Potential adverse effects of swine farms to the laguna lake environment philippines

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY ROSETTE PRINCESS RUBINA DELA TORRE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF SWINE FARMS TO THE LAGUNA LAKE ENVIRONMENT, PHILIPPINES BACHELOR THESIS Study Mode Major Faculty Batch : Full-time : Environmental Science and Management : International Programs Office : 2013-2017 Thai Nguyen, 2017 DOCUMENTATION PAGE WITH ABSTRACT Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry Degree Program Bachelor of Environmental Science and Management Student name Rosette Princess Rubina Dela Torre Student ID DTN1454290054 Thesis Title Potential Adverse Effects of Swine Farms to the Laguna Lake Environment, Philippines Supervisor (s) Prof Dr Damasa M Macandog (Philippines); Associate Prof Dr Tran Quoc Hung (Vietnam) Abstract: Swine industry is one of the fastest growing livestock subsectors in Laguna However, as swine population increases throughout the province, a huge amount of wastes being disposed affect to the surrounding environment Thus, having this research study conducted This study aims to: (1) determine the spatial distribution of backyard and commercial swine raisers in the municipalities surrounding Laguna Lake; (2) quantify the amounts of swine waste and corresponding pollutants discharged by backyard and commercial swine raisers; (3) document the swine waste management practices of backyard and commercial swine farms in Laguna; (4) identify and understand the issues facing the swine industry that could have potential adverse effects on water quality of Laguna Lake; (5) suggest policy recommendations for waste management for both the commercial and backyard swine raisers To solve these questions, a survey questionnaire had been distributed to the swine raisers in the sampled municipalities i and cities in the province of Laguna The survey results were manually summarized, tabulated and analyzed mainly through Microsoft Excel Most of the surveyed swine farms in Laguna used the solid wastes as a fertilizer, but because small commercial and medium commercial swine farms can discharge massive amount of waste, they used biogas digester, septic tank or lagoon system On the other hand, water to flush waste out of the pens and allowing this to flow to the nearest drainage canal, creek or river is most the common liquid waste disposal of the swine raisers in Laguna As a result, the current waste disposal and management practices of the respondents also contribute to the environmental degradation of Laguna Lake Laguna Lake Development (LLDA) highly recommended the installation of biogas digesters, lagoon system and the method of drying manure Keywords: (6) waste disposal, adverse effect, waste management Number of Pages: Fifty-nine (59) pages Date of Submission: November 2017 Signature of the Supervisor ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This thesis would not have been completed without the valuable help of these people Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my research supervisor, Dr Damasa M Macandog, Institute of Biological Science, University of the Philippines at Los Baños (UPLB) in the Philippines for her assistance, patience, motivation and dedicated involvement in every step throughout the process Her guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this study Also, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my second thesis adviser, Associate Prof Dr Tran Quoc Hung, Dean, Faculty of Forestry, Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry (TUAF) in Vietnam for his support, suggestions and valuable guidance on my research study I take this opportunity to convey my special thanks