Swine Commodity Analytics Paper Catelo-Daite-Bugayong 03 Oct 2019 PDF

SOCIO-ECONOMICS RESEARCH AND DATA ANALYTICS LABORATORY:
COMMODITY-SPECIFIC DATA ANALYTICS AND CAPACITY BUILDING

SUPPORT TO SOCIO-ECONOMICS R&D (SERDAL)
SWINE COMMODITY ANALYTICS
SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PHILIPPINE SWINE INDUSTRY
AUTHORS:
Maria Angeles O. Catelo
Richard B. Daite
Ern Lois Nicole M. Bugayong
PROJECT LEADERS:
Dr. Isabelita M. Pabuayon
Dr. Marilyn M. Elauria
October 2019
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE NO.
Cover Page i
Title Page ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
List of Annexes vii
INTRODUCTION 1
THE INDUSTRY 3
Cost of Production 7
Output Prices 9
FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY 11

Conceptual Framework 11
Factors Affecting Agglomeration 12
Spatial Analysis 13
Data and Methods 13
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 18

Changes in swine inventory by location 18
Factors that may influence spatial concentration of swine production over
time
Environmental impacts of spatial swine concentration 30
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 32
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 34
REFERENCES 35
ANNEXES 37
ii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
Volume of production of swine meat, 2012-2018 (in '000 metric

1 5
tons carcass weight equivalent)
Volume of domestic consumption of swine meat, 2012-2018
2 5
(in '000 metric tons carcass weight equivalent)
3 Share in population of highly urbanized regions, 2010 and 2015 9
4 Share in real GDP (2000=100) of top 5 regions, 2010 and 2017 9
5 Biological Oxygen Demand Loading (kg cycle -1) 16
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
TITLE
NO. NO.
1 Per capita meat consumption by share, Philippines, 2000-2018 1

2 Per capita pork consumption, selected countries, 2000-2027 2
3 Livestock and poultry inventory, 1990-2019 4
4 Share of livestock inventory by type of animal, 1990-2019 4
5 Major sources of fresh chilled and frozen pork imports, 20162018 6
6 Backyard and commercial swine inventories, 1994 to 2018 6
Share in swine animal inventory by scale of production, 1994
7 7
to 2018
Cash costs of farrow-to-wean production system, one sow-level
8 8
and one cycle, 2016
Share of cash and non-cash costs of farrow-to-wean production
9 8
system per cycle, 2016
Farmgate and retail prices of hogs and pork (Php/kg),
10 10
Philippines, NCR, and Regions III and IV, 1990-2017
11 Retail prices of meat, Philippines, 2000-2018 11
12 Total swine animal inventory in the Philippines by region, 2002 18
13 Total swine animal inventory in the Philippines by region, 2017 18
Regional share (%) in backyard swine animal inventory, top 5
14 19
regions 2002
Regional share (%) in backyard swine animal inventory, top 5
15 20
regions, 2017
Regional share (%) in commercial swine animal inventory, top
16 20
5 regions, 2002
Regional share (%) in commercial swine animal inventory, top 5
17 21
regions, 2017
18 Total swine inventory by province, Philippines, 1994 and 2018 22
Total swine inventory in backyard farms, by province, 1994 and
19 23
2018
Total swine inventory in commercial farms, by province, 1994
20 24
and 2018
Swine inventory and volume of production by region, 2000
21 25
and 2018
Swine inventory and gross regional domestic product, 2010 and
22 26
2017
Swine inventory and average annual household income by
23 27
region, 1994 and 2015
iv
24 Swine inventory and pork consumption per capita, per province, 28
1995 and 2016
25 Registered swine feed manufacturers by region, 2014 29
26 Swine inventory and top feed manufacturers, by province, 2014 29
Estimated BOD Loading in Philippine swine production by scale,
27 30
2000-2018
Estimated CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation and manure
28 31
management system in swine production, 2000-2018
v
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
Procedures for the Construction of Thematic with Proportional

A 37
Symbol Map using QGIS
Parts of the QGIS interface 37
Data Source Manager (Vector) 38
Shapefile of the Philippine provinces 38
Selected Parts of the Attribute Table Window 39
Add Field Window of the Attribute Table 39
Sample Attribute Table with Added Field 40
Layer Properties Window (Symbology) for Inventory 41
Map after Customization of Symbology (Inventory) 42
Layer Properties Window (Symbology) for Missing Data 43
Map after Customization of Symbology (Missing Data) 43
Data Source Manager (Delimited Text) 44
Map after Addition of Provincial Coordinates with Poverty
44
Incidence Rates
Layer Properties Window (Symbology) for Poverty
45
Incidence Rates
Map After Scaling the Points by Value to Represent the
46
Poverty Incidence Rates
Layout Window 46
Adjustment of Map Layout to Content 47
Addition and adjustment of the map on the layout 47
Addition of Background Color on the map 48
Addition of the north arrow/compass on the map 48
Addition of the scalebar on the layout 49
Addition of label on the layout 49
Addition of legend on the layout 50
Legend Item Properties Window 50
Edited Legend Item Entries on the Layout 51
Removal of Legend Background on the Layout 51
Procedures for the Construction of Thematic with Pie Chart Map
B 52
using QGIS
Field Calculator Window for Computation of Real
53
Household Income
Field Calculator Window for Addition of 1000 Separator 54
Sample Attribute Table with Added Fields 54
vi
Layer Properties Window (Symbology) for Average
55
Annual Household Income
Layer Properties Window (Labels - Text) for Average
56
Expression Dialog Window for Label With Option 56
Layer Properties Window (Labels - Formatting) for
57
Average Annual Household Income
Layer Properties Window (Labels - Buffer) for Average
58
59
Map after Customization of Labels and Addition of
60
Regional Coordinates with Inventory Data
Layer Properties Window (Diagrams - Attributes) for
61
Inventory Data
Layer Properties Window (Diagrams – Size) for Inventory
62
Data
Layer Properties Window (Diagrams - Placement) for
62
Inventory Data
Map after Customization of Pie Charts 63
Trends in backyard and commercial inventories by age of animals,
C 64
2000-2018
Computation of BOD loading by age classification of animals,
D 65
2000-2018
Data used to estimate CH4 emissions from swine production and
E 67
CO2-eq
vii
SOCIO-ECONOMICS RESEARCH AND DATA ANALYTICS LABORATORY:
COMMODITY-SPECIFIC DATA ANALYTICS AND CAPACITY BUILDING
SUPPORT TO SOCIO-ECONOMICS R&D (SERDAL)
SWINE COMMODITY ANALYTICS
SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PHILIPPINE SWINE INDUSTRY
AUTHORS:
Maria Angeles O. Catelo
Richard B. Daite
Ern Lois Nicole M. Bugayong
PROJECT LEADERS:
Dr. Isabelita M. Pabuayon
Dr. Marilyn M. Elauria
October 2019
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE NO.
Cover Page i
Title Page ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
List of Annexes vii
INTRODUCTION 1
THE INDUSTRY 3
Cost of Production 7
Output Prices 9
FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY 11

Conceptual Framework 11
Factors Affecting Agglomeration 12
Spatial Analysis 13
Data and Methods 13
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 18

Changes in swine inventory by location 18
Factors that may influence spatial concentration of swine production over 24
time
Environmental impacts of spatial swine concentration 30
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 32
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 34
REFERENCES 35
ANNEXES 37
iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
Volume of production of swine meat, 2012-2018 (in '000 metric

1
tons carcass weight equivalent) 5
Volume of domestic consumption of swine meat, 2012-2018
2
(in '000 metric tons carcass weight equivalent) 5
3 Share in population of highly urbanized regions, 2010 and 2015 9
4 Share in real GDP (2000=100) of top 5 regions, 2010 and 2017 9
5 Biological Oxygen Demand Loading (kg cycle -1) 16
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
v
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
Procedures for the Construction of Thematic with Proportional

A 37
Symbol Map using QGIS
Parts of the QGIS interface 37
Data Source Manager (Vector) 38
Shapefile of the Philippine provinces 38
Selected Parts of the Attribute Table Window 39
Sample Attribute Table with Added Field 40
Layer Properties Window (Symbology) for Inventory 41
Map after Customization of Symbology (Inventory) 42
Layer Properties Window (Symbology) for Missing Data 43
Map after Customization of Symbology (Missing Data) 43
Map after Addition of Provincial Coordinates with Poverty
44
Incidence Rates
Layer Properties Window (Symbology) for Poverty
45
Incidence Rates
Map After Scaling the Points by Value to Represent the
46
Layout Window 46
Adjustment of Map Layout to Content 47
Addition and adjustment of the map on the layout 47
Addition of Background Color on the map 48
Addition of the north arrow/compass on the map 48
Addition of the scalebar on the layout 49
Addition of label on the layout 49
Addition of legend on the layout 50
Legend Item Properties Window 50
Edited Legend Item Entries on the Layout 51
Removal of Legend Background on the Layout 51
Procedures for the Construction of Thematic with Pie Chart Map
B
using QGIS 52
Field Calculator Window for Computation of Real
53
Household Income
Field Calculator Window for Addition of 1000 Separator 54
Sample Attribute Table with Added Fields 54
Layer Properties Window (Symbology) for Average
Annual Household Income 55
Layer Properties Window (Labels - Text) for Average
56
Expression Dialog Window for Label With Option 56
57
Layer Properties Window (Labels - Buffer) for Average
vi
Annual Household Income 58
59
Map after Customization of Labels and Addition of
Regional Coordinates with Inventory Data 60
Layer Properties Window (Diagrams - Attributes) for
Inventory Data 61
Layer Properties Window (Diagrams – Size) for Inventory
62
Data
Layer Properties Window (Diagrams - Placement) for
62
Inventory Data
Map after Customization of Pie Charts 63
Trends in backyard and commercial inventories by age of animals,
C
2000-2018 64
Computation of BOD loading by age classification of animals,
D
2000-2018 65
Data used to estimate CH4 emissions from swine production and
E 67
CO2-eq
vii
SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PHILIPPINE SWINE INDUSTRY1
Maria Angeles O. Catelo2

Richard B. Daite2
Ern Nicole Louis Bugayong3
I. Introduction
Like many developing and emerging countries in Southeast Asia (e.g., Thailand,
Myanmar, Vietnam, and Lao PDR) and China, where livestock is a significant component of
the rural economy, the swine sector in the Philippines is a vital source of economic growth
where smallholder swine producers continue to participate and dominate (Catelo 2019). Pork
or swine meat is an important source of animal protein and demand for pork has historically
been increasing due primarily to growing average income, population, and changing
lifestyles (Costales et al. 2003; Delgado et al. 2008). Per capita consumption of meat in the
Philippines in 1990 was 13.5 kg and this more than doubled to 29.7 kg in 2017. Per capita
consumption of pork was 8.6 kg in 1990 and it increased by almost twice as much to 15.4 kg
in 2017 (PSA 2018). Figure 1 shows the relative importance of pork as a source of animal
protein in the Philippines, comprising at least 50 percent share in per capita consumption in
the past two decades and exceeding the combined shares of beef and poultry.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2003
2000
2001
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
SHAREPORK SHAREBEEF SHAREPOULTRY
Figure 1. Per capita meat consumption by share, Philippines, 2000-2018

Source: PSA
1
Prepared under the PCAARRD- UPLB-CEM project on Socio-Economics Research and Data Analytics Laboratory
(SERDAL)
2
Department of Economics, CEM,UPLB.
3
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, CEM, UPLB.
1
Moreover, the OECD (2019) projects that per capita consumption of pork in the
country will steadily increase to 17 kg in 2027 which is relatively higher than that of the
world and Thailand, although much lower than China’s and Vietnam’s (Figure 2).
40.00 Viet Nam

37.54
35.00
China
30.00 32.69
25.00
(kg/year)
20.00 Philippines
17.00
15.00
World
10.00 12.25
Thailand
5.00 11.69
0.00
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Figure 2. Per capita pork consumption, selected countries, 2000-2027

