1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Study The poultry industry is a major cause of environmental degradation in the United States. It kills fish and other wildlife and it makes people sick. In nature chickens and turkeys range in small flocks over wide areas contributing to the health and beauty of the land. In poultry factory farming, thousands of birds are crammed unnaturally into extremely small areas. Filth, ugliness and disease are the result of this unwholesome and unnatural confinement of living creatures.

Poultry manure contains large amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, though hog and dairy operations produce more manure than a chicken or turkey operation, poultry litter--the mixture of fecal droppings, antibiotic residues, heavy metals, cysts, larvae, decaying carcasses, and sawdust the birds are forced to bed in--has 4 times the nitrogen and 24 times the

phosphorous. The annual litter from a typical broiler chicken house of 22,000 birds contains as much phosphorous as in the sewage from a community of 6,000 people (Harkin 1997).

Excess nitrogen converts to ammonia and nitrates, burning the fragile cells of land plants and poisoning ground and surface waters. Concentrated poultry waste spawns excess algae that consume aquatic nutrients and block sunlight needed by underwater grasses. In decay, the algae suffocate fish. High levels of nitrate in groundwater used as drinking water can cause methemoglobinemia, a blood disorder in infants, known also as "blue baby disease" (Holleman 1992). With dwindling land to absorb the volume of poultry-house litter, dead birds, and slaughterhouse refuse, the industry is touting composting and other counter technologies as partial solutions. These technologies will be costly, tedious, and time- consuming, and they will not address the root of the problem, including the huge consumption of fossil fuels and the intense cruelty.

In the Philippines, it is said that Air emissions from Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) can be odorous. Furthermore, volatilized ammonia can be redeposited on the earth and contribute to eutrophication of surface waters. Animal manures are a valuable fertilizer and soil conditioner, if applied under proper conditions at crop nutrient requirements. Potential sources of manure pollution include open feedlots, pastures, treatment lagoons, manure stockpiles or storage, and land application fields. Oxygen-demanding substances, ammonia, nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus), solids, pathogens, and odorous compounds are the pollutants most commonly associated with manure. Manure is also a potential source of salts and trace metals, and to a lesser extent, antibiotics, pesticides and hormones. This problem has been magnified as poultry and livestock production has become more concentrated. AFO pollutants can impact surface water, groundwater, air, and soil. In surface water, manure's oxygen demand and ammonia content can result in fish kills and reduced biodiversity. Solids can increase turbidity and smother benthic organisms. Nitrogen and phosphorus can contribute to

eutrophication and associated algae blooms which can produce negative aesthetic impacts and increase drinking water treatment costs. Turbidity from the blooms can reduce penetration of sunlight in the water column and thereby limit growth of sea grass beds and other submerged aquatic vegetation, which serve as critical habitat for fish, crabs, and

other aquatic organisms. Decay of the algae can lead to depressed oxygen levels, which can result in fish kills and reduced biodiversity. Eutrophication is also a factor in blooms of toxic algae and other toxic estuarine microorganisms, such as Pfiesteria piscicida. These organisms can impact human health as well as animal health. Human and animal health can also be impacted by pathogens and nitrogen in animal manure. Nitrogen is easily transformed into the nitrate form and if transported to drinking water sources can result in potentially fatal health risks to infants. Trace elements in manure may also present human and ecological risks. Salts can contribute to salinization and disruption of the ecosystem. Antibiotics, pesticides, and hormones may have low-level, long-term ecosystem effects. In ground water, pathogens and nitrates from manure can impact human health via drinking water. Nitrate contamination is more prevalent in ground waters than surface waters. According to the BUREAU OF FOOD AND DRUGS (BFAD), nitrate is the most widespread agricultural contaminant in drinking water wells, and nearly 2% of our population (1.5 million people) is exposed to elevated nitrate levels from drinking water wells. Like in some localities of the Philippines, poultry raising has been considered as one of the main source of living of people in the town of Sapian, particularly in Brgy. Maninang. And the growth of poultry production has been impressive but its problems include inefficient

management and the prevalence of many destructive poultry diseases and parasites and manure fouling cannot be ignored. Due to the problems stated above, the researchers planned to evaluate the impact or the effects of this poultry raising to human health particularly in the residence of Barangay Maninang, Sapian, Capiz.

Statement of the Problem The main objective of this study is to determine poultry raising and its effect on the local population of Brgy. Maninang, Sapian, Capiz. Specifically it seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What are the socio-demographic characteristics of the

respondents in terms of age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, number of household members, and estimated monthly income? 2. What is the level of awareness of the respondents to the implication of Poultry Raising in Maninang, Sapian,Capiz? 3. Is there a significant difference in the level of awareness on poultry raising when the respondents are grouped according to age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, number of household member and monthly income? 4. What are the problems encountered by the residence in poultry raising?

HYPOTHESES There is a significant difference in the level of awareness on poultry raising when the respondents are grouped according to age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, household size and monthly income.

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK According to the theory of L.D Sims (2005), every poultry farm has its own risk profile for the introduction of pathogens, subsequent

development of disease, and spread of pathogens to other farms. This risk profile is determined by a complex interaction between the levels of infection in an area, the measures implemented on the farm to prevent disease, and other factors including the density of farms in the area and linkages with other farms and markets. Another theory by Karin et al.(2008),states that, the future of smallscale poultry production was also discussed. Its important contribution to the livelihoods of the poor was recognized, as were the challenges of controlling diseases such as HPAI in this production system. It was noted that there is a need to learn more about the livelihoods and priorities of poor poultry keepers without this understanding, attempts to introduce new technologies would have little impact in terms of poverty reduction. There was a call for improvement of community-based animal health systems, backed by adequate training and community participation in

the financial aspects of such schemes. The need to develop effective early-warning systems at the community level was noted.

Conceptual Framework Figure 1 shows that the study sought to determine if there is a significant relationship in the demographic characteristics and level of awareness of the residents of Brgy Maninang, Sapian, Capiz toward Poultry Raising. Independent Variable Demographic Characteristics: Age, Sex, Civil Status, Educational Attainment, Household Size and Monthly Income. Effects of poultry raising Dependent Variable

Level of Awareness

Fig.1 Schematic Diagram showing the conceptual framework of the study

Significance of the study This study was conducted to gather information and answer questions to determine the level of awareness of the respondents toward

Poultry Raising in Brgy. Maninang, Sapian, Capiz. Furthermore, this study will benefit the following persons: Government. This research can give informative ideas about the present
phenomenon and how the demographic profile really affects the level of awareness of the residents.

Residents of Brgy. Maninang Sapian Capiz. This study will help them resolve the problems that they encountered on the implication of poultry raising. Poultry raisers. This study will serve them as a guide on how poultry raising should be done properly, the maintenance, proper sanitations and other aspects that should be considered when engaging in this business. Future researchers. This study can help future researchers who will be studying similar or related researches.