to several people during the course of my research study Dr Ronaldo Saludes, and Mr Donald Luna for their help, giving valuable advice and for providing references on my study Ms Anne Jellie Bacani and Mr Ozzy Boy Nicopior for their help, guidance, and suggestions to map out the necessary GPS coordinates on the study I wish to express my sincere thanks to the Provincial Veterinary Office (PVO) in Santa Cruz, Laguna for sharing and giving the complete list of population of swine in different municipalities and cities in Laguna Also, many thanks to the City Agriculture Office (CAO) of Biñan and Cabuyao, Municipal Agriculture Office (MAO) of Bay, Famy, Kalayaan, Liliw, Luisiana, Majayjay, Nagcarlan, Pagsanjan, Pila, Santa Cruz, Siniloan and Victoria for giving and providing the data regarding to the population of swine and the list of the swine raisers and for allowing me to conduct the survey in their municipality/city I would not forget to remember the warm help and support of the Municipal/City Agriculturist in Laguna – Mr Antonio Aguilar of Biñan, Mrs Annie Magsino and Ms Maricris Puma of Nagcarlan, Mrs Merly Recones of Pagsanjan, Mr Helwin Del Rosario of Santa Cruz, and Mrs Marie Villeta of Majayjay, the Barangay City Agriculturist of Pila, Mrs Eva Palad and Mr Mario Talubo, and Mrs Irma iii Alegros and Mr Mariano Del Rosario of Cabuyao City Slaughterhouse, their companions and recommendations helped me to save time for conducting the survey Also, I heartily thank the 77 swine raisers respondents for their willingness to support and participate in the survey, even though they are busy, they still find time to answer and cooperate in the survey I am also grateful to my LACASA family, to my principal/administrator in high school Mr G Rodante C Estrellado, to my friends, to my close friend Rhonalyn P Agupo and to my best friend John Maverick S De Leon for their moral support, for always reminding me to be a positive person, for the sincere and valuable guidance and encouragement to finish this thesis I really appreciate your concern and help Most importantly, none of this could have happened without my family and relatives I owe more than thanks to my parents, my father Rene R Dela Torre, my mother Rosele R Dela Torre, to my siblings, Reneelyn R Dela Torre and Julius Prince R Dela Torre for their unconditional love and encouragement and to my grandmother Virginia Rubina for the financial support My beloved family served as an inspiration for me to stay optimistic and courageous while having my research Every time I was ready to quit, you did not let me and I am forever grateful Above all, to the Almighty, for the guidance, strength, good health, giving knowledge, wisdom and understanding to complete this study It is solely because of the knowledge, wisdom, and understanding He blessed me with that I was able to finish this research To God be the Glory RPRDT iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES VII LIST OF TABLES IX LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS X PART I INTRODUCTION 1.1 RESEARCH RATIONALE 1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES 1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS 1.5.1 Scope 1.5.2 Limitations 1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS PART II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 SWINE INDUSTRY IN THE PHILIPPINES 2.2 SWINE MANURE PRODUCTION AS EXCRETED 2.3 MANURE COMPOSITION 2.4 SWINE WASTE MANAGEMENT 11 2.5 LOCAL LIVESTOCK RAISING PRACTICES 13 2.6 UTILIZATION OF WASTE 15 PART III METHODS 18 3.1 MATERIAL 18 3.1.1 Latest Record of Swine Population in Laguna 18 3.1.2 GPS Reader 18 3.1.3 Questionnaires 18 3.1.4 ArcGIS software 19 3.1.5 Microsoft Excel 20 3.2 METHODOLOGY 20 3.2.1 