operations; a farm with more than 100 birds is classified as commercial (PSA 2015). Furthermore, a commercial poultry farm is char-acterized by a large-scale and integrated production and marketing system (Costales et al. 2003). The Philippine

2.1 Swine Industry

The swine industry in the Philippines is made up of backyard and commercial swine farming operations. A backyard swine farm has a population size of less than 20 heads of adult equivalent animal (PSA 2015). As of January 1, 2015, the total swine population was 11.99 million heads. About 64 percent of the total swine popu-lation is located in backyard farms. The swine industry, as a whole, registered an annual growth rate of 2.0 percent from 1994 to 2015. However, the backyard swine sector recorded a steady decline in percentage contribution to total swine population, from 82 percent in 1994 to 65 percent in 2015. Commercial swine farming exhibited a steady increase from 18 percent to 35 percent of the total swine inventory for 1994–2014 (Figure 3).

In terms of regional distribution, Region 3 ac-counted for 16 percent of the total swine inventory fol-lowed by Region 4A (13 percent) and Region 6 (11 per-cent) (BAS 2014). Most commercial farms are located in Region 3 and Region 4A. These regions accounted for 62 percent of the total population of commercial swine farming. Large commercial farms are usually established

Figure 1: Percentage contribution of Various livestock subsectors in terms of value of production, 2014

Swine82.38%Goat

3.49%

Carabao4.33%

Cattle9.54%

Dairy0.25%

Source: PSA 2015.

Figure 2: Percentage contribution of chicken and duck in the poultry subsector in terms of value of production, 2014

Chicken75.41%Chicken

eggs21.18%

Duck eggs1.93%

Duck1.48%

Source: PSA 2015.

Growth and Concentration of Livestock and Poultry in the Philippines 5

chicken industry, as a whole, registered an annual growth rate of 4.0 percent for 1994–2015. However, the percentage contribution of native farm chicken to the total population steadily dropped from 53.7 percent in 1994 to 44.5 percent in 2015. In contrast, layers in-creased their percentage contribution from 9.0 percent in 1994 to 17.7 percent in 2015. The contribution of broilers slightly increased from 37.3 percent in 1994 to 37.7 percent in 2015 (Figure 6).

chicken inventory is further classified into broiler, layer, and native. Broilers and layers are imported hybrids with foreign strains while native chickens refer to local breeds. There are also improved breeds that are crosses of local breeds with foreign strains (Chang 2007). Native chick-ens are usually raised under a free-range management sys-tem by backyard farmers, mainly for own consumption.

The total chicken population reached 176.47 million heads as of January 2015 (PSA 2015). The

Figure 5: Regional distribution of commercial swine in the Philippines, 2015

Source: PSA 2015.

Figure 4: Regional distribution of backyard swine in the Philippines, 2015

Source: PSA 2015.

Figure 3: National inventory of backyard and commercial swine in terms of percentage of total population

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

alsw

ine

popu

latio

n

0

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

405060

102030

708090

100

CommercialBackyard

Source: PSA 2015.


native chicken inventory (PSA 2015). Figures B-7, B-8, and B-9 present the regional distribution of broiler, lay-er, and native chickens, respectively.

Poultry operations are found in a wide range of environments and size of flock. For example, back-yard poultry raisers are located almost everywhere near the market, whereas contract poultry farms are located in less urbanized areas. Backyard poultry farms are permitted to operate even in densely pop-ulated areas, that is, reared in cages of 50 birds or so,

In terms of regional distribution, broiler and lay-ers are concentrated in Regions 3, 4-A, and 10. These top three producing regions accounted for 59.2 percent of total broiler population and 73.2 percent of total layer population. On the other hand, native chickens are widespread in the Philippines. The top five native chicken producing regions are Region 6 (16.7 per-cent), Region 3 (9.8 percent), Region 10 (9.7 percent), Region 7 (9.1 percent), and Region 11 (8.9 percent). These regions contributed 54.2 percent of the total

Figure 6: National inventory of native, layer, and broiler chicken in terms of percentage of total population, 2015

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

alch

icke

n po

pula

tion

0

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

405060

102030

708090

100

Layer NativeBroiler

Source: PSA 2015.

Figure 8: Regional distribution of layer chicken in the Philippines, 2015

Source: PSA 2015.

Figure 7: Regional distribution of broiler chicken in the Philippines, 2015

Source: PSA 2015.

Growth and Concentration of Livestock and Poultry in the Philippines 7

heads of adult cattle accounted for 93 percent of the total cattle inventory (Figure 10).

Most of the cattle farms are found in Regions 1, 3, 4A, 6, and 10 (Figure 11 and 12); in sum, they contributed 53 percent of the total cattle population in the Philippines.

Dairy cattle accounted for only 0.89 percent of the total cattle population. From the total dairy cattle population, 25.77 percent is on the milk production

within zoning ordinances prescribed by the LGUs. Farther from markets, backyard and contract grow-ers are less subject to such ordinances, with minimal complaints from neighbors regarding the health risks and foul odor normally associated with poultry farms (Rola et al. 2003).

2.3 Cattle

Ranching on grasslands, with holdings of up to several thousand heads, was once a dominant sector in the cattle industry. This has shifted to smallholder hold-ings mainly because of the reforestation efforts of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) since the late 1960s and the accompanying nonrenewal of pasture leases. In addition, implemen-tation of the comprehensive agrarian reform program and urbanization because of rising human popula-tion affected ranches, rice estates, and some sugarcane estates. Peasant revolt movements, aggravated by com-munist insurgency, from the 1950s targeted these estates, even raising national security concerns, which partly led to martial law in 1972. The cattle industry nowadays is dominated by backyard farms. As of 2015, inventory in backyard cattle farms with less than 20

Figure 9: Regional distribution of native chicken in the Philippines, 2015

Source: PSA 2015.

Figure 10: National inventory of backyard and commercial cattle in terms of percentage of total population

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

alca

ttle

popu

latio

n

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

100

CommercialBackyard

84

88

90

92

86

94

96

98

Source: PSA 2015.


2.4 Carabao or Water Buffalo

The Philippine carabao is known for its meat and draft power. Crossbreds with murrah are being pro-moted for dairy. Its main economic beneficiaries are the smallholder farmers who own 99 percent of the total population, roughly 2.85 million heads as of January 2015 (PSA 2015). Smallholder rice farms particularly depend on carabao draft power, notwithstanding gov-ernment efforts to introduce farm tractors. The carabao industry, as a whole, registered an annual growth rate of 0.52 percent for the period 1994–2015.

Carabaos are widely distributed all over the Phil-ippines. On regional distribution, Region 7 ranked first, accounting for about 10.9 percent of the total population. Other regions in the top five are Regions 2, 3, 5, and 8. These regions accounted for 45.2 percent of the total carabao population. Figure 13 shows the regional distribution of carabao. Since 1983, the Phil-ippine Carabao Center was created by law, with offices in 13 regions, to oversee overall development of the in-dustry. Importations of murrah buffaloes were done to upgrade native buffaloes.

line that produced 12.5 million L, 63.68 percent of the total milk produced in 2014 (PSA 2015). Figures B-11 and B-12 present the regional distribution of backyard and commercial cattle in the Philippines, respectively.

Figure 11: Regional distribution of backyard cattle in the Philippines, 2015

Source: PSA 2015.

Figure 12: Regional distribution of commercial cattle in the Philippines, 2015

Source: PSA 2015.

Figure 13: Regional distribution of carabao in the Philippines, 2015

Source: PSA 2015.

OPERATIONS OF SLAUGHTERHOUSES, POULTRY DRESSING PLANTS, AND MEAT PROCESSING PLANTS

Meat establishments in the Philippines are premises such as slaughterhouses, poul-try dressing plants, meat processing plants, cold storages, warehouses, and other meat outlets that are approved and registered by the National Meat Inspection Service (NMIS) in which food animals or meat products are slaughtered, prepared, processed, handled, packed, or stored (Republic Act [RA] No. 9296 – Meat Inspec-tion Code of the Philippines).

In 2008, there were 1,100 reported slaughterhouses in the country, of which only 121 were accredited. In 2015, a decrease of 39 percent was observed in accred-ited slaughterhouses with only 87 slaughterhouse facilities that passed the standards set by the NMIS. A majority of the slaughterhouses that passed the standards are owned by private entrepreneurs and are mostly located in Metro Manila and the nearby Regions 3 and 4A. The top three regions combined for almost 44.41 per-cent of the total livestock slaughtered (11 million heads) in the country and from which 46.20 percent of the total swine population is included. The top slaughter-houses are located in Region 4A (22.99 percent), National Capital Region (NCR) (20.69 percent), and Region 3 (12.64 percent) (NMIS 2015).

Accredited facilities are rated according to three major categories, Class AAA as the highest, Class AA as average, and Class A as the lowest. Slaughterhouses,

3


poultry dressing plants, and meat processing plants are accredited using the latter accreditation level (Table 1).

Class AAA is mostly private meat producing companies that comply with the highest level of stan-dards especially for sanitation and also make products that can pass export quality and are therefore allowed to sell products to the international market with Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point certification. Only four slaughterhouses of this class were accredited in 2015 (4.60 percent). For poultry dressing plants and meat processing plants, only 3.77 percent and 3.29 percent are accredited for this class, respectively.

Class AA establishments are those qualified for normal domestic trade and are allowed to sell and trade products nationwide. They act in accordance with the

average level of compliance with the standards. A ma-jority of Class AA are privately owned (86.21 percent). There was an increase of 31 percent in the number of Class AA slaughterhouses from 2006 to 2015. For poultry dressing plants and meat processing plants, only 72.64 percent and 81.69 percent are accredited for this class, respectively.

Class A establishments can only trade their product within the municipality or city and meet the minimum level of standards for accreditation purposes. There was a 75 percent decrease in the number of Class A slaughterhouses (9.20 percent) from 2006 to 2015. For poultry dressing plants and meat processing plants, only 3.77 percent and 3.29 percent are accredited for this class, respectively.