Source: OECD
In order to meet this increasingly high demand for pork, swine production in the
country has intensified and has become more commercial in scale. The emergence of
commercial and vertically integrated swine farms and contract farms in urban and peri-urban
areas has changed the swine production landscape (Catelo 2019). The OECD (2019) projects
that pork production in the Philippines would grow at an average of 1.78 percent annually
from 2018 to 2027. By 2027, pork production will reach 2.35 million metric tons in carcass
weight equivalent (MMT-CWE) while pork consumption will be at 2.63 MMT-CWE.
Presumably, the projected domestic shortage of 0.28 MMT-CWE would be accounted for by
imports.
Notwithstanding the economic and social opportunities that a commercializing swine

industry can provide, certain recurring issues have become central in current debates such as
the declining share of backyard swine farms in animal inventories (Costales et al. 2003),
decreasing productivity of backyard swine farms (Catelo 2019), persistently rising feed cost,
and environmental pollution (Catelo et al. 2001; Costales et al. 2003; Catelo et al. 2008;
Delgado et al. 2008; FAO 2012; Catelo 2019). These issues may be partially understood by
examining the geographical location of swine farms through time, be they commercial or
backyard in nature. Spatial concentration of swine farms will have economic consequences
on production, marketing, and farm structure and may be affected by factors such as the geo-
physical environment, the market for inputs and outputs in the locale, environmental quality,
and the local economy in general. Spatial analysis would be useful to understand how
2
changes in structure, and the underlying reasons for such, are reflected through time and
location to help shed some light on the issues mentioned above.
The interest of this paper is on a) describing the changes in spatial concentration of

swine production through time; b) identifying possible factors that may influence spatial
concentration of swine production; and c) understanding the environmental impacts related
to spatial concentration of swine production.
Section II of this paper presents key information about the swine industry. Section III
expounds on the framework and methodological approach. Section IV discusses the empirical
results using appropriate analytical techniques as determined by data availability. Such
analytics include cursory analysis, trend analysis, and thematic maps. It has to be emphasized
at the outset that in the case of swine, detailed farm-level cross-section and time-series data
are quite limited to be subjected to more sophisticated analyses. Hence, the analytics may not
always readily provide answers to important issues but may provide context and take-off
point for deeper analysis. Section V summarizes and concludes.
II. The Industry
The swine sector in the Philippines continues to be an economic growth point of the
agricultural sector. In fact, data from the US Department of Agriculture Foreign Agriculture
Services (USDA FAS) would show that the Philippines ranked 8th in the world in terms of
the carcass equivalent of swine production (Catelo and Daite 2017). In the past two decades
(1997-2017), swine production is estimated to have grown at an annual rate of almost two
percent, despite disease outbreaks and rising feed and fuel costs in recent years. For the same
period, livestock production consistently accounted for an average of 16-17 percent of the
gross value added in agriculture (GVAA), posting second to the 20-22 percent average share
of paddy rice. Of the 16-17 percent share of livestock production in GVAA, about 80 percent
(or 13 percent) is contributed by swine production (PAS 2018).
Swine production continues to be the dominant livestock subsector in the Philippines

with 55-60 percent of meat production being accounted for by pork. Total animal inventory
was 12.60 million heads and volume of pork production was 2.32 million metric tons in 2018.
The trend in livestock and poultry inventory for 1990 to 2019 is depicted in Figure 3 while
the share of animals in the livestock inventory for the same period is shown in Figure 4. These
two figures give evidence to the consistent predominance of swine (hog) in animal inventory
over time.
3
Figure 3. Livestock and poultry inventory, 1990-2019
Source: PSA
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Carabao Cattle Goat Hog
Figure 4. Share of livestock inventory by type of animal, 1990-2019

Source: PSA
Production data from 2012 to 2018 showed that the Philippines ranks 8th among the
top producers of swine meat in the world. However, it accounted for only 1.3 percent of
global output, which is dominated by China at ~50 percent and the European Union at 21
percent (Table 1). In terms of domestic consumption of swine meat, the Philippines is also
listed as among the top although it accounted for only 1.5 percent of the world total for the
same period (Table 2).
4
Table 1. Volume of production of swine meat, 2012-2018 (in '000 metric
tons carcass weight equivalent)
Country 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 SUM %
China 53,427 54,930 56,710 54,870 51,850 53,400 54,150 379,337 49.3
European Union 22,526 22,359 22,540 23,290 23,350 23,663 24,100 161,828 21.0
United States 10,554 10,525 10,368 11,121 11,307 11,661 11,992 77,528 10.1
Brazil 3,330 3,335 3,400 3,519 3,710 3,725 3,625 24,644 3.2
Russia 2,175 2,400 2,510 2,615 2,770 3,000 3,235 18,705 2.4
Vietnam 2,307 2,349 2,425 2,475 2,525 2,741 2,625 17,447 2.3
Canada 1,844 1,822 1,805 1,899 1,975 1,959 1,960 13,264 1.7
Philippines 1,310 1,340 1,353 1,370 1,440 1,563 1,600 9,976 1.3
Mexico 1,239 1,284 1,290 1,323 1,385 1,267 1,310 9,098 1.2
Japan 1,297 1,309 1,264 1,254 1,275 1,282 1,285 8,966 1.2
Korea, South 1,086 1,252 1,200 1,217 1,232 1,280 1,375 8,642 1.1
Rest of the World 5,778 5,923 5,701 5,423 5,382 5,497 5,701 39,405 5.1
World Total 106,873 108,828 110,566 110,376 108,201 111,038 112,958 768,840 100.0
Source: USDA FAS
Table 2. Volume of domestic consumption of swine meat, 2012-2018

(in '000 metric tons carcass weight equivalent)
Country 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 SUM %
China 53,922 55,456 57,195 55,668 54,070 54,812 55,725 386,848 50.5
European Union 20,382 20,147 20,390 20,913 20,062 20,817 21,065 143,776 18.8
United States 8,441 8,665 8,545 9,341 9,452 9,540 9,760 63,744 8.3
Russia 3,239 3,267 3,024 3,016 3,160 3,338 3,250 22,294 2.9
Brazil 2,670 2,751 2,845 2,893 2,811 2,941 2,992 19,903 2.6
Japan 2,557 2,549 2,543 2,568 2,590 2,741 2,785 18,333 2.4
Vietnam 2,279 2,333 2,408 2,456 2,506 2,703 2,660 17,345 2.3
Mexico 1,850 1,956 1,991 2,176 2,270 2,180 2,305 14,728 1.9
Korea, South 1,546 1,628 1,660 1,813 1,868 1,926 2,010 12,451 1.6
Philippines 1,446 1,511 1,551 1,544 1,659 1,803 1,869 11,383 1.5
Taiwan 906 892 875 930 897 929 933 6,362 0.8
Rest of the World 7,152 7,277 6,869 6,587 6,656 6,854 7,079 48,474 6.3
World Total 106,390 108,432 109,896 109,905 108,001 110,584 112,433 765,641 100.0
Source: USDA FAS
Tables 1 and 2 would show that domestic pork production in the Philippines has not
been sufficient to meet domestic consumption. Thus, pork imports covered for this deficiency
and the trend in recent years has been increasing. In 2016-2018, the major sources of
imported frozen pork (including edible offal) were Canada, Germany, U.S., France and
Spain. The combined value of frozen pork imports from these countries over the same period
was $496 million, and this was already 87% of the total value of frozen pork imports of the
Philippines (Figure 5).
5
Figure 5. Major sources of fresh chilled and frozen pork imports, 2016-2018
Source: www.trademap.org
The volume of swine production of 2.32 million metric tons (liveweight) in 2018 is
supported by an animal inventory that stood at 12.60 million head (Figure 6). For the period
1994-2018, total swine inventory in the Philippines grew at an average annual rate of close
to two percent with the highest growth rate of 3.3% occurring between 1994 and 2000 but
thereafter, growth of total swine inventory tapered off to only 0.3 percent between 2011 to
2018
Figure 6. Backyard and commercial swine inventories, 1994 to 2018

Source: PSA
(Catelo 2019). This slowdown in total swine inventory was largely due to the negative 0.7
percent growth of backyard swine farms between 2011-2018. The share of backyard swine
6
farms in animal inventory markedly decreased from 80 percent in 1994 to only 64 percent in
2018 (Figure 7). In contrast, animal inventory in commercial swine farms grew steadily at an
average annual rate of 7 percent between 1994 and 2018, with sharp increase in growth of
5.9 percent between 1994-2000 and then slowing down to 2.4 percent between 2011 to 2018.
The share of commercial swine farms in animal inventory increased from 20 percent in 1994
to 36 percent in 2018 and this reflects the intensification of swine production presumably as
a response to increasing demand for pork over time.
Figure 7. Share in swine animal inventory by scale of production, 1994 to 2018

Source: PSA
Cost of Production
The most important cost component of swine production is feed cost which has
remained within 60-80 percent share, depending on the production system and output as well
as on whether the operator/family labor is included as a non-cash cost in the case of backyard
swine farms or as a cash cost for hired labor in the case of commercial swine farms (Costales
et al. 2003). For operating farrow-to-wean production system at one-sow level and for one
production cycle, Figure 8 shows that feed cost accounts for about 80 percent of the total
cash cost. If non-cash costs such as operator and/or family labor cost is included, then the
share of feed cost in the total cost of production decreases to 62 percent but this is still huge
particularly for backyard swine farms (Figure 9). The cost of feed largely depends on the
price of main ingredients particularly yellow corn.
7
Utilities
4%
Boar service
& service fee
9%
Biologics Feeds
7% 80%
Figure 8. Cash costs of farrow-to-wean production system, one sow-level

and one cycle, 2016
Source: Catelo (2019) citing PB Livestock Business (2016)
Figure 9. Share of cash and non-cash costs of farrow-to-wean production

system per cycle, 2016
Source: Catelo (2019) citing PB Livestock Business (2016)
For commercial swine feed, the main ingredient remains to be corn or its substitute
protein, feed wheat, which accounts for 50 to 60 percent (Catelo 2019). Another important
ingredient is soybean meal (20 to 25 percent) and fish meal (Vasquez 2010 as cited in
Gonzales et al. 2012). Although local feed mills also make use of domestic yellow corn when
its price is relatively cheaper, most of the aforementioned feed ingredients are imported.
Of the 700 registered feed mills in the country, about three-fourths of them are found
in Luzon and are usually located near corn-growing areas. San Miguel Foods, Cargill
8
Philippines, Swift Foods, Inc., General Milling Corporation, and Vitarich Corporation are
the top five feed mill companies in the country (Gonzales et al. 2012).
Output Prices
Demand for pork is concentrated in Metro Manila (NCR) which is highly populated
and is also a major urban and commercial center (Costales et al. 2007). In 2010 and 2015,
NCR accounted for about 13 percent of the national population (Table 3). Households in
NCR earned incomes that were, on average, twice the incomes of households outside the
region. In fact, NCR’s real GDP in 2010 and 2017 accounted for more than one-third of the
country’s GDP (Table 4).
Table 3. Share in population of highly urbanized regions, 2010 and 2015
2010 2015
Philippine population (million) 92.3 101.0
Region Share (%) Urban(%)
NCR 12.8 12.8 100
Region IV-A 13.7 14.3 59
Region III (Central Luzon) 11.0 11.1 52
Region VII Central Visayas) 6.0 6.0 N/A
Region XI (Davao Region) 3.8 4.3 60
Source: PSA
Table 4. Share in real GDP (2000=100) of top 5 regions, 2010 and 2017
2010 2017
Philippines (million Php) 5,701 8,665
Region Share (%)
NCR 35.7 36.4
Region IV-A 17.7 16.8
Region III (Central Luzon) 9.0 9.7
Region VII Central Visayas) 6.0 6.4
Region XI (Davao Region) 3.8 4.3
Source: PSA
Two peripheral regions of Metro Manila, namely Region III (Central Luzon) and
Region IV-A (CALABARZON) are also considered as secondary growth centers of
consumer demand for pork because of their growing population, high level of urbanization,
and rising incomes as reflected by their relatively greater shares in the national GDP. As
9
shown by Tables 3 and 4, Region VII (Central Visayas) and Region XI (Davao Region)
complete the top 5 regions in terms of population, urbanization, and regional income.
As for output prices, Figure 10 shows the trend in average annual farmgate price of
hogs (Php/kg liveweight) in the Philippines and in the top two swine producing regions of
Central Luzon (Region III) and CAALBARZON (Region IV-A) for the period 1990 to 2017.
Also shown are the retail prices of pork (Php/kg carcass weight equivalent) at the national
level as well as in the high consumer demand centers of NCR, Region III, Region IV-A. In
general, swine producers in Region III and Region IV-A consistently received relatively
higher farmgate prices of hogs than anywhere else in the country and this is incentive for
higher swine production in these regions On the other hand, retail prices of pork were highest
in NCR where consumer incomes, level of urbanization, and population were also high.
Retail prices in Region IV and Region III were comparatively higher than those at the national
level. The same three factors can be associated with this outcome and they can also serve as
incentive for swine producers/traders to sell more in these regions.
Figure 10. Farmgate and retail prices of hogs and pork (Php/kg),
Philippines, NCR, and Regions III and IV, 1990-2017
Source: PSA
For purposes of comparing prices of meat faced by consumers, Figure 11 shows the
average national annual retail prices of pork and those of its close substitutes, namely, beef
and chicken (broiler meat) for 2000 to 2018.
10
350.00
300.00
250.00
Php/kg
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
-
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
PRICEPORK PRICEBEEF PRICEROILER
Figure 11. Retail prices of meat, Philippines, 2000-2018.