Scope and Delimitation This study was limited only to the sample population of Brgy. Maninang, Sapian, Capiz. 100 respondents were used as a sample in conducting the survey. This study was focused only on the following parameters: the demographic profile of the respondents, the awareness of the residents on poultry raising and the common effects of Poultry Raising in Brgy. Maninang, Sapian, Capiz.

Demographic profile will only cover the respondents age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, household size, and monthly income. The data for this study will be gathered through a researchers made questionnaire. And the respondents of the study will be picked through purposive Sampling. This study used survey and correlation techniques of both descriptive and inferential method of research. The statistical tools were frequency, percentage, mean, t-test and analysis of variance.

Definition of Terms As you go along with this research you might encounter some unfamiliar words that would be arduous to understand. Therefore the researcher provided a reference for these words. Biodiversity. Often defined as the variety of all forms of life, from genes to species, through to the broad scale of ecosystems. Biological diversity is the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. (For a list of variants on this simple definition see Gaston 1996). Biosecurity. A strategic and integrated approach that

encompasses the policy and regulatory frameworks (including instruments and activities) that analyses and manages risks in the sectors of food safety, animal life and health, and plant life and health, including

10

associated environmental risk. Biosecurity is a set of preventive measures designed to reduce the risk of transmission of infectious diseases, quarantined pests, invasive alien species, living modified organisms.(FAO, 2003) Environmental Degradation. Deterioration of environment through depletion of resources such as air, water and soil; the destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of wildlife. It is defined as any change or disturbance to the environment perceived to be deleterious or undesirable. (Fannetta, 2009) Manure. An organic matter used as organic fertilizer in agriculture. Manures contribute to the fertility of the soil by adding organic matter and nutrients, such as nitrogen, that are trapped by bacteria in the soil.(Winterhalder et al., 1974) Pandemic. An epidemic (a sudden outbreak) that becomes very widespread and affects a whole region, a continent, or the world. Pandemic is an epidemic of infectious disease that has spread through human populations across a large region; for instance multiple continents, or even worldwide.(Taubenberger et al., 2006). Pathogens. Are organisms, frequently microorganisms, or

components of these organisms that cause disease. Microbial pathogens

11

include various species of bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Many diseases caused by microbial pathogens, and the frequency of these diseases, are a national security issue. It is an Infectious agent in colloquial terms, a germ is a microorganism such as a virus, bacterium, prion, or fungus, which causes disease in its animal or plant host. (Simberloff et al., 2011) Poultry. A category of domesticated birds kept by humans for the purpose of collecting their eggs, or killing for their meat and/or feathers and also for business purposes. Poultry is one of the main sources of living of people in both foreign and local countries. (Raloff, 2003) Purposive Sampling. Is a form of non-probability sampling in which decisions concerning the individuals to be included in the sample are taken by the researcher, based upon a variety of criteria which may include specialist knowledge of the research issue, or capacity and willingness to participate in the research.(Paul Oliver, 2012) Sanitation. Is the hygienic means of promoting health through prevention of human contact with the hazards of wastes. Hazards can be either physical, microbiological, biological or chemical agents of disease. (Ujang, 2003) Slaughterhouse. Is a facility where animals are killed for

consumption as food products. Slaughterhouses which process meat not intended for human consumption. (Eisnitz, 1997)

12

Chapter II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter the compiled literature of authors are included, regarding the study of poultry raising and its effect on the local population of Brgy. Maninang, Sapian, Capiz. This research project is with the alliance of some information derived from the internet and other references having a related idea. Foreign Literature U.S. slaughterhouses now kill more than 30 million birds every day, 10 billion birds a year. This carnage pollutes land, air, and water with diseased carcasses, feces, heavy metals, chemicals, bacteria, parasites, pathogen cysts, and viruses. Poisoned well water is a major problem on the Delmarva Peninsula (the Eastern Shore of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia), which slaughters over 600 million chickens a year, resulting in an annual 3.2 billion pounds of raw waste, 13.8 million pounds of phosphorous, and 48.2 million pounds of nitrogen (Harkin 2001). A typical slaughter plant kills over a quarter of a million chickens and uses 2 million gallons of water per day (Lipton, 2008). Awash in Manure, In the 1990s, poultry production in 5 West Virginia counties at the headwaters of the Potomac River, which nourishes the

13

Chesapeake Bay, grew from 7 million birds a year to 100 million birds, now producing enough manure to cover all 160 miles of Los Angeles freeways ankle deep (Gerstenzang, 2007). U.S. chicken producers use a total of 2.2 million pounds of the antibiotic arsenic compound roxarsone each year. More than 95 percent of the roxarsone fed to chickens is excreted in chicken waste which is regularly applied as fertilizer. The arsenic from these applications can leach into surface and ground water supplies and be transformed into inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen (Hopey, 2008). In California, an egg factory with 837,000 caged hens produces 21,000 cubic yards of manure per yearthe equivalent of about 1,400 dump truck loads (Dirkx2001). A poultry researcher states, The amount of animal wastes produced in the U.S. is staggering. In chickens, for example, the daily production of wastes is essentially equal to the amount of feed used. This means for every truckload of feed that is brought onto the farm, a similar load of waste must be removed. From the theory of L.D. Sims it is said that, farm biosecurity measures reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of introduction or onward transmission of pathogens; they include factors such as the location of farms, the physical facilities, and the operational procedures

14

implemented. Investments in these measures are subject to the law of diminishing returns. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has defined four production systems based partly on the biosecurity measures implemented. Distinguishing between farms on the basis of the measures practiced is important, as not all intensive poultry production units apply biosecurity measures appropriate to the level of risk of virus incursion. Experiences with highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses of the H5N1 subtype have shown that farms in all production systems have experienced outbreaks, of highly pathogenic avian influenza, and that it is not possible to blame one particular system for the genesis or spread of the disease. Nevertheless, farms that rear ducks outdoors or where poultry are sold through poorly regulated live poultry markets appear to be high-risk enterprises, especially in countries where infection is present. Enhancement of biosecurity measures is generally agreed to be the best way to minimize this risk, but not all farms are in a position to implement stringent biosecurity, especially those that rely on rearing poultry outdoors. Formal risk analysis has rarely been applied to individual farms, but would assist in determining the benefits of existing and proposed on-farm biosecurity measures and in highlighting gaps in our knowledge regarding the levels of hazard for farms. With regard to the environmental impacts of poultry production, it was argued that the real problem is not a lack of technologies to deal

15

with the problems, but the costs of implementing them and a lack of incentives and regulations to enforce their use. It was also suggested that pollution costs and other externalities should be taken into account when assessing the relative efficiency of different production systems. Other challenges brought up during the discussion included food safety, changing consumer demands (possible future increase in consumer demand for breast meat in developing countries), rising input costs, the use of feed crops for biofuel production, and loss of genetic diversity in the poultry population. The highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (H5N1), first identified in birds in China in 1996 and responsible for the outbreak of very severe disease in wild and domestic birds, has been circulating inAsian countries since2003. By 2009, the virus had spread to 62countries in Asia, the Middle East, eastern and western Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. In 12 of the 62 countries, only wild birds were infected. H5N1 has been declared endemic in Egypt and Indonesia, while parts of some other countries (Bangladesh, China and Vietnam) show signs of endemicity. The virus is spread through a combination of wild bird movements and trade in poultry and has led to the deaths of millions of poultry and caused billions of dollars of economic damage. Humans are rarely infected with HPAI and only occasional transmission between humans has been documented.

