An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines the Livestock Sector 2016

Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized An Overview of Agricultural Pollution Public Disclosure Authorized in the Philippines The Livestock Sector 2016 Public Disclosure Authorized

An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines The Livestock Sector 2016

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 NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 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...... 3 2.1 Swine Industry...... 4 2.2 Poultry...... 4 2.3 Cattle ...... 7 2.4 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 ...... 13 4.1 Manure Production ...... 13 4.2 Swine Waste Management ...... 14 4.3 Poultry Waste Management ...... 15 4.4 Cattle and Carabao Manure Management ...... 15 4.5 Disposal of Carcasses of Dead Animals...... 15 4.6 Management of Slaughterhouse Wastes...... 16

5 Environmental Impacts of Livestock Production in the Philippines ...... 17 5.1 Pollution Implications of Waste Management...... 17 5.2 Air Pollution from Livestock and Poultry Systems ...... 18 5.2.1 Ammonia Emission from Livestock ...... 18 iv An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

5.2.2 GHG Emissions from Enteric Fermentation and Manure Management . . . . . 18 5.3 Soil Pollution...... 21 5.3.1 Nitrogen Overload from Manure Production...... 21 5.3.2 Accumulation of Heavy Metals from Livestock Manure...... 22 5.4 Water Pollution ...... 22 5.4.1 Surface Water Contamination due to Nutrient Runoff ...... 23 5.4.2 Microbial Contamination of Surface Water...... 24 5.4.3 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 ...... 31 8.1 Racehorses...... 31 8.2 Game Fowl...... 31 8.3 Use of Performance Enhancers for Racehorses and Game Fowls...... 32

9 Socioeconomic Impacts of Livestock Production in the Philippines...... 33 9.1 Human Health...... 33 9.2 Biodiversity...... 35 9.3 Consumer Demand Vis-a-Vis Poor Environmental Management...... 36

10 Interventions ...... 37 10.1 Policies and Regulations...... 37 10.1.1 Livestock and Poultry Feeds Act...... 37 10.1.2 Food Safety Act of 2013...... 37 10.1.3 DENR Administrative Order No. 30, Series of 2003...... 37 10.1.4 LLDA Resolution No. 169, Series of 2001...... 38 10.1.5 Philippine Agricultural Engineering Standards...... 38 10.2 Farm-level Technology...... 38 10.2.1 Manure Management and Utilization vs Potential Pollution ...... 38 10.2.2 Organic Agriculture...... 39 10.2.3 Composting...... 40 10.2.4 Vermicomposting ...... 40 10.2.5 Biogas Digesters...... 40

References ...... 41

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

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...... 5 Figure 5: Regional distribution of commercial swine in the Philippines, 2015...... 5 Figure 6: National inventory of native, layer, and broiler chicken in terms of percentage of total population, 2015...... 6 Figure 7: Regional distribution of broiler chicken in the Philippines, 2015 ...... 6 Figure 8: Regional distribution of layer chicken in the Philippines, 2015...... 6 Figure 9: Regional distribution of native chicken in the Philippines, 2015...... 7 Figure 10: National inventory of backyard and commercial cattle in terms of percentage of total population ...... 7 Figure 11: Regional distribution of backyard cattle in the Philippines, 2015 ...... 8 Figure 12: Regional distribution of commercial cattle in the Philippines, 2015 ...... 8 Figure 13: Regional distribution of carabao in the Philippines, 2015...... 8 Figure 14: Mass balance approach for estimating values of excreted manure ...... 13 Figure 15: Summary of GHG emissions from agricultural sector, 2000...... 19 Figure 16: Summary of methane emissions of livestock industry from enteric fermentation, 2000 ...... 19 Figure 17: Summary of methane emissions of livestock and poultry from manure management, 2000 ...... 19 Figure 18: Summary of nitrous oxide emissions of manure management, 2000 ...... 20 Figure 19: Summary of nitrous oxide emissions of livestock and poultry, 2000 ...... 20 Figure 20: BOD contribution from point sources, 2013 ...... 23 Figure 21: BOD load (in thousand tons) in relation to population, 2013...... 24 Figure 22: BOD contribution from nonpoint sources, 2013 ...... 24 Figure 23: Percentage nitrogen estimation from Laguna Lake, 1973...... 25 Figure 24: Distribution of game fowls per region in the Philippines, 2006...... 32 Figure 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 ...... 26 Table 6: Antibiotics and estimated volume of use, 2012...... 29 Table 7: Horse inventory, 1994–2000...... 31 Table 8: Total inventory of chicken by farm type, by classification, in the Philippines, as of July 1, 2006...... 32 Table 9: Estimated manure management from estimated manure in different scenarios in 2014...... 39

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AMR Antimicrobial Resistance APS Aviary Population Survey BAI Bureau of Animal Industry BAS Bureau of Agricultural Statistics BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CAR Cordillera Administrative Region

CH4 Methane

CO2 Carbon Dioxide COD Chemical Oxygen Demand DA Department of Agriculture DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DOH Department of Health DOST Department of Science and Technology EMB Environmental Management Bureau FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GHG Greenhouse Gas IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IMO International Maritime Organization IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency kg Kilogram LLGU Liter Local Government Unit LLDA Laguna Lake Development Authority m3 Cubic meter MADECOR Mandala Agricultural Development Corporation mg milligram N Nitrogen

N2O Nitrous Oxide

NO2 Nitrate viii An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

NCR National Capital Region PCARRD Philippine Council for Agriculture, NEDA National Economic and Forestry and Natural Resources Development Authority Research and Development

NH3 Ammonia PO4 Phosphates NMIS National Meat Inspection Service PSA Philippine Statistical Authority NVRQS National Veterinary Research and RA Republic Act Quarantine Service SIDC Sorosoro Ibaba Development NWQSR National Water Quality Status Cooperative

Report SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

PAES Philippine Agricultural SO4 Sulfate Engineering Standards UPLB University of the Philippines Los PARRFI Philippine Agriculture and Baños Resources Research Foundation Inc. VOC Volatile Organic Compound PCAARRD Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development

Regions of the Philippines

Region 1 Ilocos Region Region 7A Negros Island Region 2 Cagayan Valley Region 8 Eastern Visayas Region 3 Central Luzon Region 9 Zamboanga Peninsula Region 4 Southern Tagalog Region Region 10 Northern Mindanao Region 4A Calabarzon Region 11 Davao Region Region 4B Mimaropa Region 12 Soccsksargen Region 5 Bicol Region Region 13 Caraga Region Region 6 Western Visayas CAR Cordillera Autonomous Region 7 Central Visayas NCR 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 “chapter” 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) existing 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 livestock 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 backyard. 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 degradation, it is the improper manner of treatment, handling, and disposal where ‘pollution’ occurs. Air quality pollutants from manure include ammonia, hydrogen 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 eutrophication 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 example, 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. xii An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

From the late 1960s, cattle and carabao produc- proper manure use into organic fertilizer, through com- tion has shifted to small backyard holdings, accompany- posting and/or vermiculture. It gives added earnings to ing the decline of large ranch operations in grasslands, the farm and easily offsets added labor and investment partly from the government’s reforestation efforts. Land on manure handling and treatment facilities. conversions into settlements and industrial estates along Especially in backyard scale, proper manure dis- with a growing human population further add pressure posal or reuse as fertilizer helps cut down on fertilizer on available arable land. Even as backyard pig and poul- cost and, if pursued through, adds value to certified or- try farms still contribute more than 50 percent to total ganic products. In backyard pig farms, a built-up-litter meat production, commercial operations have prolifer- rearing system uses sawdust, rice hulls, and other dry ated near urban population areas and steadily increase biomass instead of the wash-and-flush practice. Appli- their share by about 5 percent annually to total produce. cation of ‘effective’ or ‘indigenous’ microorganisms to Various studies have pointed to swine raising, es- the litter facilitates odor-free degradation. pecially for backyard scale, as the source of most pollut- The government has instituted various laws to ants—mainly due to the conventional wash-and-flush control pollution. The main problem in minimizing mode of cleaning manure and indiscriminately con- pollution through these laws is the difficulty in coor- veying this on the ground or through waterways. The dination between local government units (LGUs) with potential methane production from livestock and poul- the mandated implementing national agencies. This is try is more than 500,000 tons per year based on the in turn confounded by other pollution concerns from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) crops, domestic waste, and industry from factories to guidelines. However, a large volume of livestock waste power plants and motor vehicles. Minimizing livestock enables direct utilization as fertilizer, as in the case of pollution ultimately depends on combined efforts at poultry waste, which is relatively dry. Likewise, swine increased recycling into fertilizer, along with improved or cattle/buffalo manure could be conveyed through monitoring on conformance to waste disposal. The lat- biogas digesters, to enable the use of methane as fuel ter also includes regulating implementation of design and then the residue as fertilizer. specifications of structures to incorporate waste han- What started as the ‘Natural’, and now the ‘Or- dling and management. ganic Agriculture’, movement has added impetus to HISTORY OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY FARMING 1 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.

GROWTH AND CONCENTRATION 2 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 percent 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 production 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 percent 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. 4 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

Figure 1: Percentage contribution of Figure 2: Percentage contribution of Various livestock subsectors in chicken and duck in the poultry terms of value of production, subsector in terms of value of 2014 production, 2014

Cattle Duck Duck eggs Carabao 9.54% 1.48% 1.93% 4.33% Dairy 0.25% Swine Chicken Goat 82.38% Chicken 75.41% 3.49% eggs 21.18%

Source: PSA 2015. Source: PSA 2015.