Source: PSA
III. Framework and Methodology
A. Conceptual Framework
This study attempted to describe the changes in spatial concentration of swine

production in the Philippines through time. The main motivation is the notion that the varying
structure and locational concentration of any industry’s production base will have
consequences on and may be affected by, among other things, the market for inputs and
outputs, physical resource use, environmental quality, and the local economy in general. A
more sophisticated analysis (such as advanced spatial econometric modeling) would have
been appropriate to test the possible economic implications of geographical concentration in
swine production. Given data limitation, however, the study employs mainly descriptive
analysis which could be the basis of further research that may spin off from these analytics.
The concepts and theories related to spatial economic analysis and the economics of
agglomeration were used to guide this study of the Philippine swine industry. Spatial analysis
is employed to see how changes in structure is reflected through time and location. This is
useful to understand the interaction between location of swine production and important
socio-economic conditions and physical variables. The possible explanations for such
phenomenon can be supported by the economics of agglomeration, which proposes that
economic benefits can be exploited when firms are located near each other.
11
Factors Affecting Agglomeration
Fujita & Thisse (2002) identified the following broad important factors that could
explain geographical concentration of economic activities: (1) increasing returns in
production; (2) presence of externalities such as availability of specialized input services,
formation of a highly specialized labor force , production of new ideas, and the existence of
modern infrastructure; and (3) factor mobility and transportation costs. The consequences of
changes in spatial organization can also be explained by local supply and demand balances
for inputs and outputs; the features of the local economy; and use of industry-specific
infrastructure and projects (Larue, et al., 2011). While factors such as economies of scale and
forward and backward linkages in production (among which are the presence of suppliers
and a reliable labor market) can work towards the concentration of economic activity, other
factors such as factor immobility, high prices for land-rent and housing in general,
commuting costs, and congestion can hinder it (Gruber & Soci, 2010).
In the swine industry, specific factors come into play when analyzing spatial
organization of production. In Denmark, Larue, et al. (2011) focused on traditional
determinants of agglomeration in swine production such as positive spillovers among farms,
interaction with the upstream and downstream sectors, and the impact of environmental
regulation. Spatial externalities may result from better diffusion of information and
knowledge through producer organizations and farmer advisors and from a higher quality
available labor force. Location and production decisions may be influenced by access to
inputs (such as feed processing plants and veterinary services) and accessibility to output
markets (the main demand centers). The authors also noted, however, that in areas where
swine production is concentrated, there has been concern about the environmental impact of
industrial pig raising. Several local areas reported experiencing environmental problems
where swine production is dominant. In such cases, the location may be affected by the
stringency of environmental regulations in those areas. In the United States, a summary of
factors that make a particular location desirable for swine production are: plentiful feed
supply; access to slaughter outlets; well-trained workforce; a local network of veterinarians,
nutritionists and other swine-related professionals; low taxes and regulatory compliance
costs; and freedom from vagaries of urban encroachment (e.g., greater traffic and scrutiny of
neighbors) (Roe, et al., 2002). Changes in agricultural policy and general business policy
may also influence the location of pig production (Larue, et al. 2011).
12
Spatial Analysis
The main purpose of spatial analysis is to better understand the relationship between
the spatial positioning of objects and phenomena (e.g., economic activities) and their
characteristics (Audric, et al., 2018). Spatial data is an observation where its value and
location are known. The literature distinguishes three types of spatial data: point data,
continuous data, and areal data. Point data are characterized by the spatial distribution of
the observations which generates the geographic coordinates associated with the emergence
of an observation. Only the location matters in point data, whose values are not analyzed.
Examples are the location of housing units, or areas from where an epidemic disease emerges.
Continuous data contain a value for the variable of interest at any point across the territory
studied. Examples include the chemical composition of the soil (useful to the mining industry
or to farming), water or air quality (for studies on pollution), or various meteorological
variables. Spatial analysis of continuous data mainly aims to predict the value of a variable
at a point where it has not been sampled, as well as the reliability of this prediction. Areal
data are assumed to be fixed in a location and most often based upon a partition of the
territory into contiguous zones. Examples include gross domestic product (GDP) by region,
or the number of marriages per town. The spatial analysis of areal data begins with defining
the neighborhood structure of the observations, then proceeds to quantify the influence that
observations have on their neighbors, and lastly assesses the significance of this influence.
While this study makes use of these types of spatial data, the analysis is limited to
describing the changes in structure of swine production across geographical boundaries and
time and their possible association with key socio-economic, physical, and environmental
factors defined in those areas. Studies relating swine distributions to spatial variables have
mostly employed linear regression models (see for example Thanapongtharm, et al., 2016;
and Silva, et al., 2017). These would, however, require more comprehensive datasets, such
as time-series data on the number of swine animals per farm/holding and detailed censuses
of farming systems, which are not accessible in this research.
B. Data and Methods
This study mapped out the changes in the level of swine inventory and production
(whether commercial or backyard) across provinces and regions through time. The
hypothesis is that there is greater spatial distribution of commercial swine inventory in
rapidly urbanizing regions to take advantage of proximity to demand centers, input suppliers,
13
labor, and swine-related services. Also, pork consumption is related to increasing income and
animal production, and thus these datasets will inform the associations among these variables.
It is also hypothesized that environmental pollution increases with greater spatial
concentration of swine production.
For this, the study used secondary data from official government sources, mainly from
the Philippine Statistics Authority and its attached agencies. Data on the following were
gathered:
a. Swine Inventory by Province (Commercial, Backyard, and Total), 1994

to 2018
b. Poverty Incidence by Province, 2006 to 2015
c. Hog Production by Region, 2000 to 2018
d. Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP), 2010 to 2017
e. Average Annual Household Income by Region, 1994 to 2015
f. Pork Consumption per Capita, 1995 to 2016
g. Top Swine Feed Manufacturers by Province, 2014
h. Registered Swine Feed Manufacturers by Region, 2014
i. Land Area per Province
j. Shapefile for the Philippine provinces (downloaded from
http://philgis.org)
The study employed geospatial mapping of swine inventory location in relation to the
key socio-economic variables described above. This was done using the Quantum GIS
(QGIS) software, which is an open-source software that provides basic to intermediate
Geographical Information System (GIS) analysis tools. This software allows the creation and
visualization of geospatial information useful in this study. Annex A and Annex B provide
more detailed procedures in the construction of the maps using the QGIS software.
One of the initial steps is to create a QGIS map of the Philippines showing the changes
in the commercial and backyard swine inventory across regions and provinces in two time
periods to show which areas experienced greater (or less) intensification of swine raising.
Then, in proposing some explanations for such changes, these maps were overlaid with maps
of socio-economic variables of interest. The overlaid maps described the entanglement of the
geographical concentration of swine raising with variables such as local economic
development (GRDP, poverty incidence), demand conditions (annual household income, per
14
capita consumption), access to inputs and infrastructure (presence of feed manufacturers),
and use of land resources (hog density per area). Conclusions were made based on the
associations revealed from the analysis which may become bases for future detailed research.
For increased environmental pollution that is hypothesized to occur with greater

spatial concentration of swine production over time, the variables used in this study is the
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Methane (CH4) emissions. BOD is an indicator of
pollution that is present in the wastewater coming from swine farms and is the most widely
used parameter in estimating the water pollution potential of organic wastes. There are
certainly other pollutants that are found in swine wastewater such as Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD), Total Solids (suspended or dissolved in wastewater), Total Nitrogen (TN)
and Total Phosphorus (TP) but BOD is the main pollutant for which water quality standards
and discharge charges are set by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) and the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) 4. BOD is a measure of the
level of oxygen that is used by bacteria to break down organic compounds in the wastewater.
The higher the BOD, the higher the level of pollution. Hence, waste minimization practices
or wastewater treatment is imperative in swine production. On the other hand, methane is a
greenhouse gas (GHG) that is produced from the decomposition of manure and anaerobic
conditions. Methane emissions from swine production come from two major sources: (1)
enteric fermentation and (2) manure production which greatly depends on the characteristic
of manure management systems used by swine farms (Macleod et al. 2013). Nitrous oxide
(N2O) is also a major GHG arising from swine production but its estimation is beyond the
scope of this paper.
The BOD level may be roughly estimated at the national level by using the age
classification of swine animals and the information on the average BOD (in kg per head per
cycle) from the literature since there are no longitudinal data that are also disaggregated at
various levels. Longitudinal data on adoption of environmental mitigation practices and
wastewater treatment facilities by swine farms are likewise not available, and, thus, the study
made use of certain scenarios and assumptions derived from cross-section studies for this
purpose. Table 5 presents the assumptions on daily BOD production (loading per cycle) by
classification of swine animals [(Hilborn and DeBruyn, 2004) as cited in Catelo 2019]. For
more conservative estimates, BOD for only one cycle is assumed per year.
4
Php 5.00 per kg BOD in excess of effluent standards according to class of water body. For details, see
DENR A.O. No. 2016-08 or the Water Quality Guidelines and General Effluent Standards.
15
Table 5. Biological Oxygen Demand Loading (kg cycle -1)
Classification BOD Loading (kg No. of days
head-1 day-1) cycle-1
Sow 2.400 114
Sucklinga 0.032 30
Weanlinga 0.059 60
Grower 0.140 90
Finisher 0.180 150
Source: Hilborn and DeBruyn 2004 as cited in Catelo (2019)
Notes:
a
PSA classifies sucklings and weanlings under “Other Ages”; average of BOD of suckling and
weanling is used = to 0.0455 for an average cycle of 45 days.
PSA classification includes gilt (< 5 months); assumed to produce BOD similar to that of grower =
0.140.
BOD loading per age of animal cycle-1 = No. of heads x BOD loading x No. of days cycle-1
In estimating CH4 emissions, the ideal procedure would have been to adopt that of
MacLeod et al. (2013) which used the Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model
(GLEAM) to calculate CH4 emissions by production system and within defined spatial areas,
but data availability is a huge constraint. Hence, the method presented by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2006) is used which has two tiers. Tier
1 is the simpler of the two methods and makes use of default values of the CH4 emission
factor from enteric fermentation (kg CH4 per head per day) per type of animal. This is then
multiplied by the total number of animals in order to get the total CH4 emissions per year.
The total CH4 emissions is expressed in Gg (gigagrams) per year where 1 Gg = 106 kg. The
formula for calculating emissions in swine is given below (Equation 1):
EMswine,ef = EFswine,ef × Number of Head of Animals (Equation 1)
where:
EMswine,ef = total emissions in Gg per year (Note: 1 Gg = 106 kg)
EFswine,ef = Emission factor for enteric fermentation of swine;
(Note: the IPCC (2006) default value for EFswine,ef = 1.5 kg/head/year)
16
Tier 2, on the other hand, requires information on four variables in order to generate
an emission factor for manure management in swine (EFswine) at more refined levels and
using the more accurate characteristics of the said variables that affect it. These variables,
which unfortunately are not readily available in the Philippine case, are enumerated below:
1) VS (kg)– volatile solids; portion of manure that can generate CH4; depends on
animal type and diet which affect quantity of CH4 per kg of VS.
2) Bo (m3 CH4/kg VS) – maximum methane producing potential of manure
3) MCF (%) – methane conversion factor; portion of Bo that is achieved; varies
with manure management system, climate, and can range from 0-100%
4) %MS – fraction of manure that is handled by manure management system
The equation for calculating the emission factor per year under this tier is given by
EFswine,mm =VS × 365 days × B o× ∑jk MCFjk × %MSjk (Equation 2)
where
EFswine,mm = Emission factor for manure management of swine
j = manure management system (liquid/slurry system or solid system)
k = climate region (warm, temperate, cool)
and the other variables are as previously defined above.
In order to get total CH4 emissions from manure management (EMswine,mm), in

