Whole Vol 10-2 - CiteSeerX

Journal of Environmental Science and Management 10(2): 28-39 (December 2007 ) ISSN 0119-1144

28

Assessment of Vermicomposting as a Waste Management Technology and a Livelihood Alternative in the Philippines Joel L. Adorada ABSTRACT A survey was conducted to assess vermicomposting as a waste management technology and a livelihood technology. The surveyed twenty-four (24) vermicomposting adoptors consist mostly of middle to upper class farmer entrepreneurs. They have innovated the technology in order to optimize the performance of their systems and make use of their available resources. In terms of economic viability, the technology was proven to be a good source of income aside from the various benefits which can be derived from its various products. Aside from the economic gains, savings were also derived by using the product itself and its derivatives. The social impact for most of the adoptors is not yet realized since small scale and newly initiated vermi projects did not entail much labor workforce in its operation and maintenance. Only the large scale vermi facilities demonstrated the positive social influence of the technology. For the environmental impacts, the technology has the potential to affect water, air and land resources positively. Some possible impacts include organic waste management, air pollution reduction and reduction in the application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to some extent. However, extensive adoption especially in urban areas is necessary in order to address its solid waste problems. Keywords: vermicompost, vermicomposting, vermiculture, technology assessment, environmental impact, social impact, economic impact, waste management, livelihood

INTRODUCTION Vermicomposting is a waste management technology utilizing earthworms to convert organic wastes into high quality castings and vermicomposts of high economic values while vermiculture is the art and science of worm rearing. The two main products of vermiculture and vermicomposting are worms and composts. These products are simultaneously produced during the process and can further be transformed into other valuable vermi products (Manuel-Santana 1982). Based on the increasing trend in the number of technology adoptors, it was popularized among local entrepreneurs for the reason that it is considerably profitable and furthermore maximizes the flow of materials within the farm level (Aldridge 2003; Felix 2005). The process of utilizing the organic wastes within the farms leads to a more sustainable farming practices. The nutrients

are retained and returned back to the soil through vermicompost application. Such practice would make the soil suitable for crop production and increases crop yield since the soil quality is improved (Aranda et al. 1999). Currently, numerous middle to upper class citizens are venturing into vermicomposting for various reasons. Some of them are also encouraging their customers to engage in the worm business for additional profit. Testimonies have been professed that they have earned a lot of money with this business (Henares 2002). Nonetheless, several issues are raised regarding the utilization of vermicomposting and engagement in this business. Some of these are addressed by the socio-economic aspects of this technology, such as: (1) technology adoption of small farmers is low; (2) diverse reasons and inhibitions of adopting the technology; (3) who the real adoptors of the

Journal of Environmental Science and Management Vol. 10. No. 2 (December 2007) technology are; and, (4) the profitability of using vermicompost by small farmers. Previous studies showed that a number of financial analyses were conducted regarding vermicompost (Tan 1985; Binoya and Tiolo 1991) and vermimeal production (Guerrero 1996, 1997, 2002; Lacson 2004; Cruz 2005). However, the social and economic analyses based on actual performances of vermicomposting facilities have not been investigated. The financial analyses were generally incomplete and costs for land use, water consumption, labor, fuel, electricity, promotional activities, etc. were not considered. Moreover, most of the studies did not also consider the ecological benefits derived from waste recycling through vermicomposting. Lastly, most of the studies are outdated. In this regard, a comprehensive as s es s ment of t h e va r iou s imp a cts of vermicomposting adoption is needed for policy formulation concerning implementation of future projects. Objectives of the Study The main objective of the study is to assess vermicomposting as a waste management technology and as a livelihood alternative. Thus, the specific objectives are to: 1. characterize the adoptors of the technology based on their socio-economic background; 2. characterize the adoptors of the technology based on factors for adoption; 3. evaluate the technology in terms of financial viability among small and large farmers; 4. assess technology efficiency in terms of waste management; and 5. deter mine and describe the social, economic, and environmental effects/ impacts of vermicomposting. METHODOLOGY A. Study Areas The study areas covered the vermicomposting systems mainly in Laguna, Quezon, Bulacan, General Santos and Negros Occidental. Adoptors were selected based on the willingness to participate