Table 1: Distribution of accredited slaughterhouses, poultry dressing, and meat processing plants by region, 2015

Slaughterhouse Poultry Dressing Plant Meat Processing Plant

Region

Accredited Accredited Accredited

A AA AAA Total A AA AAA Total A AA AAA Total

CAR 2 1 3 1 1 2 4 6

NCR 2 16 18 9 2 11 3 6 9

1 6 6 1 3 1 5 1 1

2 3 3 14 9 23 46 6 52

3 11 11 0 54 12 66

4A 1 17 2 20 7 6 13 26 9 35

4B 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

5 1 1 7 7 1 1 2

6 2 2 6 6 7 7

7 1 1 2 3 4 2 9 5 5 10

8 5 5 0

9 2 1 3 2 2 0

10 4 4 9 3 12 11 11

11 4 4 5 2 7 10 10

12 4 1 5 3 3 1 1 2

13 3 3 1 1 1 1

Total 8 75 4 87 4 77 25 106 7 174 32 213

Source: NMIS 2015.Note: CAR = Cordillera Administrative Region.

Operations of Slaughterhouses, Poultry Dressing Plants, and Meat Processing Plants 11

A majority of slaughterhouses, poultry dressing plants, and meat processing plants in the country have not met the minimum standard of accreditation, which is Class A, by NMIS (2015) and they are thus known as not accredited but only registered (Costales and Del-gado 2002, cited in Maranan et al. 2008). Based on

the data of the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) in 2008, it was assumed that about 30–40 percent of the total number of food animals slaughtered in 2008 were slaughtered in unaccredited establishments (Glob-al Methane Initiative 2009).

CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF LIVESTOCK AND SLAUGHTERHOUSE WASTES

4.1 Manure Production

In the absence of local manure data, excreted animal manure can be estimated using a nutrient balance approach that assumes feed intake minus animal retention equals excreted manure (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Mass balance approach for estimating values of excreted manure

Feed nutrient intake

Foodnutrientintake

Nutrientexcretion

Nutrient retention by animal or in theanimal’s products such as eggs or milk

Source: USDA 2008.

4


Table 2 shows the estimated total excreted ma-nure of cattle, carabao, swine, and chicken. The values were computed using the national livestock and poultry inventory provided by the PSA. Estimates show that more than 13 million tons of excreted manure can be generated annually from the livestock and poultry in-dustry. Ruminant animals account for 68 percent of the total manure production.

4.2 Swine Waste Management

Swine waste disposal has become a major environmen-tal concern because of growth and concentration of the industry, particularly in regions adjacent to Metro Manila. Waste from swine farms is generally composed of manure, urine, water, spilled feeds, and water used for cooling, cleaning, and flushing.

Most swine farms, particularly backyard and small commercial farms, traditionally use water to flush waste out of the pens and let it flow to nearby creeks. Smallholder farms usually generate more untreated and ill-disposed wastes because of the farrow-to-wean predominant type of production activity (Catelo and Narrod 2008). A farm survey conducted by Catelo, Dorado, and Agbisit (2001) showed that 80 percent of the backyard and commercial swine farms in Majayjay, Laguna deposited their waste products in nearby creeks and rivers. Moreover, backyard and small commer-cial farms (less than 1,000 swine heads) are exempted from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB)

monitoring and compliance because their wastewater discharge is usually less than 30 m3 per day.

In large commercial swine farms, manure is col-lected from pens by scraping. Wastewater is drained into canals, which lead to a series of open lagoons. Some large farms also used biogas digesters for methane recovery and utilization. As cited by the Global Meth-ane Initiative (2009), a survey conducted by the Uni-versity of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB-IFPRI LI Project) on 207 farms located in top swine producing regions revealed that as of 2003, about 63–65 percent of commercial farms use a lagoon system for manure management and 6–12 percent use biogas digester. However, only 22 percent of smaller farms use lagoon systems and 6 percent have biogas digesters. Other farms dispose the waste in septic tanks or open pits or simply lay it on the ground or allow it to flow directly to a canal or river.

According to Catelo and Narrod (2008), large scale farms, mostly independent farms, have the ca-pacity to operate and economically benefit from ma-nure application to agricultural land as a form of fer-tilization. They also invest in appropriate structures for proper waste management and disposal of waste. The authors also emphasized that the scale or size of a farm is the most significant overriding factor to account for the differential behavior in mitigating pollution from swine manure. There is a much smaller proportion of medium to large farms, regardless of production activi-ty and production arrangement, that is unable to make an effort to contain the waste.

Table 2: Estimated manure production from livestock and poultry in the Philippines, 2015

Animal Population (heads) Estimated Manure Production as Excreted (tons per year)

Cattle 2,534,243 3,884,995

Carabao 2,854,838 5,001,676

Pig 11,999,722 1,708,160

Chicken 176,469,099 2,462,373

Total 13,057,204

Current Management Practices of Livestock and Slaughterhouse Wastes 15

The average volume of wastewater generated by commercial swine farms ranged from 17 L per head per day to 30 L per head per day. A farm with poor waste management practices can generate up to 50 L per head per day. The typical biological oxygen de-mand (BOD) effluent of wastewater from swine farms ranges from 2,000 mg/L to 4,400 mg/L (Global Meth-ane Initiative 2009).

4.3 Poultry Waste Management

Poultry waste disposal is not a serious environmental concern as compared to swine waste disposal. Waste generated by poultry farms is usually composed of manure, spilled feeds, feathers, and bedding materials. Poultry waste tends to be drier because of the low mois-ture content of bird droppings, use of bedding mate-rial as moisture absorber, and very minimal water use for cleaning. Poultry waste is disposed by either sell-ing it to chicken manure traders or spreading on the farm as organic fertilizer. A market for poultry manure as organic fertilizer has already been established, which lessens the burden of poultry producers in disposing the waste without causing environmental problems. How-ever, some backyard poultry farms are still practicing poor waste management. Paraso et al. (2010) revealed that some backyard poultry farms in Laguna dispose the waste through open dumping and discharging to accessible bodies of water or septic tanks.

4.4 Cattle and Carabao Manure Management

A majority of backyard cattle and carabao farmers breed and fatten up one or a few heads, which are stall-fed or tethered along open fields. Manure in stall pens are usually scraped and dumped in an open space or allowed to decompose in grazing areas. The few large feedlots for beef cattle, along with commercial cattle or carabao dairy farms practice part or full-stall feeding.

The design of these facilities is fairly well provided with the means to scrape, accumulate, and hold manure and waste before disposal as fertilizer and/or as material for composting and vermicomposting. Methane gas gener-ation is not practical for this type of manure because of its low yield.

4.5 Disposal of Carcasses of Dead Animals

In some locations, the disposal of dead animals is also a common environmental issue. Broiler production has an acceptable mortality rate of 5 percent during the entire production cycle while data on Philippine swine production performance in 2007 show a mortality rate of 2.25 percent. Carcasses should be buried at least six feet deep in the ground to prevent the possibility of stray animals finding the carcass. Subsequent exposure of the dead or buried animal to the environment where flies and maggots can feed on it has the potential to spread diseases to both human and animal populace (Paraso et al. 2010). Most of the smallholder and com-mercial farms bury animal carcasses as part of the dis-posal system of animals. Less than 10 percent of both smallholder and commercial farms burn and/or incin-erate animal carcasses but do not incinerate veterinary waste. Given sufficient material and proper procedure, animal carcasses could also be incorporated in compost.

Similarly, Catelo and Narrod (2008) conducted a farm survey on the disposal practices of animal dead bodies by small independent hog producers in Lagu-na. Ninety percent of the respondents buried the dead piglets and 1 percent dumped the dead piglets into the river. Most of the large-scale producers get rid of their dead animals by the method available for disposal such as burying or incineration. Despite the common prac-tice of burying dead animals on farm premises, there are no adverse environmental problems in the farms be-cause swine raisers are aware of the environmental dam-age that can result from improper disposal of dead ani-mals and the danger of contaminating their own herd.


4.6 Management of Slaughterhouse Wastes

Slaughterhouse wastes generally consist of animal urine, diluted blood, dissolved fat, suspended solids, hair, manure, and spent water for cleaning, scalding, and flushing. However, there are no available data from the EMB on the characteristic of effluent from slaugh-terhouses. Most slaughterhouses reportedly process an average of 200 to 260 animals per day, from which dis-charge rates are lower than the standard discharge of 30 m3 per day. Hence, these slaughterhouses are not monitored by the EMB but are under the jurisdiction of LGUs (Global Methane Initiative 2009).

Most NMIS-registered slaughterhouses located in Metro Manila use the physical and chemical treat-ment process to eliminate the solid waste and efflu-ent generated. Some slaughterhouses outside Metro

Manila use either the lagoon system or a combina-tion of septic tank and lagoon systems. Also, several slaughterhouses outside Metro Manila have anaerobic digesters, but most are either inefficient or no longer functioning. Even those rated AA do not have lagoon systems due to limited space (Global Methane Initia-tive 2009).

The NMIS discourages the location of abattoirs near public markets because of the ease of contamina-tion of the animal carcasses with microorganisms, dirt, chemicals, and other organic matter found in public markets. Some of the non-accredited slaughterhouses were built prior to the institution of NMIS recom-mendations; thus, establishments do not comply with the guidelines (Maranan et al. 2008). In Laguna, some slaughterhouses are situated less than 10 m from a creek or river that enables them to easily dispose generated waste materials directly into the bodies of water.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IN THE PHILIPPINES

5.1 Pollution Implications of Waste Management

Agricultural wastes decompose through the help of natural processes involv-ing organic compounds. However, increased agricultural activities produce high concentrations of wastes, which overwhelm the maximum capacity of the natu-ral process that involves agricultural activities and results in the accumulation of pollutants (PCAARRD-DOST 2002). Rapid growth of the livestock industry to satisfy the growing demand for meat and other livestock products is putting pres-sure on the environment (Catelo, Dorado and Agbisit, 2001; Delgado et al. 1999; Ramat undated). Animal raisers are perceived to be more focused on economic objectives, feeding, and health and less on the environmental aspects of animal waste management. Furthermore, animal manure is viewed as waste rather than as a resource, which in effect resulted in environmental conflicts such as various pollutants derived from improper manure/waste management that have significant impacts on soil, water, and air (PCAARRD-DOST 2002).