2.1 Swine Industry near Metro Manila to meet the area’s growing demand for food (Global Methane Initiative 2009). On the oth- The swine industry in the Philippines is made up of er hand, 15 percent of the backyard swine population is backyard and commercial swine farming operations. A found in Region 6, followed by Region 5 (9.2 percent) backyard swine farm has a population size of less than and Region 7 (9.0 percent). (BAS 2014). Figures B-4 and 20 heads of adult equivalent animal (PSA 2015). As of B-5 present the distribution of swine population in the January 1, 2015, the total swine population was 11.99 country for backyard and commercial farms. million heads. About 64 percent of the total swine popu- Most of the large-scale swine operations are lo- lation is located in backyard farms. The swine industry, as cated far from densely populated areas to prevent envi- a whole, registered an annual growth rate of 2.0 percent ronmental and health problems due to waste produc- from 1994 to 2015. However, the backyard swine sector tion and management. In addition, the number of hogs recorded a steady decline in percentage contribution to raised per farm near the urban areas is regulated by local total swine population, from 82 percent in 1994 to 65 government (LGU) ordinances (Rola et al. 2003). 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). 2.2 Poultry In terms of regional distribution, Region 3 accounted for 16 percent of the total swine inventory fol- The poultry industry in the Philippines is likewise com- lowed by Region 4A (13 percent) and Region 6 (11 per- posed of commercial and backyard operations; a farm cent) (BAS 2014). Most commercial farms are located in with more than 100 birds is classified as commercial (PSA Region 3 and Region 4A. These regions accounted for 2015). Furthermore, a commercial poultry farm is char- 62 percent of the total population of commercial swine acterized by a large-scale and integrated production and farming. Large commercial farms are usually established marketing system (Costales et al. 2003). The Philippine Growth and Concentration of Livestock and Poultry in the Philippines 5

Figure 3: National inventory of backyard and commercial swine in terms of percentage of total population 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 swine population Percentage of total 20 10 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Backyard Commercial

Source: PSA 2015.

chicken inventory is further classified into broiler, layer, chicken industry, as a whole, registered an annual and native. Broilers and layers are imported hybrids with growth rate of 4.0 percent for 1994–2015. However, foreign strains while native chickens refer to local breeds. the percentage contribution of native farm chicken to There are also improved breeds that are crosses of local the total population steadily dropped from 53.7 percent breeds with foreign strains (Chang 2007). Native chick- in 1994 to 44.5 percent in 2015. In contrast, layers in- ens are usually raised under a free-range management sys- creased their percentage contribution from 9.0 percent tem by backyard farmers, mainly for own consumption. in 1994 to 17.7 percent in 2015. The contribution of The total chicken population reached 176.47 broilers slightly increased from 37.3 percent in 1994 to million heads as of January 2015 (PSA 2015). The 37.7 percent in 2015 (Figure 6).

Figure 4: Regional distribution of Figure 5: Regional distribution of backyard swine in the commercial swine in the Philippines, 2015 Philippines, 2015

Source: PSA 2015. Source: PSA 2015. 6 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

Figure 6: National inventory of native, layer, and broiler chicken in terms of percentage of total population, 2015 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 chicken population Percentage of total 20 10 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Broiler Layer Native

Source: PSA 2015.

In terms of regional distribution, broiler and lay- native chicken inventory (PSA 2015). Figures B-7, B-8, ers are concentrated in Regions 3, 4-A, and 10. These and B-9 present the regional distribution of broiler, lay- top three producing regions accounted for 59.2 percent er, and native chickens, respectively. of total broiler population and 73.2 percent of total Poultry operations are found in a wide range layer population. On the other hand, native chickens of environments and size of flock. For example, back- are widespread in the Philippines. The top five native yard poultry raisers are located almost everywhere chicken producing regions are Region 6 (16.7 per- near the market, whereas contract poultry farms are cent), Region 3 (9.8 percent), Region 10 (9.7 percent), located in less urbanized areas. Backyard poultry Region 7 (9.1 percent), and Region 11 (8.9 percent). farms are permitted to operate even in densely pop- These regions contributed 54.2 percent of the total ulated areas, that is, reared in cages of 50 birds or so,

Figure 7: Regional distribution of broiler Figure 8: Regional distribution of layer chicken in the Philippines, 2015 chicken in the Philippines, 2015

Source: PSA 2015. Source: PSA 2015. Growth and Concentration of Livestock and Poultry in the Philippines 7 within zoning ordinances prescribed by the LGUs. Figure 9: Regional distribution of native Farther from markets, backyard and contract grow- chicken in the Philippines, 2015 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 holdings mainly because of the reforestation efforts of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Source: PSA 2015. (DENR) since the late 1960s and the accompanying nonrenewal of pasture leases. In addition, implementation of the comprehensive agrarian reform program heads of adult cattle accounted for 93 percent of the and urbanization because of rising human popula- total cattle inventory (Figure 10). tion affected ranches, rice estates, and some sugarcane Most of the cattle farms are found in Regions estates. Peasant revolt movements, aggravated by com- 1, 3, 4A, 6, and 10 (Figure 11 and 12); in sum, they munist insurgency, from the 1950s targeted these contributed 53 percent of the total cattle population in estates, even raising national security concerns, which the Philippines. partly led to martial law in 1972. The cattle industry Dairy cattle accounted for only 0.89 percent of nowadays is dominated by backyard farms. As of 2015, the total cattle population. From the total dairy cattle inventory in backyard cattle farms with less than 20 population, 25.77 percent is on the milk production

Figure 10: National inventory of backyard and commercial cattle in terms of percentage of total population 100 98 96 94 92 90

cattle population 88 Percentage of total 86 84 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Backyard Commercial

Source: PSA 2015. 8 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

Figure 11: Regional distribution of Figure 12: Regional distribution of backyard cattle in the commercial cattle in the Philippines, 2015 Philippines, 2015

Source: PSA 2015. Source: PSA 2015. line that produced 12.5 million L, 63.68 percent of 2.4 Carabao or Water Buffalo the total milk produced in 2014 (PSA 2015). Figures B-11 and B-12 present the regional distribution of The Philippine carabao is known for its meat and backyard and commercial cattle in the Philippines, draft power. Crossbreds with murrah are being pro- respectively. 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 Figure 13: Regional distribution of 2015 (PSA 2015). Smallholder rice farms particularly carabao in the Philippines, depend on carabao draft power, notwithstanding gov- 2015 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 industry. Importations of murrah buffaloes were done to Source: PSA 2015. upgrade native buffaloes. OPERATIONS OF SLAUGHTERHOUSES, 3 POULTRY DRESSING PLANTS, AND MEAT PROCESSING PLANTS

Meat establishments in the Philippines are premises such as slaughterhouses, poultry 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 accredited 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 percent 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 slaughterhouses 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, 10 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

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

Slaughterhouse Poultry Dressing Plant Meat Processing Plant

Accredited Accredited Accredited

Region 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.

poultry dressing plants, and meat processing plants are average level of compliance with the standards. A ma- accredited using the latter accreditation level (Table 1). jority of Class AA are privately owned (86.21 percent). Class AAA is mostly private meat producing There was an increase of 31 percent in the number companies that comply with the highest level of stan- of Class AA slaughterhouses from 2006 to 2015. For dards especially for sanitation and also make products poultry dressing plants and meat processing plants, that can pass export quality and are therefore allowed to only 72.64 percent and 81.69 percent are accredited sell products to the international market with Hazard for this class, respectively. Analysis Critical Control Point certification. Only four Class A establishments can only trade their slaughterhouses of this class were accredited in 2015 product within the municipality or city and meet the (4.60 percent). For poultry dressing plants and meat minimum level of standards for accreditation purposes. processing plants, only 3.77 percent and 3.29 percent There was a 75 percent decrease in the number of Class are accredited for this class, respectively. A slaughterhouses (9.20 percent) from 2006 to 2015. Class AA establishments are those qualified for For poultry dressing plants and meat processing plants, normal domestic trade and are allowed to sell and trade only 3.77 percent and 3.29 percent are accredited for products nationwide. They act in accordance with the this class, respectively. Operations of Slaughterhouses, Poultry Dressing Plants, and Meat Processing Plants 11

A majority of slaughterhouses, poultry dressing the data of the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) plants, and meat processing plants in the country have in 2008, it was assumed that about 30–40 percent of not met the minimum standard of accreditation, which the total number of food animals slaughtered in 2008 is Class A, by NMIS (2015) and they are thus known were slaughtered in unaccredited establishments (Glob- as not accredited but only registered (Costales and Del- al Methane Initiative 2009). gado 2002, cited in Maranan et al. 2008). Based on

CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF 4 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

Food Nutrient nutrient excretion intake

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

Source: USDA 2008. 14 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

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

Table 2 shows the estimated total excreted ma- monitoring and compliance because their wastewater nure of cattle, carabao, swine, and chicken. The values discharge is usually less than 30 m3 per day. were computed using the national livestock and poultry In large commercial swine farms, manure is col- inventory provided by the PSA. Estimates show that lected from pens by scraping. Wastewater is drained more than 13 million tons of excreted manure can be into canals, which lead to a series of open lagoons. generated annually from the livestock and poultry in- Some large farms also used biogas digesters for methane dustry. Ruminant animals account for 68 percent of the recovery and utilization. As cited by the Global Meth- total manure production. 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 4.2 Swine Waste Management regions revealed that as of 2003, about 63–65 percent of commercial farms use a lagoon system for manure Swine waste disposal has become a major environmen- management and 6–12 percent use biogas digester. tal concern because of growth and concentration of However, only 22 percent of smaller farms use lagoon the industry, particularly in regions adjacent to Metro systems and 6 percent have biogas digesters. Other Manila. Waste from swine farms is generally composed farms dispose the waste in septic tanks or open pits or of manure, urine, water, spilled feeds, and water used simply lay it on the ground or allow it to flow directly for cooling, cleaning, and flushing. to a canal or river. Most swine farms, particularly backyard and According to Catelo and Narrod (2008), large small commercial farms, traditionally use water to flush scale farms, mostly independent farms, have the ca- waste out of the pens and let it flow to nearby creeks. pacity to operate and economically benefit from ma- Smallholder farms usually generate more untreated nure application to agricultural land as a form of fer- and ill-disposed wastes because of the farrow-to-wean tilization. They also invest in appropriate structures for predominant type of production activity (Catelo and proper waste management and disposal of waste. The Narrod 2008). A farm survey conducted by Catelo, authors also emphasized that the scale or size of a farm Dorado, and Agbisit (2001) showed that 80 percent of is the most significant overriding factor to account for the backyard and commercial swine farms in Majayjay, the differential behavior in mitigating pollution from Laguna deposited their waste products in nearby creeks swine manure. There is a much smaller proportion of and rivers. Moreover, backyard and small commer- medium to large farms, regardless of production activi- cial farms (less than 1,000 swine heads) are exempted ty and production arrangement, that is unable to make from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) an effort to contain the waste. Current Management Practices of Livestock and Slaughterhouse Wastes 15