Gg/year, EFswine,mm is multiplied by the total number of animals as shown below:
EMswine,mm = EFswine,mm × Number of Head of Animals (Equation 3)
The total CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management of swine
is thus the sum of EMswine,ef and EMswine,mm.
In the absence of accuracy of characterization of production systems, manure

management systems, feed systems, and quality inventory of animals, the default IPCC
(2006) weighted average of emission factor for manure management in swine production is
adopted, which is equal to 1.7 kg CH4/head/year.
17
IV. Results and Discussion
Changes in swine inventory by location
Figures 12 and 13 show the change in regional concentration of the total swine animal
inventory in the Philippines over a span of almost two decades, from 2002 to 2017. It is
notable that the top two swine-producing regions have been essentially the same over the past
two decades. Of the 12.36 million heads of swine animal inventory in 2002, about one-third
(31 percent) were accounted for by Southern Tagalog (which was subsequently divided into
two regions, CALABARZON or Region IV-A and MIMAROPA or Region IV-B)) and
Central Luzon (Region III).
Philippines 2002: 12.36 M heads Southern Tagalog

(CALABARZON)
16%
Others Central Luzon

47% 15%
Western
Visayas
8%
Southern
Central Visayas Mindanao
7% 7%
Figure 12. Total swine animal inventory in the Philippines by region, 2002
Source: PSA (2018)
Central Luzon
Philippines 2017: 12.52 M heads 17%
heads CALABARZON
12%
Others
48%
Northern
Mindanao
8%
Bicol Region
Davao Region 8%
7%
Figure 13. Total swine animal inventory in the Philippines by region, 2017
Source: PSA (2018)
18
These regions managed to maintain their top position in terms of swine production.
Joining the top five swine-producing regions in 2002 were Western Visayas, Southern
Mindanao, and Central Visayas with shares of ranging from 7 to 8 percent each. These top
five regions already accounted for more than half (53 percent) of the total swine animal
inventory in the country.
Fifteen years later, in 2017, the top two swine-producing regions are still Central
Luzon and CALABARZON, with a combined share of almost one-third share (29 percent)
of the total swine animal inventory. However, a change in the list that completes the top five
has occurred with the inclusion of Northern Mindanao (8 percent), Bicol Region (8 percent),
and Davao Region (7 percent).
In terms of scale of production, changes in the spatial concentration of the top swine
producing regions between 2002 and 2017 have also unfolded. Backyard swine animal
inventory in 2002 was concentrated in the top five regions of Western Visayas,
CALABARZON, Central Luzon, Southern Mindanao, and Central Visayas with a combined
share of 42.5 percent (Figure 14). In 2017, however, only Western Visayas remained in the
top five regions and Bicol Region now tops the list together with Negros Island, Davao
Region, and Northern Mindanao5. The combined share of the top five regions was 42.4
percent (Figure 15). Central Luzon and CALABARZON have intensified their production
over time and, thus, became more commercial in scale.
CENTRAL VISAYAS 7.6
SOUTHERN MINDANAO 7.5
CENTRAL LUZON 8.5
CALABARZON 9.2
WESTERN VISAYAS 9.7
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Figure 14. Regional share (%) in backyard swine animal inventory, top 5
regions 2002
Source: PSA (2018)
5
It has to be noted, though, that an administrative reconstitution of some regions occurred in late 2001 but were
not immediately reflected in the 2002 database. For instance, Central Visayas in 2002 used to include Negros
Oriental but in 2015, it was transferred to Negros Island which was put up as a new region. In late 2017, Negros
Island region was dissolved and Negros Oriental was transferred back to Central Visayas. Southern Mindanao
in 2002 used to be composed of six provinces that included the four provinces of what is known as Davao
Region in 2017.
19
WESTERN VISAYAS 7.0
NORTHERN MINDANAO 7.4
NEGROS ISLAND 8.7
DAVAO REGION 9.5
BICOL REGION 9.8
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Figure 15. Regional share (%) in backyard swine animal inventory, top 5
regions, 2017
Source: PSA (2018)
Commercial swine animal inventory, on the other hand, was highly concentrated in
Central Luzon and CALABARZON in 2002, with each region contributing a share of more
than one-third for a combined share of almost three-fourths (73 percent) of total commercial
swine population in the country. In 2017, these two regions still accounted for the highest
spatial concentration of commercial swine inventory at 62 percent. Central Luzon maintained
its 2002 share level of 36 percent but CALABARZON’s share decreased by 10 percentage
points (Figure 16 and Figure 17).
WESTERN VISAYAS 4.1
CENTRAL VISAYAS 5.1
SOUTHERN MINDANAO 6.0
CENTRAL LUZON 36.5
CALABARZON 36.9
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Figure 16. Regional share (%) in commercial swine animal inventory, top 5
regions, 2002
Source: PSA (2018)
20
CENTRAL VISAYAS 4.6
SOCCSKSARGEN 7.1
NORTHERN MINDANAO 8.5
CALABARZON 26.3
CENTRAL LUZON 35.6
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Figure 17. Regional share (%) in commercial swine animal inventory, top 5
regions, 2017
Source: PSA (2018)
For more details on the changes in spatial concentration of swine production over
time, Figures 18 to 20 show the QGIS maps on swine inventory by province and by scale for
the years 1994 and 2018. Figure 18 visually shows remarkable changes in the spatial
concentration of swine inventory over a span of almost 25 years. Except in Nueva Ecija,
swine inventory in the provinces of Central Luzon (Bulacan, Pampanga, Zambales, and
Bataan) had doubled. For Tarlac, the increase in swine inventory in 2018 was five times the
level in 1994. Similar increases can be seen in CALABARZON, particularly in the provinces
of Batangas, Cavite, and Rizal and in the Bicol Region. Palawan and Regions VI and VII
provinces of Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Cebu and Bohol. For Region XI, the provinces of
Bukidnon and South Cotabato registered a doubling of swine inventory. On the other hand,
marked decreases in animal inventory were seen in 2018 particularly in Isabela in Region II
where Typhoon Rosita severely damaged corn fields (Rappler 2018).
21
Figure 18. Total swine inventory by province, Philippines, 1994 and 2018.
Figure 19 shows that the remarkable increases in swine inventory for certain
provinces that were seen in Figure 18 were mainly due to the relatively high growth of
backyard swine inventory. For Negros Occidental, which was the top backyard swine
producer in 2018 with 457,818 heads, this increase was largely due to province-led initiatives
such as the Negros First Animal Livelihood Program (NFALP) and Provincial Animal
Genetic Improvement Program (Pagip). NFALP includes “dispersal and redispersal projects,
which aims to augment the income of local farmer-raisers particularly in the marginalized
sector. Pagip is a “complementing program that seeks to improve the genetic makeup of the
local livestock stocks through artificial insemination (AI) and infusion of breeder stocks and
it is a complementing program” (Nicavera 2016). The growth of backyard swine farms in
Camarines Sur was driven by various interventions of both the private sector and government
in order to address hunger and alleviate poverty among poor households. For instance, the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD), and Department of Agriculture (DA) formed a partnership for this purpose. In
particular, DAR tapped the private sector (Pilipinas Shell Foundation Inc.) to “upgrade the
22
capacities of swine farmer groups” for sustainable swine production and enhance their
entrepreneurial skills as well6.
Figure 19. Total swine inventory in backyard farms, by province, 1994 and 2018
Figure 20, on the other hand, shows the growth in commercial swine inventory
between 1994 and 2018 particularly in the provinces of Bulacan, Pampanga, and Tarlac in
Region III; Batangas, Laguna and Quezon in Region IV-A; Camarines Sur, Camarines Norte,
and Albay in Bicol Region; Negros Oriental in Region VI; Cebu and Bohol in Region VII;
and Bukidnon in Region X.
6
https://www.shell.com.ph/sustainability/communities/social-investment-
programmes/psfi/milestones/livelihood-and-agriculture/support-to-farmer-entrepreneurs-cam-sur.html
23
Figure 20. Total swine inventory in commercial farms, by province, 1994 and 2018
Factors that may influence spatial concentration of swine production over time
This section discusses the possible factors that may have influenced the spatial
concentration of swine production over time. It starts with describing the relationship of
swine inventory and volume of production at the regional level. Then, associations of selected
socio-economic variables (i.e., gross regional domestic product, average annual household
income per region, and per capita pork consumption per province) with greater spatial
concentration of commercial swine inventory were analyzed. Proximity to input suppliers
such as feed manufacturers is hypothesized as another factor that influences spatial
concentration of swine production.
Figure 21 shows the swine inventory and volume of production by region in 2000 and
2018. The remarkable increases in volume of production over time, visually shown with the
darkening of the color of the regional map area corresponding to increases in hog production,
can be seen in Regions III, IV-A, and V in Luzon and in Regions X and XII in Mindanao.
Note also the pie charts that were overlaid on the regional maps. These pie charts show the
size of the total swine inventory and the corresponding share of backyard and commercial
pigs in the said animal count in the region. It can be seen from this overlaying that associated
with this intensification of volume of production in certain regions is the distinctively larger
24
shares of commercial farms in swine inventory in these areas. This indicates that the
increasing commercialization of swine farms in these areas has driven the significant
increases in production of pigs in these locations throughout the 18-year period. Given that
this observation is unsurprising, there is a need to understand some other underlying factors
that could have driven the larger concentration of inventory and production in these areas.
Figure 21. Swine inventory and volume of production by region, 2000 and 2018.
Firstly, the greater spatial concentration of commercial swine inventory in the

aforementioned regions may be influenced by demand-side factors such as household
incomes and consumer preferences. Regions with relatively higher incomes would imply
higher capacities to consume pork and, thus, commercial swine farms will choose to locate
in such areas. Figure 22 shows this association with Region III, NCR, and Region IV-A
occupying the top three positions in terms of GRDP, as shown by the darkening of the green
color in the regional maps. Higher GRDP would indicate greater capacity of the local
economy to spend on final consumption items which include pork and related products.
Overlaid in these areas are the pie charts which again show the size of the total swine
inventory and the corresponding share of backyard and commercial pigs in the said inventory.
It can be gleaned that the said regions with marked increases in GRDP (NCR, Region III, and
25
Region IV-A) had the largest increases in concentration of commercial swine farms between
the years 2000 and 2017.
Figure 22. Swine inventory and gross regional domestic product, 2010 and 2017.
A similar story is depicted by Figure 23 in which the greater geographical