29

in the survey, number of years and level of operation, and accessibility to the vermi farms. Each vermicompost farms was classified based on the number of beds maintained, quantity of worms and production rates. In terms of the number of beds, those with more than twenty working worm bins are considered large scale, those with five to nineteen working worm bins are considered as medium scale, while those with less than five working worm bins are considered as small scale. B. Research Design

T he physical, social, economic and environmental impacts of vermicomposting technology were determined using two designs: 1. Survey of Vermicomposting Technology Adoptors A survey-interview of the vermicomposting technology adoptors was conducted to gather several data relevant to the study. An interview schedule was devised for the said purpose. This included personal and demographic profiles, socio-economic data, extension variables, adoption level, biophysical/resource data, farming/ cropping system, marketing scheme, costs and benefits, and impacts analyses. Interviews were c o n d u c t ed o n t h e s t u d y a r ea s w h er e vermicomposting is being practiced. A purposive sampling was used targeting only the adoptors/previous adoptors of the technology. The selection of the interviewee depended mainly on the willingness of the interviewee to participate in the survey. A total of 24 adoptors was covered by the survey study that included the following: a. Private/family enterprise or small scale, mainly subsistence b. Private/cooperative or large scale operators, commercialized c. Local government units/non-government organization d. Those adoptors who stopped operation and continued again e. Regular users of vermicomposting products f. Vermicompost – farmers

Assessment of Vermicomposting as a Waste Management Technology and a Livelihood Alternative in the Philippines

30

g. Vermi meal – livestock growers and fishpen/pond operators Pre-testing of the interview schedule was conducted in nearby towns. In the survey proper, due to financial constraints, priority was given to nearby provinces and only few adoptors in the Visayas and Mindanao regions, and identified areas in Luzon. 2. Assessment of Vermicomposting Technology Vermicomposting technology assessment was conducted primarily to generate advanced information or precautionary measures concerning the risks and uncertainties that may accompany technological change. The technology assessment process begun with the identification and specification of issues and problems directly and/ or indirectly related to vermicomposting. This included extensive literature review, data collection, and synthesis, data analyses and modeling of the technology delivery system. Participation of partiesat-interest was ensured through the surveyinterview outlined above. The validation of the preliminary technology assessment through such participatory means ensured reliability of the data generated. The final phase of the process, communication of the findings may be done later or through lectures and trainings. C. Analysis of Results The technology assessment and the survey results served as the basis for analyses. The impact of the technology as applied by the different adoptors was discussed as follows:

demand for each adoptors, analyzing the market access/mode and product price variation. A benefitcost analysis was conducted to determine the viability of vermicomposting. 3. Environmental Aspect Other aspects of the environmental impact of vermicomposting technology were extracted from the surveyed data. These included waste recycled over a period of time by each adoptor. However, mor e specific impacts such as greenhouse gas emission and leachate production is beyond the coverage of the study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A . S o c i o - E c o no m i c D e s c r i p t i o n o f Vermicomposting Systems 1. Characteristics and Profile of Adoptors A total of twenty-four (24) vermicomposting systems were evaluated (Table 1). These are located in Los Baños, Laguna (3), Bay, Laguna (3), Calauan, Laguna (3), Pila, Laguna (1), San Pablo City (2), Calamba City (1), Lucban, Quezon (3), San Jose del Monte, Bulacan (1), Bacolod City (2), Talisay City (1), Silay City (1), Bago City (1), Victorias City (1), and General Santos City (1). The bulk of vermicomposting adoptors are located in Los Baños, Calauan, Bay, San Pablo City and Negros Occidental. Ninety six percent (96%) of the vermicomposting technology adoptors started their operations in 2000-2005 while only four percent (4%) started in 1998. Thus, most of the surveyed farms are relatively new.