Research Location 20 21 3.2.2 Research Design 21 3.2.3 Sampling Technique 22 3.2.4 Data Collection 23 3.2.5 Data Gathered 24 3.2.6 Data Analysis 24 v PART IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 25 4.1 DISTRIBUTION OF BACKYARD AND COMMERCIAL SWINE RAISERS 25 4.1.1 The Swine Raisers 25 4.1.2 Number of Heads Raised 26 4.2 SWINE WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF BACKYARD AND COMMERCIAL SWINE FARMS 29 4.2.1 Solid Waste Disposal and Management 29 4.2.2 Liquid Waste Disposal and Management 32 4.2.3 Management of Cleaning Pens 35 4.3 AMOUNTS OF SWINE WASTE AND CORRESPONDING POLLUTANTS DISCHARGED BY BACKYARD AND COMMERCIAL SWINE RAISERS TO LAGUNA LAKE 36 4.3.1 Calculation for Excreted Feces 36 4.3.2 Daily Feces Production as Excreted 38 4.3.3 Daily Urine Production as Excreted 41 4.4 ISSUES FACING THE SWINE INDUSTRY THAT COULD HAVE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY OF LAGUNA LAKE 46 4.4.1 Nearby Bodies of Water in Surveyed Swine Farms 46 4.4.2 Water Quality Perception 50 4.4.3 Potential Issue 51 PART V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 54 REFERENCES 56 APPENDICES 60 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Sampled Municipalities and Cities in Laguna ………………………… 21 Figure Population of Surveyed Backyard Swine Farms in Laguna ……………… 27 Figure Population of Surveyed Small Commercial Swine Farms in Laguna …… 27 Figure Population of Surveyed Medium Commercial Swine Farms in Laguna 28 Figure Location of Surveyed Swine Farms in Laguna ………………………… 28 Figure Solid Waste Management in Surveyed Backyard Swine Farms ……… 30 Figure Solid Waste Management in Surveyed Small Commercial Swine Farms 30 Figure Solid Waste Management in Surveyed Medium Commercial Swine Farms ……………………………………………………………………………… 31 Figure Liquid Waste Management in Surveyed Backyard Swine Farms ……… 33 Figure 10 Liquid Waste Management in Surveyed Small Commercial Swine Farms ……………………………………………………………………………… 33 Figure 11 Liquid Waste Management in Surveyed Medium Commercial Swine Farms ……………………………………………………………………………… 34 Figure 12 Frequency of Cleaning the Swine Pens ………………………………… 35 Figure 13 Different Types of Cleaning Agents …………………………………… 35 Figure 14 Daily Excretion of Total Solids in Surveyed Swine Farms …………… 39 Figure 15 Daily Excretion of Nitrogen in Surveyed Swine Farms …… 40 vii Figure 16 Daily Excretion of Phosphorus in Surveyed Swine Farms …………… 40 Figure 17 Daily Excretion of Potassium in Surveyed Swine Farms ……………… 41 Figure 18 Daily Excretion of Nitrogen in Surveyed Swine Farms…………… 42 Figure 19 Daily Excretion of Phosphorus in Surveyed Swine Farms …………… 43 Figure 20 Daily Excretion of Potassium in Surveyed Swine Farms 44 Figure 21 Possible Amount of Pollutants (Urine) End Up in Laguna Lake ……… 45 Figure 22 Possible Amount of Pollutants (Feces) End Up in Laguna Lake ……… 46 Figure 23 Proximity of Swine Raising Operations to the Nearby Bodies of Water 47 Figure 24 Proximity of Backyard Operations to the Nearby Bodies of Water …… 48 Figure 25 Proximity of Small Operations to the Nearby Bodies of Water ………… 48 Figure 26 Proximity of Medium Commercial Operations to the Nearby Bodies of Water ……………………………………………………………………………… 49 Figure 27 Effects of Swine Farms to the Quality of Water ……………………… 51 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Daily Manure Production as Excreted ………………………………… Table Estimated Typical Manure (urine and feces combined) Characteristics as Excreted by Swine …………………………………………………………… Table Municipalities and Cities in Laguna per cluster ……………………… 22 Table Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents per Type of Swine Raising Operations ……………………………………………………… 25 Table Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Swine