concentration of commercial swine inventory (shown by the pie charts) between 1994 and
2015 is found in Regions III, NCR, and Region IV-A. These are also the regions with the
relatively higher changes in average annual household incomes, as shown by the darkening
orange color of these regional maps. In 2015, the expansion in the share of commercial swine
inventory can also be seen in Regions VI and VII in the Visayas and Regions X and XI in
Mindanao and is associated with increased average annual household incomes in these
regions over time.
26
Figure 23. Swine inventory and average annual household income by region, 1994
and 2015
Swine farms also tend to congregate in areas where consumer preference for pork is
relatively high. Figure 24 lends support to this hypothesized association for the periods 1995
and 2016. Per capita pork consumption per province represents consumer preference for pork
while swine inventory serves as proxy in the absence of data on actual number of swine
farms. The provincial geographical concentration of both backyard and commercial swine
inventory (shown by the pie charts) in 1995 and 2016 was largely in the Luzon area where
per capita pork consumption (shown by the changing intensity of the red color of the regional
maps) has been consistently and relatively higher at between 9.3 kg per person per year to
23.8 kg per person per year (Figure 24).
27
Figure 24. Swine inventory and pork consumption per capita, per province, 1995
and 2016
Aside from demand side factors such as income and consumer preference, supply side
factors, such as ease of access to input suppliers, may also affect the decision of where swine
farms would locate. To reiterate, feed cost accounts for the largest share in swine production
expenditures and, thus, it is important for swine farms to locate in areas near feed and other
input suppliers particularly of yellow corn, a major swine feed ingredient. Figure 25 shows
the spatial distribution of registered swine feed manufacturers across regions in 2014 (shown
by the purple color over the regional maps) with an overlay of the top feed mills in terms of
rated capacity per 8-hour shift (shown by the yellow stars). San Miguel Foods is the top feed
mill in 2014 with its plant located in Isabela province in Region II, a major corn-growing
province. Together with San Miguel Foods, the top 5 of 700 feed mills in the country were
Cargill Philippines, Swift Foods, Inc., General Milling Corporation, and Vitarich
Corporation. Figure 25 also shows the greater concentration of feed mills in Metro Manila
(NCR), a major pork demand center, and in the top two swine producing regions in Luzon
(Central Luzon and CALABARZON) and in Cebu in Region VII which is also a major pork
demand center.
28
Figure 25. Registered swine feed manufacturers by region, 2014
Figure 26 shows that swine farms (represented by swine inventory in the purple color
of regional maps) tend to locate in areas that are proximate to feed mills and corn-growing
areas in order to primarily cut down on feed costs through lower transport and other logistics
costs.
Figure 26. Swine inventory and top feed manufacturers, by province, 2014
29
Environmental impacts of spatial swine concentration
This sub-section seeks to understand the environmental impacts related to spatial

concentration of swine production. The total BOD loading of swine farms in Tg7 per year
was estimated at the national level and by scale of production assuming that there are no
mitigating measures adopted (Annex C). Figure 27 shows that between 2000 and 2018, BOD
loading of commercial swine farms has been steadily increasing over time at an average
annual rate of about 6.2% while that of backyard swine farms has been rather flat at an
average annual rate of 0.15% per year, and even declining in recent years. This can be
explained by the dwindling share of backyard swine farms in total animal population in the
last decade. BOD loading by swine farms stood at 0.63 Tg per year in 2018, with backyard
farms contributing two-thirds at 0.41 Tg per year. This is already an improvement for
backyard swine farms whose BOD loading in 2000 were more than three-fourths of the total.
As for CH4 or methane emissions, swine production contributed 40 Gg in 2018, up by about
20% from 34 Gg in 2000.
Figure 27. Estimated BOD Loading in Philippine swine production by scale,

2000-2018
7
1 Tg = 1 billion kg
30
The same pattern as in the BOD case can be seen from Figure 28, with commercial
swine farms generating an increasing trend of about 4.5% per year and backyard swine farms’
methane emissions decreasing by an average of 0.15% per year. Because the default IPCC
(2006) weighted average emission factor of 1.7 kg CH4 per head per year for manure
management system is higher than the default IPCC (2006) weighted average emission factor
of 1.5 kg CH4 per head per year for enteric fermentation, and these emission factors are
multiplied by the total number of animals, it is expected that CH4 emissions from manure
management system would be relatively higher. However, it has to be recalled from Equation
2 that, using a Tier 2 approach, there a number of other factors that can influence the level
and occurrence of CH4 emissions during manure management such as the manner by which
manure is disposed, the kind of storage facility, and the outcome can change altogether. In
the same manner, the enteric emissions per head can also be affected by the characteristics
of feed consumed and the energy content of feed rations, among other factors.
25 25
CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation

CH4 emissions from manure mgt (Gg/year)
20 20
15 15
10 10 (Gg/year)
5 5
- -
PHLMS BackyardMS CommercialMS PHLEF BackyardEF Commercial EF
Figure 28. Estimated CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation and manure
management system in swine production, 2000-2018
31
V. Summary and Conclusions
This paper sought to a) describe the changes in spatial concentration of swine

production through time; b) identify possible factors that may influence spatial concentration
of swine production; and c) understand the environmental impacts related to spatial
concentration of swine production. It is hypothesized that the varying structure and locational
concentration of any industry’s production base will have consequences on and may be
affected by locational factors such the market for inputs and outputs in the locale, the geo-
physical attributes and resource use, environmental quality, and the local economy in general.
The study employed concepts and theories related to spatial economic analysis and the
economics of agglomeration, which are useful to understand the interaction between location
of swine production and important socio-economic conditions and physical variables. While
this study makes use of spatial data, the analysis is limited to describing the changes in
structure of swine production across geographical boundaries and time and their possible
association with key socio-economic and physical factors defined in those areas For this, the
study mapped out the changes in the level of swine inventory and production (whether
commercial or backyard) across provinces and regions through time. Then, these changes
were superimposed with data on select socio-economic variables such as household income,
regional gross domestic product, pork consumption, and proximity to input suppliers. This
was done using Quantum GIS (QGIS), which is an open-source software that provides basic
to intermediate Geographical Information System (GIS) analysis tools. QGIS allows the
creation and visualization of geospatial information useful in this study. Furthermore, the
study tried to understand the environmental impacts related to spatial concentration of swine
production by calculating the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Methane (CH4)
emissions associated with the hypothesized intensification of swine raising in the country.
Results show the remarkable changes in the spatial concentration of swine inventory
over a span of almost 25 years. Swine inventory, either driven by commercial or backyard
farming, has increased significantly in the regions of Central Luzon, CALABARZON, Bicol,
Western Visayas, and Central Visayas. Commercial swine animal inventory remained highly
concentrated in Central Luzon and CALABARZON from 2002 to 2017. Results further
showed that the intensification of commercial swine farming in major areas has driven the
significant increases in production in these locations throughout the 18-year period.
Since the above observation is unsurprising, the study proceeded to understand some
other underlying factors that could have driven the larger concentration of inventory and
32
production in these areas. First, results revealed that the regions with marked increases in
gross regional domestic product or GRDP (NCR, Region III, and Region IV-A) had the
largest rise in concentration of commercial swine farms between the years 2000 and 2017.
This is consistent with the hypothesis that higher GRDP would indicate greater spending of
the local economy on final consumption items, which include pork and related products, and
thus producers would have a tendency to locate and intensify their operations in these areas.
Second, the regions with the relatively higher average annual household incomes also
experienced expansion in the share of commercial swine inventory in their area. Third, swine
farms also tended to congregate in areas where consumer preference for pork was relatively
high. The preceding two results suggest that, assuming pork to be a normal good, increases
in household income in a location would result in greater consumption of pork in these areas,
incentivizing producers to set up their operations in these viable demand centers. Fourth,
results showed the greater concentration of feed mills in Metro Manila (NCR), a major pork
demand center, in the top two swine producing regions in Luzon (Central Luzon and
CALABARZON), and in Cebu in Region VII. Fifth, swine farms tend to locate in areas that
are proximate to feed mills and corn-growing areas in order to primarily cut down on feed
costs through lower transport and other logistics costs. The last two results confirm the
agglomeration-related notion that strong backward linkages in production (among which are
the presence of input suppliers) in a location could explain geographical concentration of
economic activities.
In terms of environmental impacts, the study estimated that BOD loading of

commercial swine farms has been steadily increasing over time at an average annual rate of
about 6.2% while that of backyard swine farms has been rather flat at an average annual rate
of 0.15% per year, and even declining in recent years. This can be explained by the dwindling
share of backyard swine farms in total animal population in the last decade. The same patterns
can be seen when CH4 or methane emissions from commercial and swine farms were
estimated.
While it is true that swine production largely contributes to environmental pollution,

there is also the potential to reduce BOD loading and CH4 emissions particularly from manure
management and treatment. Cole et al. (1997) as cited in Macleod et al. (2014) claims that
this potential ranges between 25% and 80% if only the appropriate management and
treatment strategies were undertaken. FAO (2012) also concurs that there are opportunities
for mitigating emissions. However, in order to be able to quantify the potential emission
reductions, what is required and necessary is to have a methodology accurate enough to
33
quantify the emissions and of course, detailed information on storage practices that is
disaggregated at levels that would matter for policy, regulation, and environmental impact.
Nevertheless, one mitigation option for manure management in swine production is

the use of biogas digesters or biogas systems. Biogas is produced from anaerobic breakdown
of organic matter such as swine manure and wastewater and this implies that swine farms
will be able to reduce environmental pollution from BOD loadings and CH4 emissions.
Moreover, biogas has co-benefits in that it produces 50-65% methane (and 35-50% CO2)
which can be used for cooking, heating, and generating electricity for internal energy
requirement of swine farms. The sludge that remains in the biogas digester per unit time can
also be used as organic fertilizer.
The use of biogas digester in the Philippines is not really new because it has been
introduced as early as the 1970s (Catelo 2019). Unfortunately, its adoption particularly by
backyard swine farms, does not boast of a robust history due to many constraints and issues.
Nevertheless, it is being promoted again in recent years in accordance with the National
Animal Waste Reduction Management Program. The Department of Science and Technology
(DOST) produced prototypes of the Portable Biogas Digester (PBD) almost a decade ago but
adoption was minimal primarily because of the cost, lack of technological knowledge on its
operation, inadequate S&T and incomplete marketing as sufficient for heat and electricity
generation.
Limitations of the study
As mentioned earlier, the research could have benefited better with the use of more
sophisticated analysis (such as advanced spatial econometric modeling) to test the possible
economic implications of geographical concentration in swine production. However, since
detailed farm-level cross-section and time-series data are quite limited for such techniques,
the study resorted to mainly descriptive analysis. Nonetheless, the results can be useful as
bases of further research that may proceed from these analytics.
Likewise, the availability of data for specific variables in the estimation of BOD
loading and CH4 emissions will certainly improve the accuracy of the estimates and refine
the characteristics of these pollutants and their sources. As such, more detailed and accurate
estimations will aid towards better informed policy- and decision-making particularly with
respect to setting up goals and targets to reduce environmental pollution and incentivizing
swine farms to adopt measures in accordance with achieving these set goals and targets.
34
References:
Audric, S., Bellefon, M.-P. d. & Durieux, E., 2018. Descriptive spatial analysis. In: INSEE,
ed. Handbook of Spatial Analysis: Theory and Application with R. Montrouge Cedex:
INSEE Eurostat, pp. 3-30.
Catelo, M.A.O. 2019. The Evolution of Smallholder Swine Production in the Philippines:
Catch Up With Green Growth? Unpublished monograph. Nagoya University.
Catelo, M. A. O., Tiongco, M., and Narrod, C. 2008. Structural Changes in the Philippine
Pig Industry and Their Environmental Implications. IFPRI Discussion Paper Series
No. No.781. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
http://www.ifpri.org /pubs/pubs/ dp/ IFPRI DP00781 .pdf
Cheng, J and Liu, B. 2002. Swine Wastewater Treatment in Anaerobic Digester with Floating
Medium. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267416150_Swine_ wastewater
treatment_in_anaerobic_digesters_with_floating_medium
Costales, A., Delgado, C., Catelo, M. A. O., Lapar, L., Tiongco, M., Ehui, S., and Bautista,
Z. 2007. Scale and Access Issues Affecting Smallholder Hog Producers in an
Expanding Per-Urban Market, Southern Luzon, Philippines. IFPRI Research Report
151. Washington DC: IFPRI. Download at http://www. ifpri. org /pubs /
pubs.htm#rreport.
Costales, A., Delgado, C., Catelo, M. A. O., Tiongco, M., Chatterjee, A., and Delos Reyes,
A. 2003. “Annex I: Livestock Industrialization Project: Phase II – Policy, Technical,
and Environmental Determinants and Implications of Scaling-Up of Broiler and
Swine Production in the Philippines.” In Policy, Technical, and Environmental
Determinants and Implication of the Scaling-Up of Livestock Production in Four Fast
Growing Developing Countries: A Synthesis, edited by C. Delgado, C. Narrod, and
M. Tiongco, Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO 2012. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock. A Global Assessment of Emission
and Mitigation Opportunities. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf
Fujita, M. & Thisse, J.-F., 2002. Economics of Agglomeration: Cities, Industrial Location,
and Regional Growth. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gruber, S. & Soci, A., 2010. Agglomeration, Agriculture, and the Perspective of the
Periphery. Spatial Economic Analysis, 5(1), pp. 43-71.
Herrera, D. L., Cabacang, R. M., Margarito, M., Marquez, A. T., Adan, R. K., and
Malabanan, M.H. , Improvement of Existing Dost-Assisted Biogas Digester Projects’
Swine Waste Management Technology.
Hilborn, D. and DeBruyn, J. 2004. Aeration of Liquid Manure Factsheet. Queens Printer for
Ontario, Order No. 04-033. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/ english/ engineer/facts/04-
033.htm. Accessed on 20 May 2016.
IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, prepared
by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S.,
Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). IGES, Japan.
35
Larue, S., Abildtrup, J. & Schmitt, B., 2011. Positive and Negative Agglomeration
Externalities: Arbitration in the Pig Sector. Spatial Economic Analysis, 6(2), pp. 167-
183.
MacLeod, M., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Tempio, G., Falcucci, A., Opio, C., Vellinga, T.,
Henderson, B.& Steinfeld, H. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken
supply chains – A global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
Nicavera 2016. Negros Occidental still top hog, chicken producer in PH.
https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/133046
OECD. 2019. Meat consumption (indicator). doi: 10.1787/fa290fd0-en. Accessed on 04 June