1. Social Aspect The rate of acceptability of vermicomposting as a waste management technology and constraints to its widespread adoption were determined and analyzed. 2. Economic Aspect Evaluation of the rate of earthworm and vermicompost production in relation to the demand for utilization was performed. The evaluation was done by merely comparing the supply and

Most of the adoptors are males (96%) while only one (4%) is female. Normally men are the ones who manage the farms and are involved in plant businesses. More so, the men can handle worms without hesitation since they are not afraid of holding the creatures. Women are also involved in the plant businesses but are not directly involved in the vermiculture operations. The age of adoptors ranges from 21 to 68 years old. The very wide range of ages among adoptors shows that the technology was not

31

Journal of Environmental Science and Management Vol. 10. No. 2 (December 2007) preferred by any age group. It is notable that five adoptors (21%) belong to the retired ages. These people after retirement have concentrated on their plant businesses and adopted vermicomposting technology to boost their income since their regular salaries were abolished after retirement. The bulk of adoptors are from ages 40 to 49 where most professionals belong. Some adoptors, as young as 21 years of age, have been exposed to the potentials of the technologies immediately after graduation from courses not in anyway related to farming or composting. While generally, the almost equal distribution of adoptors show that anybody among these age groups can adopt the technology. Most adoptors are career persons having been employed or having their own businesses. Their education varied from college undergraduate to post doctoral This indicated that even undergraduates, accounting, business, fishery,

commerce and aer onautics graduates wer e fascinated to adopt the technology. The result also shows that the majority adopting the technology are those that have college education. These people perceived the relevance of the technology better compared to those who did not have college education because they can easily appreciate the potentials of the technology in terms of social, economic and ecological benefits. Of the 24 vermicomposting farms evaluated, forty two percent (42%) are considered large scale, twenty nine percent (29%) are medium scale, and twenty nine percent (29%) are small scale. However, no matter how small the vermicomposting systems are, the products are the same and can readily be commercialized s imi lar t o t he pr a ct ices in lar ge s ca le vermicomposting systems.

Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics of vermicomposting technology adoptors. VCS NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Name of Adaptor Michael Cagas Nestor Jose Dempo Maligalig Arlan Adorada Mario Carpio Samuel Dalmacio Jacinto Gatchalian Elmer Belen Teodoro delos Reyes Larry Balag OISCA trainees Jeff Burce Robert Vargas Ganni Tan Bong Reamon Philip Cruz Francine Uy Jose Henares Degie Tanista Daniel Lacson, Jr. Ramon Peñalosa Nestor Oblena Manuel Ramon Melencio Ruben Layug

Age

Farm Location

28 51 51 31 52 60 61 32 60 40 21 21 44 42 50 41 23 68 45 59 48 45 39 63

Bay, Laguna Marymount, Los Baños Marymount, Los Baños CRTD-Calauan Laguna Calauan, Laguna Marymount, Los Baños Lamut 2, Calauan, Laguna San Juan, Calauan, Laguna San Marcos, San Pablo Lucban, Quezon Lucban, Quezon Lucban, Quezon Hornalan, Calamba City Tranca, Bay, Laguna Gen. Santos City Bago City, Negros Occ. Silay City, Negros Occ. Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Alang-ilan, Bacolod City Talisay City Victorias City San Jose del Monte, Bulacan Pila, Laguna Bay, Laguna

Date started

Scale/size

August 2004 August 2005 Nov. 2004 2000 Jan. 2005 Dec. 2005 June 2005 Oct. 2005 2004 April 2003 Sept. 2005 May 2005 March 2005 Sept. 2005 2003 2004 April 2005 1998 Nov. 2004 2000 2004 Feb 2004 Jan. 2005 June 2005

Large Small Large Large Small Small Medium Medium Medium Small Large Small Medium Small Large Large Large Large Medium Large Large Medium Small Medium

32


2. Financial Analysis of Vermicomposting Technology The cost of establishing a vermicompost facility ranges from a relatively low cost of less than Php 1,000.00 to as much as Php 1,000,000.00 with an average of Php 157,198.25. Money used on the vermicompost projects come from personal savings, loans and research grants. The income per month ranges from Php 625.00 per month to as high as Php 50,000.00 per month with an average of Php 6,298.45. The low value of income per month is due to the fact that most adoptors are new to the technology. They are still on the early stage where their produce is just enough for their consumption. A few more years are required for them to commercialize the products of the technology. The costs and income values vary from each vermicomposting system based on production level, products sold, product prices, product quality, market demand, and vermicomposting system efficiency. Those with stable market, linkages and have the capacity to invest in high production scale, normally gets the highest income. B. Assessment of Vermicomposting Systems The potentials of vermicomposting systems were based on its effect on the environment, and its economic and social performances. The effect of vermicomposting systems on each of environmental components are as follows: 1. Technical and Environmental Performance a. Water. According to the technology adoptors, the vermicomposting system has no or insignificant impact on surface or underground water. Although the system utilized the resource in maintaining the moisture content of the substrates, controlled used is being practiced not to drown the earthworms and leach out any nutrients from the substrates. Leacheates coming fr om vermicomposting is not as harmful as those generated by landfills and dumpsites. Most of the vermi bin designs encountered during the survey incorporated roofing materials and containment to protect the worms from rain water and flooding. Unlike in open dumpsites and landfills, rain water