The average volume of wastewater generated by The design of these facilities is fairly well provided with commercial swine farms ranged from 17 L per head the means to scrape, accumulate, and hold manure and per day to 30 L per head per day. A farm with poor waste before disposal as fertilizer and/or as material for waste management practices can generate up to 50 L composting and vermicomposting. Methane gas gener- per head per day. The typical biological oxygen de- ation is not practical for this type of manure because of mand (BOD) effluent of wastewater from swine farms its low yield. ranges from 2,000 mg/L to 4,400 mg/L (Global Meth- ane Initiative 2009). 4.5 Disposal of Carcasses of Dead Animals 4.3 Poultry Waste Management In some locations, the disposal of dead animals is also Poultry waste disposal is not a serious environmental a common environmental issue. Broiler production has concern as compared to swine waste disposal. Waste an acceptable mortality rate of 5 percent during the generated by poultry farms is usually composed of entire production cycle while data on Philippine swine manure, spilled feeds, feathers, and bedding materials. production performance in 2007 show a mortality rate Poultry waste tends to be drier because of the low mois- of 2.25 percent. Carcasses should be buried at least six ture content of bird droppings, use of bedding mate- feet deep in the ground to prevent the possibility of rial as moisture absorber, and very minimal water use stray animals finding the carcass. Subsequent exposure for cleaning. Poultry waste is disposed by either sell- of the dead or buried animal to the environment where ing it to chicken manure traders or spreading on the flies and maggots can feed on it has the potential to farm as organic fertilizer. A market for poultry manure spread diseases to both human and animal populace as organic fertilizer has already been established, which (Paraso et al. 2010). Most of the smallholder and com- lessens the burden of poultry producers in disposing the mercial farms bury animal carcasses as part of the dis- waste without causing environmental problems. How- posal system of animals. Less than 10 percent of both ever, some backyard poultry farms are still practicing smallholder and commercial farms burn and/or incin- poor waste management. Paraso et al. (2010) revealed erate animal carcasses but do not incinerate veterinary that some backyard poultry farms in Laguna dispose waste. Given sufficient material and proper procedure, the waste through open dumping and discharging to animal carcasses could also be incorporated in compost. accessible bodies of water or septic tanks. Similarly, Catelo and Narrod (2008) conducted a farm survey on the disposal practices of animal dead bodies by small independent hog producers in Lagu- 4.4 Cattle and Carabao Manure na. Ninety percent of the respondents buried the dead Management piglets and 1 percent dumped the dead piglets into the river. Most of the large-scale producers get rid of their A majority of backyard cattle and carabao farmers dead animals by the method available for disposal such breed and fatten up one or a few heads, which are stall- as burying or incineration. Despite the common prac- fed or tethered along open fields. Manure in stall pens tice of burying dead animals on farm premises, there are usually scraped and dumped in an open space or are no adverse environmental problems in the farms be- allowed to decompose in grazing areas. The few large cause swine raisers are aware of the environmental dam- feedlots for beef cattle, along with commercial cattle or age that can result from improper disposal of dead ani- carabao dairy farms practice part or full-stall feeding. mals and the danger of contaminating their own herd. 16 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

4.6 Management of Slaughterhouse Manila use either the lagoon system or a combina- Wastes tion of septic tank and lagoon systems. Also, several slaughterhouses outside Metro Manila have anaerobic Slaughterhouse wastes generally consist of animal digesters, but most are either inefficient or no longer urine, diluted blood, dissolved fat, suspended solids, functioning. Even those rated AA do not have lagoon hair, manure, and spent water for cleaning, scalding, systems due to limited space (Global Methane Initia- and flushing. However, there are no available data from tive 2009). the EMB on the characteristic of effluent from slaugh- The NMIS discourages the location of abattoirs terhouses. Most slaughterhouses reportedly process an near public markets because of the ease of contamina- average of 200 to 260 animals per day, from which dis- tion of the animal carcasses with microorganisms, dirt, charge rates are lower than the standard discharge of chemicals, and other organic matter found in public 30 m3 per day. Hence, these slaughterhouses are not markets. Some of the non-accredited slaughterhouses monitored by the EMB but are under the jurisdiction were built prior to the institution of NMIS recom- of LGUs (Global Methane Initiative 2009). mendations; thus, establishments do not comply with Most NMIS-registered slaughterhouses located the guidelines (Maranan et al. 2008). In Laguna, some in Metro Manila use the physical and chemical treat- slaughterhouses are situated less than 10 m from a creek ment process to eliminate the solid waste and efflu- or river that enables them to easily dispose generated ent generated. Some slaughterhouses outside Metro waste materials directly into the bodies of water. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK 5 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 natural 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 pressure 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 nutrient cycles the components volatilize into the air; (c) failure to credit the nutrient 18 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

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

a Acidification Potential (tons SO2eq)

Animal Scenario Ab Scenario Bc Scenario Cd

Cattle 40 27 5 Carabao 52 64 7 Pig 31 21 4 Chicken 38 25 5 a 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 SO2eq b 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.

content in this organic source and thus overapply it as a produced by bacterial and enzymatic decomposition of soil amendment in conjunction with chemical fertiliz- nitrogen-containing organic compounds in the excreta, ers; (d) application of manure as fertilizer at the wrong especially in the urine (Burton and Turner 2003). time of the season; (e) land application of manure in Ammonia volatilization occurs in animal build- areas where the hydro-geomorphic profile is such that ings, manure storage facilities, and application of ma- it is difficult to prevent runoff (for example, high water nure and from applied manure. Ammonia losses through table and sloping terrain); (f) land applications based volatilization are generally higher for swine operation solely on nitrogen requirements of the crop, which may where there is a high proportion of nitrogen-rich ma- result in overapplication of phosphorous; (g) use of nure. The presence of ammonia in the atmosphere can inadequate technology or otherwise failure to address contribute to the formation of acid rain. Increased aerial hazards until problems arise because of storms and run- deposition of ammonia and ammonium (NH4+) con- off; and (h) choice of inappropriate methods of dispos- tributes to water and soil acidification. Ammonia vola- ing of the carcasses of dead animals. 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 5.2 Air Pollution from Livestock and aquatic ecosystems (Burton and Turner 2003). Table 3 Poultry Systems illustrates the scenario on the levels of acidification potential based on proper manure management. 5.2.1 Ammonia Emission from Livestock Livestock production has been identified as a major contributor to air pollution. Major air pollutants com- 5.2.2 GHG Emissions from Enteric ing from livestock operation include carbon dioxide, Fermentation and Manure ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and VOC. Odorous gases Management and ammonia are important gases from the point of Domestic livestock animals together with rice cultivation view of environmental protection. These gases are are the major sources of GHGs in the agricultural sector. produced from freshly deposited or stored manure by Methane and nitrous oxide are the major GHGs emit- microbial degradation of organic matter. Ammonia is ted from livestock production. In 2000, GHG emissions Environmental Impacts of Livestock Production in the Philippines 19

Figure 15: Summary of GHG emissions Figure 16: Summary of methane emissions from agricultural sector, 2000 of livestock industry from enteric fermentation, 2000 Manure Management 11.66% Cattle Enteric 37.18% Fermentation 17.85% Carabao 53.08% Field Rice Burning of Swine Agricultural Cultivation 44.42% 3.41% Residues Horses 1.89% 1.32% Goats 5.01% Prescribed Burning of Source: EMB-DENR 2011. Agricultural Savannas Soils 0.05% 24.14%

Source: EMB-DENR 2011. 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 due to enteric fermentation and manure management surface. Without GHGs, the earth’s temperature will contributed 30 percent of the total GHG emission from drop to freezing temperatures. Unfortunately, increase the Philippine agricultural sector (Figure 15). in concentration of anthropogenic GHGs enhances In the absence of country-specific emission fac- global warming and eventually affects our climate. tors, methane and nitrous oxide emissions from live- Methane can remain in the atmosphere for ap- stock can be estimated using the IPCC Tier 1 approach. proximately 9–15 years. Methane is about 21 times Estimates showed that cattle and carabao industry contributed 90 percent of the total methane emission from enteric fermentation (Figure 16). Figure 17: Summary of methane emissions On the other hand, the swine industry contribut- of livestock and poultry from ed 86 percent of the total methane emission from manure manure management, 2000 management (Figure 17). Nitrous oxide is usually gener- Goats Horses ated from manure management. Typical manure man- 0.79% 0.58% Carabao agement options for livestock and poultry are (a) solid Duck 6.94% 0.21% storage and dry lot, (b) pasture range and paddock, and Cattle 3.09% (c) liquid system. About 98 percent of total nitrous oxide emissions are from solid storage and dry lot and pasture Chicken 2.64% range and paddock. Minimal nitrous oxide emissions are Swine produced from liquid systems (Figure 18). The emissions 85.75% of nitrous oxide among major livestock and poultry animals are well distributed. Nitrous oxide emissions from swine, carabao, cattle, and chicken combined for 89 percent of the total nitrous oxide inventory (Figure 19). Source: EMB-DENR 2011. 20 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