As Delgado, Narrod, and Tiongco (2003) pointed out, livestock production may create environmental problems if producers follow any or a combination of the following practices: (a) direct dumping of livestock wastes into waterways; (b) stock piling of undesirable by-products in a way that as nutrients go through nu-trient cycles the components volatilize into the air; (c) failure to credit the nutrient

5


content in this organic source and thus overapply it as a soil amendment in conjunction with chemical fertiliz-ers; (d) application of manure as fertilizer at the wrong time of the season; (e) land application of manure in areas where the hydro-geomorphic profile is such that it is difficult to prevent runoff (for example, high water table and sloping terrain); (f ) land applications based solely on nitrogen requirements of the crop, which may result in overapplication of phosphorous; (g) use of inadequate technology or otherwise failure to address hazards until problems arise because of storms and run-off; and (h) choice of inappropriate methods of dispos-ing of the carcasses of dead animals.

5.2 Air Pollution from Livestock and Poultry Systems

5.2.1 Ammonia Emission from LivestockLivestock production has been identified as a major contributor to air pollution. Major air pollutants com-ing from livestock operation include carbon dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and VOC. Odorous gases and ammonia are important gases from the point of view of environmental protection. These gases are produced from freshly deposited or stored manure by microbial degradation of organic matter. Ammonia is

produced by bacterial and enzymatic decomposition of nitrogen-containing organic compounds in the excreta, especially in the urine (Burton and Turner 2003).

Ammonia volatilization occurs in animal build-ings, manure storage facilities, and application of ma-nure and from applied manure. Ammonia losses through volatilization are generally higher for swine operation where there is a high proportion of nitrogen-rich ma-nure. The presence of ammonia in the atmosphere can contribute to the formation of acid rain. Increased aerial deposition of ammonia and ammonium (NH4+) con-tributes to water and soil acidification. Ammonia vola-tilization is also one of the principal sources of increased nitrogen supply to natural areas, which can change the flora and contribute to eutrophication of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Burton and Turner 2003). Table 3 illustrates the scenario on the levels of acidification po-tential based on proper manure management.

5.2.2 GHG Emissions from Enteric Fermentation and Manure Management

Domestic livestock animals together with rice cultivation are the major sources of GHGs in the agricultural sector. Methane and nitrous oxide are the major GHGs emit-ted from livestock production. In 2000, GHG emissions

Table 3: Acidification potential of livestock and poultry for different manure management scenarios, 2014

Animal

Acidification Potentiala (tons SO2eq)

Scenario Ab Scenario Bc Scenario Cd

Cattle 40 27 5

Carabao 52 64 7

Pig 31 21 4

Chicken 38 25 5a Based on ammonia emission equivalent to 28 percent of total manure nitrogen (Pratt and Castellanos 1981; Haas, Wetterich and Kopke 2001) and conversion factor of 1 kg NH3 = 1 SO2eqb 25 percent of total manure production is well treated or 75 percent is potentially polluting.c 50 percent of total manure production is well treated or 50 percent is potentially polluting.d 90 percent of total manure production is well treated or 10 percent is potentially polluting.

Environmental Impacts of Livestock Production in the Philippines 19

GHGs trap terrestrial (outgoing long wave) radi-ation in the lower atmosphere. A portion of that radia-tion absorbed by GHGs is re-emitted back to the earth’s surface. Without GHGs, the earth’s temperature will drop to freezing temperatures. Unfortunately, increase in concentration of anthropogenic GHGs enhances global warming and eventually affects our climate.

Methane can remain in the atmosphere for ap-proximately 9–15 years. Methane is about 21 times

due to enteric fermentation and manure management contributed 30 percent of the total GHG emission from the Philippine agricultural sector (Figure 15).

In the absence of country-specific emission fac-tors, methane and nitrous oxide emissions from live-stock can be estimated using the IPCC Tier 1 approach. Estimates showed that cattle and carabao industry con-tributed 90 percent of the total methane emission from enteric fermentation (Figure 16).

On the other hand, the swine industry contribut-ed 86 percent of the total methane emission from manure management (Figure 17). Nitrous oxide is usually gener-ated from manure management. Typical manure man-agement options for livestock and poultry are (a) solid storage and dry lot, (b) pasture range and paddock, and (c) liquid system. About 98 percent of total nitrous oxide emissions are from solid storage and dry lot and pasture range and paddock. Minimal nitrous oxide emissions are produced from liquid systems (Figure 18). The emissions of nitrous oxide among major livestock and poultry an-imals are well distributed. Nitrous oxide emissions from swine, carabao, cattle, and chicken combined for 89 per-cent of the total nitrous oxide inventory (Figure 19).

Figure 15: Summary of GHG emissions from agricultural sector, 2000

RiceCultivation44.42%

AgriculturalSoils24.14%

FieldBurning of

AgriculturalResidues

1.89%

EntericFermentation

17.85%

ManureManagement11.66%

PrescribedBurning ofSavannas

0.05%

Source: EMB-DENR 2011.

Figure 16: Summary of methane emissions of livestock industry from enteric fermentation, 2000

Carabao53.08%

Goats5.01%

Swine3.41%

Cattle37.18%

Horses1.32%


Figure 17: Summary of methane emissions of livestock and poultry from manure management, 2000

Chicken2.64%

Duck0.21%

Carabao6.94%

Goats0.79%

Cattle3.09%

Horses0.58%

Swine85.75%



more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over a 100–year period. Nitrous oxide, on the other hand, is present in the atmosphere in small amounts. It is 296 times more effective than carbon di-oxide in trapping heat and has a lifespan of 114 years in the atmosphere (Steinfeld 2006).

Table 4 shows the estimated GHG emissions from enteric fermentation and different manure man-agement scenarios. Based on the 2014 national livestock and poultry inventory, 11.7 million tons of CO2eq/year

Table 4: GHG emissions of livestock and poultry from enteric fermentation and different manure management scenarios, 2014

Animal

GHG Emissions

Enteric Fermentationa (tons CO2eq/year)

Manurea (tons CO2eq/year)

Scenario Ab Scenario Bc Scenario Cd

Ruminants

Cattle 2,501,298 780,637 520,425 104,085

Carabao 3,297,338 916,846 611,231 122,846

Goat 385,790 334,905 223,270 44,654

Total 6,184,426 2,032,388 1,354,925 270,985

Non-ruminants

Pig 251,994 2,515,467 1,676,978 335,396

Chicken — 713,225 475,483 95,097

Total 251,994 3,228,692 2,152,461 430,493a Based on the IPCC 2006 Tier 1 method and conversion factor of 1 kg CH4 = 21 kg CO2eq and 1 kg N2O = 310 kg CO2eqb 25 percent of total manure production is properly treated or 75 percent is potentially polluting. c 50 percent of total manure production is properly treated or 50 percent is potentially polluting.d 90 percent of total manure production is properly treated or 10 percent is potentially polluting.

Figure 19: Summary of nitrous oxide emissions of livestock and poultry, 2000

Chicken12.30%

Duck1.08%

Carabao25.42%

Goats7.92%

Cattle20.85%

Horses1.93%

Swine30.50%


Figure 18: Summary of nitrous oxide emissions of manure management, 2000

Solid Storageand Dry Lot

51%

Pasture Rangeand Paddock47%

Liquid System2%



can be emitted by livestock and poultry subsector un-der scenario A, 9.9 million tons of CO2eq/year under Scenario B, and 7.1 million tons of CO2eq/year under Scenario C. The global GHG emissions from the live-stock supply chain are estimated at 7.1 billion tons of CO2eq/year (Gerber et al. 2013).

The contribution of the Philippine livestock and poultry industry to the global anthropogenic GHG emissions might be small. However, as Alcantara et al. (2008) pointed out, the local impacts are still not ade-quately known.

5.3 Soil Pollution

5.3.1 Nitrogen Overload from Manure Production

Untreated animal waste application to farmland can affect the nutrients of the soil and overload. This increases the risk of nutrient runoff and leaching, which in turn pollutes water resources. In addition, high lev-els of concentration of heavy metals in soil can lead to adverse effects such as decrease in soil fertility and cause plant toxicity. It may also indirectly affect animals and humans through the food chain process (Catelo, Nar-rod and Tiongco 2008).

A strict institutional compliance and solution to environmental problems from hog waste would affect mostly the small scale operation and its con-straints to expand the operation. At the least, large producers have the scale to mitigate the impact of large investments. Waste disposal practices such as ap-plying hog waste to farmlands can be dangerous when there is no oversight of the lands’ and crops’ capaci-ty to absorb the nutrients (for example, nitrogen and phosphorus) from the waste. When farmlands are al-ready nitrogen saturated or when wastes are improp-erly applied to wet fields, there is a great possibility of runoff and leaching that will send the excess nutrients into waterways. There is now increasing evidence of huge nutrient surpluses that range from 200 to more than 1,000 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per year

in many areas of Western Europe, the northeastern United States, the coastal Southeast Asia, and large plains in China (Steinfeld et al. 1997 in Delgado et al. 1999). Such a situation is linked to the increas-ing demand for animal products that triggers animal concentrations beyond the waste absorption and feed supply capacity of the land.

Large pig and poultry operations produce greater nutrient discharge per unit product than small farm units, thus confirming the public perception of those large units as the main polluters. Evidently, in East Asia, small producers pay more per kilogram product to internalize the environmental costs than the large units do where 40 percent of the large swine farms in the Philippines had a surplus nitrogen bal-ance for the surrounding areas and none of the small farms had. Also, small pig and poultry farms spent be-tween 0 and 100 percent more per kilogram product on environmental mitigation than large farms (World Bank, 2005).

Small farms tend to generate lower levels of ex-cess nutrients per hectare than those of larger farms be-cause small-scale swine farms are mixed systems where some of the croplands are capable of including the ni-trogen and phosphorous nutrients from livestock oper-ations; thus, in contrast, large commercial farms have the propensity to be a ‘pure-land-intensive’ system. An empirical evidence of soil toxicity has been documented in Lipa City, Batangas, where nitrogen loading has been discovered to be 10 times the allowable 100 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare (Lipa Environmental Profile, 2000 and IMO-MADECOR,1997 as cited by Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco, 2008). Also, Gerber et al. (2005) as cited by Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco (2008) studied the evidence of phosphate overloads around urban cen-ters in Metro Manila, which is significant because of an average of 15.4 percent of high level for the reference of 20 kg of phosphate per hectare of agricultural land and 4 percent of very high level for the reference of 40 kg of phosphate per hectare of agricultural land of phos-phate overloads. Thus, excessive application can also be detrimental.