usually enters the mound of wastes and leach down any organic pollutants present in the site. In vermicomposting systems, although organic leacheates might be present, the quantity is very small. Furthermore, the leacheates coming from worm bins are considerably not anaerobic such that it does not contain hydrogen sulfide, sulfates and organic acids as in those generated by the dumpsites. In some vermicomposting systems, worm bins are located beneath the canopy of fruit trees. In this set-up, the tree benefits from getting the nutrients which leached out from the bins. It was also observed that the young active roots hairs of the trees are concentrated underneath the worm bins and getting its nutrition from the vermi bins. As a reaction, the plants/trees received better nutrition, thus yields well even during offseason periods (Henares 2002). b. Soil. The positive impacts of vermicomposting on the soil and land in general has been the main motive of utilizing vermicompost as a soil conditioner. The good effects of vermicompost on the soil has been proven and discussed by a lot of researchers here and abroad. In the country, all technology adoptors can attest to the beneficial effect of vermicompost to their plants and soil condition in general. The following are the possible positive effects of vermicompost application to the plant and soil with the corresponding percentage of adoptors who indicated as such. i. Improves soil texture, porosity, and water holding capacity (100% of adoptors) ii. Supplies the essential nutrients for better plant growth (100%) iii. Provides plant growth regulators (4%) iv. Enhance soil microbial activity and suppresses soil-borne pests and diseases (38%) v. Produce high quality crops and early crop maturity (100%) c. Air. The impact of vermicomposting on air quality is considerably high. One of the benefits in vermicomposting is that burning of organic waste materials was totally eliminated among the farms surveyed. With the technology, all organic waste materials were used in vermicompost production. For instance, in the utilization of sugarcane trash in vermicomposting, the adoptor recognized the harmful effect of burning sugarcane

Journal of Environmental Science and Management Vol. 10. No. 2 (December 2007) harvest left-over. This is a usual practice among sugarcane plantations in Negros Occidental that has caught the attention of Ex-Gov. Daniel Lacson Jr., who initiated the trading of cane tops in exchange for money. He believed that such trading would eliminate the burning of cane tops. I n r etur n, he g et s t he s u bstr a t e f or his vermicomposting business and the sugarcane workers received extra money in the trade. More so, the atmosphere would not received volumes of carbon dioxide emitted by the burning cane tops. Aside from the possibility of minimizing greenhouse gases through reduction of waste burning, vermicomposting systems as compared to open dumpsite is controlled during its various stages of decomposition. Housing and covering is provided such that gas emission is confined. Less odor is produced since the fermenting organic materials are covered with less odorous or pre-decomposed materials. More so, the process is faster than conventional method that gas emission is limited only during that period. The process also promotes aerobic decomposition thus limits anaerobic decomposition which produces and emits harmful compounds in the air. In general, the technology may have a very positive impact on the environment in terms of minimizing air pollution. Although a very small contribution to the reduction of total global scale of green house gas production, mass technology adoption could significantly reduce local green house gas production. d. Environment. None of the adoptors expressed any negative insights on the possibility of the African night crawler to become invasive or a pest once it escapes into the wild. They believe that it would be more beneficial to release them in their backyard or farms. However, there are still apprehensions among scientists on the introduction and use of Eudrilus eugeniae as composting worms as far as ecosystem integrity is concern. The worm was introduced in the country in 1982 primarily for protein production as animal feed. The introduction of E. eugeniae in the country indicated only the very weak policy and concern on the introduction of exotic species during that time. The species has been introduced in the

