MANURE MANAGEMENT IN VIETNAM La Van Kinh Institute of Animal Sciences for Southern Vietnam Wageningen University
Land use, 2012 (million ha) Total 33.095 (100%) - Agriculture land 26.280 79,4 - Non-agriculture land 3.740 11,3 - Unused land 3.074 9,3 Land use, 2012 (million ha) Annual crop land 6.401 (100%) - Paddy rice land 4.093 63,943 - Pasture land 0.455 7,108 - Other annual crop land 1.853 28,949
GDP, 2012 (billion USD) Total: ~ 136 100% Share in GDP: - Agriculture, forestry and fishing ~ 27.2 20 - Industry & construction ~ 45.2 33 - Services ~ 64.2 47 Output value of agriculture, 2012 (billion VND) Total: ~ 255.2 100% - Agriculture ~ 183.6 72 - Forestry ~ 8.3 3.1 - Fishing ~ 63.3 24.9
LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION (27% agr. Value)
Number of livestock, poultry in the period between 2000 and 2013 Species Unit Number of livestock, poultry 2000 2005 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 Pig Mill. 20.2 27.4 26.7 27.37 27.06 26.69 27.0 Buffalo Mill. 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.91 2.71 2.66 2.60 Beef Mill. 4.1 5.5 6.3 5.91 5.44 5.31 5.14 Dairy cattle Thou. 35.0 104 108 128 143 158 168 Chicken Mill. 147 160 176 218 233 226 230 Waterfowl Mill. 51.0 60.1 71.2 82.29 89.83 84 84
The structure and size of households in 2011 Items Structure (%) Pig husbandry Number of small households reared 1-2 pigs 51.88 Number of small households reared 3-5 pigs 25.66 Number of small households reared 6-9 pigs 8.89 Number of households reared 10-49 pigs 12.79 Number of households reared > 50 pigs 0.78 Poultry husbandry Number of small households reared 1-19 heads 54.70 Number of small households reared 20-49 heads 34.90 Number of small households reared 50-99 heads 7.16 Number of households reared 100-999 heads 3.03 Number of households reared > 1000 heads 0.21 Source: Report on the census of Rural, Agriculture and Aquaculture in 2011- General Statistics Office
Livestock production during period 2000-2010 Animal (Mio. heads) Year 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Growth rate (%) Buffalo 2.9 2.92 2.92 2.99 2.90 2.89 2.91 0.3 Cow 4.13 5.54 6.51 6.72 6.34 6.1 5.91 43.1 Pig 20.19 27.43 26.9 26.5 26.7 27.63 27.73 35.6 Poultry 198.1 280.1 277.2 225.9 247.2 280.2 296.3 49.5 Goat, Sheep 0.54 1.31 1.53 1.78 1.48 1.38 1.29 138.8 Source :Viet Nam animal husbandry in 2000-2010, Department of Livestock production
Number of animal farms in Vietnam (2008) Pig Poultry Cow Buffalo Goat Total Whole country 7,475 2,837 6,405 247 757 17,721 Northern 3,069 1,274 1,574 222 201 6,313 Southern 4,406 1,563 4,858 25 556 11,408 8.5 million smallholder farms Source : Department of Livestock production Vietnam; 2008, 2011
Current manure waste in Vietnam (2008) Animals Total heads (milion) Ave. Manure waste kg/ head/ day Total (Milion tonnes/ Year) Cow 6.33 10 23.13 Buffalo 2.89 15 15.86 Pig 26.70 2 19.49 Poultry 247.32 0.2 18.05 Goat 1.34 1.5 0.73 Sheep 0.08 1.5 0.04 Total 77.3
Manure management Chicken wastes : biogas plants (gas for family cooking, warming small chicks); feeding fish. Cattle solid wastes : Ferilized elephant grass; bonsai; coffee, pepper, or fruit plants; Land-spreading for dehydration; manure is dried, then mixed with lime, rice straw, rice husk ash, or/and coconut husk dust. Pig manure: widely used for fertilizer No treatment with direct discharge to fields, fishpond, river (e.g., lakes, streams, river). Composting with rice hull, coconut hull then sell as organic fertilizer.
