THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
VEATRIZ MARQUEZ MALITIC
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF CHICKEN FARM ENTERPRISES
IN SELECTED FARMS IN LAGUNA, PHILIPPINES
BACHELOR THESIS
Study Mode
:Full-time
Major
:Environmental Science and Management
Faculty
:Advanced Education Program Office
Batch
:2015-2018
Thai Nguyen, 2018
DOCUMENTATION PAGE WITH ABSTRACT
Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry
Degree Program Bachelor of Environmental Science and Management
Student name
Veatriz Marquez Malitic
Student ID
DTN1454290084
Thesis Title
Supervisor (s)
Sustainability Assessment of Chicken Farm Enterprises in
selected farm in Laguna, Philippines
1. Asst. Prof. Marissa J. Sobremisana (Philippines);
2. Msc. Nguyễn Thị Thu Hương (Vietnam)
Supervisor‟s
signature (s)
Abstract:
Rearing of animals is a beneficial economic activity for agricultural countries like
the Philippines. Chicken farms are built for commercial and bulk production of
meat and eggs. As the demands for products increase, the production shifts toward
intensification which causes and eventually results to major concerns and
disturbances in the environment. These issues suggest the need for a sustainability
assessment to know how different chicken enterprises work and how it can affect
the surroundings. This study was conducted with a total of eight chicken farms in
the municipalities of Victoria and Nagcarlan in the province of Laguna. Interviews
and surveys were conducted to satisfy the objectives of describing the chicken
production, discovering the residents‟ opinion about the farm and analyzing how
these farms might affect the sustainability of the economic, environment and social
sectors. The result from the gathered data was analysed through descriptive
analysis. Relationship between farm owners, contract company, farm workers,
residents and the government has a huge influence to the sustainability of chicken
production. In conclusion, negative impacts evident in the area are not only
ii
associated with the chicken farm‟s production system, but is caused by combined
impacts from multiple contributing factors.
Keywords:
Sustainability Assessment, enterprise, production system,
perception
Number of pages: 105
Date of
Submission:
November 2018
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The making of this research has been arduous but I would like to take this opportunity
to thank everyone who helped me make this thesis possible. Thank you for my loving
parents, Mrs. Arlene and Mr. Ronnie Malitic for all the support financially,
physically, emotionally and spiritually. Special thanks to my mom who drive me off
the survey locations even though we are both not familiar to the area. I would also like
to thank my kuya (brother), Venjamin Martinez and my ate (sister-in-law), Nikko
Martinez, for the constant support, love and prayers. As well as to my nieces, Veniz
and Elisha for effortlessly making me happy and making me forget for a while the
negative emotions I have bottled up during these hard times.
To my ever supportive and honest commentators/advisers, Asst. Prof. Marissa J.
Sobremisana (University of the Philippines Los Baños) and Msc. Nguyễn Thị Thu
Hương (Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry), I am very grateful for
your assistance throughout this study and for sending remarks on my paper despite
your busy schedules. I appreciate your kind words and encouragements just to make
sure that this thesis gets only better on each revision we made together. Thank you
very much.
I would also like to send my utmost gratitude to the Chicken Farm owners and
farmers/workers from Victoria and Nagcarlan, Laguna that I have interviewed. Thank
you for being welcoming and for sharing useful information for my study. And to all
the respondents that I have conducted survey to, thank you very much for your time
and honest opinions. As well as to everyone who I met and helped me throughout my
data gathering in their own different way, a little interaction really goes a long way.
Thank you very much.
To my classmates/friends/siblings at heart, thank you for being my constants. We have
shared numerous struggles and breakdowns, but as well as breakthroughs. This
acknowledgement goes to Francina Balido, Kristina Reyes, Joy Ongkiatco, AJ de
Castro, Pau Hostalero, Jessica Cosico, Luis Chavez, Lester Lagansua and Enzo
Bernardo. Thank you for making my student life bearable. Also, to my friends and
acquaintances that made every situation worthwhile, thank you.