33

country without undergoing assessment of its possibility of becoming a pest or an invasive species that can displace other species or damage the environment. Risk assessment should have been done to avoid any problem in the future. However, experts from all over the world believe that E. eugeniae is not an invasive species and no record yet of any destructive activities in countries where they have been introduced. 2. Economic Performance Revenues or earnings derived from the vermicomposting systems be it primary benefits or secondary were valued and treated as benefits. Primary benefits are those outputs directly produced by the project while secondary benefits are those stemming from the direct outputs. The benefits included in this study are the following: (1) selling of earthworms and vermicompost; (2) utilization of vermicompost as organic supplement and soil conditioner as substitute for inorganic fertilizers; (3) production of organic crops; and (4) minimization of wastes through recycling into usable forms; (5) increase in employment and greater economic activity in the farm level; (6) increased value of adjacent properties as a result of a cleaner environment; (7) decrease wastes movement to dump sites; (8) increase savings/ revenues for the government; (9) good neighbor relations due to increase job availability; (10) consumption of safe organically produced crops; and, (11) pollution abatement. The criteria used for economic evaluation is the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) technique (Hufschmidt et al. 1983). BCR compares the discounted benefits from the discounted costs. A BCR of more than one is taken as favorable that is the project will produce benefits. If it is equal to one, the discounted benefits are just equal to the discounted costs thus producing zero benefits. Less than one BCR implies losses from the project. Tables 2 and 3 shows the benefit-cost analysis for small-scale and large-scale vermicomposting systems, respectively. At any rate, the BCR generated by small scale vermicomposting system are 5.72 and 2.42 for the literature and surveyed data, respectively.

34


While for the large scale vermicomposting system, the computed BCR are 6.41 and 5.38. The surveyed data was the mean BCR of the respondents while the literature data was derived from various published data.

of capital, expenses and income. Furthermore, not all systems are engaged in marketing their produce yet.

Vermicomposting systems that included pollution abatement as additional benefits aside from the direct utilization of the products have generated a BCR of more than one. This indicates that vermicomposting technology is very feasible in terms of its primary and secondary benefits. The vermicomposting systems having a BCR of more than 1 were able to generate profit months after operation. This shows that vermicomposting is a viable technology.

The stages of technology can be divided into three stages, namely, (1) vermicomposting knowledge dissemination through trainings, seminars and exposures; (2) production of different vermi-based products; and, (3) vermi-based products marketing and/or utilization. These categories are based on the results of the study. Figure 1 shows the environmental, social and economic dimension of vermicomposting technology impact for each stage. The data were derived during the survey-interview where the participants were requested to identify effects/ impacts of the technology to them.

The difference between the computed surveyed data and data from the literature indicated that there is great discrepancy between large scale and small scale vermicomposting systems in terms

C. Impact Analysis of Vermicomposting Systems

As early as knowledge dissemination

Table 2. Expenses/returns table for small-scale vermicomposting system (A comparison between data from literature and surveyed data). Items A. Costs/Expenses Structural expenses (construction materials for vermi bins and shades) Material expenses (initial earthworm stock, substrates, plastic sacks, hand tools, etc.) Transport expenses (hauling of materials and delivery of products) Operational expenses (water, electricity, land, fuel, etc.) Manpower expenses (full time and part-time labor)

Amount Literatures Survey 15,000.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 7,500.00 6,000.00

20,000.00 5,000.00 15,000.00 5,000.00 10,000.00

0.00 0.00 43,500.00

0.00 0.00 55,000.00

Promotional and marketing expenses (training, packaging, leaflets, etc.) Equipment (shredder, mixers, etc.) Subtotal B. Returns Sales from vermicompost Sales from compost worms Savings from fertilizer Savings from pesticides Savings from potting mixes Subtotal

124,740.00 61,786.50 64,000.00 32,625.00 30,000.00 25,158.25 10,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 3,554.00 248,740.00 133,123.75

C. Net Benefit (B-C) D. Benefit-Cost Ratio E. Return on Investment (%)

205,240.00 5.72 471.82

Assumptions: Production cycle = 10 cycles per year Initial stock = 4 kilograms of worms

78,123.75 2.42 142.04

35

Journal of Environmental Science and Management Vol. 10. No. 2 (December 2007)

Table 3. Expenses/returns table for large-scale vermicomposting system (A comparison between data from literature and surveyed data). Amount Literatures Survey

Items A. Costs/Expenses Structural expenses (construction materials for vermi bins and shades)

25,000.00

30,000.00

Material expenses (initial earthworm stock, substrates, plastic sacks, hand tools, etc.)