16

However, if the HPAI (H5N1) virus were to undergo genetic change and be capable of continuous transmission from one human to another, like the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic 2009 virus (a mixture of pig, poultry and human genome segments), a much more severe influenza pandemic resulting in millions of deaths and billions of dollars in economic costs 12 could be seen. The influenza A (H1N1) pandemic 2009 caused by a mild virus with a low (1.3 %) case fatality rate had caused 5700 deaths worldwide by 25 October 2009. However, another influenza pandemic virus, such as H5N1, could have higher pathogenicity and transmissibility and, therefore, be much more devastating in its impact on human lives and sustainable development globally. In a moderate pandemic flu scenario, studies have suggested that the economic losses from illness and death in the first year of the pandemic could amount to 1.3 % of world GDP or more. Combined with preventive costs of close to 2 % of GDP, total costs could exceed 3 % of world GDP in a moderate pandemic scenario (WB, 2009). Burns and others suggest that the cost of a global influenza pandemic could range from 0.7 to 4.8 % of global GDP according to the severity of the outbreak.(Anthony Wilsmore, 2010) The following statements provide a summary of Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) issues associated with poultry production, which occur during the operational phase, along with recommendations for their management. Recommendations for the management of EHS issues

17

common

to

most

large

projects

during

the

construction

and

decommissioning phases are provided in the General EHS Guidelines. Environmental issues in poultry production projects primarily include the following; Waste management, Wastewater, Air emission, Hazardous materials and Animal diseases Waste Management Solid waste generated during poultry production includes waste feed, animal waste, carcasses, and sediments and sludge from on-site wastewater treatment facilities (which may contain residual amounts of growth enhancers and antibiotics, among other hazardous constituents). Other wastes include various kinds of packaging (e.g. for feed and pesticides), used ventilation filters, unused / spoilt medications, and used cleaning materials. Recommended measures to maximize the efficiency of the operation and minimize wasted feed include the following; Protect feed from exposure to rain and wind during processing, storage, transport and feeding; Maintain feed storage, transport and feeding systems in good working condition; Maintain records of livestock feed use; Consider mixing of waste feed with other recyclable materials destined for use as fertilizer; and for waste feed which cannot be recycled due to potential

18

biosecurity issues, alternative disposal methods should be secured in consultation with local health authorities. Wastewater Poultry operations may generate effluents from various sources including runoff from poultry housing, feeding, and watering; from waste storage and management facilities. Waste management activities such as land application of manure, May generated non-point source effluents due to runoff. Both types of effluents have the potential to contaminate surface water and groundwater with nutrients, ammonia, sediment, pesticides, pathogens, and feed additives, such as heavy metals, hormones, and antibiotics. Effluents from poultry operations typically have a high content of organic material and consequently a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD), as well as nutrients and suspended solids (TSS).Effective waste management, as described above, is critical to minimizing discharges to surface water and ground water. In addition, the following management techniques are

recommended to further reduce the impacts of water runoff from poultry operations; Reduce water use and spills from animal watering by preventing overflow of watering devices and using calibrated, wellmaintained self-watering devices; Install vegetative filters to trap sediment; Install surface water diversions to direct clean runoff around

19

areas containing waste; Implement buffer zones to surface water bodies, as appropriate to local conditions and requirements, and avoiding land spreading of manure within these areas. Air Emissions Air emissions from poultry production include primarily ammonia (e.g. management of animal waste), odors (e.g. animal housing and waste management), and dust (e.g. feed storage, loading and unloading, and waste management activities). Effective waste

management, as described above, is critical to minimizing emissions of air pollutants. In addition, the management techniques discussed below is recommended to further reduce the impacts of air emissions from poultry operations. Recommended measures to reduce impacts of ammonia and odors include the following; Consider the sitting of new facilities taking into account distances to neighbors and the propagation of odors; Control the temperature, humidity, and other environmental factors of manure storage to reduce emissions; Consider composting of manure to reduce odor emissions; Reduce emissions and odors during land application activities by applying a few centimeters below the soil surface and by selecting favorable weather conditions (e.g. wind blowing away from inhabited areas); and If necessary, apply chemicals (e.g. urinals inhibitors) weekly to reduce conversion of nitrogen to ammonia.

20

Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials are used throughout the poultry production cycle (e.g. disinfecting agents, antibiotic and hormonal products). Guidance on the handling, storage, and transport of hazardous materials is provided in the General EHS Guidelines. Pesticides may be applied directly to birds or to structures (e.g. barns and housing units) and to control pests (e.g. parasites and vectors) using dipping vats, sprayers, and foggers. Pesticides can also be used to control predators. The potential pollutants from pesticides include the active and inert ingredients, diluents, and persistent degradation products. Pesticides and their degradation products may enter

groundwater and surface water in solution, in emulsion, or bound to soil particles. Pesticides may, in some instances, impair the uses of surface waters and groundwater. Some pesticides are suspected or known to cause chronic or acute health hazards for humans as well as adverse ecological impacts. By reducing pesticide use, poultry production operators may reduce not only the environmental impacts of their operations, but also production costs. Pesticides should be managed to avoid their migration into off-site land or water environments by establishing their use as part of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy and as documented in a Pesticide Management Plan (PMP). The following stages should be considered when designing and implementing

21

an IPM strategy, giving preference to alternative pest management strategies, with the use of synthetic chemical pesticides as a last option. Recommended IPM approaches in the mammalian livestock industry include the following; Maintain structures to keep out pests (e.g. plug holes, seal gaps around doors and windows); Use mechanical controls (e.g. traps, barriers, light, and sound) to kill, relocate, or repel pests; Use predators to control pests. Protect natural enemies of pests by providing a favorable habitat (e.g. bushes for nesting sites and other indigenous vegetation) that can house pest predators; and use good housekeeping practices in barns and other facilities to limit food sources and habitat for pests. Animal Diseases Animal disease-causing agents can spread rapidly, especially in intensive livestock operations. Animal diseases can enter a facility with new animals, on equipment, and on people. Some diseases can weaken or kill large numbers of animals at an infected facility. Both poultry manure and carcasses contain pathogenic organisms which can infect humans, for example viruses such as Avian Influenza (strain HN51), and parasites such as parasitical worms. Recommended management measures to minimize the potential for the spread of poultry pathogens include; Establish sound biosecurity protocols for the entire poultry operation that control animals, feed,