2019.
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) 2018.
Rappler. 2018. Agricultural damage from typhoon Rosita hits P1.85 billion.
https://www.rappler.com/ business/215896-typhoon-rosita-agricultural-damage-
november-3-2018 accessed on 2 April 2019.
Roe, B., Irwin, E. G. & Sharp, J. S., 2002. Pigs in Space: Modeling the Spatial Structure of
Hog Production in Traditional and Nontraditional Production Regions. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(2), pp. 259-278.
Silva, I. C. M. d. et al., 2017. Spatialization of Brazilian pig production: relationship between
productive, physical, environmental, and socio-economic variables. Trop Anim
Health Prod, Volume 49, pp. 951-958.
Steinberg, S. L. & Steinberg, S. J., 2015. GIS research methods : incorporating spatial
perspectives. Redlands, CA: Esri Press.
Thanapongtharm, W., Linard, C., Chinson, P. & Kasemsuwan, S., 2016. Spatial analysis and
characteristics of pig farming in Thailand. BMC Veterinary Research, Volume 12, p.
218.
36
Annex A
- Procedures for the Construction of Thematic with Proportional Symbol Map
using QGIS
- The instructions for the geospatial mapping of backyard inventory of swine vis-a-
vis poverty incidence by province in the Philippines using QGIS are listed below.
The final output is a thematic map that shows the distribution of inventory of swine
in backyard farms and poverty incidence in the provinces of the Philippines for
2006.
- 1. Install the latest version of QGIS on your laptop at https://www.qgis.org/en/site/.
- 2. Download the shapefile for the Philippine provinces at http://philgis.org/.
- 3. Download the dataset on inventory of swine in backyard farms at
http://countrystat.psa.gov.ph and poverty incidence at https://psa.gov.ph/poverty-
press-releases/nid/63819.
- 4. Open the QGIS application after downloading and be familiarized with the parts
of the QGIS interface (Annex A - Figure 1).
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 1. Parts of the QGIS interface
-
- 5. Click the “Layer” tab under the Menu bar (1), select “Add Layer”, and choose
“Add Vector Layer”. A data source manager (vector) window will appear (Annex
A - Figure 2).
-
37
-
- Annex A - Figure 2. Data Source Manager (Vector)
-
- 6. Under the source section of the data source manager window, upload the
downloaded shapefile with .SHP as the file type by clicking on the button with
ellipsis to find its location.
- 7. After the shapefile has been uploaded, click “Add” then “Close”. The shapefile
should look like Annex A - Figure 3.
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 3. Shapefile of the Philippine provinces
-
38
- 8. Once the shapefile has been added to the Layer List (4), right click on the shapefile
and select “Open Attribute Table”. An attribute table window will appear (Annex
A - Figure 4).
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 4. Selected Parts of the Attribute Table Window
-
- 9. Click on the pencil tool to enable the editing of the attribute table. Select the add
column window to add the inventory data collected from countrystat. An “Add
Field” window will appear (Annex A - Figure 5).
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 5. Add Field Window of the Attribute Table
-
- 10. Set the name of the column to “BACKYARD06”. Indicate the length (amount of
characters you can input as a feature) and the precision (number of decimal places).
Click “OK”.
- 11. Once the “BACKYARD06” column has been added, copy and paste the data
from the excel file onto the attribute table. The filled-out column of the backyard
inventory data in the attribute table is depicted by Annex A - Figure 6.
-
39
-
- Annex A - Figure 6. Sample Attribute Table with Added Field
-
- 12. Select all the rows with missing data and close the attribute table. The map should
show red-colored “x” in all the selected areas with missing data.
- 13. Right click again the shapefile under the Layer List (4), select “export” and “save
selected features” as “ESRI Shapefile”.
- 14. Set the file location where the shapefile will be saved and name it as “Missing
data backyard 2006” by clicking the button with ellipsis.
- 15. Open the attribute table once again of the “Provinces” shapefile containing the
inventory data and click the trash tool to delete the rows with no data.
- 16. Right click the “Provinces” shapefile that has no missing data anymore under
the Layer List (4), then select “export” and “save features” as “ESRI Shapefile”.
- 17. Set the file location where the shapefile will be saved and name it as “Backyard
inventory 2006” by clicking the button with ellipsis.
- 18. To set the colors and labels of the “Backyard inventory 2006” shapefile, right
click the shapefile and select “properties”. A layer properties window will appear
(Annex A - Figure 7).
-
40
-
- Annex A - Figure 7. Layer Properties Window (Symbology) for Inventory
-
- 19. Click the “Symbology” section to set the colors of the data on the shapefile.
Choose the “graduated” classification to allow the data to be arranged according to
their class values. Select the “BACKYARD06” column as the data that will be
analyzed. For the color ramps, pick a light to dark color combination (in this case,
the “RdPu” was used). This will produce a thematic map wherein the lower the
inventory, the lighter the color, and the higher the inventory, the darker the color of
the areas with data. Set the mode and number of class values as needed or as preferred
(in this case, the “Natural Breaks” method was used to find adequate group sizes
for good visual interpretation), then click “Classify”, followed by “Apply” and
“OK”. The map should look like Annex A - Figure 8 once the symbology has been
customized.
-
41
-
- Annex A - Figure 8. Map after Customization of Symbology (Inventory)
-
- 20. To emphasize the “Missing data backyard 2006” shapefile, right click the
shapefile under the layer list and select “Properties”.
- 21. Click on “Symbology” to set the colors of the data on the shapefile. Choose
“Single Symbol” (Annex A - Figure 9). Select the “hashed black X”. Click “Apply”
then “OK”. The resulting map should resemble Annex A - Figure 10.
-
-
42
-
- Annex A - Figure 9. Layer Properties Window (Symbology) for Missing Data
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 10. Map after Customization of Symbology (Missing Data)
-
- 21. Add the comma delimited text containing the poverty incidence rates and
coordinates per province to the map by clicking the “Layer” tab menu, followed by
“Add Layer”, then “Add Delimited Text Layer…”. A Data Source Manager
Window for Delimited Text files will appear as shown in Annex A - Figure 11. Under
43
the “Record and fields options” section, mark the “first record has field names”
if the first row of the csv file indicates the row/field names. Under the “Geometry
definition” section, mark the point coordinates and select the row/field names from
the csv file that correspond to the x(longitude) and y(latitude) fields. Select the
“EPSG:4326 – WGS 84” as the Geometry CRS. Under the “Layer settings” section,
mark the “use spatial index” box and the “watch file” index. After, click the “Add”
button and “Close”. The resulting map should look like Annex A - Figure 12.
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 11. Data Source Manager (Delimited Text)
-
44
- Annex A - Figure 12. Map after Addition of Provincial Coordinates with
-
- 22. To scale the points by value to represent the poverty incidence rates, start by right
clicking the csv file “poverty incidence with coordinates 2006” under the “Layer
List” and selecting “Properties”. A “Layer Properties” window will appear after
as shown in Annex A - Figure 13. Under the ”Symbology” section, choose
“Graduated”. Select the column that contains the data or the poverty incidence rates,
in this case the field column “2006”. Edit the shape and color of the symbol by
clicking the “Change…” button. To make the larger symbol represent a greater
value, pick “size” as the method. Enter the desired minimum and maximum point
sizes. Set the mode and number of classes as needed or as preferred (in this case, the
“Natural Breaks” method was used), then click “Classify”, followed by “Apply”
and “OK”. The map should look like Annex A - Figure 14 once the symbology has
been customized.
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 13. Layer Properties Window (Symbology) for Poverty
Incidence Rates
-
45
-
- Annex A - Figure 14. Map After Scaling the Points by Value to Represent the
-
- 23. Once the map has been finalized and ready for its final touches, click “Project”
on the menu bar and select “New Print Layout” or press “ctrl + P”. A layout
window will appear (Annex A - Figure 15).
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 15. Layout Window
-
- 24. Click the “Layout” tab to set the size and margin to fit the contents of the map
inside the layout. For this map, the margin units were set to “inches” and the margins
were adjusted based on the size of an A4 page which is 11.69” (top margin) by 8.27”
(left margin).
46
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 16. Adjustment of Map Layout to Content
-
- 25. Click “Add Item” tab on the menu bar and select add map. Adjust accordingly
the placement of the map on the layout using the or the “move item content”
button. The scale and background of the map may also be adjusted under the “item
properties” section (Annex A - Figure 17). Usually, a scale of 5,000,000 –
5,500,000 is enough to fit one map inside an A4 page layout. Under the same section,
a blue background may be also be added to make the map more realistic (Annex A -
Figure 18).
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 17. Addition and adjustment of the map on the layout
-
47
-
- Annex A - Figure 18. Addition of Background Color on the map
-
- 26. Click again the “Add Item” tab and select “Add picture” to insert a downloaded
picture from the internet of the north arrow/compass. Place it on the upper right
corner of the map (Annex A - Figure 19).
-
-
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 19. Addition of the north arrow/compass on the map
-
- 27. Click again the “Add Item” tab and select “add scalebar” to add a scalebar.
Place it on the lower right corner of the map (Annex A - Figure 20).
-
48
-
- Annex A - Figure 20. Addition of the scalebar on the layout
-
-
- 28. Click the “Add Item” tab and select the “Add Label” option to add the figure
title of the map (Annex A - Figure 21). Type the figure title inside the “Main
Properties” box and customize the appearance of the title by selecting the preferred
font type and size. Adjust the horizontal and vertical alignment by selecting “center”
and “top”, respectively.
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 21. Addition of label on the layout
-
49
- 29. Finally, click again the “Add Item” tab and select “Add Legend” to add the
legend box for the color and point classification of the inventory and poverty
incidence rate data, and place it on the lower left corner of the map (Annex A - Figure
22).
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 22. Addition of legend on the layout
-
- 30. To edit the legend item entries, just double click the titles/values that need to be
renamed. A “Legend Item Properties” window will appear which will allow the
modification of each title/value (Annex A - Figure 23). The sample edited legend
box is depicted by Annex A - Figure 24.
-
-
50
- Annex A - Figure 23. Legend Item Properties Window
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 24. Edited Legend Item Entries on the Layout
-
- 31. To make the background of the legend box transparent, simply unmark the
background option under the “Item Properties” tab.
-
-
- Annex A - Figure 25. Removal of Legend Background on the Layout
-
- 32. Once finished, click “Layout” on the menu bar of the Layout Window and choose
export as image. Indicate the file location and file name then click “save”.
-
-
51
-
- Annex B
- Procedures for the Construction of Thematic with Pie Chart Map using QGIS
- The instructions for the geospatial mapping of total swine inventory vis-a-vis
average annual household income by region in the Philippines using QGIS are
listed below. The final output is a thematic with a pie chart map that shows the
share to total inventory of swine by item and average annual household income in
the regions of the Philippines for 1994.
- 1. Repeat steps 1 to 9 of Annex A for the opening of the shapefiles and editing of
the attribute table.
- 2. Set the name of the column to “HHINC1994” in the “Add Field” window
(Annex B - Figure 1). Choose the “whole number (integer 64 bit)” option as the
output field type and indicate the length (amount of characters you can input as a
feature), i.e. 15.
- 3. Once the “HHINC1994” column has been added, copy and paste the data from
the excel file onto the attribute table.
-
-
- Annex B - Figure 1. Add Field Window of the Attribute Table
-
- 4. To add another column where the nominal household income will be converted
into real income with 2010 as the base year, click the or the “Field Calculator”
button. After, a field calculator window will appear (Annex B – Figure 2). Mark the
“Create a new field” box. Write “HH94B10” as the output field name. Choose the
“whole number (integer 64 bit)” option as the output field type and indicate the
length (amount of characters you can input as a feature). Enter the following
command in the “Expression” box:
52
- (“variable”/CPI of 2010=100)*100
- or
- (“HHINC1994”/43.63)*100.
-
-
-
- Annex B – Figure 2. Field Calculator Window for Computation of Real
Household Income
- 5. To separate the values of the real household income by 1000 using a comma,
click the or the “Field Calculator” button again. Write “CHH94B10” as the
output field name. Change the output field type to “Text (string)” and indicate the
length (amount of characters you can input as a feature). Enter the following
command in the “Expression” box (Annex B – Figure 3):
- concat(format_number(“variable”,0))
- or
- concat(format_number(“HH94B10”,0))
- Once finished, the attribute table should be similar with Annex B – Figure 4.
53
-
- Annex B – Figure 3. Field Calculator Window for Addition of 1000 Separator
(,)
-
- Annex B – Figure 4. Sample Attribute Table with Added Fields
-
- 6. Click the “Symbology” section to set the colors of the data on the shapefile.
Choose the “graduated” classification to allow the data to be arranged according to
their class values. Select the “HH94B10” column as the data that will be analyzed.
54
For the color ramps, pick a light to dark color combination (in this case, the
“Oranges” was used). This will produce a thematic map wherein the lower the
average annual household income, the lighter the color, and the higher the average
annual household income, the darker the color of the areas with data. Set the mode
and number of class values as needed or as preferred (in this case, the “Natural
Breaks” method was used to find adequate group sizes for good visual
interpretation), then click “Classify”, followed by “Apply” and “OK”. The map
should look like Annex B - Figure 5 once the symbology has been customized.
-
- Annex B – Figure 5. Layer Properties Window (Symbology) for Average
-
- 7. To add labels to the map, select the “Labels” section in the same “Layer
Properties” window, as shown in Annex B – Figure 6. Under the “text”
subsection, select “Single labels” as the labelling mode. Click the “ ” button to
edit the “Label with” box using the “Expression Dialog” window that will appear
after. Enter the following command that will label the name of the region in the
first line and the amount of average annual household income in the second line
(Annex B- Figure 7):
-
55
- “area” || ‘n’ || “variable” or
- “REGION” || ‘n’ || “CHH94B10”
-
- Once done, click “OK”. Return to the “text” subsection to choose the desired font
type, style, size, color, and opacity.
-
-
- Annex B – Figure 6. Layer Properties Window (Labels - Text) for Average
-
-
- Annex B – Figure 7. Expression Dialog Window for Label With Option
56
-
- 8. In the “Formatting” subsection, adjust the line height of the labels to reduce the
spacing between the first and second line, as shown in Annex B – Figure 8. Then,
choose “Center” as the alignment.
-
-
- Annex B – Figure 8. Layer Properties Window (Labels - Formatting) for
-
- 9. In the “Buffer” subsection, mark the draw text buffer box (Annex B – Figure 9).
Select the preferred size and color of the buffer.
-
57
-
- Annex B – Figure 9. Layer Properties Window (Labels - Buffer) for Average
- 10. In the “Formatting” subsection, mark the “Show all labels for this layer
(including colliding labels” box and unmark the “Discourage labels from
covering features” (Annex B – Figure 10). This will allow QGIS to show all the
labels even if they are colliding with each other and covering certain features.
-
58
-
- Annex B – Figure 10. Layer Properties Window (Labels - Formatting) for
-
- 11. Add the comma delimited text file containing inventory of swine backyard and
commercial farms, and coordinates per region to the map by clicking the “Layer”
tab menu, followed by “Add Layer”, then “Add Delimited Text Layer…”. A Data
Source Manager Window for Delimited Text files will appear as shown in Annex B
- Figure 11. Under the “Record and fields options” section, mark the “first record
has field names” if the first row of the csv file indicates the row/field names. Under
the “Geometry definition” section, mark the point coordinates and select the
row/field names from the csv file that correspond to the x(longitude) and y(latitude)
fields. Select the “EPSG:4326 – WGS 84” as the Geometry CRS. Under the “Layer
settings” section, mark the “use spatial index” box and the “watch file” index.
After, click the “Add” button and “Close”. The resulting map should look like Annex
B - Figure 12.
-
-
-
-
59
-
- Annex B – Figure 11. Data Source Manager (Delimited Text)
-
-
- Annex B – Figure 12. Map after Customization of Labels and Addition of
Regional Coordinates with Inventory Data
-
- 12. To add the pie charts to the map, right click the csv file containing the data on
regional inventory in backyard and commercial farms of swine under the “Layer
List”. In this case, it was named as “Regional Inventory 94”. A “Layer Properties
Window” will appear after clicking, as shown in Annex B – Figure 13.
-
60
- 13. Select the “Diagrams” section, pick “pie chart” as the type of diagram, then
click the “Attributes” subsection. Select the variables from the csv file that will be
included in the pie chart and assign them with colors. For this map, the backyard and
commercial inventories were chosen, and were designated with light and dark violet
colors, respectively.
-
- Annex B – Figure 13. Layer Properties Window (Diagrams - Attributes) for
Inventory Data
-
- 13. In the “size” subsection, choose “millimeter” as the size unit (Annex B- Figure
14). After, mark the scale size option to make the sizes of the pie charts
proportional to their total inventory. To do this, simply select the variable “TOTAL
INVENTORY” from the csv file as the attribute to be scaled. Enter the maximum
value existing in the total inventory data, i.e. 1,000,000, and the desired maximum
size of the pie chart, i.e. 20. However, this step can be skipped if uniform pie chart
size is favored.
-
61
-
- Annex B – Figure 14. Layer Properties Window (Diagrams – Size) for
Inventory Data
-
- 14. In the “placement” subsection, mark the “Over Point” option to place the pie
charts over the coordinate points (Annex B – Figure 15). Annex B – Figure 16
presents the map after the pie charts depicting the share to total inventory of the
backyard and commercial swine farms have been added to the map.
-
-
-
- Annex B – Figure 15. Layer Properties Window (Diagrams - Placement) for
Inventory Data
62
-
-
- Annex B – Figure 16. Map after Customization of Pie Charts
-
- 15. Repeat steps 24-32 of Annex A for the final production or laying out of the
map.
-
63
Annex C. Trends in backyard and commercial inventories by age of animals, 2000-2018.
Backyard and commercial sow inventory, 2000-2018 Backyard and commercial gilt inventory, 2000-2018
1,400 4.00 700 8.00
1,200 3.50 600 7.00
3.00 6.00
1,000 500
2.50 5.00
800 400
2.00 4.00
600 300
1.50 3.00
400 200
1.00 2.00
200 0.50 100 1.00
0 0.00 0 0.00
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Backyard Commercial RatioSowB/C Backyard Commercial RatioGiltB/C
Backyard and commercial finishers inventory, 2000-2018 Backyard and commercial grower inventory, 2000-2018
3,000 4.50 3,500 4.50
4.00 3,000 4.00
2,500
3.50 3.50
2,500
2,000 3.00 3.00
2.50 2,000 2.50
1,500
2.00 1,500 2.00
1,000 1.50 1.50
1,000
1.00 1.00
500 500
0.50 0.50
0 0.00 0 0.00
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Backyard Commercial Ratio Fattener B/C Backyard Commercial RatioGrowB/C
Source of basic data: PSA
64
Annex D. Computation of BOD loading by age classification of animals, 2000-2018
BOD BOD BOD BOD BOD