Above all, To GOD Be All The Glory! Human capabilities are limited but He has
made me strong. Through disappointments, doubts and battling emotional wars that I
tried to keep within me, I know I am not fighting alone. The Battle is the Lord‟s.
V.M.M. (K46 NO2)
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... xii
PART I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
1.1. Research rationale .............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Significance of the Study ................................................................................... 4
1.3. Research‟s objectives ......................................................................................... 5
1.4. Research Questions ............................................................................................ 5
1.5. Limitations ......................................................................................................... 5
1.6. Definitions .......................................................................................................... 6
PART II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 7
2.1. Domestication of Chicken in Poultry Production .............................................. 7
2.2. Chicken Industry in the Philippines ................................................................... 8
2.2.1. Domesticated Chicken Species .................................................................... 8
2.2.2. Production Systems ...................................................................................... 8
2.2.2.1. Two Chicken Sectors: Backyard and Commercial Farming ..................... 8
2.2.2.2. Supply Chain: From Producer to Consumer ............................................. 9
2.2.2.3. Production System ................................................................................... 11
2.2.2.4. The Feed .................................................................................................. 12
v
2.2.2.5. Maintenance and Sanitation .................................................................... 13
2.2.2.6. Economic Value and Contribution .......................................................... 14
2.3. The Concept of Sustainability in Chicken Production..................................... 16
2.4. Sustainability Assessment ................................................................................ 19
2.4.1. Environment ............................................................................................... 20
2.4.2. Economy ..................................................................................................... 24
2.4.3. Social .......................................................................................................... 25
PART III. METHODS.................................................................................................. 27
3.1. Materials........................................................................................................... 27
3.1.1. The Request Letters .................................................................................... 27
3.1.2. The Questionnaires ..................................................................................... 27
3.2. Methods ............................................................................................................ 28
3.2.1. The Study Areas ......................................................................................... 29
3.2.2. The Farm Criteria for Assessment .............................................................. 32
3.2.3. The Process of Data Gathering ................................................................... 33
3.2.4. The Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 34
PART IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................. 36
4.1. Physical and Structural Properties of the Chicken Farms................................ 36
4.1.1. Location ...................................................................................................... 36
4.1.2. Farm size .................................................................................................... 36
vi
4.1.3. Building structure and design ..................................................................... 37
4.1.4. Contract Company ...................................................................................... 39
4.1.5. Feed and feed source .................................................................................. 39
4.1.6. Breed type ................................................................................................... 41
4.1.7. Machines ..................................................................................................... 42
4.1.8. Ventilation .................................................................................................. 42
4.1.9. Water Access .............................................................................................. 43
4.2. The Farm Management .................................................................................... 44
4.2.1. Farm regulations ......................................................................................... 44
4.2.2. Harvest ........................................................................................................ 45
4.2.3. Production Downtime ................................................................................. 46
4.2.4. Refilling of Materials ................................................................................. 47
4.2.5. Waste Disposal and Sanitation ................................................................... 47
4.2.6. Farm Workers and their responsibilities .................................................... 48
4.3. The Demographics of Respondents ................................................................. 49
4.3.1. Age of Respondents .................................................................................... 49
4.3.2. Gender of Respondents............................................................................... 50
4.3.3. Occupation of Respondents ........................................................................ 50