Figure 18: Summary of nitrous oxide Figure 19: Summary of nitrous oxide emissions of manure emissions of livestock and management, 2000 poultry, 2000

Chicken 12.30% Pasture Range and Paddock Carabao Solid Storage 47% 25.42% and Dry Lot 51%

Swine Goats 30.50% 7.92% Horses Liquid System 1.93% 2% Duck 1.08% Source: EMB-DENR 2011. Cattle 20.85% more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than Source: EMB-DENR 2011. 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- Table 4 shows the estimated GHG emissions oxide in trapping heat and has a lifespan of 114 years in from enteric fermentation and different manure man- the atmosphere (Steinfeld 2006). 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

GHG Emissions

a Manure (tons CO2eq/year) Enteric Fermentationa b c d Animal (tons CO2eq/year) Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

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 2,152,461 430,493 a Based on the IPCC 2006 Tier 1 method and conversion factor of 1 kg CH4 = 21 kg CO2eq and 1 kg N2O = 310 kg CO2eq b 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. Environmental Impacts of Livestock Production in the Philippines 21

can be emitted by livestock and poultry subsector un- in many areas of Western Europe, the northeastern

der scenario A, 9.9 million tons of CO2eq/year under United States, the coastal Southeast Asia, and large

Scenario B, and 7.1 million tons of CO2eq/year under plains in China (Steinfeld et al. 1997 in Delgado et Scenario C. The global GHG emissions from the live- al. 1999). Such a situation is linked to the increas- stock supply chain are estimated at 7.1 billion tons of ing demand for animal products that triggers animal

CO2eq/year (Gerber et al. 2013). concentrations beyond the waste absorption and feed The contribution of the Philippine livestock and supply capacity of the land. poultry industry to the global anthropogenic GHG Large pig and poultry operations produce emissions might be small. However, as Alcantara et al. greater nutrient discharge per unit product than small (2008) pointed out, the local impacts are still not ade- farm units, thus confirming the public perception quately known. 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 5.3 Soil Pollution the large units do where 40 percent of the large swine farms in the Philippines had a surplus nitrogen bal- 5.3.1 Nitrogen Overload from Manure ance for the surrounding areas and none of the small Production farms had. Also, small pig and poultry farms spent be- Untreated animal waste application to farmland can tween 0 and 100 percent more per kilogram product affect the nutrients of the soil and overload. This on environmental mitigation than large farms (World increases the risk of nutrient runoff and leaching, which Bank, 2005). in turn pollutes water resources. In addition, high lev- Small farms tend to generate lower levels of ex- els of concentration of heavy metals in soil can lead to cess nutrients per hectare than those of larger farms be- adverse effects such as decrease in soil fertility and cause cause small-scale swine farms are mixed systems where plant toxicity. It may also indirectly affect animals and some of the croplands are capable of including the ni- humans through the food chain process (Catelo, Nar- trogen and phosphorous nutrients from livestock oper- rod and Tiongco 2008). ations; thus, in contrast, large commercial farms have A strict institutional compliance and solution the propensity to be a ‘pure-land-intensive’ system. An to environmental problems from hog waste would empirical evidence of soil toxicity has been documented affect mostly the small scale operation and its con- in Lipa City, Batangas, where nitrogen loading has been straints to expand the operation. At the least, large discovered to be 10 times the allowable 100 kilograms producers have the scale to mitigate the impact of of nitrogen per hectare (Lipa Environmental Profile, large investments. Waste disposal practices such as ap- 2000 and IMO-MADECOR,1997 as cited by Catelo, plying hog waste to farmlands can be dangerous when Narrod and Tiongco, 2008). Also, Gerber et al. (2005) there is no oversight of the lands’ and crops’ capaci- as cited by Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco (2008) studied ty to absorb the nutrients (for example, nitrogen and the evidence of phosphate overloads around urban cen- phosphorus) from the waste. When farmlands are alters in Metro Manila, which is significant because of an ready nitrogen saturated or when wastes are improp- average of 15.4 percent of high level for the reference of erly applied to wet fields, there is a great possibility of 20 kg of phosphate per hectare of agricultural land and runoff and leaching that will send the excess nutrients 4 percent of very high level for the reference of 40 kg into waterways. There is now increasing evidence of of phosphate per hectare of agricultural land of phos- huge nutrient surpluses that range from 200 to more phate overloads. Thus, excessive application can also be than 1,000 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per year detrimental. 22 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

In Laguna, as noted by Delgado, Narrod, and commercial production systems (Britanico 2009; Cate- Tiongco (2003), intensification is less of an environ- lo, Narrod and Tiongco 2008). mental problem in poultry than in swine partly be- A study of Britanico (2009) in the supplementa- cause chicken manure can be sold and used as fertil- tion of inorganic trace minerals and chelated supplement izer directly. However, many smallholder farms that for broiler concluded that the inorganic trace mineral produce small amounts of manure are widely distrib- mix supplementation used in the diet gave the signifi- uted in the province; thus, open dumping or release cantly high levels of fecal excretion of trace mineral in of manure by these enterprises into bodies of water contrast to those with chelated trace mineral premix. collectively still creates potential environmental and Intentional direct discharges of hog waste to wa- health problems due to potential nutrient and micro- terways and pipes increase the potential for bacteria ep- bial content. Furthermore, the disposal of large quan- idemics of Pfiesteria piscicidaand heavy metals (Catelo, tities of waste could result in widespread and occasion- Narrod and Tiongco 2008). Some of the heavy metals ally devastating environmental pollution. The lack of are introduced in the feeds of livestock and poultry as aeration lagoons and secondary treatment facilities to trace element supplements. When these trace elements neutralize swine waste before use as organic fertilizers are consumed in excess amounts and released in the ma- can be dangerous when there is a failure to consid- nure, they may contaminate the environment and may er the nutrient absorption capacity of the lands and become a pollutant. This may affect the surface water crops (for example, nitrogen and phosphorus) from and soil and may threaten the community and ecosys- the waste (Paraso et al. 2010). tem hosting the industrial animal production systems. This can also damage plant growth and aquatic systems (PCAARRD-DOST 2002). 5.3.2 Accumulation of Heavy Metals from Livestock Manure Livestock feeds are supplemented with trace minerals 5.4 Water Pollution to prevent various deficiency diseases while serving as catalysts for enzymes and hormones to promote Surface water and groundwater contamination are the optimum health, growth, and productivity (Britan- principal water pollution issues from livestock pro- ico 2009). Improved genetic potential for growth and duction. Nonpoint sources of water pollution include intensified production have increased trace mineral diffuse runoff from areas such as feeding and watering supplementation in commercial livestock operations sites, working corrals, spray pens, and grazed pastures (Kroismayr 2007). or rangeland. The nutrients carried by these runoffs Swine and poultry are fed with fortified feeds will end up in lakes, ponds, streams, or rivers, thereby with heavy metals such as copper and zinc. Although promoting eutrophication. On the other hand, typical this may help overall productivity, there is a risk of tox- point sources of water pollution include man-made icity to plants and animals, and worse, that toxicity is conveyance structures such as feed pens or corrals, con- passed on to humans. These heavy metals may end up finement buildings, slurry storage tanks, pipes or cul- in hog waste and, eventually, in a solid sludge that ac- verts, conveyance channels, holding ponds or lagoons, cumulates at the bottom of lagoons for as long as 10– stockpiles, irrigation systems, and dead animal disposal 20 years until the sludge is removed. These elements facilities. Improperly managed livestock waste can also also pose a risk of diseases as evidenced by the residues be a source of disease-carrying microorganisms that can of growth hormones, antibiotics, and insecticides, contaminate the surface and groundwater supply (Del- which have been found in tissues of animals in highly gado, Narrod, and Tiongco 2003). Environmental Impacts of Livestock Production in the Philippines 23

5.4.1 Surface Water Contamination due to Figure 20: BOD contribution from point Nutrient Runoff sources, 2013 JICA (2002), as cited by Paraso et al. (2010), reported that 35 percent of water pollution in the Philippines is Industry Domestic 24% caused mainly by the discharge of untreated and inade- 31% 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- Agriculture mal waste and untreated wastewater directly into creeks, 45% rivers, and other receiving water bodies resulted in the Source: EMB-DENR 2014. 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- which pollution load factors are based on the WHO try. In addition, the DENR Administrative Order No. Rapid Assessment report (EMB, 2014). 30 Series of 2003 exempts swine farms with less than The degree of pollution from domestic sources 100 heads and poultry farms with less than 10,000 heads is associated with the population living in the location. from EMB monitoring and compliance requirements. Also, the activities and characteristics of the location Over time, such pollution has decreased the qual- either rural or urban are contributed as a factor in this ity and productivity of affected water bodies because contribution. The contribution of BOD generally can their assimilative capacities have likewise deteriorated. be sourced out from urban areas because of the quan- Thus, receiving waters are rendered unfit even for non- tity of fecal discharges from humans and animals asso- contact activities and irrigation. In worse-case scenarios, ciated with minimal or lack of sewage treatment facil- surface waters may become biologically dead. Evidence ities. In Figure 21, densely populated regions of NCR, of such cases in Regions 3, 4, and 10 has been locally Region 4A, and Region 3 are the top three contributors documented by Catelo, Dorado and Agbisit (2001) and of BOD based on the load generated. In contrast, the Deustch et al. (2000), which is cited in the study of CAR has the lowest BOD load since inhabitation in the Rola et al. (2003) (Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco 2008). location is sparse (EMB 2014). It is estimated that 4.5 million tons of BOD was Nonpoint sources are generally the type of pollu- generated by pollution point sources in 2013. Point tion load that depends on the land use. Thus, pollution sources such as human settlements, agricultural sites, load from nonpoint sources (Figure 22) are estimated and commercial and industrial discharges collectively based on land uses from the agricultural, forest, and contribute to the pollution of freshwater, groundwater, urban sector. The BOD loading from nonpoint sourc- and coastal and marine waters. The BOD contribution es is estimated to be at 465,595 tons in 2013, from encompasses the production of livestock and poul- which the contributions are 61 percent, 29 percent, try animals such as swine, chicken, cattle, and other and 10 percent from agricultural runoff, urban runoff, dairy farming activities. Wastewater from these sourc- and forest runoff, respectively. es is generally high in organic content. Furthermore, In 2008, the Laguna Lake Development Author- most of the backyard animal farms have no appropriate ity (LLDA) reported the pollution discharge of various wastewater treatment facilities. Agricultural BOD con- industries into Laguna Lake. The report showed live- tribution (Figure 20) was calculated using animal type stock and poultry farms as the third largest contributor and number of heads of livestock and poultry from of organic load in terms of BOD. The total amount of 24 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

Figure 21: BOD load (in thousand tons) in Figure 22: BOD contribution from relation to population, 2013 nonpoint sources, 2013

12 Forest Runoff 11 10% Urban Runoff 10 29% 9 8 7 6 5 Agriculture

Region 4B Runoff 4A 45% NCR 3 Source: EMB-DENR 2014. CAR 2 1 both humans and animals, such as cholera, dysentery, 0 50 100 150 200 250 and diarrhea (Alcantara et al. 2008).