Population ………… 26 Table Daily Manure Production as Excreted …………………………… 37 Table Daily Feces Production as Excreted …………………………… 37 Table Daily Urine Production as Excreted …………………………………… 38 Table Frequency and Percentage Distribution According to the Perception of the Swine Raisers to the Quality of Water …………………………………… 50 ix APPENDIX 2: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY BARANGAY Municipality/City Nagcarlan Santa Cruz Luisiana Barangay Silangan Lazaan Duhat San Diego Number of Respondents 7 Pila Santa Clara Sur Victoria Masapang Majayjay Pila Bay Kalayaan Pagsanjan Pagsanjan Oobi Santa Clara Norte Masaya San Juan Biñan Sabang 4 3 3 Cabuyao Banay Banay Cabuyao Luisiana Niugan San Antonio 2 Luisiana San Jose Pagsanjan Buboy Pagsanjan Sampaloc Nagcarlan Biñan Malinao Santo Tomas Cabuyao Cabuyao Famy Famy Liliw Liliw Luisiana Nagcarlan Pila Pila Pila Bigaa Marinig Bulihan Tunhac Calumpang Mojon Zone II Silangan Ilaya Concepcion Masiko Pansol 1 1 1 1 1 Pila Siniloan Pook Halayhayin TOTAL 1 77 64 APPENDIX 3: GPS COORDINATES OF SURVEYED SWINE FARMS IN LAGUNA BACKYARD Municipality/City Barangay Latitude Longitude Bay Masaya 14.1376 121.2769 Masaya 14.1372 121.2771 Masaya 14.1374 121.277 Cabuyao City Niugan 14.2603 121.1239 Kalayaan San Juan 14.3267 121.4736 San Juan 14.3261 121.4753 San Diego 14.1833 121.4876 San Diego 14.1826 121.4963 San Diego 14.1828 121.5084 San Jose 14.1989 121.5023 Zone II, 14.1833 121.5107 Malinao 14.1333 121.4253 Silangan Lazaan 14.1015 121.4439 Biñan 14.2625 121.4353 Biñan 14.2633 121.4353 Biñan 14.2633 121.4358 Buboy 14.2372 121.4321 Buboy 14.2371 121.4327 Sabang 14.2561 121.4344 Sabang 14.2545 121.4355 Sabang 14.2649 121.4362 Sampaloc 14.2726 121.4475 Concepcion 14.2408 121.3731 Masiko 14.2192 121.3953 Pansol 14.2192 121.3789 Pook 14.2567 121.3678 Santa Clara Sur 14.2323 121.3629 Santa Clara Sur 14.2278 121.3567 Luisiana Nagcarlan Pagsanjan Pila 65 Santa Cruz Victoria Santa Clara Sur 14.2312 121.3636 Santa Clara Sur 14.2329 121.3628 Santa Clara Norte 14.2343 121.3593 Santa Clara Norte 14.2344 121.3621 Santa Clara Norte 14.2345 121.3617 Santa Clara Norte 14.2346 121.3614 Duhat 14.2492 121.3775 Duhat 14.2493 121.3776 Duhat 14.2496 121.3775 Duhat 14.2491 121.3775 Duhat 14.2485 121.3774 Duhat 14.2492 121.3777 Duhat 14.2495 121.3775 Masapang 14.1975 121.3419 Masapang 14.196 121.3422 Masapang 14.1963 121.3418 Masapang 14.1964 121.3417 Masapang 14.1955 121.3417 SMALL COMMERCIAL Municipality/City Barangay Latitude Longitude Cabuyao City Banay Banay 14.2569 121.1258 Banay Banay 14.2569 121.1264 Bigaa 14.2847 121.1253 Niugan 14.2606 121.1239 Bulihan 14.4464 121.4475 Tunhac 14.4456 121.4522 Kalayaan San Juan 14.3267 121.4775 Liliw Calumpang 14.2045 121.4004 San Antonio 14.2094 121.4918 San Antonio 14.2076 121.4931 San Diego 14.1827 121.49 Famy 66 San Diego 14.1834 121.4892 San Jose 14.203 121.508 Ooobi 14.138 121.4761 San Diego 14.1378 121.4756 San Diego 14.138 121.4754 San Diego 14.1382 121.4761 Malinao 14.1336 121.4281 Silangan Lazaan 14.1017 121.4433 Silangan Lazaan 14.1025 121.4428 Silangan Lazaan 14.1015 121.444 Silangan Lazaan 14.1025 121.4428 Silangan Lazaan 14.1033 121.4433 Silangan Lazaan 14.104 121.4427 Pagsanjan Sampaloc 14.2741 121.4456 Pila Santa Clara Sur 14.2294 121.3581 Siniloan Halayhayin 14.4249 121.4488 Majayjay Nagcarlan MEDIUM COMMERCIAL Municipality/City Barangay Latitude Longitude Biñan City Santo Tomas 14.3057 121.0634 Liliw Mojon, 14.2168 121.3908 Nagcarlan Silangan Ilaya 14.1258 121.4198 APPENDIX 4: Location of Surveyed Swine Farms in Laguna Location Lakeshore Inland TOTAL Backyard F 30 16 46 % 38.96 20.78 59.74 Small Commercial F 10 18 28 % 12.99 23.38 36.36 Medium Commercial F % 1.30 2.60 3.90 TOTAL F 41 36 