4.3.4. Distance of Respondents from the Farm .................................................... 51
4.4. The Communities‟ Perception to the Chicken Farms ...................................... 51
vii
4.4.1. Respondent‟s Involvement to the Environment ......................................... 51
4.4.2. Water, Soil and Air Pollution ..................................................................... 52
4.4.3. Plant and Animal Diversity ........................................................................ 54
4.4.4. Impact of Production regarding Farm Size ................................................ 56
4.4.5. Impact of Chicken Farmers to the Community .......................................... 57
4.4.6. Chicken Farms ............................................................................................ 58
4.4.7. Quality and Price of Chicken Products ...................................................... 60
4.4.8. Perspective on Farm Issues and Daily Living ............................................ 62
4.4.9. Relevance of Health and Forbearance on Farm Issues .............................. 63
4.4.10. Knowledge about Farm Management ...................................................... 65
PART V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 67
5.1. Sustainability of Overall Farm Production ...................................................... 67
5.2. Recommendations for further researches ........................................................ 70
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 71
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 85
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Theoretical Trade Channels of Chicken Industry ................................. 10
Figure 2. Main Processes in Chicken Production................................................. 12
Figure 3. Total number of poultry birds, 1961-2014 ............................................ 16
Figure 4. Relative Contribution of different sectors to Greenhouse Gas emission
in United States, 1995-2005. .................................................................... 22
Figure 5. Average Greenhouse Gas Emissions Per Unit Protein ......................... 23
Figure 6. Average Greenhouse Gas Emissions Per Kilocalorie ........................... 23
Figure 7. Location Map of Laguna Province with municipalities ........................ 31
Figure 8. Screenshot of Location Map of Eight Chicken Farms in Victoria and
Nagcarlan, Laguna. ................................................................................... 37
Figure 9. Chicken farm building for conventional (manual) operation ............... 38
Figure 10. Chicken farm building for automatic operation .................................. 38
Figure 11. Wire cages for Chicken Layers ........................................................... 38
Figure 12. Conventional Farm Building ............................................................... 43
Figure 13. Automatic Farm Control System ........................................................ 43
Figure 14. Layer Farm Warehouse ....................................................................... 46
Figure 15. Percentage of Age Groups of Respondents ........................................ 49
Figure 16. The Respondents‟ Gender ................................................................... 50
Figure 17. The Respondents‟ Gender According to Age Group .......................... 50
Figure 18. Percentage of Respondents‟ Occupation ............................................ 51
Figure 19. Respondent‟s perception about the chicken farms creating
environmental concerns that must be solved. ........................................... 52
ix
Figure 20. The Respondents‟ Perception about Pollution emitted by Chicken
Farms ........................................................................................................ 54
Figure 21. The Respondents‟ Perception about Biodiversity of Plant and Animal
Species ...................................................................................................... 56
Figure 22. Respondent‟s perception about the impact of larger farms being
greater than smaller farms ........................................................................ 57
Figure 23. The Respondents‟ Perception about the Impacts of Chicken Farmers58
Figure 24. The Respondents‟ Perception about the Impacts of Chicken Farms to
the Community ......................................................................................... 60
Figure 25. The Respondents‟ Perception about the Worth of Chicken Products . 61
Figure 26. The Respondents‟ Personal Opinion about the Social Impact of
Chicken Farms .......................................................................................... 63
Figure 27. The Respondents‟ Perception about Farm Emission and Health ........ 65
Figure 28. The Respondents‟ Perception about Farm Management and
Government Regulation............................................................................ 66
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Chicken Farms in the municipality of Victoria ...................................... 30
Table 2. Chicken Farms in the municipality of Nagcarlan ................................... 30
Table 3. Description of Chicken Farm ................................................................. 33
Table 4. Companies Involved in Chicken Production and the Customers ........... 39
Table 5. The Average Amount of Daily Feed Consumption ............................... 41
Table 6. Ventilation Setup of the Farms ............................................................... 43
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ATI
Agricultural Training Institute
CALABARZON
Cavite Laguna Batangas Rizal Quezon
CCOHS
Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety
CDC
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CLUP
Comprehensive Land Use Plan
DENR
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
ECC
Environmental Compliance Certificate
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
gCO2e
Carbon dioxide equivalents per gram
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
H.R.