22

equipment, and personnel, entering the facility; Control farm animals, equipment, personnel, and wild or domestic animals entering the facility; Prevent the interaction of wild birds with feed, as this interaction could be a factor in the spread of avian influenza from sparrows, crows, etc. Vehicles that go from farm to farm should be subject to special precautions such as limiting their operation to special areas with biosecurity measures, spraying of tires and treating parking areas with disinfectants; Sanitize bird housing areas; Establish a detailed animal health program supported by the necessary veterinary and laboratory capability. Identify and segregate sick birds and develop management procedures for adequate removal and disposal of dead birds; Where possible establish all in- all out systems with only one age group per farm; Workers on multiple age bird farms should always work with the youngest birds first before moving on to the older birds; and train workers in the application of animal health products. Local Literature In the Philippines, Poultry production operations generate significant quantities of animal waste, mainly manure, but also including other materials such as bedding. Management of animal waste depends primarily on the type of operation, which may primarily consist of dry or wet cage system or litter. Animal waste management includes collection, transport, storage, treatment, utilization and disposal of the waste. Manure

23

is sometimes composted, but can also be stored in stacking sheds, roofed storage areas, outside and either covered or uncovered, or occasionally in ponds until it is ready for transport to a disposal site or land application area. Manure is generally used as a fertilizer on agricultural land. Manure contains nitrogen, phosphorus, and other excreted substances such as hormones, antibiotics, and heavy metals which are part of the feed. These substances may result in air emissions of ammonia and other gases and may pose a potential risk of contamination to surface or groundwater resources through leaching and runoff. Manure also contains bacteria and pathogens which may also potentially affect soil, water, and food resources, particularly if it is not properly managed during application as an agricultural fertilizer. Manure may be used as a fertilizer on agricultural land after careful assessment of potential impacts due to the presence of hazardous chemical and biological constituents. The results of the assessment may indicate the need for some level of treatment and preparation prior to its application as a fertilizer as well as the application rates.

24

CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This study was both a descriptive and inferential research on the level of awareness of the residents of Brgy. Maninang, Sapian, Capiz in relation to poultry raising. It is descriptive as it describes the different demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the respondents and their concern about poultry raising and its effects. It is inferential as it deals with deriving parameters from samples. The survey method was used in gathering data which means that samples were tapped instead of the population for convenience purpose but with enough precision.

Research design The researchers used one of the main type of descriptive method, the survey method. In survey method research, participants answer questions administered through interviews or questionnaires. Inferential method was used also, as it studies specific samples of people in order to understand how phenomena operate in large groups of individuals After participants answer the questions, researchers describe the responses given. In order for the survey to be both reliable and valid it is important that the questions are constructed properly. Questions should be written so they are clear and easy to comprehend.

25

Respondents of the Study Frequency distribution is a set of data arranged by synthesizing the number of times a value of a variable occurs (Zikmund, 2003). Frequency distribution is done in order to gain the number of responses pertaining to the different values of variables and the counting are then interpreted in percentage terms. Table 1.0 below will represent the summary of

frequency and percentage of respondents demographic profiles. Table 1.0 Respondents of the Study Demographic Profiles Sex Male Female Age 20 and Below 21 and Above Civil Status Single Married Occupational Status Employed Unemployed Household Size 28 4 and below 5 and above 72 28 100 72 39 61 39 61 100 47 53 47 53 100 36 64 36 64 100 54 46 54 46 100 Frequency Percentage Total

26

Monthly Income 10,000.00 and below 10,000.00 and above Highest Educational Attainment Elementary Graduate High School Graduate College Undergraduate College Graduate 9 18 25 48 9 18 25 48 59 41 59 41 100

100

The Research Instrument The research instruments used were the questionnaire on

demographic profile and set of items for the level of awareness on poultry raising considering its common environmental effects. The questionnaire used in the study was divided into two (2) parts: Part I included questions on the respondents personal profile such as sex, age, civil status, highest educational attainment, occupational status, monthly income and household size. Part II includes the questions to test the awareness of the respondents with 12 items. The responses for the items in this part were made by checking the box where the respondents choice was found. Part II contains three (3) of the most common problems encountered by the residence in poultry raising.

27

Scoring the Variables The responses to the items in Part II were made by checking the box with categories such as strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree. The following responses made by the respondents were assigned with corresponding scores: Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree = = = = 5 4 3 2 1

Strongly disagree =

The results were verbally interpreted through the categorization of variables shown below: 1.00 1.44 ----------------------- unaware 1.45 2.44 ----------------------- least aware 2.45 3.44 ----------------------- slightly aware 3.45 4.44 ----------------------- moderately aware 4.45 5.00 ----------------------- aware Gathering of Data The researchers asked permission from the Brgy. Captain of Brgy Maninang, Sapian, Capiz about the distribution of questionnaire and with the conduct of the research and they also asked to gather an official data for the population of the Barangay. The questionnaires were then distributed and the respondent answers the questions with the directions

28

and guidance of the researchers. After which, the data has been checked that nothing has been left blank and after the entire questionnaires has been answered, the data gathered were then summarized in a master data sheet for statistical tests purposes. Statistical Tools Used 1. Frequency and mean were computed and used in the presentation of demographic profile. It will also be used to find out the level of awareness of the residents. The formula for computing the mean is (Philip B. Ender, 1977): Where:

= N

mean

sum of the scores = number of cases

2. The t-test was used to determine the significant difference between the means of the level of awareness of the residents considering sex, civil status, occupational status, monthly income and household size. The formula for t-test is (Neil J. Salkind, 2000): [
( ) (

][

29

where: n1 n2 and = = sample size of the variable 1 sample size of the variable 2 = = = mean of variable 1 mean of variable 2 variances

3. The ANOVA or Analysis of Variance was used to determine the significant difference between the attitudes and habits of the residents considering the age and the highest educational attainment. The formula for ANOVA by Sokal and Rohlf (1973) is as follows:

where: = = Mean squares between Mean squares within

30

CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA This chapter includes presentation, analysis and interpretation of data which were drawn from the one hundred (100) respondents from Brgy Maninang, Sapian, Capiz. Statistical techniques are applied and interpretations are made in order to draw the conclusions of the study. This chapter also includes the questionnaire that has been distributed to the respondents, thus to gather necessary data that are needed to know the following: a) Demographic Profile of the respondents; b) the level of awareness of the respondents toward the implication of Poultry Raising in Maninang, Sapian, Capiz; c)significant difference in the level of awareness on poultry raising when the respondents are grouped according to age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, number of household member and monthly income and d) the problems

encountered by the residence in poultry raising. The results of the study are presented in tabulation and were interpreted by the researcher. Distribution of the Respondents The total sample size of 100 respondents was taken from the total population of 2,767. The respondents are then grouped according to their age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, household size and monthly income.