77 % 53.25 46.75 100 67 APPENDIX 5: DAILY FECES PRODUCTION AS EXCRETED Backyard Latitude Longitude Total Population TS N P K 14.2491 121.3775 0.60 0.02 0.01 0.01 14.2492 121.3777 0.82 0.05 0.02 0.03 14.2329 121.3628 416.10 24.97 8.32 16.64 14.2726 121.4475 1.20 0.05 0.02 0.03 14.2561 121.4344 2.40 0.13 0.05 0.07 14.2278 121.3567 4.04 0.23 0.08 0.12 14.2633 121.4358 276.75 16.00 5.25 10.19 14.1989 121.5023 2849.30 512.54 182.24 341.68 14.2495 121.3775 5.62 0.30 0.11 0.16 14.1833 121.4876 5.60 0.30 0.11 0.16 14.2345 121.3617 2739.90 158.90 52.06 101.35 14.2496 121.3775 1796.62 106.70 35.38 70.22 14.2545 121.4355 827.65 47.97 15.73 30.57 14.1963 121.3418 10 949.74 170.84 60.74 113.89 14.1964 121.3417 10 949.74 170.84 60.74 113.89 14.2323 121.3629 10 1225.71 186.76 65.96 124.04 14.2625 121.4353 10 1901.33 341.71 121.50 227.80 14.1833 121.5107 10 1898.74 341.66 121.48 227.77 14.1955 121.3417 11 1226.08 186.77 65.97 124.05 14.2344 121.3621 11 2847.74 512.48 182.21 341.65 14.2492 121.3775 11 2847.74 512.48 182.21 341.65 14.2485 121.3774 11 2448.83 373.46 131.90 248.06 14.2633 121.4353 11 3668.99 560.11 197.82 372.04 14.2371 121.4327 11 778.48 45.59 15.01 29.48 14.1374 121.277 12 3671.95 560.17 197.84 372.07 14.3267 121.4736 12 7.20 0.29 0.11 0.15 14.2192 121.3789 12 2726.23 390.11 137.45 259.15 14.2192 121.3953 12 2449.20 373.47 131.91 248.06 14.2346 121.3614 12 2449.63 373.51 131.92 248.08 14.2567 121.3678 13 1773.58 218.52 76.37 144.31 14.2312 121.3636 13 3670.19 560.18 197.85 372.07 14.2493 121.3776 14 4091.33 468.73 163.11 308.83 14.1826 121.4963 14 2448.66 373.54 131.93 248.10 14.1828 121.5084 14 4494.03 607.84 213.46 402.48 14.2603 121.1239 15 1497.24 202.59 71.14 134.15 14.1975 121.3419 15 2995.54 405.24 142.31 268.32 14.1333 121.4253 15 5164.14 299.95 98.36 191.71 14.2343 121.3593 15 6132.74 703.01 244.63 463.19 14.196 121.3422 17 5992.90 810.55 284.65 536.68 14.1015 121.4439 17 1104.00 63.87 20.94 40.70 14.3261 121.4753 17 1651.94 95.68 31.36 60.99 68 14.1376 121.2769 18 9783.11 1493.60 527.51 992.08 14.2408 121.3731 18 5731.24 563.94 194.30 369.57 14.2372 121.4321 19 4896.55 746.91 263.80 496.10 14.1372 121.2771 20 11461.74 1127.87 388.59 739.13 14.2649 121.4362 20 2202.80 127.70 41.87 81.39 N P K Small Commercial Latitude Longitude Total Population TS 14.2076 121.4931 22 1111.00 64.36 21.13 40.96 14.2045 121.4004 22 2458.06 373.97 132.09 248.32 14.1025 121.4428 25 33606.00 0.88 0.33 0.46 14.1336 121.4281 30 24.00 1.27 0.48 0.67 14.4464 121.4475 30 21.20 1.01 0.38 0.53 14.203 121.508 31 24.80 1.31 0.50 0.69 14.104 121.4427 32 1853.83 280.97 99.26 186.51 14.1033 121.4433 33 24.00 1.18 0.44 0.62 14.3267 121.4775 34 4509.57 608.66 213.77 402.91 14.1827 121.49 34 4404.00 255.31 83.70 162.73 14.1025 121.4428 35 25.40 1.24 0.47 0.66 14.1834 121.4892 36 3310.60 191.89 62.93 122.26 14.2569 121.1264 38 5449.98 779.16 274.39 516.62 14.1017 121.4433 41 17203.00 1692.18 583.01 1108.91 14.2741 121.4456 42 13915.18 1501.72 520.64 987.40 14.138 121.4754 44 242.51 14.33 4.85 9.30 14.2294 121.3581 48 5744.41 564.63 194.56 369.93 14.1382 121.4761 48 14480.84 1535.38 531.87 1009.79 14.1015 121.444 50 30.00 1.20 0.45 0.63 14.2094 121.4918 53 6976.99 751.99 260.75 494.30 14.2847 121.1253 55 11749.71 1724.86 608.33 1145.71 14.2828 121.1417 60 8057.30 814.46 281.16 534.26 14.2569 121.1258 66 3699.85 561.25 198.25 372.65 14.4456 121.4522 106 45719.89 4736.32 1637.83 3110.95 14.2606 121.1239 108 44522.88 4435.83 1529.94 2909.58 14.138 121.4761 117 32840.90 2599.05 880.19 1687.22 14.1378 121.4756 125 13663.34 1719.10 601.77 1136.34 14.4249 121.4488 154 22978.82 2721.21 949.00 1794.37 Medium Commercial Latitude Longitude Total Population TS N P K 14.1258 121.4198 1000 736.00 36.51 13.76 19.26 14.2168 121.3908 