(kg/head (kg/head/c (kg/head/ (kg/head/ (kg/head/
/cycle) Days/cycle ycle) Days/cycle cycle) Days/cycle cycle) Days/cycle cycle) Days/cycle
Fatteners/Finisher >4 Others (piglets, weanlings, and
Sow >1yr 2.4 114 Gilt <1yr 0.14 90 mos 0.18 150 Growers <4 mos 0.14 90 boars) 0.0455 45
Ratio Ratio Ratio
Com- RatioSow BOD Sow Com- GiltB/ Com- Fattener BOD Com- Grower BOD BOD Com- Ratio BOD BOD
Year Backyard mercial B/C B BOD Sow C Backyard mercial C BOD Gilt B BOD Gilt C Backyard mercial B/C BOD Finisher B Finisher C Backyard mercial B/C Grower B Grower C Backyard mercial Other B/C Others B Others C
2000 1,012 279 3.63 277,012 76,293 435 80 5.45 5,483 1,006 2,192 579 3.79 59,181 15,625 2,286 621 3.68 28,809 7,828 2,401 863 2.78 4,917 1,767
2001 1,021 279 3.65 279,272 76,466 452 91 4.96 5,697 1,149 2,256 625 3.61 60,903 16,866 2,310 693 3.33 29,104 8,732 2,503 833 3.01 5,126 1,705
2002 1,045 314 3.32 286,016 86,039 420 78 5.41 5,294 979 2,356 553 4.26 63,612 14,921 2,386 694 3.44 30,058 8,739 2,728 1,079 2.53 5,586 2,209
2003 1,125 323 3.48 307,789 88,496 512 95 5.37 6,454 1,202 2,557 753 3.40 69,046 20,329 2,576 806 3.20 32,452 10,156 2,693 924 2.92 5,514 1,891
2004 1,166 354 3.30 319,152 96,745 611 88 6.92 7,698 1,113 2,402 564 4.26 64,850 15,227 2,988 759 3.94 37,654 9,568 2,554 1,074 2.38 5,230 2,200
2005 1,132 349 3.25 309,814 95,374 468 94 4.99 5,895 1,181 2,354 667 3.53 63,545 18,021 2,702 783 3.45 34,044 9,861 2,602 989 2.63 5,328 2,026
2006 1,146 393 2.92 313,609 107,580 487 108 4.52 6,142 1,359 2,404 764 3.15 64,909 20,622 2,850 900 3.17 35,915 11,339 2,841 1,153 2.46 5,816 2,361
2007 1,147 488 2.35 313,781 133,539 492 120 4.10 6,202 1,513 2,426 851 2.85 65,505 22,972 2,878 970 2.97 36,263 12,224 2,882 1,205 2.39 5,901 2,467
2008 1,156 511 2.26 316,232 139,697 498 127 3.92 6,276 1,600 2,309 865 2.67 62,330 23,351 2,907 1,018 2.86 36,633 12,821 2,857 1,454 1.96 5,850 2,978
2009 1,155 512 2.26 316,120 139,960 498 129 3.86 6,280 1,626 2,341 913 2.56 63,194 24,646 2,916 1,064 2.74 36,742 13,412 2,692 1,376 1.96 5,513 2,817
2010 1,174 501 2.34 321,209 137,011 490 130 3.78 6,178 1,632 2,345 922 2.54 63,320 24,897 2,867 1,075 2.67 36,125 13,541 2,666 1,228 2.17 5,458 2,515
2011 1,029 486 2.12 281,471 132,956 470 129 3.65 5,927 1,624 2,352 926 2.54 63,517 25,001 2,776 1,068 2.60 34,975 13,459 1,839 1,227 1.50 3,766 2,513
2012 1,035 480 2.15 283,086 131,399 455 130 3.51 5,736 1,633 2,348 972 2.42 63,392 26,234 2,574 1,094 2.35 32,430 13,782 1,570 1,206 1.30 3,215 2,469
2013 1,018 520 1.96 278,489 142,160 452 135 3.35 5,696 1,698 2,378 1,008 2.36 64,193 27,210 2,563 1,136 2.26 32,293 14,317 1,340 1,294 1.04 2,743 2,650
2014 1,016 536 1.90 278,095 146,680 444 138 3.21 5,590 1,739 2,382 1,028 2.32 64,310 27,748 2,546 1,171 2.18 32,081 14,748 1,269 1,273 1.00 2,598 2,605
2015 1,023 574 1.78 279,931 157,014 438 142 3.08 5,524 1,794 2,427 1,056 2.30 65,518 28,504 2,510 1,210 2.08 31,631 15,241 1,384 1,236 1.12 2,833 2,530
2016 1,050 597 1.76 287,334 163,417 465 152 3.06 5,856 1,911 2,403 1,225 1.96 64,869 33,063 2,530 1,291 1.96 31,874 16,272 1,513 1,254 1.21 3,097 2,567
2017 1,106 570 1.94 302,510 156,038 498 139 3.59 6,276 1,748 2,458 1,207 2.04 66,368 32,598 2,530 1,263 2.00 31,884 15,914 1,528 1,128 1.35 3,128 2,310
2018 1,119 620 1.80 306,053 169,680 472 148 3.18 5,949 1,869 2,369 1,265 1.87 63,956 34,142 2,444 1,270 1.92 30,796 15,999 1,689 1,209 1.40 3,459 2,475
Average 1,088 457 2.54 297,736 125,081 477 119 4.21 6,008 1,493 2,371 881 2.86 64,027 23,788 2,639 994 3 33,251 12,524 2,187 1,158 2 4,478 2,371
65
Annex D continued…. Computation of BOD loading by age classification of animals, 2000-2018
BOD levels-Scenario : No adoption of waste minimization BOD levels-Scenario : No adoption of waste minimization practices
practices or waste treatment faciities by swine farms. or waste treatment faciities by swine farms.
'000 kg '000 kg '000 kg Tg Tg Tg
Year BOD Backyard BOD Commercial BOD Philippines BOD Backyard BOD Commercial BOD Philippines
2000 375,402 102,519 477,921 2000 0.38 0.10 0.48
2001 380,101 104,919 485,020 2001 0.38 0.10 0.49
2002 390,566 112,888 503,454 2002 0.39 0.11 0.50
2003 421,254 122,073 543,328 2003 0.42 0.12 0.54
2004 434,584 124,852 559,436 2004 0.43 0.12 0.56
2005 418,626 126,464 545,090 2005 0.42 0.13 0.55
2006 426,390 143,260 569,650 2006 0.43 0.14 0.57
2007 427,653 172,714 600,367 2007 0.43 0.17 0.60
2008 427,320 180,446 607,766 2008 0.43 0.18 0.61
2009 427,849 182,460 610,309 2009 0.43 0.18 0.61
2010 432,290 179,596 611,887 2010 0.43 0.18 0.61
2011 389,657 175,553 565,210 2011 0.39 0.18 0.57
2012 387,859 175,518 563,377 2012 0.39 0.18 0.56
2013 383,414 188,035 571,449 2013 0.38 0.19 0.57
2014 382,674 193,521 576,194 2014 0.38 0.19 0.58
2015 385,438 205,083 590,521 2015 0.39 0.21 0.59
2016 393,032 217,230 610,262 2016 0.39 0.22 0.61
2017 410,165 208,610 618,775 2017 0.41 0.21 0.62
2018 410,213 224,166 634,379 2018 0.41 0.22 0.63
66
Annex E. Data used to estimate CH4 emissions from swine production and CO2-eq
TOTAL CH4 EMISSIONS from Enteric TOTAL CH4 EMISSIONS from SWINE
Fermentation TOTAL CH4 EMISSIONS from Manure Mgt Systems PRODUCTION
Enteric
Fermentation +
CH4 Emission factor for Enteric CH4 Emission factor for Manure Mgt System: 1.7 kg Sum of Emissions from Enteric Fermentation and Manure Mgt Enteric Manure Mgt
Head Head Head Fermentation: 1.5 kg CH4/head/year CH4/head/year Manure Management System System Fermentation System
CO2-eq CO2-eq CO2-eq CO2-eq MMT

