Pollution Control and Policy Measuresfor Piggery Wastewater Management inThailandWEPA Group Workshop on Piggery
Wastewater Management in Asia
21-22 February 2017
Chiang Mai, Thailand

Prakriti Kashyap
Regional Resource Centre for
Asia and the Pacific (RRC.AP)

Presentation Outline
 A Glimpse at Thai Piggery Sector
 Environmental Concerns of Piggery Waste Piggery Wastewater Pollution Control: Treatment Technologies
 Piggery Wastewater Management: Policy Measures Conclusion & Way Forward
2

Thai Piggery Sector
 Pig farming is a major industrial livestock sector in Thailand Pig population reached 9.9 million in 2015 (DLD, 2015)
 Central region has the highest pig farming Domestic demand for Pork is high 10.9 kg/capita/year (OECD,2015)

 Export is around 5% to Japan, Hong Kong, Vietnam,
Singapore, and Europe Imports from Germany, South Korea, Brazil, and Denmark3Categories of Pig Farm
Based on the scale/size
Pig Farm Category

Livestock Unit (LU)

Number of Pigs (head)

Smallholder

<6

< 50

Small Scale>6 to 60

>50 to 500

Medium Scale>60 to 600>500 to 5,000

Large Scale>600>5,000
MONRE

4

Piggery Waste: Solid, Liquid, GaseousEmissions Pigs return more than half of
feed they consumed as ‘wastes’ Solid waste: feces, feed wastage
 Liquid waste: mixture of urine,cleaning water
 Gaseous and air particles: NH3,
H2S, CO2, CH4, N2O

5

Pig Diet and Pig Manure Characteristics
Pig diet and feeding strategies is one of the important area tolowering air and water pollution from piggery

 Reducing particle size= increases the digestibility
 Pellet diet=reduces feed wastage and N release Water:Feed ratio Feed additives=Phytase enzyme-low P release Phase feeding (reduce feed waste)

Enviropig™
6

Environmental Concerns of Piggery
Wastewater High Concentrations of Nutrients(N & P) Organic matter loading BOD, COD,
VS, TOC Zinc (Zn) and copper (Cu) in pig
diet, Water pollution:
Eutrophication, reduced DO
 Public Health & Aquatic
animal’s health concerns

 Antibiotics, growth hormones
 Pathogens
7

Piggery Wastewater Discharge in Thailand
Paddy,
3%
Swine Farm,
12%,

Industry,
36%,

Fish stew,
3%

Aqua culture,
1%,
Community,
45%

Nokyoo, 20168

Piggery Wastewater Characteristics
Cooling Cleaning Total(L/Head (L/Head/ Waste
Day)
water
/Day)
(L/Head/Day)

Pig type

Solid
Waste
(kg/Head/Day)

Fattening
Pig

2.5

12

12

24

3,500 7,400

4,700

700

Breeding
Pig

2.3

26

38

64

800

1,700

900

350

Nursery

0.52

9

11

20

2,500 5,400

3,000

350

Total
COD
SS
TKN
BOD (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/
(mg/L
L)

Saichol Seanghaisuck, 2015
9

Piggery Manure Management
No Solid-liquid waste
separation

Solid-liquid waste
separation

Depending on the manurecollection, either in solid
form, or wastewater, or as
slurry, the selection oftreatment technology differs

LiquidSlurrySolidAnaerobic Ponds

Artificial Wetlands

LiquidTreatment, i.e.,anaerobic digestion
Biosolids (1)Biosolids (1)Composting, drying

Solid= composting, fish feed

Land application
Reclamation Vs. Disposal

Liquid =Anaerobic ponds
Slurry= Anaerobic Digestion• Wastewater discharged to water body/canal• Land application (flooding, injection etc)
Reclamation Vs. Disposal

Legal standards(1) digestate

Gonzalez-Soria, 201210

Solid-Liquid Separator
Separation of solid and liquid manure
before they reach the treatment/ storage
structure: Reduces the nutrient content of manureReduces wastewater volume- reducing
the initial size of the lagoon or storage
pond

 Solids can be treated separately using
lower cost composting techniques,animal feed supplements

Weifng Zhite Environmental Protection
Technology Co., Ltd.
11

Piggery Wastewater Treatment Technology
1. Stabilization Pond
– Anaerobic Pond
– Facultative Pond
– Maturation Pond