15,000.00

15,000.00

Transport expenses (hauling of materials and delivery of products)

10,000.00

15,000.00

Operational expenses (water, electricity, land, fuel, etc.)

15,000.00

20,114.90

Manpower expenses (full time and part-time labor)

12,500.00

15,000.00

2,000.00

1,250.00

60,000.00

40,000.00

139,500.00

136,364.90

623,700.00 160,000.00

661,786.50 32,625.00

Savings from fertilizer

50,000.00

25,158.25

Savings from pesticides

20,000.00

10,000.00

Savings from potting mixes

40,000.00

3,554.00

893,700.00

733,123.75

754,200.00

596,758.85

6.41

5.38

540.65

437.62

Promotional and marketing expenses (training, packaging, leaflets, etc.) Equipment (shredder, mixers, etc.) Subtotal B. Returns Sales from vermicompost Sales from compost worms

Subtotal C. Net Benefit (B-C) D. Benefit-Cost Ratio E. Return on Investment (%) Assumptions: Production cycle = 10 cycles per year Initial stock = 4 kilograms of worms

the people received benefits which affected their way of thinking with regards to managing their wastes and soil fertility. The adoptors were given options on ways to manage their wastes efficiently and they are not forced to adopt the technology but through their own will. With the process, the people were empowered through the provision of various opportunities to choose from. Even without technology adoption, people gained much knowledge through the process of information technology transfer that they can use in one way or the other with regards to waste management and farming. Informal education has equipped the target beneficiaries with new knowledge and better opportunities in farming system and waste management. The second stage of the adoption is during the production stage. Different products are derived from the vermicomposting systems but

the main products are vermicompost and compost worms that can further be transformed into other usable products such as animal feed and vermi tea. In the production process, vermicomposting required much labor if automation is not available. From segregation, chopping, bin preparation, maintenance until harvesting, vermicomposting requires at least one part time worker for a smallscale vermicomposting system. On the other hand, large-scale commercial vermicomposting systems requires full-time or numerous part-time workers according to one of the large-scale vermicomposting operator in Bacolod City. Normally, an increase in labor cost is expected that could substitute for the reduction in other expenses such as inorganic fertilizer expenses. Some people may be discouraged because of the high cost of labor. However, the cost of buying expensive waste management

36


equipment or chemical fertilizers may be used in lieu of the workers’ salaries, so there is no loss instead a lot more benefits in its social aspect. Also during the production stage, large volume of wastes is needed to produce large amount of vermicompost needed to fertilize large tracts of agricultural lands. These wastes can be derived from all possible sources- households, farms, communities, markets, and industries. In the vermicomposting process, wastes are not dumped or transported to dumpsites. Wastes are managed effectively by reducing waste transport and elimination of burning waste in the backyards or farmlands. Therefore, pollution and greenhouse gas emission are reduced that would result to improved environmental management and ecological integrity maintenance. The last stage is the marketing and utilization of vermi-based products that has the most impacts that encompasses both socio-economic and environmental dimensions. Farmers can save on the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. They have the opportunity to improve the condition of the soil, increased yield of high quality crops resulting to more profit, help the environment by replenishing natural resources, plus helping many people by giving them jobs in vermi farms. In addition, excess vermicompost can be marketed commercially, while the surplus growth of earthworm biomass can also be sold to other farmers and households who wanted to start their own vermicomposting venture. Such practice would lead to economic development in the countryside and savings for the government through reduction in the use of imported fertilizers. Equitable distribution of income among the farmers would result to economic growth with equity.