31

Distribution of Respondents by Sex Table 2.0 shows the respondents sexes, from a total of 100 respondents had been selected, the distribution of questionnaire shows that the overwhelming majority of participants come from male category with 54% compared to female category with only 46%. Data shows that male outnumbered the females. This inequality explains that there are few female who participated in this survey which may have an impact on decision making towards the implication of poultry raising and its effects, whereby men are more represented than females.

Table2.0 Distribution of the Respondents by Sex Sex Male Female Total Number 54 46 100 Percent 54 46 100

Distribution of Respondents by Age Table 2.1 shows the distribution of respondents by age. It can determine that the largest percentage of the respondents having 64% are 21 years old and above. These groups of age show that there are 64 respondents in this group. Meanwhile, respondent who are 20 years old and below are in 36% and show that there are 36 respondents in this

32

group of age. Therefore, majority of the respondents came from middle aged sector. As far as awareness is concerned, this age distribution on one hand has a negative impact on the responses in the way that young people are the ones updated with the happenings on their surroundings. On the other hand, this age distribution may play a positive impact on the responses in the way that this group of young people may be the one with little responsibilities which lead them to ignore the problems on their society compared than older ones with greater responsibilities, whereby old ones are more represented than young ones. Furthermore this may also affect the overall responses of the respondents towards the implication of poultry raising in Barangay Maninang.

Table2.1 Distribution of the Respondents by Age Age 20 and Below 21 and Above Total Number 36 64 100 Percent 36 64 100

Distribution of Respondents by Civil Status Table 2.2 shows the distribution of respondents by civil status. For respondents civil status, from a total of 100 respondents had been selected, It shows that majority of the respondents came from married

33

with a number of 53%, 9.43% of married are already separated and 5.67% are widowed, while single got 47%. The data therefore show that majority of the respondents were married. As far as effects and problems are concerned, married people are more aware than singles. Married are more cautious regarding the problems in their society, while single are the ones likely to ignore it. Furthermore, this may also affect the overall responses of the respondents towards the implication of poultry raising in Barangay Maninang. TABLE 2.2 Distribution of the Respondents by Civil Status Civil Status Single Married Total Number 47 53 100 Percent 47 53 100

Distribution of Respondents by Occupational Status Table 2.3 shows the distribution of respondents with respect to occupational status. The table also shows that 39% of the respondents are employed while 61% and definitely got the highest number are unemployed. Therefore, majority of the respondents are unemployed individuals or simply self-employed. As far as awareness is concerned, this distribution on one hand may also affect the responses of the

34

respondents. As the employed people may be the one who were always out of house and may ignore the implication of poultry raising because of their busy routine, while unemployed ones are more likely expose to the effects of poultry raising because they are somehow staying at home.

Table2.3 Distribution of the Respondents by Occupational Status Occupational Status Employed Unemployed Total Number 39 61 100 Percent 39 61 100

Distribution of Respondents by Household Size As indicated in Table 2.4, greater shares of the samples have a household size of between 5 and above, respondents representing 72% are in this group, while 28% of the samples are those with household size of between 4 and below. As far as awareness is concerned, this distribution on one hand may also affect the responses of the respondents towards the implication of Poultry raising. As households with larger household size may be the one who were always complimenting and arguing about the problems which they encountered and the more they will be aware compared to the household with smaller household size.

35

Table2.4 Distribution of the Respondents by Household Size Household Size 4 and below 5 and above Total Number 28 72 100 Percent 28 72 100

Distribution of Respondents by Monthly Income Table 2.5 shows the distribution of respondents according to monthly income. About 59% of the respondents who earned per month that is Php.10,000.00 and below while only 41% earned Php.10,001.00 and above. Therefore, the result reveals that majority of the respondents are earning Php.10,000.00 and below in a month. As far as awareness is concerned, this distribution on one hand may also have an impact to the responses of the respondents towards the implication of Poultry raising. As the respondents is always concerned about the problems in their surrounding as it may affect their families and worried that it could lead to a problem that money could involve. Table 2.5 Distribution of the Respondents by Monthly Income Monthly Income 10,000.00 and below 10,000.00 and above Total Number 59 41 100 Percent 59 41 100

36

Distribution of Respondents by Highest Educational Attainment The table 2.6 below shows the distribution of the respondents according to their highest educational attainment. College graduates outnumbered the others with a number of 48%. High School graduate with a number of 18% and Elementary graduate got 9%. The data therefore reveal that most of the respondents were college graduate. This distribution shows a positive thing, whereby no illiterate respondents are participating in this survey which is good for the study result in relation with awareness because everybody is able to read and understand the questionnaire that needs decision making towards the implication of poultry raising and its effects.

Table 2.6 Distribution of the Respondents by Highest Educational Attainment Highest Educational Attainment Elementary Graduate High School Graduate College Undergraduate College Graduate Total Number 9 18 25 48 100 Percent 9 18 25 48 100

37

Level of Awareness of the Respondents toward the Implication of Poultry Raising and its Effects As shown in table 3.0, the majority level of awareness of the respondents toward the implication of poultry raising and its effects were slightly aware with an average of 3.31%. The questionnaire includes three (3) common problems encountered by the residence in poultry raising, such as, a) The bad odors that are smelled coming from poultry areas with 4.46%, b) the flocking of flies 4.31% and c) disease that affects other pets and hog when nearby poultry encountered sickness 3.77%.

Table3.0 Level of Awareness of the Respondents

Level of Awareness (1) Bad odors are smelled coming from Poultry areas. (2) Household has experienced the flocking of flies coming from poultry areas. (3) Poultry raisers dispose their wastes properly. (4) Poultry raisers clean the poultry areas every day to avoid the foul odor. (5) Pets and other hogs were affected when nearby poultry encountered sickness. (6) Barangay officials imposing proper wastes disposal for the poultry raisers. (7) Proper sanitation was implemented for poultry shelter. (8) Poultry raisers use effective methods to reduce bacteria that could harm the surroundings. (9) Public information and education programs on poultry Production have been imposed. Weighted Mean 446 431 287 269 377 321 252 247 320 Mean Score 4.46 4.31 2.87 2.69 3.77 3.21 2.52 2.47 3.20 Verbal Interpretation Aware Moderately Aware Slightly Aware Slightly Aware Aware Slightly Aware Slightly Aware Slightly Aware Slightly Aware

38 (10) Government officials institute veterinary services that handle vaccination, production, breeding, disease control, etc. (11) Proper evaluation on the efficacy of a vaccination programme program have been assessed by the local officials. (12) Comprehensive Nutrition Management Plan, including a nutrient mass balance for the entire farm have been implemented.