In Laguna, as noted by Delgado, Narrod, and Tiongco (2003), intensification is less of an environ-mental problem in poultry than in swine partly be-cause chicken manure can be sold and used as fertil-izer directly. However, many smallholder farms that produce small amounts of manure are widely distrib-uted in the province; thus, open dumping or release of manure by these enterprises into bodies of water collectively still creates potential environmental and health problems due to potential nutrient and micro-bial content. Furthermore, the disposal of large quan-tities of waste could result in widespread and occasion-ally devastating environmental pollution. The lack of aeration lagoons and secondary treatment facilities to neutralize swine waste before use as organic fertilizers can be dangerous when there is a failure to consid-er the nutrient absorption capacity of the lands and crops (for example, nitrogen and phosphorus) from the waste (Paraso et al. 2010).

5.3.2 Accumulation of Heavy Metals from Livestock Manure

Livestock feeds are supplemented with trace minerals to prevent various deficiency diseases while serving as catalysts for enzymes and hormones to promote optimum health, growth, and productivity (Britan-ico 2009). Improved genetic potential for growth and intensified production have increased trace mineral supplementation in commercial livestock operations (Kroismayr 2007).

Swine and poultry are fed with fortified feeds with heavy metals such as copper and zinc. Although this may help overall productivity, there is a risk of tox-icity to plants and animals, and worse, that toxicity is passed on to humans. These heavy metals may end up in hog waste and, eventually, in a solid sludge that ac-cumulates at the bottom of lagoons for as long as 10–20 years until the sludge is removed. These elements also pose a risk of diseases as evidenced by the residues of growth hormones, antibiotics, and insecticides, which have been found in tissues of animals in highly

commercial production systems (Britanico 2009; Cate-lo, Narrod and Tiongco 2008).

A study of Britanico (2009) in the supplementa-tion of inorganic trace minerals and chelated supplement for broiler concluded that the inorganic trace mineral mix supplementation used in the diet gave the signifi-cantly high levels of fecal excretion of trace mineral in contrast to those with chelated trace mineral premix.

Intentional direct discharges of hog waste to wa-terways and pipes increase the potential for bacteria ep-idemics of Pfiesteria piscicida and heavy metals (Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco 2008). Some of the heavy metals are introduced in the feeds of livestock and poultry as trace element supplements. When these trace elements are consumed in excess amounts and released in the ma-nure, they may contaminate the environment and may become a pollutant. This may affect the surface water and soil and may threaten the community and ecosys-tem hosting the industrial animal production systems. This can also damage plant growth and aquatic systems (PCAARRD-DOST 2002).

5.4 Water Pollution

Surface water and groundwater contamination are the principal water pollution issues from livestock pro-duction. Nonpoint sources of water pollution include diffuse runoff from areas such as feeding and watering sites, working corrals, spray pens, and grazed pastures or rangeland. The nutrients carried by these runoffs will end up in lakes, ponds, streams, or rivers, thereby promoting eutrophication. On the other hand, typical point sources of water pollution include man-made conveyance structures such as feed pens or corrals, con-finement buildings, slurry storage tanks, pipes or cul-verts, conveyance channels, holding ponds or lagoons, stockpiles, irrigation systems, and dead animal disposal facilities. Improperly managed livestock waste can also be a source of disease-carrying microorganisms that can contaminate the surface and groundwater supply (Del-gado, Narrod, and Tiongco 2003).


5.4.1 Surface Water Contamination due to Nutrient Runoff

JICA (2002), as cited by Paraso et al. (2010), reported that 35 percent of water pollution in the Philippines is caused mainly by the discharge of untreated and inade-quately treated wastewater from industries. Subsequently, untreated sewage farmland application contaminates drinking water and recreation areas (Catelo, Doradoa, and Agbisit 2011). Likewise, improper disposal of ani-mal waste and untreated wastewater directly into creeks, rivers, and other receiving water bodies resulted in the pollution of surface water. The underlying cause of the pollution is the scarcity of waste treatment facilities in most backyard and commercial hog farms in the coun-try. In addition, the DENR Administrative Order No. 30 Series of 2003 exempts swine farms with less than 100 heads and poultry farms with less than 10,000 heads from EMB monitoring and compliance requirements.

Over time, such pollution has decreased the qual-ity and productivity of affected water bodies because their assimilative capacities have likewise deteriorated. Thus, receiving waters are rendered unfit even for non-contact activities and irrigation. In worse-case scenarios, surface waters may become biologically dead. Evidence of such cases in Regions 3, 4, and 10 has been locally documented by Catelo, Dorado and Agbisit (2001) and Deustch et al. (2000), which is cited in the study of Rola et al. (2003) (Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco 2008).

It is estimated that 4.5 million tons of BOD was generated by pollution point sources in 2013. Point sources such as human settlements, agricultural sites, and commercial and industrial discharges collectively contribute to the pollution of freshwater, groundwater, and coastal and marine waters. The BOD contribution encompasses the production of livestock and poul-try animals such as swine, chicken, cattle, and other dairy farming activities. Wastewater from these sourc-es is generally high in organic content. Furthermore, most of the backyard animal farms have no appropriate wastewater treatment facilities. Agricultural BOD con-tribution (Figure 20) was calculated using animal type and number of heads of livestock and poultry from

which pollution load factors are based on the WHO Rapid Assessment report (EMB, 2014).

The degree of pollution from domestic sources is associated with the population living in the location. Also, the activities and characteristics of the location either rural or urban are contributed as a factor in this contribution. The contribution of BOD generally can be sourced out from urban areas because of the quan-tity of fecal discharges from humans and animals asso-ciated with minimal or lack of sewage treatment facil-ities. In Figure 21, densely populated regions of NCR, Region 4A, and Region 3 are the top three contributors of BOD based on the load generated. In contrast, the CAR has the lowest BOD load since inhabitation in the location is sparse (EMB 2014).

Nonpoint sources are generally the type of pollu-tion load that depends on the land use. Thus, pollution load from nonpoint sources (Figure 22) are estimated based on land uses from the agricultural, forest, and urban sector. The BOD loading from nonpoint sourc-es is estimated to be at 465,595 tons in 2013, from which the contributions are 61 percent, 29 percent, and 10 percent from agricultural runoff, urban runoff, and forest runoff, respectively.

In 2008, the Laguna Lake Development Author-ity (LLDA) reported the pollution discharge of various industries into Laguna Lake. The report showed live-stock and poultry farms as the third largest contributor of organic load in terms of BOD. The total amount of

Figure 20: BOD contribution from point sources, 2013

Domestic31%

Industry24%

Agriculture45%



wastewater discharge by livestock and poultry reached 2,500 m3 per day and the total BOD loading was 153,000 kg/year (Gaccho et al. 2010).

Regardless of the scale of operations, most of the poultry and swine farms in Laguna resorted to environ-mentally unacceptable ways of effluent management. Effluent disposal that involves the use of water to flush waste out of the pens and permitting this to flow to the nearest creek or river is expected to worsen soil, air, and water pollution in the province, particularly of Laguna Lake, through its tributaries or by way of surface runoff (Paraso et al. 2010).

Practice of improper disposal of animal sewage can resort to degradation and deterioration of water quality of both surface and groundwater. Contaminants can reach the aquifer in the form of leachate or directly leak into bodies of water (lakes and rivers) where they are a threat to biodiversity. Pollution may also be from livestock wastes where they are openly dumped or ap-plied as fertilizer directly. Though nutrients from waste may be taken up by plants growing in the fields, there is always a threat of the runoff contaminating water sourc-es; thus, outbreaks can lead to water-borne diseases in

both humans and animals, such as cholera, dysentery, and diarrhea (Alcantara et al. 2008).

5.4.2 Microbial Contamination of Surface Water

Microbial runoff from livestock or use of excreta as fer-tilizer (domestic animals such as poultry, cattle, sheep, and pigs) generates 85 percent of the world’s animal fecal waste (Dufour et al. 2012). Because most swine raisers do not confine hog wastes to their land, there have been numerous cases of waste spills. Animal wastes are carriers of parasites, bacteria, and viruses including Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, cholera, Streptococcus, and chlamydia. Crypto-Sporidium and Giardia are found to be resistant to con-ventional chlorination, and therefore, there is greater probability of drinking water contamination when lagoons containing high concentrations of hog manure leak (Catelo ,Narrod and Tiongco, 2008).

Apparently, scarcity of wastewater treatment facilities and the methods in which animal wastes are disposed of can be correlated (Alcantara et al. 2008). There is evidence that most livestock operations in the Laguna province are violating some of the pollution regulations in some of the swine farms. In the province, 68 percent of the disposed wastewater from the farms is directly discharged to a nearby creek, river, canal, and/

Figure 22: BOD contribution from nonpoint sources, 2013

Urban Runoff29%

Forest Runoff10%

AgricultureRunoff45%


Figure 21: BOD load (in thousand tons) in relation to population, 2013

Regi

on

12

4B4A

NCR3

CAR21

678

5

91011

2500 50 100 150 200



or open space. In addition, untreated sewage carries a hazardous load of metals, such as copper and zinc that are often added to animal feed, and other chemicals used in livestock operations, such as pesticides, hor-mones, and antibiotics, including infectious microor-ganisms (EPA 2001). E. coli bacteria is one of the most frequent causes of diarrhea and intestinal infections, and their presence in water indicates the presence of fecal waste. These microorganisms thrive naturally in human and animal intestines and pass through the anal region through fecal excretion (Rundina-Dela Cruz et al. 2014). About 4,200 people die each year due to con-taminated drinking water (Claudio 2015).

In November 2010, a case from the Department of Health recommended the rehabilitation of Danao City’s water source after water sampling results revealed fecal contamination. About 210 residents were diag-nosed with diarrhea, resulting in four deaths. Among them were patients between 6 and 10 years of age. Most of the patients diagnosed with diarrhea were found to be younger than five years of age. It was confirmed that water samples from a spring were contaminated with E. coli bacteria, and the source of water was found to be located less than 25 m from a septic tank (EMB 2014).