Source: EMB-DENR 2014.

5.4.2 Microbial Contamination of Surface wastewater discharge by livestock and poultry reached Water 2,500 m3 per day and the total BOD loading was Microbial runoff from livestock or use of excreta as fer- 153,000 kg/year (Gaccho et al. 2010). tilizer (domestic animals such as poultry, cattle, sheep, Regardless of the scale of operations, most of the and pigs) generates 85 percent of the world’s animal poultry and swine farms in Laguna resorted to environ- fecal waste (Dufour et al. 2012). Because most swine mentally unacceptable ways of effluent management. raisers do not confine hog wastes to their land, there Effluent disposal that involves the use of water to flush have been numerous cases of waste spills. Animal wastes waste out of the pens and permitting this to flow to the are carriers of parasites, bacteria, and viruses including nearest creek or river is expected to worsen soil, air, and Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli, Cryptosporidium, water pollution in the province, particularly of Laguna Giardia, cholera, Streptococcus, and chlamydia. Crypto- Lake, through its tributaries or by way of surface runoff Sporidium and Giardia are found to be resistant to con- (Paraso et al. 2010). ventional chlorination, and therefore, there is greater Practice of improper disposal of animal sewage probability of drinking water contamination when can resort to degradation and deterioration of water lagoons containing high concentrations of hog manure quality of both surface and groundwater. Contaminants leak (Catelo ,Narrod and Tiongco, 2008). can reach the aquifer in the form of leachate or directly Apparently, scarcity of wastewater treatment leak into bodies of water (lakes and rivers) where they facilities and the methods in which animal wastes are are a threat to biodiversity. Pollution may also be from disposed of can be correlated (Alcantara et al. 2008). livestock wastes where they are openly dumped or ap- There is evidence that most livestock operations in the plied as fertilizer directly. Though nutrients from waste Laguna province are violating some of the pollution may be taken up by plants growing in the fields, there is regulations in some of the swine farms. In the province, always a threat of the runoff contaminating water sourc- 68 percent of the disposed wastewater from the farms is es; thus, outbreaks can lead to water-borne diseases in directly discharged to a nearby creek, river, canal, and/ Environmental Impacts of Livestock Production in the Philippines 25 or open space. In addition, untreated sewage carries a agricultural practices, which include use of animal hazardous load of metals, such as copper and zinc that waste and fertilizer and pesticide runoff (EMB 2014). are often added to animal feed, and other chemicals In 1973, critical levels of pollution were already detect- used in livestock operations, such as pesticides, hor- ed in Laguna Lake (Figure 23). mones, and antibiotics, including infectious microorganisms (EPA 2001). E. coli bacteria is one of the most About 5,000 tons of nitrogen were estimated to frequent causes of diarrhea and intestinal infections, have entered the lake, from which 26 percent and their presence in water indicates the presence of came from domestic sources, 36 percent from fecal waste. These microorganisms thrive naturally in livestock and poultry, 5 percent from industrial human and animal intestines and pass through the anal sources, 11 percent from fertilizers, and 22 per- region through fecal excretion (Rundina-Dela Cruz et cent from the Pasig River backflow. The focus on al. 2014). About 4,200 people die each year due to con- nitrogen was because of the initial findings that taminated drinking water (Claudio 2015). nitrogen limits algal growth in the lake (Table In November 2010, a case from the Department 5). A follow-up study conducted from 1975 to of Health recommended the rehabilitation of Danao 1977 also indicated that nitrogen appeared to City’s water source after water sampling results revealed be the most likely limiting factor which controls fecal contamination. About 210 residents were diag- algal growth in the complex interaction of nutri- nosed with diarrhea, resulting in four deaths. Among ent supply, light penetration, water temperature, them were patients between 6 and 10 years of age. Most and lake turbidity. Reyes (2012) as cited by Sze- of the patients diagnosed with diarrhea were found to kielda, Espiritu and Lagrosas (2014) provided be younger than five years of age. It was confirmed that a rough estimate of the dimensions of nutrient water samples from a spring were contaminated with E. loading (pollution) in Laguna Lake, and it was coli bacteria, and the source of water was found to be reported that domestic, industrial, agricultural, located less than 25 m from a septic tank (EMB 2014). and forest sources contributed 39,622 tons of nitrogen, which is higher than the records of SOGREAH (1974), as cited by Lasco and Espal- 5.4.3 Groundwater Contamination due to don (2005). Included in the estimation of the Nitrate Leaching same year is the estimated 9,506 tons level of Spills and leaks to the surrounding land allow ground- phosphorus (Lasco and Espaldon 2005). water and surface water contamination (Catelo, Narrod and Tiongco, 2008). High levels of nitrate in ground- Figure 23: Percentage nitrogen estimation water are concomitant with intense agricultural activ- from Laguna Lake, 1973 ities, septic systems, confined animal facilities, and Pasig River Domestic wastewater treatment facilities. In drinking water, high Backﬂow Sources levels of nitrate is unhealthy for pregnant women as 22% 26% this could lead to methemoglobinemia or blue baby syndrome due to the decrease in the oxygen-carrying Fertilizers 11% capacity of blood. Moreover, livestock can be sensitive to high levels of nitrate (EMB 2014). Industrial Livestock According to the 2001–2005 National Wa- Sources and Poultry 5% 36% ter Quality Status Report, it is estimated that about 37 percent of the total water pollution originates from Source: Lasco and Espaldon 2005. 26 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

Table 5: Percentage distribution of nitrogen The negative impact of eutrophication is that emission into Laguna de Bay high primary productivity, in response to the abundant nutrient supply, occasionally leads to massive fish mor- Source of N 1974: 5,000 tons 2000: 13,800 Emission N per year tons N per year tality. The event can be triggered by certain meteorologi- cal modifications or the senescence of microcystis blooms. Domestic 26% 79% The rapid breakdown of a bloom and its bacterial decay Livestock and Poultry 36% 16.5% (Agricultural) in the water column may result in aerobic or even an- Fertilizer 11% — aerobic conditions due to the actual collapse of bloom Pasig River 22% — conditions. This is considered to be an outcome from Industrial 5% 4.5% possible viral or bacterial attack, depleted nutrients, ex- Total 100% 100% Source: Lasco and Espaldon 2005. cretion of toxic substances, and exposure to anoxic and Note: Data were extracted from SOGREAH (1974) and Reyes (2012). toxic water (Szekielda, Espiritu, and Lagrosas 2014). PESTICIDE USE IN CONFINEMENT 6 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 insecticides 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.

USE OF ANTIBIOTICS IN LIVESTOCK 7

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 antibiotics 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 projected 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. 30 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector growth of the livestock and poultry sector in swine and of 2015, (c) the establishment of modes to reduce ther- chicken, respectively (Cresencio 2012). apeutic use in animals in Europe, and (d) the impact of Antibiotics are permitted in the Philippines, all the above on world trade of meat and products. provided that therapeutic indications are valid. In prac- The study to test residues of antibiotics in poul- tice, many popular antibiotic growth promoters have try on Campylobacter jejuni gave concrete evidence these indications (Kroismayr 2007). However, the ex- of a definite association between the development of tent and level of antibiotic resistance or antimicrobial AMR and usage of antibiotics in poultry production. resistance (AMR) in the country has not been estab- The occurrence of multiresistance of the microorgan- lished because of the necessary work and resources that ism gained significant findings from among the C. je- must be done. Limited studies were conducted in this juni isolates from 64.2 percent of the 162 liver samples field by Cresencio (2012). Furthermore, legislation did from freshly dressed chickens at the dressing plants of not stop the overuse of antibiotics as growth promot- commercial chicken producers and backyard raisers ers until the Food Safety Act of 2013 (RA No. 10611) (Baldrias, Gatchalian-Yee, and Raymundo 2008). The was established by the government to protect the safe- antibiotic exposure of the sampled chicken population ty and health of the consumer from trade malpractice provides evidence that development of multiresistance and from substandard or hazardous products. The BAI, among the isolates is a possible reaction to selective veterinary practitioners, and other stakeholders also pressure or stresses created by prolonged exposure to have to contend with (a) the global threat of antibiotic antimicrobials. The indication of higher level of antibi- resistance and guidelines by the World Health Orga- otic residues in backyard farms is the indiscriminate use nization, (b) the total ban on subtherapeutic use on an- of antibacterials in poultry operations, either through imals (and fish) by the European Union countries as of improper dosing or nonobservance of the appropriate 2006 and the decision in the United States at the end withdrawal period. STATUS OF RACEHORSES AND GAME FOWL 8 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 concerns are, therefore, inconsequential. Likewise, medications, especially for racehorses, are well self-regulated, according to veterinarian resource persons consulted.