1109 665.40 26.62 9.98 13.97 14.3057 121.0634 9600 1595818.04 224169.65 78876.17 148570.78 69 APPENDIX 6: DAILY URINE PRODUCTION AS EXCRETED Backyard Latitude Longitude Total Population N P K 14.2491 121.3775 0.02 0.01 0.01 14.2492 121.3777 0.03 0.01 0.02 14.2329 121.3628 16.64 5.55 11.10 14.2726 121.4475 0.03 0.01 0.02 14.2561 121.4344 0.08 0.03 0.04 14.2278 121.3567 0.15 0.05 0.08 14.2633 121.4358 10.67 3.50 6.79 14.1989 121.5023 341.69 121.49 227.79 14.2495 121.3775 0.20 0.07 0.11 14.1833 121.4876 0.20 0.07 0.10 14.2345 121.3617 105.93 34.71 67.57 14.2496 121.3775 71.13 23.59 46.81 14.2545 121.4355 31.98 10.49 20.38 14.1963 121.3418 10 113.89 40.49 75.93 14.1964 121.3417 10 113.89 40.49 75.93 14.2323 121.3629 10 124.51 43.98 82.70 14.2625 121.4353 10 227.81 81.00 151.87 14.1833 121.5107 10 227.77 80.99 151.85 14.1955 121.3417 11 124.51 43.98 82.70 14.2344 121.3621 11 341.65 121.48 227.77 14.2492 121.3775 11 341.65 121.48 227.77 14.2485 121.3774 11 248.98 87.94 165.37 14.2633 121.4353 11 373.41 131.88 248.02 14.2371 121.4327 11 30.39 10.01 19.65 14.1374 121.277 12 373.45 131.90 248.05 14.3267 121.4736 12 0.19 0.07 0.10 14.2192 121.3789 12 260.07 91.63 172.77 14.2192 121.3953 12 248.98 87.94 165.37 14.2346 121.3614 12 249.00 87.95 165.39 14.2567 121.3678 13 145.68 50.91 96.20 14.2312 121.3636 13 373.48 131.91 248.06 14.2493 121.3776 14 312.49 108.74 205.89 14.1826 121.4963 14 249.03 87.95 165.40 14.1828 121.5084 14 405.23 142.31 268.32 14.2603 121.1239 15 135.06 47.43 89.43 14.1975 121.3419 15 270.16 94.87 178.88 14.1333 121.4253 15 199.97 65.57 127.80 14.2343 121.3593 15 468.67 163.09 308.80 14.196 121.3422 17 540.36 189.77 357.79 14.1015 121.4439 17 42.58 13.96 27.14 14.3261 121.4753 17 63.78 20.90 40.66 70 14.1376 121.2769 18 995.74 351.67 661.39 14.2408 121.3731 18 375.96 129.53 246.38 14.2372 121.4321 19 497.94 175.86 330.73 14.1372 121.2771 20 751.91 259.06 492.76 14.2649 121.4362 20 85.13 27.91 54.26 N P K Small Commercial Latitude Longitude Total Population 14.2076 121.4931 22 42.91 14.08 27.31 14.2045 121.4004 22 249.31 88.06 165.55 14.1025 121.4428 25 0.58 0.22 0.31 14.1336 121.4281 30 0.85 0.32 0.45 14.4464 121.4475 30 0.68 0.25 0.36 14.203 121.508 31 0.88 0.33 0.46 14.104 121.4427 32 187.31 66.17 124.34 14.1033 121.4433 33 0.79 0.30 0.41 14.3267 121.4775 34 405.77 142.51 268.61 14.1827 121.49 34 170.21 55.80 108.49 14.1025 121.4428 35 0.83 0.31 0.44 14.1834 121.4892 36 127.92 41.95 81.51 14.2569 121.1264 38 519.58 182.98 344.49 14.1017 121.4433 41 1128.12 388.68 739.27 14.2741 121.4456 42 1001.32 347.16 658.36 14.138 121.4754 44 9.55 3.23 6.20 14.2294 121.3581 48 376.42 129.70 246.62 14.1382 121.4761 48 1023.59 354.58 673.19 14.1015 121.444 50 0.80 0.30 0.42 14.2094 121.4918 53 501.68 173.97 329.72 14.2847 121.1253 55 1150.02 405.60 763.87 14.2828 121.1417 60 542.97 187.44 356.17 14.2569 121.1258 66 374.17 132.16 248.43 14.4456 121.4522 106 3157.55 1091.89 2073.97 14.2606 121.1239 108 2957.47 1020.06 1939.85 14.138 121.4761 117 1732.70 586.80 1124.81 14.1378 121.4756 125 1146.07 401.18 757.56 14.4249 121.4488 154 1814.14 632.67 1196.24 Medium Commercial Latitude Longitude Total Population N P K 14.1258 121.4198 1000 24.34 9.17 12.84 14.2168 121.3908 1109 17.74 6.65 9.32 14.3057 121.0634 9600 149446.43 52584.11 99047.19 71 APPENDIX 7: LOCATION OF THE SURVEYED SWINE FARMS Lakeshore Inland TOTAL F 30 16 46 Backyard % 38.96 20.78 59.74 Small Commercial F % 10 12.99 18 23.38 28 36.36 F Medium Commercial % 1.30 2.60 3.90 TOTAL F % 41 53.25 36 46.75 77 100 APPENDIX 8: FREQUENCY OF CLEANING THE SWINE PENS Types of Swine Farm once twice thrice times times Total Number of Respondents Backyard Small Commercial Medium Commercial TOTAL 2 21 16 39 15 23 0 1 46 28 77 APPENDIX 9: DIFFERENT TYPES OF CLEANING AGENTS Types of Swine Farm None Water Backyard Small Commercial Medium Commercial TOTAL 23 11 36 Disinfectant (Chemical) 20 16 37 Total Number of Respondents 46 28 77 APPENDIX 10: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND MANAGEMENT Solid Waste Disposal Biogas Collected Creek Drainage Canal Irrigation Lagoon Open Dump Pond River Septic Tank Straw Vermicompost Used as Fertilizer Buried TOTAL Small Commercial Backyard 1 13 2 15 46 7 28 Medium Commercial TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 3 16 1 4 24 77 72 APPENDIX 11: LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL AND MANAGEMENT Liquid Waste Management Biogas Creek Drainage Canal Irrigation Lagoon Pond River Septic Tank Straw Soil TOTAL Small Commercial Backyard 18 11 1 3 46 Medium Commercial 10 0 28 TOTAL 0 0 0 13 28 14 77 APPENDIX 12: NEARBY BODIES OF WATER IN SURVEYED SWINE FARMS Types of Swine Farm none river canal irrigation pond Total Number of Respondents Backyard Small Commercial Medium Commercial 24 11 11 1 0 46 28 TOTAL 35 12 18 11 77 APPENDIX 13: EFFECTS OF SWINE FARMS TO THE QUALITY OF WATER Option Agree Disagree Swine farms affect water quality 13 64 Water has become dirty / polluted 13 64 Drinking water are affected 75 Destruction of aquatic habitat 74 Harm aquatic species 71 APPENDIX 14: AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS (URINE) END UP IN LAGUNA LAKE Latitude 14.2491 14.2492 14.2329 14.2726 Longitude 121.3775 121.3777 121.3628 121.4475 14.2561 14.2633 14.2345 14.2545 121.4344 121.4358 121.3617 121.4355 Backyard Total Population Total (N, P, K) 0.03 0.06 33.29 0.06 0.16 20.96 208.21 62.85 Liquid Waste Disposal Creek Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Creek Drainage Canal Creek 73 14.1963 14.1964 121.3418 121.3417 10 10 230.31 230.31 Drainage Canal Drainage Canal 14.1833 14.2633 14.2371 14.1955 14.2492 14.2485 14.2344 121.5107 121.4353 121.4327 121.3417 121.3775 121.3774 121.3621 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 460.60 753.31 60.05 251.19 690.89 502.28 690.89 Drainage Canal Creek Creek Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Pond 14.1374 14.2346 14.2493 14.1333 14.1975 14.2603 121.277 121.3614 121.3776 121.4253 121.3419 121.1239 12 12 14 15 15 15 753.39 502.34 627.11 393.34 543.91 271.92 Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Creek Drainage Canal River 14.1015 14.196 14.2372 14.1372 121.4439 121.3422 121.4321 121.2771 17 17 19 20 83.68 1087.92 1004.54 1503.72 Creek Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Latitude 14.2076 14.1025 14.4464 14.1336 14.203 14.104 Longitude 121.4931 121.4428 121.4475 121.4281 121.508 121.4427 14.1033 14.3267 14.1827 14.1025 14.1834 14.2569 121.4433 121.4775 121.49 121.4428 121.4892 121.1264 33 34 34 35 36 38 1.50 816.89 334.50 1.58 251.38 1047.05 Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Drainage Canal River Creek River 14.1017 14.138 14.2294 14.1382 14.1015 14.2094 121.4433 121.4754 121.3581 121.4761 121.444 121.4918 41 44 48 48 50 53 2256.07 18.98 752.74 2051.36 1.52 1005.37 River Drainage Canal Creek Drainage Canal Creek River 14.2847 14.2828 14.2569 14.2606 14.138 14.1378 121.1253 121.1417 121.1258 121.1239 121.4761 121.4756 55 60 66 108 117 125 2319.48 1086.58 754.76 5917.39 3444.31 2304.81 River River River River Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Small Commercial Total Population Total (N, P, K) 22 84.30 25 1.11 30 1.29 30 1.62 31 1.67 32 377.82 Liquid Waste Disposal Creek Creek Creek Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Drainage Canal 74 APPENDIX 14: AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS (FECES) END UP IN LAGUNA LAKE Latitude 14.2346 14.1828 14.2343 Longitude 121.3614 