in the town. However, they still incorporate other farm wastes such as animal manure, water lettuce (kiapo), rice straw, cococoir duct, hay, kakawate leaves, shredded grasses and leaves to improve their vermicompost quality. Such facility would require lot of resources such as land, structures, machineries, capital and manpower for continuous operation and maintenance. As a waste management technology, vermicomposting systems in the country restricted itself in utilizing community or market wastes. Household wastes was generally used but was also limited to those produced by the household. In short, the impact of vermicomposting did not or has not yet significantly reduced the wastes collected and dumped in the landfills and dumpsites. Very small fraction of the total volume of the over-all wastes generated by the community is going into vermicomposting. Preference is still on the use of wastes generated by the farm since handling is easier as compared to community/market wastes. Common problems encountered with community wastes include high emission of greenhouse gases, needs further segregation with non-biodegradable wastes, presence of toxic materials, meat and milk products. In contrast, vermicomposting has high impact in managing animal based wastes such as hog, chicken, cow and carabao manure. With the high nitrogen content of such wastes, they became a significant material to balance the carbon nitrogen ratio of high carbon materials. Animal manures are also good substrates for earthworm fattening that they are used in almost all vermicomposting facilities in the country. Such practice has eliminated the dumping of hog wastes in the riverbanks or areas away from the populace. E. Vermicomposting as a Livelihood Alternative

D. Vermicomposting as a Waste Management Technology Based on the survey conducted, most of the wastes used in vermicomposting were derived within the household/farm or outside farms. Solid waste management is implemented in only one facility located in Brgy. Piis, Lucban, Quezon. OISCA Lucban, a Toyota Foundation funded non -government organization is implementing a waste management program for three barangays

Vermicomposting technology has been in the country since 1978. However, only few people adopted it and some ceased their operation. Its low adoption until now is due to the lack of market linkages and high cost of earthworms. But once the market have been identified, then its potential would be tremendous since the vermi products command high prices in the market. Vermicompost can be sold from Php 5.00 to 25.00 per kilogram while earthworms are from Php 500.00 to 1,500.00

Social development

Improved quality of life

Healthy people

Safe food

Improved quality of produce

Organic crops produced

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Ecological integrity maintenance

Environmental management

Reduced greenhouse gases emission

Reduced pollution

Reduced wastes in dumpsites

Growth with equity

Economic development

Higher ROI

Increased income

Less use of inorganic fertilizer

Fertile soil

Savings for the government

Reduced importation of imported fertilizers

Lowered fertilization cost

Improved soil quality

Increased yield

Marketing of vermi products

Vermi-Based Products Marketing and/or Utilization

Figure 1. Impact analysis of vermicomposting technology adoption

Peace and order

Effective waste management

Eliminated burning of wastes

Generated jobs

Good community relationship

Wastes utilized

Production of Different Vermi-Based Products

Increased farm labor

People empowerment

Developed discipline in handling wastes

Increased knowledge of adoptors

Created awareness on alternative means in nutrient management

Vermicomposting Knowledge Dissemination through Trainings, Seminars and Exposures

STAGES OF VERMICOMPOSTING TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION

Journal of Environmental Science and Management Vol. 10. No. 2 (December 2007) 37

38


per kilogram. Some sellers repackage their products with starter kits and reading materials but with higher price. Some vermicomposting adoptors, aside from producing and selling their products, are also engaged in conducting training and producing other products (i.e. vermitea, vermimeal) derived from the main vermi products. With such activities, they received more benefits than selling vermicomposts and compost worms. Even during the promotion of the technology, these people get paid for just sharing their experiences and practices in vermicomposting. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A s ur vey wa s condu ct ed t o a ss es s vermicomposting as a waste a management technology and a livelihood alternative. Based on the survey results, most of the adoptors belong to the upper and mid-level farmers since common farmers do not access the technology for they are hesitant to engage with organic farming and they do not have access or linkage to organic market. Vermicomposting technology does not only benefit the adoptors but also the people who utilize its various products. Economic gains are acquired both by the entrepreneur and its working force. Cost minimization from external inputs and higher savings in terms of fertilization and pest control are some of the positive impacts identified by the technology adoptors. Furthermore, vermi products command high prices in the market and these can further be modified to enhance quality and extend its usefulness. The benefit cost ratio of vermicomposting systems is higher than 2 provided that proper management is done. The return on investment (142-540%) is also high such that the payback period is less than six months of operation. Thus, the technology is very feasible as a livelihood enterprise. In terms of the social impact of the technology, most adoptors indicated that the impact is not yet realized due to the infancy of the technology. However, the large scale vermicomposting adoptors identified the following social impacts– better relationship with the neighborhood and community, increase knowledge among adoptors, economic