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 Source: EMB-DENR 2011.

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 32 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

Table 8: Total inventory of chicken by brought for home consumption. However, because farm type, by classification, in the these carcasses are not sold like other poultry meat, the Philippines, as of July 1, 2006 issue of food safety and abuse in both therapeutic and nontherapeutic use of antibiotics and other compounds Farm Type is largely ignored and unregulated. Classification Backyard Commercial Total Game fowls are bred almost throughout the

TOTAL 71,779,778 75,279,871 147,059,649 country but commercially in large flocks up to several Native/Improved 64,595,362 71,306 64,666,668 hundred in Region 6 (15.48 percent). Most of the game Layer 529,695 22,526,604 23,056,299 fowls in Luzon are bred in Pangasinan in Region 1, Isa- Broiler 1,590,539 51,172,679 52,763,218 bela in Region 2, Pampanga in Region 3, all provinces of Game fowl 5,064,182 1,509,282 6,573,464 Region 4A except Cavite, and Camarines Sur and Mas- Source: BAS 2011. bate in Region 5 (BAS 2011). raised in commercial operations and the remainder are raised in backyard operations (BAS 2011). This trans- 8.3 Use of Performance Enhancers for lates to about 4,000 birds per municipality and city of Racehorses and Game Fowls the 1,490 and 144, respectively, countrywide Figure 24. Virtually each municipality and city operates a cockpit An animal welfare law regulates the use of performance with one or more ‘sessions’ per week. Such a deadly enhancement drugs, including medications that are sport with high mortality and morbidity is a thriving stricter for meat animals. Still, the risk exists, but there industry in itself, with choice feeds, supplements, and are no known attempts to measure the consumption of medications. Most of the dead birds are consumed meat from animals subject to performance enhancement either in food shops within the cockpit compound or drugs from game fowl and, to a lesser extent, racehorses.

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

18 1,200,000 16 1,000,000 14 12 800,000 10 600,000 8 Percent 6 400,000 4 200,000 2 0 0 CAR NCR Valley ARMM Region Cagayan CARAGA Northern Peninsula Mindanao MIMAROPA Zamboanga Bicol Region IIocos Region Davao Region Central Luzon CALABARZON Central Visayas Eastern Visayas Western Visayas SOCCSKSARGEN % Distribution Inventory

Source: BAS 2011. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK 9 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 respiratory 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 34 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector in manure include ammonia, acetic acid, butanoic acid vulnerable are six-month-old infants, pregnant wom- (butyric acid), dimethyl disulfide, dimethyl sulfide, and en, and adults with immune deficiencies. Likewise, more (Trosgård 2015). In addition, sulfur dioxide has high nitrate levels may promote growth of pfiesteria in an irritating rotten smell that is released from locations the air and water. Pfiesteria is a harmful organism, ex- with large quantities of manure stored or produced, posure to which may cause skin irritation, short-term such as manure storage and animal farms. These loca- memory loss, and other cognitive impairments. This tions have the potential to release high levels of concen- organism, according to some medical reports, is also trations of this gas. For such cases, if the release of this responsible for the open sores in the skin of individ- substance is high, effects on the environment may occur uals who spend a lot of time in water, for example, and the health of nearby households may be affected commercial fishermen and underwater divers (Catelo, (Ni et al. 2000). Narrod and Tiongco 2008). In Region 3, residents from Barangays San Juan The vapor emitted by swine farms, which con- de Mata and Sto. Domingo in the municipality of Tar- tains noxious gases such as methane, ammonia, and lac, have been very vigilant in voicing their complaints hydrogen sulfide, filter through the skins and houses against the harmful effects of the operations of three of people living near the farms. While methane and large commercial hog farms (and poultry farms) on ammonia are large contributors to greenhouse effects, their health and the environment. The people com- hydrogen sulfide greatly affects human health. Hydro- plained about the hog stench from the piggeries with- gen sulfide, usually associated with a ‘rotten egg’ smell, in a 1 km radius (Catelo, Dorado and Agbisit 2001). has caused symptoms such as nausea, blackout periods, Negative effects were experienced by households that headaches, and vomiting. The odor not only sinks into are constantly exposed to the foul odor of swine farms human tissue but also to clothing and furnishings. The from 5 to 10 m distance. Foul odors were emphasized odor, once absorbed into the lungs, moves into the by 70 percent and 30 percent of the 176 households bloodstream through gas exchange in the lungs. It then near piggeries and of swine raiser households, respec- reaches the brain via the nasal route (Catelo, Narrod tively—that it was a usual thing in the morning during and Tiongco 2008). the cleaning of the pens. Furthermore, households of In Majayjay, Laguna, the annual average expen- swine raisers admitted the sticking of foul odors to their diture for health problems of the households of swine clothes, difficulty in breathing, headaches, and loss of raisers and households near swine farms amounted to appetite. PHP 72,220.00. This includes expenditures on respi- Several health effects are associated with hog ratory problems such as asthma (PHP 27,198.00), gas- wastes, such as gastrointestinal diseases from ground- trointestinal problems or diarrhea (PHP 17,302.00), water contamination, respiratory ailments, nausea, conjunctivitis (PHP 16,031.00), influenza (PHP blackouts, headaches, and vomiting from high-level in- 8,012.00) and allergies (PHP 3,677.00). Households halation of noxious gases from livestock manure, skin near pig farms were relatively vocal about their views re- irritation, short-term memory loss, and other cognitive garding the effects of malodors, which they have always impairments including methemoglobinemia or the considered a nuisance. The perceived major effects did blue baby syndrome because of the growth of pfiesteria not differ from those identified by swine raisers’ house- in the air and water at high nitrate concentrations. holds although there is a difference in how they ranked High levels of nitrogen in drinking water in- them and is as follows: households suffered from head- crease the risk of methemoglobinemia, more common- aches, loss of appetite, vomiting/nausea, odor sticking ly known as the blue baby syndrome. Critical cases to clothes, and difficulty in breathing (Catelo, Narrod may lead to brain damage or even death. The most and Tiongco 2008). Socioeconomic Impacts of Livestock Production in the Philippines 35

There are also instances when livestock and water shortage for livestock production can likewise poultry excreta can contaminate food products because cause water stress in animals. Changes in temperature, they are capable of being a good reservoir of infectious rainfall patterns, and carbon dioxide concentrations agents that can cause several kinds of diseases (Maghi- are expected to directly affect availability and quality rang, De La Cruz, and Villareal undated). There is in- of feed materials for livestock, as well as the life cycles creasing public and scientific concern about the use of of livestock diseases and disease vectors. Pasture grasses antibiotics as feed additives in animal production. This will have reduced nitrogen content, which would likely concern is triggered by the idea of antibiotic resistance affect animal productivity, particularly sheep (Lasco et in many human pathogenic bacteria, the release of al. 2011). contaminating residues into the environment such as In the Benig River, there has been a significant in water and soil, and the risk that growth-promoting reduction in both quantity and quality of marine life. antibiotic residues may occur in foods of animal origin The river is now biologically dead from the discharge (Jouany and Morgavi 2007). points of swine wastes. Before the establishment of the Extensive use of antibiotics in livestock and poul- swine farms, farmers were still able to use the river for try that result in contamination of food is now increas- irrigation. These swine farms, which raise about 30,000 ingly linked to AMR. Antibiotics have greatly enhanced heads each, are located in agricultural and residential ar- human life expectancy, reduced mortality, improved the eas and do not have any waste treatment facilities. They quality of life, and almost won the war against many dump their wastes directly into the water body. They infectious diseases. However, reports of antibiotic-resis- also do not have location and zoning clearance. There tant bacteria isolated from farms and animal carcasses is also the proliferation of flies and insects and other are raising concerns that antibiotic use in agriculture disease vectors. It was found out that more than 80 per- may play a role in antibiotic resistance among food- cent of the raisers do not have any treatment facilities at based bacteria (Baldrias 2012; Baldrias, Gatchalian-Yee, all and dump their waste directly into rivers and creeks and Raymundo 2008). 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 9.2 Biodiversity become polluted and emit foul odors. The association was also explained in their study, that this is because of Numerous small- to large-scale livestock enterprises the increase in household population and the establish- exist within the lake basin with untreated farm efflu- ment of swine farms in Majayjay. The wastes that come ent frequently discharged into its tributaries. Nutrient from piggeries, as well as from households, go to the loading in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus from rivers because of the indiscriminate dumping by house- animal by-products from swine and poultry farms has holds and hog raisers. led to eutrophication of the lake, severely reducing its In addition to the industries, experts from the biota (Alcantara and Donald 1996). The presence of LLDA revealed that slaughterhouses also largely con- pollutants and contaminants from both point and non- tribute to the deterioration of the water quality of La- point sources alters water conditions resulting in eco- guna Lake and its tributaries with filed pollution cases system dysfunction and a drop in biodiversity. on 24 slaughterhouse facilities operating in the prov- Increasing surface temperature can cause heat inces of Laguna, Cavite, and Rizal in 2008. These cases stress in livestock, which may result in behavioral and included violation of the pollution control code and metabolic changes, including reduced feed intake, there- operating without LLDA clearance and discharge per- by leading to a decline in productivity. The projected mits (Maranan et al. 2008). 36 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

9.3 Consumer Demand Vis-a-Vis Poor product consumption. Hence, the conditions under Environmental Management which animals are nurtured are becoming a growing public health concern. The public is becoming increas- Awareness and discrimination of consumers is increas- ingly aware of the safety and health hazards of consum- ing with regard to what they eat. Awareness is high- ing meat, milk, and eggs. They are also becoming sen- est with respect to fruit and vegetable consumption, sitized to animal welfare, and environmental protection and next highest with respect to livestock and poultry (Alcantara et al. 2008). INTERVENTIONS 10

10.1 Policies and Regulations

10.1.1 Livestock and Poultry Feeds Act The Livestock and Poultry Feeds Act (RA No. 1556) is the key law governing animal 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 2013 The 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 substandard 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 2003 DENR 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. 38 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

10.1.4 LLDA Resolution No. 169, Series of Volume 3 - PAES 414-1: 2002 Agricultural Structure 2001 - Waste Management Structures Part I: Agricultural This resolution approved the Policy Guidelines Govern- Liquid Wastes ing the Operation of Backyard Piggeries or Small Scale This standard specifies the minimum requirements for Hog Farms in the Laguna de Bay Region. It intends the design and construction of structures for the manage- to promote proven waste minimization and reduction ment of liquid components of agricultural waste. It spec- technologies as well as waste recycling and reuse prac- ifies the requirements for waste collection, runoff collec- tices among small piggery or backyard hog farm owners tion, reception pits, screening, size reduction, solid-liquid to more effectively regulate pollution emanating from separation, oil and grease interceptor, storage, treatment, such farms. effluent and sludge treatment, and odor control.