Storage without treatment with ultimate disposal on crops, in fish ponds, for sale, or in discharge. Biogas production with ultimate disposal on crops, in fish ponds, for sale, or in discharge Manure Use in Surveyed Farm Areas in Northern Vietnam
Liquid management Various waste treatments applied by livestock farms in the study site (%) Waste treatment Solid waste Liquid waste Biogas 21 25 Fresh manure storage 26 0 Composting 10 0 Discharge to fish ponds 8 12 Discharge to land/stream 19 60 Selling fresh manure 7 0 Give away 2 0 Others 7 3
Slaughterhouse wastewater 12,984 slaughter enterprises operating in the 64 cities/provinces of Vietnam; Wastewater from livestock slaughtering operations is mostly discharged untreated into streams, rivers, or vegetable fields; 100% pig slaughtering; 67% of cattle slaughtering and 27% of poultry slaughtering operations have veterinary control; 90% of bases slaughtering cattle on the floor, 10% of one s slaughtering cattle on the pedestal. 45% of slaughtering units implement antidotal hygiene before and after slaughtering, with 55% implementing regular decontamination
Summarized results of biogas users 2010-2011 2,000,000 units of biogas digester in Vietnam Biogas users Income/houshold: 145.6 million VND vs 119.1 million VND/year; 99.3% received subsidy from the biogas program; 69.3% of households received technical support, or monitoring and 71.9% received both support 92,7% of households received training and/or guides.
Biogas plants and its equipment 91.7% of households estimate the plant size and biogas production as appropriate and efficient; Biogas is Mainly used for Cooking: 1.65 cooker/plant, 3.5 hours of lighting/daily; 1.8 lamps/plant and lighting time is 3.19 hours/daily. Biogas plants by-product 38.9% of household make use of slurry 92.7% household used slurry as fertilizer for rice, maize, vegetables, cereals and industrial crops and they obtain greater yields.
Biogas plant Conclusion Advantage : less environmental pollution; biogas effluent producing no offensive odour, not attracting flies, used for irrigation/fish production; for family cooking, warming chicks, boiling water for nursery piglets, or for liquor production Disadvantage: it requires large areas; all the wastes produced from big farms or the gas from bigger plants might not be fully utilisable; it cannot be practised for farms that have very small numbers of animals; flooding happens, biogas plants cannot be maintained and the almost no effect on the of nitrogen and phosphorus.
Possibilities to deal with liquid wastes Awareness should be raised among farmers about the value of pig manure and its potential environmental impacts; the development of pig manure markets could be promoted; government should enforce legislation on waste management to force farmers to take responsible for the generated animal waste. Limit water volume used in house cleaning by collection solid manure before house washing and apply air cooling system to minimise the water volume used to cool animals; collect liquid wastes: for farms having land, wastewater or biogas effluent should be biologically treated, or used for fish.
MANURE MANAGEMENT OF PIG FARM IN GIA KIEM COMMUNE, THONG NHAT DISTRICT, DONG NAI PROVINCE La Van Kinh, Le Phan Dung, Dau Van Hai, Nguyen Thanh Van, Le Dinh Phung, Jaap Schroder, Theun Vallinger
BACKGROUND Pig production in Vietnam - to farm scale - to meet the growing needs Cause serious environmental pollution Good management of manure has a significant meaning for sustainable developing Pig manure management not only for use as nutrient sources (NPKC), but also reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), ammonia, odors, pathogens, etc Survey manure management of pig farms in Gia Kiem commune, Thong Nhat district, Dong Nai province
MATERIALS AND METHODS General survey - Vietnam: population 90 mil, urban population 33.93 %, labor in agriculture 60.37 % - Pig population: Vietnam 26,5 mil, South East area 2,78 mil, Dong Nai province 1,3 mil, Thong Nhat district 0,21 mil - Thong Nhat district: area 24,724 ha, population 157,980, temperature 25-26 o C, rainfall 2,139 mm, 659 livestock farms. Sept 2013: 210,000 pigs, 950,000 chickens, 5271 ducks, 1.4 mil quail, 2,615 cattle and 2,390 goats - Major part of the livestock production is sows and pigs in both farm and household scale