347

3.47

Moderately Aware Slightly Aware

342

3.42

328

3.28

Slightly Aware

Difference in the Level of Awareness on Poultry Raising and its Effect between the Demographic Profile of the Respondents The tables presented below are the differences between the respondents level of awareness and their demographic characteristics. The gathered data are calculated using t-test and ANOVA. The presented tabulations will reveal whether there are significant differences in the level of awareness on poultry raising when the respondents are grouped according to age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, number of household member and monthly income, or nothing at all.

Difference in the Level of Awareness between Sexes Table 3.1 shows the t-test for the mean difference between Sexes of the respondents in terms of their level of awareness. The computed tvalue is lower than the tabular t-value at 0.05 level of significance; hence, the hypothesis is rejected. In other words, there is no significant difference

39

between the responses and level of awareness of the respondents, considering their sex. Meaning, the level of awareness of the residents of Barangay Maninang regarding the implication of poultry raising and its effects, is independent on their sex. Whether they are male or female, it doesnt affect their reaction on how they respond on the said problem.

Table3.1 Difference in the Level of Awareness on Poultry Raising and Its effects between Sexes of the respondents SEX MALE FEMALE MEAN 3.24 3.36 MD 0.12 COMPUTED T 1.9307 PROBABILITY N.S.

Tabular t-value = 1.9845 Degree of freedom = 98 Level of significance = 0.05 N.S= Not Significant

Difference in the Level of Awareness between Ages Table 3.2 shows the t-test for the mean difference between the level of awareness of the respondents considering their Age. The computed tvalue is greater than the tabular t-value at 0.05 level of significance; hence, the hypothesis is accepted. In other words, there is a significant difference between the responses and level of awareness of the respondents, considering their age. Meaning, the awareness of the

40

respondents of Barangay Maninang regarding the implication of poultry raising and its effects, is dependent on their age. It simply shows that respondents who are 21 years old and above are more aware than those group of age 20 and below.

Table 3.2 Difference in the Level of Awareness on Poultry Raising and Its effects between Ages of the respondents AGE 20 BELOW 21 ABOVE MEAN 3.21 3.39 MD 0.18 COMPUTED T 2.8474 PROBABILITY S

Tabular t-value = 1.9845 Degree of freedom = 98 Level of significance = 0.05 S= Significant

Difference in the Level of Awareness between Civil Statuses Table 3.3 shows the t-test for the mean difference between Civil Statuses of the respondents and their level of awareness. The computed tvalue is lower than the tabular t-value at 0.05 level of significance; hence, the hypothesis is rejected. In other words, there is no significant difference the responses and level of awareness of the respondents, considering their civil status. Meaning, the awareness of the respondents of Barangay Maninang regarding the implication of poultry raising and its effects, is

41

independent on their civil status. Whether they are married or not, it doesnt affect their reaction on how they respond on the said problem.

Table 3.3 Difference in the Level of Awareness on Poultry Raising and Its effects between Civil Statuses of the respondents CIVIL STATUS SINGLE MARRIED MEAN 3.29 3.34 MD 0.05 COMPUTED T 0.7837 PROBABILITY N.S.

Tabular t-value = 1.9845 Degree of freedom = 98 Level of significance = 0.05 N.S = not significant

Difference in the Level of Awareness between Occupations Table 3.4 shows the t-test for the mean difference between the level of awareness of the respondents considering their Occupation. The computed t-value is greater than the tabular t-value at 0.05 level of significance; with the supplied result, it simply shows that the hypothesis is accepted. In other words, there is a significant difference between the responses and level of awareness of the respondents, considering their occupation. Meaning, the level of awareness of the respondents of Barangay Maninang regarding the implication of poultry raising and its effects, is dependent on their occupational status, because the result

42

shows that employed people are more aware than the unemployed ones. Table 3.4 Difference in the Level of Awareness on Poultry Raising and Its effects between Occupations of the respondents OCCUPATION UNEMPLOYED EMPLOYED MEAN 3.22 3.39 MD 0.17 COMPUTED T 2.6219 PROBABILITY S

Tabular t-value = 1.9845 Degree of freedom = 98 Level of significance = 0.05 S= Significant

Difference in the Level of Awareness between Household Sizes Table3.5 shows the t-test for the mean difference between the level of awareness of the respondents considering their Household Sizes. The computed t-value is lower than the tabular t-value at 0.05 level of significance; hence, the hypothesis is rejected. In other words, there is no significant difference between the responses and level of awareness of the respondents, considering their household sizes. Meaning, the level of awareness of the respondents of Barangay Maninang regarding the implication of poultry raising and its effects, is independent on their household size. Because the result shows that, a respondent who came

43

from a big family had almost the same response with those who came from a small one. Table 3.5 Difference in the Level of Awareness on Poultry Raising and Its effects between Household Sizes of the respondents HOUSEHOLD SIZE 4 BELOW 5 ABOVE Tabular t-value = 1.9845 Degree of freedom = 98 Level of significance = 0.05 N.S = not significant MEAN 3.27 3.32 MD 0.05 COMPUTED T 0.7463 PROBABILITY N.S.

Difference in the Level of Awareness between Monthly Incomes Table 3.6 shows the t-test for the mean difference between the level of awareness of the respondents in terms of their Monthly Incomes. The computed t-value is greater than the tabular t-value at 0.05 level of significance; hence, the hypothesis is accepted. In other words, there is a significant difference between the responses and level of awareness of the respondents, considering their monthly income. So this means that, the level of awareness of the respondents of Barangay Maninang, regarding the implication of poultry raising and its effects, is dependent on their monthly income. Because the result shows that, a respondent who earns

44

below the mean had different level of awareness as compared with those groups who earns above the mean. Table 3.6 Difference in the Level of Awareness on Poultry Raising and Its effects between Monthly Incomes of the respondents MONTHLY INCOME 10,000 PESOS BELOW 10,001 PESOS ABOVE Tabular t-value = 1.9845 Degree of freedom = 98 Level of significance = 0.05 S = Significant MEAN 3.21 3.34 MD 0.13 COMPUTED T 2.0685 PROBABILITY S

Difference in the Level of Awareness between Highest Educational Attainments Table 3.7 shows the ANOVA for the mean difference between Highest Educational Attainment of the respondents in terms of their level of awareness. The computed f-value is lower than the tabular F-value at 0.05 level of significance; hence, the hypothesis is rejected. In other words, there is no significant difference between the responses and level of awareness of the respondents considering their Highest Educational Attainment. Meaning, the level of awareness of the respondents regarding the implication of poultry raising and its effects, is independent on their educational attainment. Because the result shows that, the

45

respondents had almost the same level of awareness, it doesnt matter whether they acquire a basic or a higher degree of education.