121.5084 121.3593 Latitude 14.1834 Longitude 121.4892 14.138 14.1382 14.2569 14.138 14.1378 121.4754 121.4761 121.1258 121.4761 121.4756 Backyard Total Population TOTAL (N, P, K) 12 14 15 753.51 1223.78 1410.83 Small Commercial Total Population TOTAL (N, P, K) Solid Waste Disposal Creek Drainage Canal Pond 36 377.08 Solid Waste Disposal Creek 44 48 66 117 125 28.48 3077.03 1132.14 5166.46 3457.21 Creek Creek River Drainage Canal Creek APPENDIX 15: DEFINITION OF TERMS Backyard swine farm refers to a type of swine farm with a population of not more than 20 adult swine Barangay refers the smallest administrative unit in municipality or city headed by a barangay captain Biogas Digester System refers to the anaerobic breakdown of organic materials which produces methane or biogas as a by-product Commercial swine farm as per Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) classification, it is divided into three types – (1) small commercial farm with a population of 21-999 heads, (2) medium commercial farm with 1,000-9,999 heads, and (3) large commercial farms with more than 10,000 heads LABS is a combination of rice wash water and molasses It can mix to pure commercial feeds, serve as defense against pathogenic diseases, and can use for cleaning pens Lagoon System is a simple method of treating wastes using a series of dug-out ponds which function mainly as settling ponds 75 Livestock refers an agricultural subsector that consists of swine, large ruminants such as cattle and carabao (water buffalo), and small ruminants such as goats and sheep Municipality refers to a city or town that has corporate status and local government Swine another term for pig but more formal word for the domesticated animal TPED or Tubular Polyethylene Digester is a low cost type of biogas system using polyethylene plastics as the digester chamber Waste Treatment refers to management techniques applied to reduce the pollution load coming from the backyard piggeries e.g biogas technology, pelleting, etc Waste disposal refers to the final disposition of solid and liquid swine farm wastes A common form of waste disposal is direct discharge of wastes into the rivers, creeks or canals APPENDIX 16: PHOTOS DURING THE SURVEY APPENDIX 16.1: Types of Swine Farm Backyard Swine Farm Small Commercial Swine Farm M Commercial Swine Farm 76 APPENDIX 16.2: Photos of the researcher with the survey respondents Backyard Swine Farm Respondent from Pila Backyard Swine Farm Respondent from Pila Small Commercial Swine Farm Respondent from Nagcarlan Small Commercial Swine Farm Respondent from Nagcarlan Medium Commercial Swine Farm Respondent from Nagcarlan Medium Commercial Swine Farm Respondent from Liliw APPENDIX 16.3: Assisting officials during the survey Official (center) and respondent (right) from Biñan City Official from Pagsanjan Officials from Cabuyao City Official from Pila Official from Pila Officials from Nagcarlan 77 APPENDIX 16.4: Solid and Liquid Waste Disposal Facilities Biogas Digester On-going Biogas Digester Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Irrigation Pond Open Space Vermicomposting Used as Fertilizer 78 ... of the swine and the farm, the effects of swine farms to the household of the swine raiser, the swine waste disposal and management practices of the swine raisers, the effects of swine farms to. .. type of the farm, area of the site, type of flooring, nearby bodies of water to the site, number of nearby houses to the site, total population of the swine, age and weight of the swine, and the. .. Design The study is a descriptive type of research It is a case study about the effects of swine waste to the environment and to Laguna Lake The information needed for the research was gatherable