YEAR PHL BACKINV COMMINV CH4EMPHL CH4EMBACK CH4EMCOMM CH4MMSPHL CH4MMSBACK CH4MMSCOMM CH4PHL CH4BACKINV CH4COMMIINV PHL in Gg/yr PHL in Gg/yr PHL in Gg/yr Philippines Backyard Commercial Philippines
2000 10,748,920 8,327,290 2,421,630 16,123,380 12,490,935 3,632,445 18,273,164 14,156,393 4,116,771 34,396,544 26,647,328 7,749,216 34 16 18 722,327,424 559,593,888 162,733,536 22
2001 11,063,140 8,541,800 2,521,340 16,594,710 12,812,700 3,782,010 18,807,338 14,521,060 4,286,278 35,402,048 27,333,760 8,068,288 35 17 19 743,443,008 574,008,960 169,434,048 22
2002 11,652,700 8,935,400 2,717,300 17,479,050 13,403,100 4,075,950 19,809,590 15,190,180 4,619,410 37,288,640 28,593,280 8,695,360 37 17 20 783,061,440 600,458,880 182,602,560 23
2003 12,364,320 9,462,970 2,901,350 18,546,480 14,194,455 4,352,025 21,019,344 16,087,049 4,932,295 39,565,824 30,281,504 9,284,320 40 19 21 830,882,304 635,911,584 194,970,720 25
2004 12,561,690 9,722,030 2,839,660 18,842,535 14,583,045 4,259,490 21,354,873 16,527,451 4,827,422 40,197,408 31,110,496 9,086,912 40 19 21 844,145,568 653,320,416 190,825,152 25
2005 12,139,690 9,257,900 2,881,790 18,209,535 13,886,850 4,322,685 20,637,473 15,738,430 4,899,043 38,847,008 29,625,280 9,221,728 39 18 21 815,787,168 622,130,880 193,656,288 24
2006 13,046,680 9,728,640 3,318,040 19,570,020 14,592,960 4,977,060 22,179,356 16,538,688 5,640,668 41,749,376 31,131,648 10,617,728 42 20 22 876,736,896 653,764,608 222,972,288 26
2007 13,459,340 9,825,520 3,633,820 20,189,010 14,738,280 5,450,730 22,880,878 16,703,384 6,177,494 43,069,888 31,441,664 11,628,224 43 20 23 904,467,648 660,274,944 244,192,704 27
2008 13,701,030 9,726,820 3,974,210 20,551,545 14,590,230 5,961,315 23,291,751 16,535,594 6,756,157 43,843,296 31,125,824 12,717,472 44 21 23 920,709,216 653,642,304 267,066,912 28
2009 13,596,400 9,602,820 3,993,580 20,394,600 14,404,230 5,990,370 23,113,880 16,324,794 6,789,086 43,508,480 30,729,024 12,779,456 44 20 23 913,678,080 645,309,504 268,368,576 27
2010 13,397,790 9,542,190 3,855,600 20,096,685 14,313,285 5,783,400 22,776,243 16,221,723 6,554,520 42,872,928 30,535,008 12,337,920 43 20 23 900,331,488 641,235,168 259,096,320 27
2011 12,303,100 8,466,930 3,836,170 18,454,650 12,700,395 5,754,255 20,915,270 14,393,781 6,521,489 39,369,920 27,094,176 12,275,744 39 18 21 826,768,320 568,977,696 257,790,624 25
2012 11,863,020 7,981,670 3,881,350 17,794,530 11,972,505 5,822,025 20,167,134 13,568,839 6,598,295 37,961,664 25,541,344 12,420,320 38 18 20 797,194,944 536,368,224 260,826,720 24
2013 11,843,050 7,750,240 4,092,810 17,764,575 11,625,360 6,139,215 20,133,185 13,175,408 6,957,777 37,897,760 24,800,768 13,096,992 38 18 20 795,852,960 520,816,128 275,036,832 24
2014 11,801,670 7,656,830 4,144,840 17,702,505 11,485,245 6,217,260 20,062,839 13,016,611 7,046,228 37,765,344 24,501,856 13,263,488 38 18 20 793,072,224 514,538,976 278,533,248 24
2015 11,999,722 7,782,290 4,217,432 17,999,583 11,673,435 6,326,148 20,399,527 13,229,893 7,169,634 38,399,110 24,903,328 13,495,782 38 18 20 806,381,318 522,969,888 283,411,430 24
2016 12,478,711 7,959,930 4,518,781 18,718,067 11,939,895 6,778,172 21,213,809 13,531,881 7,681,928 39,931,875 25,471,776 14,460,099 40 19 21 838,569,379 534,907,296 303,662,083 25
2017 12,427,790 8,120,087 4,307,703 18,641,685 12,180,131 6,461,555 21,127,243 13,804,148 7,323,095 39,768,928 25,984,278 13,784,650 40 19 21 835,147,488 545,669,846 289,477,642 25
2018 12,604,441 8,092,940 4,511,501 18,906,662 12,139,410 6,767,252 21,427,550 13,757,998 7,669,552 40,334,211 25,897,408 14,436,803 40 19 21 847,018,435 543,845,568 303,172,867 25
67
68
69

Swine Commodity Analytics Paper Catelo-Daite-Bugayong 03 Oct 2019 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Swine Commodity Analytics Paper Catelo-Daite-Bugayong 03 Oct 2019 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SOCIO-ECONOMICS RESEARCH AND DATA ANALYTICS LABORATORY:

COMMODITY-SPECIFIC DATA ANALYTICS AND CAPACITY BUILDING

SWINE COMMODITY ANALYTICS

SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PHILIPPINE SWINE INDUSTRY

Ern Lois Nicole M. Bugayong

FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY 11

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 18

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 32

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 34

Volume of production of swine meat, 2012-2018 (in '000 metric

1 Per capita meat consumption by share, Philippines, 2000-2018 1

Procedures for the Construction of Thematic with Proportional

SWINE COMMODITY ANALYTICS

SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PHILIPPINE SWINE INDUSTRY

Ern Lois Nicole M. Bugayong

FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY 11

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 18

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 32

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 34

Volume of production of swine meat, 2012-2018 (in '000 metric

Procedures for the Construction of Thematic with Proportional

Maria Angeles O. Catelo2

SHAREPORK SHAREBEEF SHAREPOULTRY

Figure 1. Per capita meat consumption by share, Philippines, 2000-2018

40.00 Viet Nam

Figure 2. Per capita pork consumption, selected countries, 2000-2027

Notwithstanding the economic and social opportunities that a commercializing swine

The interest of this paper is on a) describing the changes in spatial concentration of

II. The Industry

Swine production continues to be the dominant livestock subsector in the Philippines

Carabao Cattle Goat Hog

Figure 4. Share of livestock inventory by type of animal, 1990-2019

Table 2. Volume of domestic consumption of swine meat, 2012-2018

Figure 6. Backyard and commercial swine inventories, 1994 to 2018

Figure 7. Share in swine animal inventory by scale of production, 1994 to 2018

Figure 8. Cash costs of farrow-to-wean production system, one sow-level

Figure 9. Share of cash and non-cash costs of farrow-to-wean production

Table 3. Share in population of highly urbanized regions, 2010 and 2015

PRICEPORK PRICEBEEF PRICEROILER

Figure 11. Retail prices of meat, Philippines, 2000-2018.

III. Framework and Methodology

This study attempted to describe the changes in spatial concentration of swine

B. Data and Methods

a. Swine Inventory by Province (Commercial, Backyard, and Total), 1994

For increased environmental pollution that is hypothesized to occur with greater

EMswine,ef = EFswine,ef × Number of Head of Animals (Equation 1)

EFswine,mm =VS × 365 days × B o× ∑jk MCFjk × %MSjk (Equation 2)

EFswine,mm = Emission factor for manure management of swine

j = manure management system (liquid/slurry system or solid system)

k = climate region (warm, temperate, cool)

and the other variables are as previously defined above.

In order to get total CH4 emissions from manure management (EMswine,mm), in

EMswine,mm = EFswine,mm × Number of Head of Animals (Equation 3)

In the absence of accuracy of characterization of production systems, manure

Changes in swine inventory by location

Philippines 2002: 12.36 M heads Southern Tagalog

Others Central Luzon

CENTRAL VISAYAS 7.6

SOUTHERN MINDANAO 7.5

CENTRAL LUZON 8.5

WESTERN VISAYAS 9.7

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0