MATERIALS AND METHODS In-depth survey: - Conducted on 30 pig industrial farms/households in Gia Kiem commune, Thong Nhat district, Dong Nai province - Randomly selected from a list of 265 households /farms of two hamlets Vo Dong 1 and Vo Dong 3 - Questionnaires: information about the farm's resources, the structure of livestock and livestock productivity, characteristics of pig production systems, the current status of manure management, constraints and limitations in management and use of pig manure Data processing: - Minitab version 14
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Farm resources Criteria n Average Std dev Number of members (people) 30 5.3 1.3 Male 30 2.6 1.3 Female 30 2.7 1.1 Number of persons <16 years old (people) 30 1.2 1 Number of labors (person) 30 2.7 1.3 Current labor hours (hours/person/day) 30 5.3 1.9 Number of labors elsewhere (person) 30 0.8 1.2 The total area of agricultural land (ha) 25 1.8 2.8 The total land area for horticulture (ha) 23 1.7 2.9 Distance from farm to town (km) 30 1.81 0.1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Herd structure at the time of the survey Criteria Average Std Dev Total pigs (heads/farm) 279.3 320.3 Number of pigs > 20kg (heads/farm) 172.3 183.4 Average pig weight (kg) 51.5 6.8 Number of sows (heads/farm) 33 40.2 Average sow live weight (kg) 156 8.6 Number of pigs < 20 kg (heads/farm) 74 111.3 Average piglet weight (kg) 9.5 1.5 All farms are specialize in raising pigs, average of 280 pigs, growing pigs 62 %, piglets (< 20 kg) 27 %, 12% of sows No farm raising boars observed
Pigs/piglets are main products, 100 % farms keep sows, raises growing pigs All farmers use mixed feed, buy or mix themselves A growing pig (weight > 20 kg) consumed 2.4 kg/day, piglets 0.36 kg/day; sows 2.9 kg/day RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Pig production in 2012 Criteria Average Std Dev Growing pigs output/farm/year (heads) 539.5 573.6 Slaughter weight (kg) 101.5 3.3 Slaughter age (months) 6.2 0.4 Number of weaned pigs/farm/year (heads) 617.6 766.5 Number of weaned piglets/sow/year (heads) 18.6 1.4 Weaning weight (kg) 7.2 1.5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Pig housing Criteria n Average Std Dev Pig farm area (m 2 ) 30 1750.8 2265.2 Sow area (m 2 ) 30 186.4 231.9 Pork area (m 2 ) 30 1564.4 2097.8 Barn area/growing pig (m 2 ) 30 9.6 11 Barn area/pig (m 2 ) 30 8.9 8.8 All farms have fence, concrete floor and roof, no bedding material For specific sows, pigs and piglets Growing pig area occupies 89 % 9 m 2 /pig due to low price/some empty barn 100 % use groundwater for cleaning cages
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Manure collection system Fresh solid manure collected daily, put into bags, sell to middleman Flushing daily in dry season, few days/time in rainy season Flushing water, urine, scattered feed follow cement trench to biogas pits/reservoirs 100 % farm not collect, store urine or mixture of urine and flushing water separately 70 % farms store slurry, in which 67 % store in the biogas system, 33 % store in pits nearby Average volume of biogas systems 9.7m 3 /farm, of pit 28.1m 3 /farm Each farm uses 6,975 liters of water/day, or 35 liters/growing pig and sow/day 2 main types of manure: (i) solid manure (feces) (ii) mixture of urine, flushing water and solid manure (slurry)
PREPARING TO COLLECT PIG MANURE
SIMPLE EQUIPMENT FOR MANURE COLLECTING
TEMPORARY STORE OF FRESH MANURE BEFORE SELLING
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Manure collection system
ONE TYPE OF BIOGAS SYSTEM IN PIG FARM
A TYPE OF MANURE RESERVOIR IN PIG FARM
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Manure collection system 13/15 farms store slurry, use all to ferment for anaerobic gas 02 farms use slurry for crops directly 9/13 farms use anaerobic fermentation products as fertilizer for crops 4 farms no use, discharge to environment Each farm collect 609 kg solid manure/day 17 % solid manure use directly for crop, 83 % sold