Table 3.7 ANOVA for the Mean Difference in the Level of Awareness on Poultry Raising and Its effects considering Highest Educational Attainment of the respondents SOURCE OF VARIATION Variation between Variation within Total SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR DF Probability SQUARES SQUARE F F 0.3270 22.48 22.807 3 44 47 0.109 0.511 0.213 2.82 N.S

46

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of poultry raising and its effects on the local population of Brgy. Maninang, Sapian Capiz. The conclusions are derived from the results and recommendations are based on the findings and conclusions.

Summary The primary objective of this study was to determine poultry raising and its effects on the local population of Brgy. Maninang, Sapian Capiz for fiscal year 2011-2012. This study covered 100 respondents out of 2,767 total population of Brgy. Maninang. The study covers environmental issues in poultry production projects such as, waste management, wastewater, air emission, hazardous materials and animal diseases. The study sought to determine significant difference in the level of awareness on poultry raising when the respondents are grouped according to age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, household size and monthly income.

47

This study used survey and correlation techniques of both descriptive and inferential method of research. The instrument used was the questionnaire made by the researchers. The statistical tools were frequency, percentage, mean, t-test and analysis of variance.

Findings Based on the results of the study, the findings were arrived that answers the following specific questions of this study: 1. What are the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents in terms of age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, Household Size, and monthly income? Result revealed that most of the respondents are male having 54% out of a hundred, so that means that 46% of the total respondents are female. When it comes to age, majority of them ranges from20 years old and below with a number of 36% while the highest number of 64% came from the age bracket ranges from 21 years old and above. Therefore, majority of the respondents came from middle aged sector. In their civil status, it shows that majority of the respondents came from married with a number of 53%, 9.43% of married are already separated and 5.67% are widowed, while single got 47%. The data therefore show that majority of the respondents were married. And with respect to occupational status, result shows that 39% of the respondents are employed while 61% and

48

definitely got the highest number are unemployed. Therefore, majority of the respondents are unemployed individuals or simply self-employed. Now with their household size, data reveals that 28% of the respondents have a household size of 4 and below while 72% of the samples belong to the 5 and above household size. Therefore, majority of respondents came from big household size. With the estimated monthly income, 59% of the respondents earn Php.10,000.00 and below while 41% earn Php.10,000.00 and above. Therefore, the table reveals that majority of the respondents are earning Php.10,000.00 and below in a month. For Highest educational attainment of the respondents, College graduates outnumbered the others with a number of 48%. College Undergraduate with 25%, High School graduate with a number of 18% and Elementary graduate got 9%. The data therefore reveal that most of the respondents were college graduate. 2. What is the level of awareness of the respondents to the implication of Poultry Raising and its Effects in Barangay Maninang, Sapian Capiz? Based on the result, the respondents responses gathered an average mean score of 3.31.It shows that from the answers, the residents of Barangay Maninang, Sapian, Capiz had exhibited a slightly aware level of awareness toward the implication of poultry raising in their Barangay.

49

3. Is there a significant difference in the level of awareness on poultry raising when the respondents are grouped according to age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, number of household member and monthly income? Interpretations of the data show that there is no significant difference between the responses and level of awareness of the respondents, considering their sex. Meaning, the level of awareness of the residents of Barangay Maninang regarding the implication of poultry raising and its effects, is independent on their sex. Whether they are male or female, it doesnt affect their reaction on how they respond on the said problem. Interpretations of the data show that there is a significant difference between the responses and level of awareness of the respondents, considering their age. Meaning, the awareness of the respondents of Barangay Maninang regarding the implication of poultry raising and its effects, is dependent on their age. It simply shows that respondents who are 21 years old and above are more aware than those group of age 20 and below. Interpretations of the data show that there is no significant difference the responses and level of awareness of the respondents, considering their civil status. Meaning, the awareness of the respondents of Barangay Maninang regarding the implication of poultry raising and its

50

effects, is independent on their civil status. Whether they are married or not, it doesnt affect their reaction on how they respond on the said problem. Interpretations of the data show that there is a significant difference between the responses and level of awareness of the respondents, considering their occupation. Meaning, the level of awareness of the respondents of Barangay Maninang regarding the implication of poultry raising and its effects, is dependent on their occupational status, because the result shows that employed people are more aware than the unemployed ones. Interpretations of the data show that there is no significant difference between the responses and level of awareness of the respondents, considering their household sizes. Meaning, the level of awareness of the respondents of Barangay Maninang regarding the implication of poultry raising and its effects, is independent on their household size. Because the result shows that, a respondent who came from a big family had almost the same response with those who came from a small one. Interpretations of the data show that there is a significant difference between the responses and level of awareness of the respondents, considering their monthly income. So this means that, the level of awareness of the respondents of Barangay Maninang, regarding the

51

implication of poultry raising and its effects, is dependent on their monthly income. Because the result shows that, a respondent who earns below the mean had different level of awareness as compared with those groups who earns above the mean. Interpretations of the data show that there is no significant difference between the responses and level of awareness of the respondents considering their Highest Educational Attainment. Meaning, the level of awareness of the respondents regarding the implication of poultry raising and its effects, is independent on their educational attainment. Because the result shows that, the respondents had almost the same level of awareness, it doesnt matter whether they acquire a basic or a higher degree of education. 4. What are the problems encountered by the residence in poultry raising? Based on the result, three (3) common problems had been encountered by the residence of Barangay Maninang in poultry raising. First in the rank, are the bad odors that are smelled coming from poultry areas with 4.46%, second, is the flocking of flies with 4.31% and lastly, is the disease that affects other pets and hog when nearby poultry

encountered sickness with 3.77%.

52

Conclusion Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn. The study conducted revealed that the residents of Brgy. Maninang, Sapian, Capiz had exhibited a slightly aware level of awareness toward the implication of poultry raising and its effects. The residents level of awareness regarding poultry raising and its effects is dependent on their age, occupational status and estimated monthly income, while independent on their sex, civil status, household size, and highest educational attainment. Based on the result, three (3) common problems had been encountered by the residence of Barangay Maninang in poultry raising. First in the rank, are the bad odors that are smelled coming from poultry areas with 4.46%, second, is the flocking of flies with 4.31% and lastly, is the disease that affects other pets and hog when nearby poultry encountered sickness with 3.77%.