House of Representatives
HPAI
Highly Pathogenic Asian Avian Influenza
IPPE
International Production and Processing Expo
KPF
Kentucky Poultry Federation
LARC
Laguna Water District Aquatech Resources
Corporation
LCA
Life Cycle Analysis
LLDA
Laguna Lake Development Authority
LWD
Laguna Water District
MWPV
Manila Water Philippine Ventures
NCC
National Chicken Council
xii
Office International des Epizooties (French);
OIE
World Organisation for Animal Health (English)
PCAARRD
Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and
Natural Resources Research and Development
PHIVOLCS
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
PSA
Philippine Statistics Authority
SD
Sustainable Development
UKCA
University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture
UKELA
United Kingdom Environmental Law Association
Likert Seven-Point Scale:
SD
Strongly Disagree
D
Disagree
SLD
Slightly Disagree
NO
No Opinion
SLA
Slightly Agree
A
Agree
SA
Strongly Agree
xiii
PART I. INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Research rationale
Poultry industry provides a major contribution of 17% to the total
production of Philippine agriculture (PSA, 2018a). Despite the level of income a
person has, they are sure to consume poultry products in any form, specifically
from chickens. An average Filipino consumes about 28.8 kg of meat per year,
and 11.6 kg is of chicken meat (Tomacruz, 2017). For the top 20 foods consumed
by Filipinos, eggs and chicken meat were ranked 9th and 15th, respectively
(Gavillan, 2016).
Chicken production is viewed as cruel by the general public. Behind the
chicken meat, eggs or processed foods in the market, is a cruel process done to
acquire these products (PETA, 2014). Rearing of chickens has been more intense
as consumer‟s eating habits shifts from eating most parts of the chicken to
preferring specific parts only. To keep up with the demand, chicken industries
were encouraged to raise birds to fit the consumer‟s criteria. However, this
causes skeletal and pulmonary problems to the birds which eventually lead to
death because of its body‟s inability to keep up with its rapid growth (Quad-City
Times, 2003).
Sustainability is the ability to continue a defined behavior indefinitely
(Thwink.Org, 2011a). The assessment of chicken farms involves the three pillars
of sustainability: (1) economy, (2) environment and (3) society. These pillars
defined the sustainability of a system and are directly proportional with each
1
other. If one pillar is weak, then it reflects impacts to the other pillars as well
(Thwink.Org, 2011b). Their relationship can be presented as the following: the
chicken industry is environmentally responsible in a way that it consumes every
raw material efficiently; socially responsible by generating jobs within the
community, and; economically responsible through making profit to sustain and
restart the production (Circular Ecology, 2013).
The data produced in this study may be used as a reference for people who
are interested to know more about the production necessities, processes and
impacts on sustainability behind the chicken products that people consumes. This
study may serve as a basic source of knowledge about chicken rearing that are
not usually told to consumers, as well as to present statistics about the
community‟s perception to the chicken farm and its impacts, in which these
information were obtained from a total of eight (8) key informants and 80
respondents. It will be a relevant research not just for future researchers but to
people, particularly consumers of chicken products, as they are the target of this
industry.
Chicken production requires a lot of inputs and thorough work force. As
the production continues, outputs (excluding the chicken products) such as foul
odour, carcass, manure and wastewater are produced. These outputs, if not
disposed properly may cause pollution to the environment (Gerber et al., 2007).
This in turn, affects the quality of the environment, enjoyment and the health of
the community.
2
Chicken industry brings gain to the economic sector as well. People
usually complain about price hikes without actually knowing the process behind
these products. However, it must be taken into consideration that chicken
production does not come cheap and the inputs used increases in price. Setting
the market price includes several factors such as the inputs used in chicken
rearing (e.g. feed, vitamins, electric and water bill, maintenance, building costs,
transportation, advertisement and many more), and the added cost for profit
which covers the salary of workers, profit for owner/s and company, overhead
expenses and many more (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, 2018).
Sustainability addresses the well-being of the society through assessments
of social topics such as livability, health quality, placemaking and human
adaptation (ADEC Innovations, 2017). This sustainability pillar is often
neglected and dominated by the environment and economic pillar. However,
social sustainability is equally important because the interaction and relationship
of the business to the society has a great effect to its workers, customers and
community. As when conflicts arise, it could affect the growth and operations of
the business (Karbassi, 2015).
It may be through direct or indirect interaction but people who may or
may not consume chicken products are both vulnerable to the effects that the
production causes. Direct interaction includes someone who consumes the
product and someone who works for poultry production. Meanwhile, indirect
interaction can be interpreted as someone whose area could be near an on-going
3
farm (Lewis & Feiring, 1992). The effects may be minimal but it never fails to
exist.