5.4.3 Groundwater Contamination due to Nitrate Leaching

Spills and leaks to the surrounding land allow ground-water and surface water contamination (Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco, 2008). High levels of nitrate in ground-water are concomitant with intense agricultural activ-ities, septic systems, confined animal facilities, and wastewater treatment facilities. In drinking water, high levels of nitrate is unhealthy for pregnant women as this could lead to methemoglobinemia or blue baby syndrome due to the decrease in the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood. Moreover, livestock can be sensitive to high levels of nitrate (EMB 2014).

According to the 2001–2005 National Wa-ter Quality Status Report, it is estimated that about 37 percent of the total water pollution originates from

agricultural practices, which include use of animal waste and fertilizer and pesticide runoff (EMB 2014). In 1973, critical levels of pollution were already detect-ed in Laguna Lake (Figure 23).

About 5,000 tons of nitrogen were estimated to have entered the lake, from which 26 percent came from domestic sources, 36 percent from livestock and poultry, 5 percent from industrial sources, 11 percent from fertilizers, and 22 per-cent from the Pasig River backflow. The focus on nitrogen was because of the initial findings that nitrogen limits algal growth in the lake (Table 5). A follow-up study conducted from 1975 to 1977 also indicated that nitrogen appeared to be the most likely limiting factor which controls algal growth in the complex interaction of nutri-ent supply, light penetration, water temperature, and lake turbidity. Reyes (2012) as cited by Sze-kielda, Espiritu and Lagrosas (2014) provided a rough estimate of the dimensions of nutrient loading (pollution) in Laguna Lake, and it was reported that domestic, industrial, agricultural, and forest sources contributed 39,622 tons of nitrogen, which is higher than the records of SOGREAH (1974), as cited by Lasco and Espal-don (2005). Included in the estimation of the same year is the estimated 9,506 tons level of phosphorus (Lasco and Espaldon 2005).

Figure 23: Percentage nitrogen estimation from Laguna Lake, 1973

Pasig RiverBackflow

22%

Fertilizers11%

IndustrialSources

5%

DomesticSources26%

Livestockand Poultry36%

Source: Lasco and Espaldon 2005.


The negative impact of eutrophication is that high primary productivity, in response to the abundant nutrient supply, occasionally leads to massive fish mor-tality. The event can be triggered by certain meteorologi-cal modifications or the senescence of microcystis blooms. The rapid breakdown of a bloom and its bacterial decay in the water column may result in aerobic or even an-aerobic conditions due to the actual collapse of bloom conditions. This is considered to be an outcome from possible viral or bacterial attack, depleted nutrients, ex-cretion of toxic substances, and exposure to anoxic and toxic water (Szekielda, Espiritu, and Lagrosas 2014).

Table 5: Percentage distribution of nitrogen emission into Laguna de Bay

Source of N Emission

1974: 5,000 tons N per year

2000: 13,800 tons N per year

Domestic 26% 79%

Livestock and Poultry 36% 16.5% (Agricultural)

Fertilizer 11% —

Pasig River 22% —

Industrial 5% 4.5%

Total 100% 100%

Source: Lasco and Espaldon 2005. Note: Data were extracted from SOGREAH (1974) and Reyes (2012).

PESTICIDE USE IN CONFINEMENT REARING SYSTEM

Pesticide residues may end up in an animal body by improper use to control flies, fleas, and the like. Feeds may also be contaminated from improper use of insec-ticides against grain borers, roaches, and even rodenticides. The residues can be transferred to humans from consumption of meat and meat products from those affected animals.

6

USE OF ANTIBIOTICS IN LIVESTOCK

In 2010, the Philippine government initiated reduced subtherapeutic addition of antibiotics in animal feeds in consonance with such a ban in Europe (2006) and a forthcoming 2015 decision to do so in the United States. The National Veterinary Research and Quarantine Service (NVRQS) reported the decreasing use of antibi-otics such as tetracyclines and neomycin, with a drop of 18 percent from 1,211 tons to 998 tons in 2008. In comparison to the report in 2001, there was a 37 percent drop in volume from 1,595 tons of antibiotics (World Poultry News 2010).

In 2011, an industry study and analysis was conducted for the sale and use of veterinary drugs both for medication and vaccination for livestock. It was project-ed to grow by 4.4–5.5 percent per year from 2010 to 2015 to meet the projected increase in the production of livestock and poultry sector. Most of the chemicals used in antimicrobials, including antibiotics, are used in disease control in pigs and chicken. These are commonly mixed or placed in feeds and water. Three of the main antimicrobials that are sold in the market are being used principally for treating ill animals and to control infectious animal diseases. The records of BAI, as reported by Cresencio (2012), indicated that the top antibiotics used are based on importa-tion (Table 6). These are applied to meet the projected increase in population and

Table 6: Antibiotics and estimated volume of use, 2012

Name of Antibiotic Volume (kg)

Chlortetracycline 847,000

Bacitracin 199,090

Tiamulin Hydrogen Fumarate 197,958

Source: Cresencio 2012.

7


growth of the livestock and poultry sector in swine and chicken, respectively (Cresencio 2012).

Antibiotics are permitted in the Philippines, provided that therapeutic indications are valid. In prac-tice, many popular antibiotic growth promoters have these indications (Kroismayr 2007). However, the ex-tent and level of antibiotic resistance or antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in the country has not been estab-lished because of the necessary work and resources that must be done. Limited studies were conducted in this field by Cresencio (2012). Furthermore, legislation did not stop the overuse of antibiotics as growth promot-ers until the Food Safety Act of 2013 (RA No. 10611) was established by the government to protect the safe-ty and health of the consumer from trade malpractice and from substandard or hazardous products. The BAI, veterinary practitioners, and other stakeholders also have to contend with (a) the global threat of antibiotic resistance and guidelines by the World Health Orga-nization, (b) the total ban on subtherapeutic use on an-imals (and fish) by the European Union countries as of 2006 and the decision in the United States at the end

of 2015, (c) the establishment of modes to reduce ther-apeutic use in animals in Europe, and (d) the impact of all the above on world trade of meat and products.

The study to test residues of antibiotics in poul-try on Campylobacter jejuni gave concrete evidence of a definite association between the development of AMR and usage of antibiotics in poultry production. The occurrence of multiresistance of the microorgan-ism gained significant findings from among the C. je-juni isolates from 64.2 percent of the 162 liver samples from freshly dressed chickens at the dressing plants of commercial chicken producers and backyard raisers (Baldrias, Gatchalian-Yee, and Raymundo 2008). The antibiotic exposure of the sampled chicken population provides evidence that development of multiresistance among the isolates is a possible reaction to selective pressure or stresses created by prolonged exposure to antimicrobials. The indication of higher level of antibi-otic residues in backyard farms is the indiscriminate use of antibacterials in poultry operations, either through improper dosing or nonobservance of the appropriate withdrawal period.

STATUS OF RACEHORSES AND GAME FOWL INDUSTRIES

8.1 Racehorses

Horse racing continues to operate not far from Manila (Carmona, Cavite and Tanauan, Batangas). However, available data are for horses in general (Table 7). Work horses or ponies derived from smaller breed(s) are scattered, especially for transport of goods in farm communities with poor farm-to-market road networks. The rest consist of crossbreds raised mainly for leisure and riding purposes, as well as remnants of horse carriage or calesa transport in small towns and in tourist areas. Manure and waste con-cerns are, therefore, inconsequential. Likewise, medications, especially for racehorses, are well self-regulated, according to veterinarian resource persons consulted.

8.2 Game Fowl

Based on the Aviary Population Survey (APS) of 2006, only 2.23 percent of the total poultry population is game fowl (Table 8). Around 23 percent of these are

Table 7: Horse inventory, 1994–2000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

No. of Heads 220,000 220,000 220,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000


8


raised in commercial operations and the remainder are raised in backyard operations (BAS 2011). This trans-lates to about 4,000 birds per municipality and city of the 1,490 and 144, respectively, countrywide Figure 24. Virtually each municipality and city operates a cockpit with one or more ‘sessions’ per week. Such a deadly sport with high mortality and morbidity is a thriving industry in itself, with choice feeds, supplements, and medications. Most of the dead birds are consumed either in food shops within the cockpit compound or

brought for home consumption. However, because these carcasses are not sold like other poultry meat, the issue of food safety and abuse in both therapeutic and nontherapeutic use of antibiotics and other compounds is largely ignored and unregulated.

Game fowls are bred almost throughout the country but commercially in large flocks up to several hundred in Region 6 (15.48 percent). Most of the game fowls in Luzon are bred in Pangasinan in Region 1, Isa-bela in Region 2, Pampanga in Region 3, all provinces of Region 4A except Cavite, and Camarines Sur and Mas-bate in Region 5 (BAS 2011).

8.3 Use of Performance Enhancers for Racehorses and Game Fowls

An animal welfare law regulates the use of performance enhancement drugs, including medications that are stricter for meat animals. Still, the risk exists, but there are no known attempts to measure the consumption of meat from animals subject to performance enhancement drugs from game fowl and, to a lesser extent, racehorses.

Table 8: Total inventory of chicken by farm type, by classification, in the Philippines, as of July 1, 2006

Classification

Farm Type

TotalBackyard Commercial

TOTAL 71,779,778 75,279,871 147,059,649

Native/Improved 64,595,362 71,306 64,666,668

Layer 529,695 22,526,604 23,056,299

Broiler 1,590,539 51,172,679 52,763,218

Game fowl 5,064,182 1,509,282 6,573,464

Source: BAS 2011.

Figure 24: Distribution of game fowls per region in the Philippines, 2006

0

CAR

IIoco

s Re

gion

Caga

yan

Valle

yRe

gion

Cent

ral L

uzon

CALA

BARZ

ON NCR

MIM

AROP

A

Bico

l Reg

ion

Wes

tern

Vis

ayas

Cent

ral V

isay

as

East

ern

Visa

yas

Zam

boan

gaPe

nins

ula

North

ern

Min

dana

o

Dava

o Re

gion

SOCC

SKSA

RGEN

CARA

GA

ARM

M

Inventory% Distribution

6

8

10

2

4

12

14

16

18

0

400,000

200,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Perc

ent

Source: BAS 2011.