Volume 3 - PAES 414-2: 2002 Agricultural Structure 10.1.5 Philippine Agricultural Engineering - Waste Management Structures Part II: Agricultural Standards Solid Waste - Composting The Philippine Agricultural Engineering Standards This standard specifies the minimum requirements for (PAES) provide a standard specification/application the design and construction of structures for the man- and standard method of test for agricultural produc- agement of solid components of agricultural waste. It tion machinery, postharvest machinery, engineering specifies the requirements for storage, composting, and materials, and agricultural structures that are appropri- disposal of solid agricultural waste. ate for Philippine conditions. These standards are being adopted by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and serve as the National Standards for Agricultural Engi- 10.2 Farm-level Technology neering under Administrative Order No. 10, s. 2002. Similarly, the standards shall be used by professional 10.2.1 Manure Management and agricultural engineers in the preparation and imple- Utilization vs Potential Pollution mentation of engineering designs, plans, and specifica- Based on available studies of waste and manure dis- tions and performance of agricultural machinery and posal, along with limited field observations, Table 9 structures. illustrates the extent to which these wastes could be uti- Standards for the design and construction of lized and correspondingly reduce pollution. In Scenario biogas plant and other waste management structures A, 25 percent manure is properly utilized or 75 percent can be found in PAES volumes 2 and 3. Specifically, is potentially polluting; in Scenario B, it is 50:50, and these can be found in the following sections: in Scenario C, 90 percent and 10 percent, correspondingly. Ideally, collective efforts aimed at the enforce- Volume 2 - PAES 413: 2001 Agricultural Structure - ment of laws and regulations, and at public extension Biogas Plant and education, should aim for 100 percent utilization This standard specifies the general requirements for the so that pollution will only come from emitted gases, as design and construction of a biogas plant utilizing ani- clarified in Table 9. mal wastes. It specifies the location requirements and Manure management systems and utilization sizing of components. It also specifies structural and measures to reduce pollution are the following: functional requirements for mixing tank, inlet pipe, digester, gas chamber, outlet pipe, outlet tank, and a. Direct incorporation in the soil or field or fish groundwater drainage. ponds (that is, chicken manure). In backyard Interventions 39

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

Estimated Manure Production as Excreted Animala Population (heads) (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 13,057,204 a 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.

and medium farms, loose, free-range, or even cleaning of pens for proper conveyance and stor- tethered animals just scatter droppings any- age and (2) roofs and eaves to separate rainwa- where. This needs to be gathered or conveyed to ter (especially stormwater) without mixing with crop fields. In the pen or shelter, fresh manure waste and manure into drains. is collected and piled beside the pen, conveyed directly as mulch, or spread in pasture or fal- low crop fields. This practice can complement 10.2.2 Organic Agriculture composting and vermicomposting by enriching Organic agriculture is defined as the ecological produc- the carbon:nitrogen ratio of the resulting mix. tion management system that promotes and enhances Range-pastured animals also leave manure in the biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activ- field, which is left to dry and eventually incorpo- ities. Earlier related movements include ’Natural Agri- rated into the soil if not burned. culture’, ‘Biodynamic Farming’, and the like, all of b. Biogas. Since the early 1980s, design of biogas which emphasize minimal to zero use of synthetic pes- digesters has evolved from concrete tanks to ticides, compounds, and chemicals; prevent burning of semiportable reinforced plastic containers that residues; and facilitate and favor, not disrupt, biological facilitate fuel use of the emitted methane. processes through soil microbes and earthworms to help c. Composting. Manure and waste are piled, along build up organic matter. The International Federation with other farm trash and trimmings, includ- of Organic Agriculture Movements leads the global ing biodegradable home trash such as vegetable promotion of food safe from overreliance on pesticides trimmings and so on. and other compounds. It was founded in 1972, with d. Vermicomposting. In response to a growing headquarters in Bonn, Germany, with 800 affiliates in organic agriculture movement, earthworms are 117 countries. Affiliates like those in the Philippines used to facilitate degradation of organic matter help set up a certification mechanism for produce. into vermicompost and/or vermicast, the result- The Philippines enacted the Organic Agriculture ing excreta of the worms. Act in 2012. Since then, the government through the e. Well-designed manure handling facilities. In DA and other agencies has set up a certification system large farms, building and structure design often and established extension mechanisms to assist espe- overlooks two items: (1) facilitation for regular cially smallholder farmers. 40 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

Figure 25: Changes in vermiculture/ 10.2.4 Vermicomposting earthworm culture from Vermicomposting is a waste management technology 1991 to 2002 utilizing earthworms to convert organic wastes into 7,000 high-quality castings and vermicomposts of high eco- 6,000 nomic value while vermiculture is the art and science 5,000 of worm rearing. The two main products of vermicul- 4,000 ture and vermicomposting are worms and composts. 3,000 These products are simultaneously produced during the 2,000

Number of farms conversion process and can further be transformed into 1,000 other valuable vermi products (Adorada 2007). Livestock 0 manure is one of the substrates used in vermicomposting. 1991 2002 There is an increase of 153 percent from 1991 Source: PSA 2015. 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 10.2.3 Composting Region 7 (PSA 2015). Composting is the natural or controlled conversion Six earthworm species have been identified to of organic matter through biological and chemical be potentially the most useful species in digesting or- processes into a soil amendment or fertilizer. Com- ganic matter. These are Eisenia. fetida, Dendrobaena posting can be enhanced by microbial preparations, veneta, and Lumbricus rubellus from temperate regions including bulking agents (such as rice hull, boiler ash, and Eudrilus eugeniae, Perionyx excavatus, and Perionyx mud press, bagasse, and rice straw) and odor-erasing hawaiana from the tropics (Guerrero and Guerrero-del ones. For example, the KOOPLIKAS, a member of Castillo 2006). The African night crawler (Eudrilus eu- the Sorosoro Ibaba Development Cooperative in Lipa, geniae), wanders at night and leaves the vermin bins Batangas, uses sludge from biogas, chicken manure, (PCAARRD-DOST 2002). rice hull, boiler ash, mud press, bagasse, and rice straw to create organic fertilizers. It has a guaranteed analysis of 1.5 percent of nitrogen, 4.5 percent of phos- 10.2.5 Biogas Digesters phorus, 3.0 percent of potassium, and micronutrients Biogas technology in the country is already in the com- such as calcium, manganese, zinc, magnesium, iron, mercial stage. Several hundred biogas units exist in var- copper, and sulfate. Odorless confinement of hogs for ious sizes to deal with the level of generation of wastes the organically and naturally farmed pigs is possible by from agricultural sources (PCARRD-DOST, PARRFI, inclusion of odor-erasing premixes on a concrete-less DA-BAR 2004). The Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) floor that is almost 1 m deep and alternately spread has installed biogas digesters in several regions in the with rice straw, mountain soil, or soil high in organic Philippines. Most of the installed biogas digesters are matter, the odor-erasing premix, and rice hull (Bar- located in Region 2 and Region 4 to compensate for the roga undated). large population of swine. 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. 42 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