equity, and peace and order to some extent in specific areas. Some environment impacts may possibly include organic waste management, air pollution reduction, and reduction in the application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The technology does not have any significant impact on surface and groundwater since a properly managed vermicomposting systems would not release anaerobic leacheates to these water sources. However, the impact to the soil is more on the positive side since the use of vermicompost as fertilizer does not only reduce consumption of inorganic fertilizers but it generally improves soil quality in terms of aeration, porosity, water holding capacity, disease suppression, microbial composition and abundance. More so, its impact on air quality is also of high significance since it reduces emission of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and gases emitted from burning organic wastes. As a wa st e ma na gement t ech nol og y, vermicomposting was generally adopted to manage farm wastes with only one adoptor engaged in handling municipal/market wastes. Farm wastes are preferred due to its abundance and ease of handling unlike market wastes that needs further segregation and some problems on odor. As a livelihood alternative, the technology has a great potential as a source of additional income for the household. This is shown by the increasing number of backyard vermicomposting systems that can also generate income from selling composts worms and vermicompost, although in limited amount. In general, the technology is environmentfriendly and has many positive impacts to the society, economy and environment. Once given enough attention and support from the government, the technology could even amplify its impact to national level. Mass adoption would lead to government savings from importation of petro chemicals and inorganic fertilizers, savings from waste management, farmers’ empowerment, agricultural sustainability, and furthermore sustainable development.

Journal of Environmental Science and Management Vol. 10. No. 2 (December 2007)

39

Based from the study conducted, the following recommendations were formulated:

Vermi Symposium-Workshop. Los Baños, Laguna. November 2003.

1. A nationwide survey, in addition to this study, is still necessary to determine the real status of the vermicomposting industry and to establish the assistance and support needed by the technology adoptors to uplift the industry. 2. Identify/create stable market for the earthworms and vermicomposts. This has to be done to encourage farmers to adopt the technology. 3. Institutionalize the technology. 4. A more in-depth study on the detailed environmental impacts of vermiculture and vermicomposting is still wanting that includes the measurement of total greenhouse gas emissions and leacheates produced in vermicomposting facilities.

Hufschmidt, M.M., James, D.E., Meister, A.D., Bower, B.T. and J.A. Dixon. 1983. Environment, natural system and development: An economic valuation guide. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. Lacson, D.L. JR. 2004. The Commercial Feasibility of Vermimeal Production Under Private Sector Condition in Negros Occidental. Terminal Report. Manuel-Santana, R.M. 1982. Vermicomposting: A growing technology. Modern Agriculture and Industry-Asia pp. 11-16. Tan, N.C. 1985. Vermiculture in the Philippines. Special Problem manuscript. University of the Philippines Los Banos, Laguna. 109 pp.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT REFERENCES Aldridge, N. 2003. Black Gold: A guide to vermicomposting. Agriculture. Nov. pp. 24-25 Aranda, E., Barois, I., Arellano, P., Irisson, S., Salazar, T., Rodriguez, J. and J.C. Patron. 1999. “Vermicomposting in the tropics.” In: Earthworm Management in Tropical Agroecosystems. P. Lavelle, L. Brussard & P. Hendrix, Eds., CABI Publishing, United Kingdom, pp. 253-287. Binoya, F.B. Jr. And A.J. Tiolo. 1991. Vermicomposting Technology. DENR ERDS Reg 6 Techno Transfer Ser 2(1): 1-13. Cruz, P.S. 2005. ATTRAC Earthworm Project. Terminal Report. Felix, R.C. 2005. Vermiculture - Sugarcane producer casts his luck with earthworm castings. The Philippine Star. May 1, 2005. Guerrero, R.D. 1996. A guide to vermicomposting. DOST-PCAMRD, Los Baños, Laguna. 8 p. Guerrero, R.D. 1997. Raising Worms for Money. Philippine Panorama. p. 24-25. Guerrero, R.D. 2002. The Vermimeal Challenge. Agriculture Magazine p 18. Henares, P. T. 2002. “Vermicomposting: The BuroBuro Experience”. Paper presented at the First

The author wishes to thank the following: to the DA-BAR NaRDSAF for the scholarship and thesis support extended to him; to his adviser and committee members for the guidance and support during the conduct of this study; and, to DA-BPILBNCRDC for allowing him to study on leave.