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IN THE PHILIPPINES

9.1 Human Health

Animal wastes are carriers of diseases. Some of the components of pig waste that have direct adverse effects on human health are pathogens, nitrates, and hydrogen sulfide. Pathogens can contaminate water and cause gastrointestinal diseases. These microorganisms are 10 to 100 times more concentrated in hog waste than in human waste, which is diluted with water in sewage treatment plants (Delgado et al. 1999). The increase in hog population has been the cause of various environmental, health, and other problems. In the Philippines, hog output and operation is predominantly backyard and bulk of the waste is produced in these farms. Current regulations and instruments appear to be virtually not capable of influencing backyard farm operators to comply with pollution mitigating activities. Small commercial farms are also exempted from the monitoring and compliance because effluent discharge standard of 30 m3 per day is equivalent to 1,000 heads of hogs being raised (Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco 2008).

Health problems associated with pig farms include foul odor from the pigs, loss of appetite, headaches, and odor sticking to clothes. Many also experienced re-spiratory problems and bronchitis. This may be caused by high levels of VOC being emitted at high levels from pig manure. Gas compounds that have been detected

9


in manure include ammonia, acetic acid, butanoic acid (butyric acid), dimethyl disulfide, dimethyl sulfide, and more (Trosgård 2015). In addition, sulfur dioxide has an irritating rotten smell that is released from locations with large quantities of manure stored or produced, such as manure storage and animal farms. These loca-tions have the potential to release high levels of concen-trations of this gas. For such cases, if the release of this substance is high, effects on the environment may occur and the health of nearby households may be affected (Ni et al. 2000).

In Region 3, residents from Barangays San Juan de Mata and Sto. Domingo in the municipality of Tar-lac, have been very vigilant in voicing their complaints against the harmful effects of the operations of three large commercial hog farms (and poultry farms) on their health and the environment. The people com-plained about the hog stench from the piggeries with-in a 1 km radius (Catelo, Dorado and Agbisit 2001). Negative effects were experienced by households that are constantly exposed to the foul odor of swine farms from 5 to 10 m distance. Foul odors were emphasized by 70 percent and 30 percent of the 176 households near piggeries and of swine raiser households, respec-tively—that it was a usual thing in the morning during the cleaning of the pens. Furthermore, households of swine raisers admitted the sticking of foul odors to their clothes, difficulty in breathing, headaches, and loss of appetite.

Several health effects are associated with hog wastes, such as gastrointestinal diseases from ground-water contamination, respiratory ailments, nausea, blackouts, headaches, and vomiting from high-level in-halation of noxious gases from livestock manure, skin irritation, short-term memory loss, and other cognitive impairments including methemoglobinemia or the blue baby syndrome because of the growth of pfiesteria in the air and water at high nitrate concentrations.

High levels of nitrogen in drinking water in-crease the risk of methemoglobinemia, more common-ly known as the blue baby syndrome. Critical cases may lead to brain damage or even death. The most

vulnerable are six-month-old infants, pregnant wom-en, and adults with immune deficiencies. Likewise, high nitrate levels may promote growth of pfiesteria in the air and water. Pfiesteria is a harmful organism, ex-posure to which may cause skin irritation, short-term memory loss, and other cognitive impairments. This organism, according to some medical reports, is also responsible for the open sores in the skin of individ-uals who spend a lot of time in water, for example, commercial fishermen and underwater divers (Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco 2008).

The vapor emitted by swine farms, which con-tains noxious gases such as methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide, filter through the skins and houses of people living near the farms. While methane and ammonia are large contributors to greenhouse effects, hydrogen sulfide greatly affects human health. Hydro-gen sulfide, usually associated with a ‘rotten egg’ smell, has caused symptoms such as nausea, blackout periods, headaches, and vomiting. The odor not only sinks into human tissue but also to clothing and furnishings. The odor, once absorbed into the lungs, moves into the bloodstream through gas exchange in the lungs. It then reaches the brain via the nasal route (Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco 2008).

In Majayjay, Laguna, the annual average expen-diture for health problems of the households of swine raisers and households near swine farms amounted to PHP 72,220.00. This includes expenditures on respi-ratory problems such as asthma (PHP 27,198.00), gas-trointestinal problems or diarrhea (PHP 17,302.00), conjunctivitis (PHP 16,031.00), influenza (PHP 8,012.00) and allergies (PHP 3,677.00). Households near pig farms were relatively vocal about their views re-garding the effects of malodors, which they have always considered a nuisance. The perceived major effects did not differ from those identified by swine raisers’ house-holds although there is a difference in how they ranked them and is as follows: households suffered from head-aches, loss of appetite, vomiting/nausea, odor sticking to clothes, and difficulty in breathing (Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco 2008).

Socioeconomic Impacts of Livestock Production in the Philippines 35

There are also instances when livestock and poultry excreta can contaminate food products because they are capable of being a good reservoir of infectious agents that can cause several kinds of diseases (Maghi-rang, De La Cruz, and Villareal undated). There is in-creasing public and scientific concern about the use of antibiotics as feed additives in animal production. This concern is triggered by the idea of antibiotic resistance in many human pathogenic bacteria, the release of contaminating residues into the environment such as in water and soil, and the risk that growth-promoting antibiotic residues may occur in foods of animal origin (Jouany and Morgavi 2007).

Extensive use of antibiotics in livestock and poul-try that result in contamination of food is now increas-ingly linked to AMR. Antibiotics have greatly enhanced human life expectancy, reduced mortality, improved the quality of life, and almost won the war against many infectious diseases. However, reports of antibiotic-resis-tant bacteria isolated from farms and animal carcasses are raising concerns that antibiotic use in agriculture may play a role in antibiotic resistance among food-based bacteria (Baldrias 2012; Baldrias, Gatchalian-Yee, and Raymundo 2008).

9.2 Biodiversity

Numerous small- to large-scale livestock enterprises exist within the lake basin with untreated farm efflu-ent frequently discharged into its tributaries. Nutrient loading in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus from animal by-products from swine and poultry farms has led to eutrophication of the lake, severely reducing its biota (Alcantara and Donald 1996). The presence of pollutants and contaminants from both point and non-point sources alters water conditions resulting in eco-system dysfunction and a drop in biodiversity.

Increasing surface temperature can cause heat stress in livestock, which may result in behavioral and metabolic changes, including reduced feed intake, there-by leading to a decline in productivity. The projected

water shortage for livestock production can likewise cause water stress in animals. Changes in temperature, rainfall patterns, and carbon dioxide concentrations are expected to directly affect availability and quality of feed materials for livestock, as well as the life cycles of livestock diseases and disease vectors. Pasture grasses will have reduced nitrogen content, which would likely affect animal productivity, particularly sheep (Lasco et al. 2011).

In the Benig River, there has been a significant reduction in both quantity and quality of marine life. The river is now biologically dead from the discharge points of swine wastes. Before the establishment of the swine farms, farmers were still able to use the river for irrigation. These swine farms, which raise about 30,000 heads each, are located in agricultural and residential ar-eas and do not have any waste treatment facilities. They dump their wastes directly into the water body. They also do not have location and zoning clearance. There is also the proliferation of flies and insects and other disease vectors. It was found out that more than 80 per-cent of the raisers do not have any treatment facilities at all and dump their waste directly into rivers and creeks that are tributaries of the Laguna Lake (Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco, 2008). Direct dumping of waste by swine farms has caused most rivers and creeks in Majayjay to become polluted and emit foul odors. The association was also explained in their study, that this is because of the increase in household population and the establish-ment of swine farms in Majayjay. The wastes that come from piggeries, as well as from households, go to the rivers because of the indiscriminate dumping by house-holds and hog raisers.

In addition to the industries, experts from the LLDA revealed that slaughterhouses also largely con-tribute to the deterioration of the water quality of La-guna Lake and its tributaries with filed pollution cases on 24 slaughterhouse facilities operating in the prov-inces of Laguna, Cavite, and Rizal in 2008. These cases included violation of the pollution control code and operating without LLDA clearance and discharge per-mits (Maranan et al. 2008).


9.3 Consumer Demand Vis-a-Vis Poor Environmental Management

Awareness and discrimination of consumers is increas-ing with regard to what they eat. Awareness is high-est with respect to fruit and vegetable consumption, and next highest with respect to livestock and poultry

product consumption. Hence, the conditions under which animals are nurtured are becoming a growing public health concern. The public is becoming increas-ingly aware of the safety and health hazards of consum-ing meat, milk, and eggs. They are also becoming sen-sitized to animal welfare, and environmental protection (Alcantara et al. 2008).

INTERVENTIONS

10.1 Policies and Regulations

10.1.1 Livestock and Poultry Feeds ActThe Livestock and Poultry Feeds Act (RA No. 1556) is the key law governing ani-mal feeds in the Philippines. It governs such things as registration, quality control, labeling, classification, prohibitions, and penalties associated with violations.(Source: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ph/ph150en.pdf )

10.1.2 Food Safety Act of 2013The Food Safety Act of 2013 (RA No. 10611) protects and promotes the people’s right to health. This act protects consumers from trade malpractices and from sub-standard or hazardous products. In addition, this policy maintains a farm-to-fork food safety regulatory system that ensures a high level of food safety, promotes fair trade, and advances the global competitiveness of Philippine foods and food products.(Source: http://www.gov.ph/2013/08/23/republic-act-no-10611/)

10.1.3 DENR Administrative Order No. 30, Series of 2003DENR Administrative Order No. 30, Series of 2003 prescribes that all livestock projects with prescribed limits are considered projects that require an Initial Envi-ronmental Examination document and need to secure an Environmental Compli-ance Certificate from the DENR regional offices before project construction and operation.

10


10.1.4 LLDA Resolution No. 169, Series of 2001

This resolution approved the Policy Guidelines Govern-ing the Operation of Backyard Piggeries or Small Scale Hog Farms in the Laguna de Bay Region. It intends to promote proven waste minimization and reduction technologies as well as waste recycling and reuse prac-tices among small piggery or backyard hog farm owners to more effectively regulate pollution emanating from such farms.

10.1.5 Philippine Agricultural Engineering Standards

The Philippine Agricultural Engineering Standards (PAES) provide a standard specification/application and standard method of test for agricultural produc-tion machinery, postharvest machinery, engineering materials, and agricultural structures that are appropri-ate for Philippine conditions. These standards are being adopted by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and serve as the National Standards for Agricultural Engi-neering under Administrative Order No. 10, s. 2002. Similarly, the standards shall be used by professional agricultural engineers in the preparation and imple-mentation of engineering designs, plans, and specifica-tions and performance of agricultural machinery and structures.