Britanico, Ellen Bandilla. 2009. “Effects of Supple- Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Animal Statis- menting Diets with Amino Acid Chelates of tics. 2011. A Situation Report on the Gamefowl Copper, Zinc, Manganese, and Iron on the Per- Industry in the Philippines. formance of Broilers.” Thesis. Dufour A, Bartram J, Bos R, Gannon V (2012) Animal Burton, C. H., and C. Turner. 2003. Manure Manage- waste, water quality and human health. IWA Pub- ment: Treatment and Strategies for Sustainable Ag- lishing, London as cited from Wastewater Man- riculture. 2nd ed. Silsoe Research Institute. agement: A UN-Water Analytical Brief. P 21. Catelo, M. A., and C. A. Narrod, M.M. Tiongco. 2008. EMB-DENR (Environmental Management Bureau, Structural Changes in the Philippine Pig Industry Department of Environment and Natural Re- and Their Environment Implications. IFPRI Dis- sources). 2006. National Water Quality Status cussion Paper 00781. International Food Policy Report 2001–2005. Quezon City: Department Research Institute (IFPRI) Washington, D.C. of Environment and Natural Resources. Catelo, M. A., M. A. Dorado, and E. J. Agbisit. 2001. ______. 2014. National Water Quality Status Report Backyard and Commercial Piggeries in the Phil- 2006–2013. Quezon City: Department of Envi- ippines: Environmental Consequences and Pollu- ronment and Natural Resources. tion Control Options. EEPSEA Research Report ______. 2011. Tracking Greenhouse Gases. An in- 2001-RR6. Ottawa: International Development ventory manual. Published under the Philip- Research Centre pines: Enabling Activities for the Preparation of Chang, H. S. 2007. “Analysis of Philippine Chicken the Second National Communication on Cli- Industry: Commercial versus Backyard Sectors.” mate Change to the UNFCCC. A Project of the Asia Journal of Agriculture and Development 4 Government of the Philippines and the United (1): 41-56. Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Claudio, L. E. 2015. “Wastewater Management in the which serves as the Implementing Agency of the Philippines.” Environmental Management Bu- Global Environment Facility. 162 pp. reau Region 3. Department of Environment and EPA (Environment Protection Agency) 2001. Water Pro- Natural Resources. Quezon City, Philippines tection Practices Bulletin. Managing Livestock, Cresencio, R. O. 2012. Proceedings of the International Poultry, and Horse Waste to Prevent Contamina- Workshop on the Use of Antimicrobials in Live- tion of Drinking Water. http://www.epa.gov. stock Production and Antimicrobial Resistance FFTC (Food and Fertilizer Technology Center). 2012. in the Asia-Pacific Region. Negombo, Sri Lan- “Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for Asia ka: Bureau of Animal Industry, Department of and Pacific Region.” FFTC Annual Paper 2011. Agriculture. Taiwan, China: FFTC. Delgado, C. L., C. A. Narrod, and M. M. Tiongco. Food Safety Act of 2013. http://www.gov.ph/2013/08/23/ 2003. Policy, Technical, and Environmental De- republic-act-no-10611/. terminants and Implications of the Scaling-Up of Gerber, P. J., H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Livestock Production in Four Fast-Growing Devel- Opio, J. Dijkman, A. Falcucci, and G. Tempio. oping Countries: A Synthesis. Rome: FAO. 2013. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock Delgado, C., M. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld, S. Ehui, and – A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation C. Courbois. 1999. “Livestock to 2020: The Opportunities. Rome: FAO. Next Food Revolution.” 2020 Vision Discussion Gurrero, R. D., III, and M. R. A. Guerrero-del Castil- Paper 28. Washington, DC: International Food lo, eds. 2006. “Vermitechnologies for Develop- Policy Research Institute. ing Countries.” Proceedings of the International REFERENCES 43

Symposium-Workshop on Vermi Technologies Maranan, R. F., M. G. Paraso, A. J. Alcantara, M. V. for Developing Countries (ISWVT 2005). Los Espaldon, S. A. Alaira, C. C. Sevilla, et al. 2008. Banos, Laguna, Philippines: Philippine Fisheries “Operations and Waste Management of Slaughter- Association, Inc. houses in the Province of Laguna.” Journal of Envi- Haas, G., Wetterich, F. and U. Köpke. 2001. Compar- ronmental Science and Management 11 (2): 32–41. ing intensive, extensified and organic grassland National Engineering R&D Team. 2002. “R&D Sta- farming in southern Germany by process life tus and Directions (2000 and Beyond): Ag- cycle assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and ricultural Engineering.” Los Banos, Laguna: Environment 83, 43–53. PCARRD-DOST. Heijungs, R.; Guinee, J.B.; HUppes, G.; Lankreijer, Ni, J. Q., A. J. Heber, K. J. Fakhoury, P. Shao, A. L. R.M.; Udo De Haes, H.A.; Wegener Sleeswijk, Sutton, D. Kelly, J. A. Patterson, and S. T. Kim. A.; Ansems, A.M.M.; Eggels, P.G.; Van Duin, 2000. “Laboratory Measurement of Hydrogen R.; De Goede H.P (1992): Environmental Sulfide and Sulfur Dioxide Releases from Swine Life-Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide and Manure of Different Solid Contents.” An ASAE Backgrounds. CML, Leiden University, Leiden, Meeting Presentation. Paper 004082, July 9–12, The Netherlands ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). 2006. NMIS (National Meat Inspection Service). 2015. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse NMIS Report 2015. Quezon City: Department Gas Inventories. Vol. 4 Agriculture, Forestry and of Agriculture. http://www.nmis.gov.ph. other Land Use. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or. Padura, V. R., and A. J. Alcantara. 2014. “Environmen- jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html. tal Audit for Swine Waste Management Systems Jouany, J., and D. Morgavi. 2007. Use of ‘Natural’ in Lipa City, Philippines.” International Confer- Products as Alternatives to Antibiotic Feed Ad- ence on Agriculture, Food and Environmental ditives in Ruminant Production. Animal 1(10): Engineering (ICAFEE 2014), January 15–16, 1443–1466. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 15–19. Kroismayr, Arthur. 2007. Feed Additives.”Pig Progress Paraso, M. G., M. V. Espaldon, A. J. Alcantara, C. C. 23 (4). http://www.pigprogress.net/. Sevilla, S. A. Alaira, M. J. Sobremisana, et al. Lasco RD, Habito CMD, Delfi no RJP, Pulhin FB, 2010. “A Survey of Waste Management Practices Concepcion RN. 2011. Climate Change Adap- of Selected Swine and Poultry Farms in Laguna, tation for Smallholder Farmers in Southeast Asia. Philippines.” Journal of Environmental Science World Agroforestry Centre, Philippines. 65p and Management 13 (2): 44–52. Lasco, R. D., and M. V. Espaldon. 2005. Ecosystems PCAARRD (Philippine Council for Agriculture, and People: The Philippine Millennium Ecosys- Aquatic, and Natural Resources Research and tem Assessment (MA): Sub-Global Assessment. Los Development). 2012. Crossbreeding for Slaughter Banos: Environmental Programme, College of Pig Production. Los Banos, Laguna: PCAARRD. Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Farm Primer No. 26/2012; Reprint. the Philippines. PCAARRD-DOST. 2002. Organic Agriculture in the Maghirang, R. G., R. De La Cruz, and R. L. Villareal. Philippines: A Training Manual. Los Banos, La- n.d. “How Sustainable is Organic Agriculture guna: PCAARRD-DOST. PCAARRD Training in the Philippines?” Transactions of the National Module No. 4/2012. Academy of Science and Technology Philippines 33 PCAARRD-DOST, PARRFI, and DA-BAR. 2004. (2): 289–321. Agricultural Waste Processing and Management 44 An Overview of Agricultural Pollution in the Philippines: The Livestock Sector

Committee. 2003. The Philippine Recommends Potential.” Dissertation, Doctor of Philosophy for Agricultural Waste Processing and Manage- in Microbiology. ment. Philippine Recommends Series No. 71. Szekielda, K. H., E. Espiritu, and N. Lagrosas. 2014. Los Banos, Laguna: “Eutrophication of Manila Region, Philippines.” Pratt, P.F. and J.Z. Castellanos. 1981. Available nitro- International Journal of Geology, Earth & Envi- gen from animal manures. California Agricul- ronmental Sciences 4 (3): 38–50. ture, Jul-Aug, 24. Trosgård, Emma. 2015. “Small-Scale Biogas Produc- PSA (Philippine Statistics Authority). 2011. Selected tion in the Province of Pampanga, Philippines.” Statistics on Agriculture. Republic of the Philip- Master thesis. pines: PSA. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). ______. 2012. Selected Statistics on Agriculture. Re- 2008.“Agricultural Waste Characteristics.” public of the Philippines: PSA. Chapter 4. In Agricultural Waste Management ______. 2013. Selected Statistics on Agriculture. Re- Field Handbook, Part 651. Washington, DC: public of the Philippines: PSA. USDA, NRCS. Accessed January 6, 2016. ______. 2014. Selected Statistics on Agriculture. Re- USDA (United States Department of Agricul- public of the Philippines: PSA. ture).2008. Agricultural Waste Characteristics. ______. 2015. Selected Statistics on Agriculture. Re- Chapter 4. In Agricultural Waste Management public of the Philippines: PSA. Field Handbook, Part 651. Washington, DC: Ramat, I. B. Undated. Agricultural Waste Management USDA, NRCS. System in the Philippines and Strategies for Pro- US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). July ducing Organic Fertilizer and/or Soil Conditioner. 2009. Resource Assessment for Livestock and Quezon City, Philippines: Department of Agri- Agro-Industrial Wastes – Philippines. Accessed culture, Bureau of Soil and Water Management. January 7, 2016, http://www.globalmethane.org/ Reyes, R., 2012. Pollution loading assessment in the documents/ag_philippines_res_ assessment.pdf. Laguna de Bay watershed using the waste load Velasco, G. 2014. “The History of Meat in the Philip- model of LLDA, Master Thesis, Ateneo de Ma- pines: Why Our Markets Carry Chicken, Beef, nila University. and Pork but Not Horse or Crocodile.” Ac- Rola, A., W. Rola, M. Tiongco, and C. Delgado. 2003. cessed January 3, 2016, http://www.pepper.ph/ Livestock Intensification and Smallholders: A Rap- local-meat-feature/. id Reconnaissance of the Philippines Hog and Poul- World Bank, Agriculture and Rural Development De- try Sectors. International Food Policy Research partment. 2005. Managing the Livestock Revolu- Institute. Washington DC. tion Policy and Technology to Address the Negative Rundina-Dela Cruz, Cynthia Nalda. 2014. “Molecular Impacts of a Fast-Growing Sector. Report No. Detection of Shinga Toxin, Intimin and Hemo- 32725-GLB. lysin of Escherichia coli O157 H7 in the Fecal World Poultry News, Knowledge & Career. 2010. “Less Samples of Native Pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus In-Feed Antibiotics Used in the Philippines.” Erxleben), Goats (Capra Hircus L.) and Cattle March 18, 2010, http://www.worldpoultry.net/ (Bos Taurus L.) from Selected Farms in Cavite, Home/General/2010/3/ Less-in-feed-antibiot- Philippines and Evaluation of the Virulence ics-used-in-the-Philippines-WP007216W. 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433