In order to achieve sustainability in chicken production, these three
aspects must be given equal attention: economy, social, and environment. Each
aspect requires specific assessment areas. Different tools were needed for a wider
and thorough scope of analysis but were not used for this study. However, the
researcher gained information through secondary data and engagement with key
informants and people with the most interaction to the subject.
Further research is very much needed to have a stronger view of the
sustainability assessment on chicken farms, wherein an in-depth study of the
chicken farm production will be provided from previous years up to the present,
more interaction with government offices to gather data for the three
sustainability aspects, as well as more responsive interviews and surveys with
key informants and respondents.
1.2.
Significance of the Study
This study aims to assess the community‟s perception about the chicken
production industry in terms of environment, economic and social impacts.
Chicken industry, and in a wider scope of animal rearing, is often regarded as
cruel yet the impacts are not intently viewed. There are a lot of interactions
between consumers and the chicken industry apart from people eating the
products; however, such interactions are often given little attention. This study
4
aims to present balanced good and bad points of the industry, and inform people
the facts behind the production and the impacts it may cause.
1.3.
Research’s objectives
This study was conducted to:
1. Describe the production of eight (8) selected chicken farms in two
municipalities in Laguna;
2. Determine the perception and opinion of residents living near the chicken
farm, and;
3. Analyze how chicken production affects the sustainability (economy,
environment and society) of the area within the 300 meter range.
1.4.
Research Questions
This study answered the following questions:
1. What is the system approach in poultry production?
2. What is the community‟s perception about the poultry farm?
3. How do poultry farms affect the sustainability of the environment?
1.5.
Limitations
The sustainability assessment focused on chicken farms and residents who
live within a 300 meter radius from the farm. Setting a smaller scope of area was
for the sole purpose of acquiring information from people who have the most
interaction with the topic of interest. The preferred area was narrowed down into
its present range because there were instances when some residents who live a
5
little farther than 300 meters away refused to be surveyed as they argue that they
were too distant from the farm.
Sampling size was also a concern for the survey. Most poultry farms are
located where only small number of residents lives. Residents living near the
farm have simple lifestyles. During survey, respondents were not easily found
because they might have left early for work, they stayed indoors or they were
fully occupied. However, the range had been specified even before the field work
begun and the respondents who were qualified to answer the survey lives farther
away from each other making the sample size fewer than expected.
Not every recommended Sustainability Assessment Methods (Stevens,
2014) was applied in this study which will result to limitations in undertaking
some relevant information. Some assessment methods required different
applications that were not readily available and too costly. This study focused on
describing the farm production, knowing the communities‟ perception towards
the farm, as well as assessing the sustainability impacts of farm in the
environmental, economic and social aspect of the area.
1.6.
Definitions
The definition of some unfamiliar terms used in this study is presented in
the Appendix 7.
6
PART II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.
Domestication of Chicken in Poultry Production
In 1800s to early 1900s, individual households rear chickens only
for family consumption, which is also known as backyard farming. Occasionally,
excess live birds and eggs were sold to neighbors for additional income. In
1920s, the development of broiler production starts to rise as the demand for eggs
increased. However, male chickens were abundant than laying hens. Since then,
farmers‟ experience in chicken rearing made them discover that certain
characteristics are best suited for a particular production. They began to raise
chickens for a single purpose, either for meat or eggs, rather than producing both
meat and eggs simultaneously. Selection of characteristics and chickens made the
production more efficient and induced greater income because it only specializes
in one area but with better birds (US Poultry, 2014).
In succeeding decades, the chicken industry begins modern production by
selling dressed chickens. Customers can already acquire dressed chickens which
were slaughtered, featherless chicken carcass with all its body parts still intact.
However, this additional process in the production required more space for
expansion. Thus, the concept of vertical integration was applied, where each
stage of production was separately done in different locations to maximize the
space of the area and to reduce the risk of potential diseases and impacts that the
production may cause (US Poultry, 2014).
7
- Xem thêm -