Standards for the design and construction of biogas plant and other waste management structures can be found in PAES volumes 2 and 3. Specifically, these can be found in the following sections:

Volume 2 - PAES 413: 2001 Agricultural Structure - Biogas Plant This standard specifies the general requirements for the design and construction of a biogas plant utilizing ani-mal wastes. It specifies the location requirements and sizing of components. It also specifies structural and functional requirements for mixing tank, inlet pipe, digester, gas chamber, outlet pipe, outlet tank, and groundwater drainage.

Volume 3 - PAES 414-1: 2002 Agricultural Structure - Waste Management Structures Part I: Agricultural Liquid WastesThis standard specifies the minimum requirements for the design and construction of structures for the manage-ment of liquid components of agricultural waste. It spec-ifies the requirements for waste collection, runoff collec-tion, reception pits, screening, size reduction, solid-liquid separation, oil and grease interceptor, storage, treatment, effluent and sludge treatment, and odor control.

Volume 3 - PAES 414-2: 2002 Agricultural Structure - Waste Management Structures Part II: Agricultural Solid Waste - Composting This standard specifies the minimum requirements for the design and construction of structures for the man-agement of solid components of agricultural waste. It specifies the requirements for storage, composting, and disposal of solid agricultural waste.

10.2 Farm-level Technology

10.2.1 Manure Management and Utilization vs Potential Pollution

Based on available studies of waste and manure dis-posal, along with limited field observations, Table 9 illustrates the extent to which these wastes could be uti-lized and correspondingly reduce pollution. In Scenario A, 25 percent manure is properly utilized or 75 percent is potentially polluting; in Scenario B, it is 50:50, and in Scenario C, 90 percent and 10 percent, correspond-ingly. Ideally, collective efforts aimed at the enforce-ment of laws and regulations, and at public extension and education, should aim for 100 percent utilization so that pollution will only come from emitted gases, as clarified in Table 9.

Manure management systems and utilization measures to reduce pollution are the following:

a. Direct incorporation in the soil or field or fish ponds (that is, chicken manure). In backyard

Interventions 39

and medium farms, loose, free-range, or even tethered animals just scatter droppings any-where. This needs to be gathered or conveyed to crop fields. In the pen or shelter, fresh manure is collected and piled beside the pen, conveyed directly as mulch, or spread in pasture or fal-low crop fields. This practice can complement composting and vermicomposting by enriching the carbon:nitrogen ratio of the resulting mix. Range-pastured animals also leave manure in the field, which is left to dry and eventually incorpo-rated into the soil if not burned.

b. Biogas. Since the early 1980s, design of biogas digesters has evolved from concrete tanks to semiportable reinforced plastic containers that facilitate fuel use of the emitted methane.

c. Composting. Manure and waste are piled, along with other farm trash and trimmings, includ-ing biodegradable home trash such as vegetable trimmings and so on.

d. Vermicomposting. In response to a growing organic agriculture movement, earthworms are used to facilitate degradation of organic matter into vermicompost and/or vermicast, the result-ing excreta of the worms.

e. Well-designed manure handling facilities. In large farms, building and structure design often overlooks two items: (1) facilitation for regular

cleaning of pens for proper conveyance and stor-age and (2) roofs and eaves to separate rainwa-ter (especially stormwater) without mixing with waste and manure into drains.

10.2.2 Organic AgricultureOrganic agriculture is defined as the ecological produc-tion management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activ-ities. Earlier related movements include ’Natural Agri-culture’, ‘Biodynamic Farming’, and the like, all of which emphasize minimal to zero use of synthetic pes-ticides, compounds, and chemicals; prevent burning of residues; and facilitate and favor, not disrupt, biological processes through soil microbes and earthworms to help build up organic matter. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements leads the global promotion of food safe from overreliance on pesticides and other compounds. It was founded in 1972, with headquarters in Bonn, Germany, with 800 affiliates in 117 countries. Affiliates like those in the Philippines help set up a certification mechanism for produce.

The Philippines enacted the Organic Agriculture Act in 2012. Since then, the government through the DA and other agencies has set up a certification system and established extension mechanisms to assist espe-cially smallholder farmers.

Table 9: Estimated manure management from estimated manure in different scenarios in 2014

Animala Population (heads)Estimated Manure Production as Excreted

(tons per year) Scenario Ab Scenario Bc Scenario Cd

Cattle 2,534,243 3,884,995 2,913,746 1,942,497 388,499

Carabao 2,854,838 5,001,676 3,751,257 2,500,838 500,168

Pig 11,999,722 1,708,160 1,281,120 854,080 170,816

Chicken 176,469,099 2,462,373 1,846,780 1,231,186 246,237

Total 13,057,204a PSA 2015.b 25 percent of total manure production is properly managed/utilized.c 50 percent of total manure production is properly managed/utilized.d 90 percent of total manure production is properly managed/utilized.


10.2.3 CompostingComposting is the natural or controlled conversion of organic matter through biological and chemical processes into a soil amendment or fertilizer. Com-posting can be enhanced by microbial preparations, including bulking agents (such as rice hull, boiler ash, mud press, bagasse, and rice straw) and odor-erasing ones. For example, the KOOPLIKAS, a member of the Sorosoro Ibaba Development Cooperative in Lipa, Batangas, uses sludge from biogas, chicken manure, rice hull, boiler ash, mud press, bagasse, and rice straw to create organic fertilizers. It has a guaranteed anal-ysis of 1.5 percent of nitrogen, 4.5 percent of phos-phorus, 3.0 percent of potassium, and micronutrients such as calcium, manganese, zinc, magnesium, iron, copper, and sulfate. Odorless confinement of hogs for the organically and naturally farmed pigs is possible by inclusion of odor-erasing premixes on a concrete-less floor that is almost 1 m deep and alternately spread with rice straw, mountain soil, or soil high in organic matter, the odor-erasing premix, and rice hull (Bar-roga undated).

10.2.4 Vermicomposting Vermicomposting is a waste management technology utilizing earthworms to convert organic wastes into high-quality castings and vermicomposts of high eco-nomic value while vermiculture is the art and science of worm rearing. The two main products of vermicul-ture and vermicomposting are worms and composts. These products are simultaneously produced during the conversion process and can further be transformed into other valuable vermi products (Adorada 2007). Livestock manure is one of the substrates used in vermicomposting.

There is an increase of 153 percent from 1991 to 2002 in the total number of vermiculture farms in the Philippines (Figure 25). More than one-third of vermiculture/earthworm culture farms can be found in Region 7 (PSA 2015).

Six earthworm species have been identified to be potentially the most useful species in digesting or-ganic matter. These are Eisenia. fetida, Dendrobaena veneta, and Lumbricus rubellus from temperate regions and Eudrilus eugeniae, Perionyx excavatus, and Perionyx hawaiana from the tropics (Guerrero and Guerrero-del Castillo 2006). The African night crawler (Eudrilus eu-geniae), wanders at night and leaves the vermin bins (PCAARRD-DOST 2002).

10.2.5 Biogas DigestersBiogas technology in the country is already in the com-mercial stage. Several hundred biogas units exist in var-ious sizes to deal with the level of generation of wastes from agricultural sources (PCARRD-DOST, PARRFI, DA-BAR 2004). The Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) has installed biogas digesters in several regions in the Philippines. Most of the installed biogas digesters are located in Region 2 and Region 4 to compensate for the large population of swine.

Figure 25: Changes in vermiculture/earthworm culture from 1991 to 2002

7,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Num

ber o

f far

ms

5,000

6,000

1991 2002

Source: PSA 2015.

REFERENCES

Adorada, J. L. 2007. “Assessment of Vermicompost as a Waste Management Tech-nology and a Livelihood Alternative in the Philippines.” Journal of Environ-mental Science and Management 10 (2): 28–39.

Alcantara, A. J. and R.G. Donald. 1996. Management of Livestock Waste in the Laguna Lake Watershed. ERMP Report No. 29. Delos Reyes Printing Press, Los Baños

Alcantara, A. J., M. J. Sobremisa, M. V. Espaldon, S. A. Alaira, C. C. Sevilla, and C. A. Valdez, 2008. “GIS-Aided Animal Production Impacts Analysis on the Environment in Laguna Province.” Journal of Environmental Science and Management 11 (2): 42–57.

Baconguis, S. R. 2007. “Abandoned Biomass Resource Statistics in the Philip-pines.” 10th National Convention on Statistics (NCS), EDSA Shangri-La Hotel, October 1–2.

Baldrias, L. R. 2012. “Acquisition of Multi-Resistance of Campylobacter jejuni Iso-lates with Antimicrobial Usage in Poultry.” Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Use of Antimicrobials in Livestock Production and An-timicrobial Resistance in the Asia-Pacific Region, 108–118, Negombo, Sri Lanka, October 22–23.

Baldrias, L. R., M. Gatchalian-Yee, and A. K. Raymundo. 2008. “Detection of Antibiotic Residues in Dressed Chicken from Commercial and Backyard Producers using Four Plate Test.” Philippine Journal of Veterinary Medicine 44: 39–48.

Barroga, Antonio J. Undated. “A Dynamic Philippine Swine Industry: Key to Meeting Challenges and Technological Innovations.” Nueva Ecija, Philip-pines: College of Agriculture, Central Luzon State University, Science City of Munoz.

_______. 2014. Swine Industry Performance Report. Quezon City, Philippines: De-partment of Agriculture.


Britanico, Ellen Bandilla. 2009. “Effects of Supple-menting Diets with Amino Acid Chelates of Copper, Zinc, Manganese, and Iron on the Per-formance of Broilers.” Thesis.

Burton, C. H., and C. Turner. 2003. Manure Manage-ment: Treatment and Strategies for Sustainable Ag-riculture. 2nd ed. Silsoe Research Institute.

Catelo, M. A., and C. A. Narrod, M.M. Tiongco. 2008. Structural Changes in the Philippine Pig Industry and Their Environment Implications. IFPRI Dis-cussion Paper 00781. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Washington, D.C.

Catelo, M. A., M. A. Dorado, and E. J. Agbisit. 2001. Backyard and Commercial Piggeries in the Phil-ippines: Environmental Consequences and Pollu-tion Control Options. EEPSEA Research Report 2001-RR6. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre

Chang, H. S. 2007. “Analysis of Philippine Chicken Industry: Commercial versus Backyard Sectors.” Asia Journal of Agriculture and Development 4 (1): 41-56.