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Technical constraints Criteria Crucial Ratings (%) Very important Important Not so important Irrelevant Lack of collection capacity 16,67 63,33 20,00 Lack of storage capacity 6,67 16,67 53,33 23,33 Lack of treatment capacity 26,67 46,67 20,00 6,67 Lack of transport capacity 13,33 40,00 43,33 3,33 Lack of suitable equipment to apply manures 13,33 10,00 60,00 16,67-2 constraints discouraging using manure as fertilizer is (i) lack of treatment capacity (93 %) and (ii) lack of transport capacity (96.7 %) -Collection and storage capacity, lack of equipment are not main constraints
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Socioeconomic constraints Criteria Crucial Very important Ratings (%) Important Not so important Irrelevant Too high transport costs, relative to those needed for mineral fertilizers Too high labor costs, relative to that needed for the handling of mineral fertilizers Too high prices of land, providing room for land spreading Too low benefits when used as fertilizer, relative to benefits when used as a nutrient for aquaculture 3,33 23,33 63,33 10,00 6,67 16,67 66,67 10,00 16,67 20,00 53,33 10,00 6,67 16,67 76,67 Too low benefits when used as fertilizer, relative to benefits when used as a fuel 13,33 13,33 73,33
POLLUTION IN PIG FARM BECAUSE OF OVERLOAD
A PIT IS FULL OF MANURE
WATER POLLUTION IN PIG FARM
Big issue need to be studied Waste water and slurry after biogas and waste water from farm without biogas is a big problem since the limiting land of the farm
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Institutional constraints Ratings (%) Very Not so Criteria Crucial important Important important Irrelevant Absence of information regarding manure management improvements 23,33 23,33 46,67 6,67 Lack of access to the available information due to illiteracy 20,00 20,00 53,33 6,67 Absence of interest in manure management 3,33 63,33 23,33 10,00 Lack of access to loans for the required investments in storage, treatment and 10,00 60,00 3,33 20,00 6,67 transport Lack of access to required equipment and machines for storage, treatment 10,00 13,33 3,33 66,67 6,67 and transport Lack of trading infrastructure 16,67 76,67 6,67 Lack of regulations creating a level playing field for all farmers 26,67 60,00 13,33 Spatial separation of livestock farms and arable farms due to specialization 16,67 56,67 16,67 10,00 =>Need provide information, enhance farmer's awareness on manure management, invest manure treatment systems, no
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Major reasons to improve manure management Criteria On-farm hygiene, considering human health On-farm hygiene, considering animal health Water quality, from the point of view of human and animal health Water quality, from the point of view of fishery quality Abatement of odour problems, also for neighbours Missed fertilizer value for the crops grown by the farm itself Missed income when sold as a fertilizer for other farms Crucial Very important 60,00 40,00 Ratings (%) Important 30,00 63,33 6,67 56,67 43,33 Not so important Irrelevant 10,00 6,67 3,33 80,00 43,33 53,33 3,33 33,33 36,67 23,33 6,67 23,33 76,67
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Surveyed farms specialize in intensive pig farming with herd size 279 heads/farm In 2012 every farm sold 540 growing pigs at 6 months of age, weight of 100 kg/head; all farms use mixed feeds, housing and industrial process 2 different types of manure: (i) solid manure (feces), (ii) mixture of feces, urine and flushing water (slurry). Farm uses 35 liters/growing pigs and sows/day 70 % farm storage slurry; in which 67 % using anaerobic fermentation slurry; product after that used for crops or discharge to environment, 33 % farms storage slurry in ponds Solid manure collected daily 609 kg/day/farm, 87 % transported by middleman for selling elsewhere
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Lack of treatment capacity, lack of transport capacity, absence of information regarding manure management improvements, absence of interest in manure management, and lack of access to loans for building manure management system are the important factors discouraging the using manure as fertilizer Socio-economic constraints do not really hinder the decision to use manure as fertilizer on the farms Major reasons to improve manure management because of direct impact on human and animal heath, water quality and odor emissions to residential areas
THANK YOU THE SUPPORT OF WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY FOR THE PROJECT. THANK FOR YOUR ATTENTION