Recommendations Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are set: 1. Poultry raisers should implement proper sanitation to avoid the foul odor and also the flocking of flies that somehow might carry the diseases.

53

2. Further

information

like

public

seminars

and

educational

programs about poultry raising should be imposed by the local government for the residents. 3. Government officials should regularly institute veterinary services that handle proper vaccination program, and also a proper nutrition plan for the animals. 4. It is recommended that further similar studies be conducted in other barangays to obtain a more comprehensive result.

54

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dirkx, P. 1992. Egg farm hinges on manure pile. Telegram-Tribune, San Luis Obispo, CA.

Gerstenzang, J. 1997. Poultry Production Threatens Potomac River's Health. San Francisco Chronicle.

Harkin, Tom. 1997 . Animal Waste Pollution in America: An Emerging

National Problem. Report Compiled by the Minority Staff of the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry for Senator.

Holleman, J.T. 1992. The Chicken or the Environment? In Arkansas Which Comes First, Tulane Environmental Law Journal 6.1.

Hopey, D. 2008.Chicken Feed Additive May Pose Danger. Pittsburgh PostGazette.

Lipton, E. 1997.Poultry Poses Growing Potomac Hazard. The Washington Post.

S c hw a b en b a u er, K. & R us hton, J. 2008.Vet eri nary s ervi c es f or poultryproduction. Poultry in the 21st century: avian influenza and beyond. FAO, Ed.

Sims, L.D., Domenech, J., Benigno, C., Kahn, S., Kamata, A., Lubroth, J., Martin, V. and Roeder P. 2005. Origin and evolution of highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza in Asia. Vet. Rec., 157: 159164.

55

Internet Sources

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultry_farming http://plato.stanford.edu http://www.biology-online.org http://www.da.gov.ph/dawebsite/poultry1.pdf http://www.fao.org http://www.thefreedictionary.com http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/21352/chicken-farm-fightsfoul-smell-claims http://www.upc-online.org/fouling.html www.fao.org/docrep/013/al673e/al673e00.pdf

56

APPENDIX A

POULTRY RAISING AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE LOCAL POPULATION OF BRGY. MANINANG, SAPIAN, CAPIZ Colegio De La Purisima Concepcion The School of the Archdiocese of Capiz Roxas City, Philippines (Survey Questionnaire) Part I. Check the circle that describes your answers. Age 20 and below 21 and above Educational Attainment Elementary Graduate High School Graduate College Undergraduate College Graduate Occupation Employed Unemployed Household Size 4 and below 5 and above Sex Male Female Civil Status Single Married

Monthly Income 10,000.00 pesos & below 10,001.00 pesos & above

Part II. Check the box that best suits your answer. Level of Awareness (1) Bad odors are smelled coming from Poultry areas. (2) Household has experienced the flocking of flies coming from poultry areas. (3) Poultry raisers dispose their wastes properly. (4) Poultry raisers clean the poultry areas every day to avoid the foul odor. (5) Pets and other hogs were affected when nearby poultry encountered sickness. (6) Barangay officials imposing proper wastes disposal for the poultry raisers. Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly Disagree

57 (7) Proper sanitation was implemented for poultry shelter. (8) Poultry raisers use effective methods to reduce bacteria that could harm the surroundings. (9) Public information and education programs on poultry Production have been imposed. (10) Government officials institute veterinary services that handle vaccination, production, breeding, disease control, etc. (11) Proper evaluation on the efficacy of a vaccination programme program have been assessed by the local officials. (12) Comprehensive Nutrition Management Plan, including a nutrient mass balance for the entire farm have been implemented.

58

APPENDIX B COMPUTATIONS

Computations for t-test: [ Tabular t-value = 1.9845 Degree of freedom = 98 Level of significance = 0.05 Computation for table 3.1
( )( ( ) ( ) )( )
( ( ) ( )

][

][

Computation for table 3.2

( )( ( ) ( ) )( )

][

Computation for table 3.3

( )( ( ) ( ) )( )

][

59

Computation for table 3.4

( )( ( ) ( ) )( )

][

Computation for table 3.5

( )( ( ) ( ) )( )

][

Computation for table 3.6

( )( ( ) ( ) )( )

][

Computation for Table 3.7 using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Elementary Q No. Graduate 1. 4.78 2. 4.56 3. 2.67 4. 2.00 5. 3.44 6. 2.89 7. 2.11 8. 2.67 9. 3.00 10. 3.44 11. 3.22 12. 3.44 Total 38.22 Mean 3.19 Grand Total = 156.80 Grand Mean = 3.27 Highest Educational Attainment High School College Graduate Undergraduate 4.44 4.20 4.28 4.08 2.56 3.00 2.56 2.68 4.06 3.64 3.22 3.16 2.61 2.52 2.33 2.56 3.50 2.88 3.78 3.00 3.50 3.20 3.39 3.28 40.23 38.20 3.35 3.18 College Graduate 4.65 4.42 3.10 2.71 3.81 2.60 2.56 2.44 3.40 3.69 3.54 3.23 40.15 3.35

60

Solution:
( Total sum of squares
( )

Sum of squares between ( )

Sum of squares within

)
( ) ( )

{[(

]}

Mean square between

61

Mean square within

F-test value

62

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

NAME: DATE OF BIRTH: PLACE OF BIRTH: HOME ADDRESS: SEX: CIVIL STATUS: CITIZENSHIP:

ANDREW JOHN FAMA FAELDONEA DECEMBER 1, 1990 DAO, CAPIZ POBLACION ILAYA DUMALAG CAPIZ MALE SINGLE FILIPINO

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ATTENDED: SMA YEAR GRADUATED: 2002-2003 SECONDARY SCHOOL ATTENDED: SMA YEAR GRADUATED: 2007-2008 TERTIARY SCHOOL ATTENDED: COLEGIO DELA PURISMA CONCEPCION COURSE: BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING YEAR GRADUATED: 2011-2012

63

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

NAME: DATE OF BIRTH: PLACE OF BIRTH: HOME ADDRESS: SEX: CIVIL STATUS: CITIZENSHIP:

JOEDHEL LLOYD EYAO OBORDO APRIL 22, 1991 MANINANG, SAPIAN, CAPIZ MANINANG, SAPIAN, CAPIZ MALE SINGLE FILIPINO

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ATTENDED: SAPIAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL YEAR GRADUATED: 2002-2003 SECONDARY SCHOOL ATTENDED: SAPIAN NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL YEAR GRADUATED: 2007-2008 TERTIARY SCHOOL ATTENDED: COLEGIO DELA PURISMA CONCEPCION COURSE: BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING YEAR GRADUATED: 2011-2012