Claudio, L. E. 2015. “Wastewater Management in the Philippines.” Environmental Management Bu-reau Region 3. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Quezon City, Philippines

Cresencio, R. O. 2012. Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Use of Antimicrobials in Live-stock Production and Antimicrobial Resistance in the Asia-Pacific Region. Negombo, Sri Lan-ka: Bureau of Animal Industry, Department of Agriculture.

Delgado, C. L., C. A. Narrod, and M. M. Tiongco. 2003. Policy, Technical, and Environmental De-terminants and Implications of the Scaling-Up of Livestock Production in Four Fast-Growing Devel-oping Countries: A Synthesis. Rome: FAO.

Delgado, C., M. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld, S. Ehui, and C. Courbois. 1999. “Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution.” 2020 Vision Discussion Paper 28. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Animal Statis-tics. 2011. A Situation Report on the Gamefowl Industry in the Philippines.

Dufour A, Bartram J, Bos R, Gannon V (2012) Animal waste, water quality and human health. IWA Pub-lishing, London as cited from Wastewater Man-agement: A UN-Water Analytical Brief. P 21.

EMB-DENR (Environmental Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Re-sources). 2006. National Water Quality Status Report 2001–2005. Quezon City: Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

_______. 2014. National Water Quality Status Report 2006–2013. Quezon City: Department of Envi-ronment and Natural Resources.

_______. 2011. Tracking Greenhouse Gases. An in-ventory manual. Published under the Philip-pines: Enabling Activities for the Preparation of the Second National Communication on Cli-mate Change to the UNFCCC. A Project of the Government of the Philippines and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which serves as the Implementing Agency of the Global Environment Facility. 162 pp.

EPA (Environment Protection Agency) 2001. Water Pro-tection Practices Bulletin. Managing Livestock, Poultry, and Horse Waste to Prevent Contamina-tion of Drinking Water. http://www.epa.gov.

FFTC (Food and Fertilizer Technology Center). 2012. “Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for Asia and Pacific Region.” FFTC Annual Paper 2011. Taiwan, China: FFTC.

Food Safety Act of 2013. http://www.gov.ph/2013/08/23/republic-act-no-10611/.

Gerber, P. J., H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Opio, J. Dijkman, A. Falcucci, and G. Tempio. 2013. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock – A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome: FAO.

Gurrero, R. D., III, and M. R. A. Guerrero-del Castil-lo, eds. 2006. “Vermitechnologies for Develop-ing Countries.” Proceedings of the International

http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/search/collection/p15738coll2/field/publis/searchterm/International%20Food%20Policy%20Research%20Institute%20(IFPRI)/mode/exact

http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/search/collection/p15738coll2/field/publis/searchterm/International%20Food%20Policy%20Research%20Institute%20(IFPRI)/mode/exact

http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/search/collection/p15738coll2/field/place/searchterm/Washington,%20D.C./mode/exact

http://www.gov.ph/2013/08/23/republic-act-no-10611/

http://www.gov.ph/2013/08/23/republic-act-no-10611/

REFERENCES 43

Symposium-Workshop on Vermi Technologies for Developing Countries (ISWVT 2005). Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines: Philippine Fisheries Association, Inc.

Haas, G., Wetterich, F. and U. Köpke. 2001. Compar-ing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 83, 43–53.

Heijungs, R.; Guinee, J.B.; HUppes, G.; Lankreijer, R.M.; Udo De Haes, H.A.; Wegener Sleeswijk, A.; Ansems, A.M.M.; Eggels, P.G.; Van Duin, R.; De Goede H.P (1992): Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide and Backgrounds. CML, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4 Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html.

Jouany, J., and D. Morgavi. 2007. Use of ‘Natural’ Products as Alternatives to Antibiotic Feed Ad-ditives in Ruminant Production. Animal 1(10): 1443–1466.

Kroismayr, Arthur. 2007. Feed Additives.”Pig Progress 23 (4). http://www.pigprogress.net/.

Lasco RD, Habito CMD, Delfi no RJP, Pulhin FB, Concepcion RN. 2011. Climate Change Adap-tation for Smallholder Farmers in Southeast Asia. World Agroforestry Centre, Philippines. 65p

Lasco, R. D., and M. V. Espaldon. 2005. Ecosystems and People: The Philippine Millennium Ecosys-tem Assessment (MA): Sub-Global Assessment. Los Banos: Environmental Programme, College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines.

Maghirang, R. G., R. De La Cruz, and R. L. Villareal. n.d. “How Sustainable is Organic Agriculture in the Philippines?” Transactions of the National Academy of Science and Technology Philippines 33 (2): 289–321.

Maranan, R. F., M. G. Paraso, A. J. Alcantara, M. V. Espaldon, S. A. Alaira, C. C. Sevilla, et al. 2008. “Operations and Waste Management of Slaughter-houses in the Province of Laguna.” Journal of Envi-ronmental Science and Management 11 (2): 32–41.

National Engineering R&D Team. 2002. “R&D Sta-tus and Directions (2000 and Beyond): Ag-ricultural Engineering.” Los Banos, Laguna: PCARRD-DOST.

Ni, J. Q., A. J. Heber, K. J. Fakhoury, P. Shao, A. L. Sutton, D. Kelly, J. A. Patterson, and S. T. Kim. 2000. “Laboratory Measurement of Hydrogen Sulfide and Sulfur Dioxide Releases from Swine Manure of Different Solid Contents.” An ASAE Meeting Presentation. Paper 004082, July 9–12, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.

NMIS (National Meat Inspection Service). 2015. NMIS Report 2015. Quezon City: Department of Agriculture. http://www.nmis.gov.ph.

Padura, V. R., and A. J. Alcantara. 2014. “Environmen-tal Audit for Swine Waste Management Systems in Lipa City, Philippines.” International Confer-ence on Agriculture, Food and Environmental Engineering (ICAFEE 2014), January 15–16, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 15–19.

Paraso, M. G., M. V. Espaldon, A. J. Alcantara, C. C. Sevilla, S. A. Alaira, M. J. Sobremisana, et al. 2010. “A Survey of Waste Management Practices of Selected Swine and Poultry Farms in Laguna, Philippines.” Journal of Environmental Science and Management 13 (2): 44–52.

PCAARRD (Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic, and Natural Resources Research and Development). 2012. Crossbreeding for Slaughter Pig Production. Los Banos, Laguna: PCAARRD. Farm Primer No. 26/2012; Reprint.

PCAARRD-DOST. 2002. Organic Agriculture in the Philippines: A Training Manual. Los Banos, La-guna: PCAARRD-DOST. PCAARRD Training Module No. 4/2012.

PCAARRD-DOST, PARRFI, and DA-BAR. 2004. Agricultural Waste Processing and Management

http://www.pigprogress.net/


Committee. 2003. The Philippine Recommends for Agricultural Waste Processing and Manage-ment. Philippine Recommends Series No. 71. Los Banos, Laguna:

Pratt, P.F. and J.Z. Castellanos. 1981. Available nitro-gen from animal manures. California Agricul-ture, Jul-Aug, 24.

PSA (Philippine Statistics Authority). 2011. Selected Statistics on Agriculture. Republic of the Philip-pines: PSA.

_______. 2012. Selected Statistics on Agriculture. Re-public of the Philippines: PSA.




Ramat, I. B. Undated. Agricultural Waste Management System in the Philippines and Strategies for Pro-ducing Organic Fertilizer and/or Soil Conditioner. Quezon City, Philippines: Department of Agri-culture, Bureau of Soil and Water Management.

Reyes, R., 2012. Pollution loading assessment in the Laguna de Bay watershed using the waste load model of LLDA, Master Thesis, Ateneo de Ma-nila University.

Rola, A., W. Rola, M. Tiongco, and C. Delgado. 2003. Livestock Intensification and Smallholders: A Rap-id Reconnaissance of the Philippines Hog and Poul-try Sectors. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC.

Rundina-Dela Cruz, Cynthia Nalda. 2014. “Molecular Detection of Shinga Toxin, Intimin and Hemo-lysin of Escherichia coli O157 H7 in the Fecal Samples of Native Pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus Erxleben), Goats (Capra Hircus L.) and Cattle (Bos Taurus L.) from Selected Farms in Cavite, Philippines and Evaluation of the Virulence

Potential.” Dissertation, Doctor of Philosophy in Microbiology.

Szekielda, K. H., E. Espiritu, and N. Lagrosas. 2014. “Eutrophication of Manila Region, Philippines.” International Journal of Geology, Earth & Envi-ronmental Sciences 4 (3): 38–50.

Trosgård, Emma. 2015. “Small-Scale Biogas Produc-tion in the Province of Pampanga, Philippines.” Master thesis.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2008.“Agricultural Waste Characteristics.” Chapter 4. In Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, Part 651. Washington, DC: USDA, NRCS. Accessed January 6, 2016.

USDA (United States Department of Agricul-ture).2008. Agricultural Waste Characteristics. Chapter 4. In Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, Part 651. Washington, DC: USDA, NRCS.

US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). July 2009. Resource Assessment for Livestock and Agro-Industrial Wastes – Philippines. Accessed January 7, 2016, http://www.globalmethane.org/documents/ag_philippines_res_ assessment.pdf.

Velasco, G. 2014. “The History of Meat in the Philip-pines: Why Our Markets Carry Chicken, Beef, and Pork but Not Horse or Crocodile.” Ac-cessed January 3, 2016, http://www.pepper.ph/local-meat-feature/.

World Bank, Agriculture and Rural Development De-partment. 2005. Managing the Livestock Revolu-tion Policy and Technology to Address the Negative Impacts of a Fast-Growing Sector. Report No. 32725-GLB.

World Poultry News, Knowledge & Career. 2010. “Less In-Feed Antibiotics Used in the Philippines.” March 18, 2010, http://www.worldpoultry.net/Home/General/2010/3/ Less-in-feed-antibiot-ics-used-in-the-Philippines-WP007216W.

http://www.pepper.ph/local-meat-feature/

http://www.pepper.ph/local-meat-feature/

1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433

an overview of - world bank...poultry in the philippines, 2015 ..... 14 table 3: acidification...

Documents