2. Anaerobic Filter Tank System
3. Biogas Capture System– Fixed Dome
– Covered lagoon– Channel Digester+UASB
12

Piggery wastewater Treatment Technology
Stabilization Pond System

Advantage
 Easy maintenance and operation
 Low capital cost High removal efficiency (80 percent) Allows flexibility of modifying
treatment system

Disadvantage
 Needs large area
 Releases odour from methane andhydrogen sulfide
 May aggravate soil erosion

13

Piggery Wastewater Treatment Technology
Lagoon/Pond System – Low cost conventional wastewater treatment method
Anaerobic Pond
Depth

Fairly deep

Facultative Pond

Aerobic Pond

DeepestShallowest of the ponds

Primary
Stage oftreatment

Effluent from anaerobic pond
sent here for further BOD
removalLast step in the series of pond
treatment

Treatment solids and settleableorganics settles to theprocess

Top layer aerobic, bottom layer
anaerobic: algae growing on thesurface provide the water withoxygen leading to both anaerobic
digestion and aerobic oxidationof the organic pollutants

retention of stabilized solids
and the inactivation ofpathogenic microorganisms
via heating, rise of pH andsolar disinfection

BOD
removal80-95%

BOD removal= 60-80%,
Pathogen removal = 90%

bottom forming a sludge,
which is, digested byanaerobic microorganisms

50-85%SSWM

14

Piggery Wastewater Treatment Technology
Anaerobic filter tank system: suitable for small and medium farm

Primary sedimentation tank

Septic tank

Anaerobic filter tank

Oxidation pond

Advantages

Disadvantages

 Low capital cost
 Durable structure Needs small space Takes less time in construction

 Low capacity of handling wastewater Hard to maintain the system performance Annual bottom sludge dredging is required Consistent monitoring is compulsory e.g. daily bottom sludge scooping No flexibility in modifying treatment system
 Post treatment required to meet the effluent standard
15

Piggery wastewater Treatment Technology
Biogas Capture System

Wongsapai, et.al. 2008
16

Biogas Digester Types used in Thai Pig Farms•

Fixed Dome System••

Plastic Bag System•

Channel Digester System

Covered Lagoon System

17Biogas Capture System(L-R Top) Pretreatment (wastewater collection tank, sand trapping)(L-R Bottom) reactor, gas-to-electricity generator, sludge drying bed

18

Summary of Piggery Wastewater
Treatment Technology Use in Thailand
100

Treatment Technique

90

Average% Farm Size small scale (1‐500 pigs)

Pond System (2‐10 ponds)

42%

Reception Pond (1 pond
only)

37%

Solid‐liquid + holding pond

7%

Biogas Digester

6%

No treatment at all7%% of farms

80% Farm Size Medium scale (500‐5000 pigs)

70% Farm Size Large scale (>5000 pigs)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Pons system (2‐10 Reception pond
ponds)
only

Biogas Digestersolid‐liquid
system+holding
pond

No treatment at
allTreatment Technology
Treatment or Storage Only??

DLD 2000 survey
19Treatment Efficiency of Each Technology
Treatment
Technology

BOD

COD

Removal Efficiency (%)
SS
TN
TKN

TP

Cu

Large Scale Farm
Stabilization
Pond
Covered
LagoonChannelDigester
+UASB

90.51

87.36

89.34

60.93

65.90

75.06

87.02

85.91

84.84

80.44

59.54

61.88

68.94

91.50

92.90

92.90

94.75

67.18

66.18

58.86

96.11

Saichol Seanghaisuck, 201520

Treatment Efficiency of Each Technology
Treatment
Technology BOD

COD

Removal Efficiency (%)
SS
TN
TKN

TP

Cu

Medium Scale Farm
Stabilization
Pond
Anaerobic
FilterCover
LagoonFixed Dome
ChannelDigester
+UASB

78.52

68.24

78.02

49.25

49.45

50.93

75.28

82.34

77.50

81.55

61.96

64.35

62.71

90.00

69.83

75.98

84.48

53.70

48.68

50.12

82.80

75.86

65.53

77.26

38.56

36.97

43.58

85.56

85.47

70.74

82.86

46.72

49.41

30.55

76.96

Saichol Seanghaisuck, 201521

Treatment Efficiency of Each Technology
Treatment
Technology

Removal Efficiency (%)
SS
TN
TKN

BOD

COD

TP

Cu

77.78

78.02

88.12

61.65

67.02

65.16

88.57

85.18

83.06

85.43

47.61

51.88

66.42

89.28

85.06

70.97

80.63

51.98

52.16

67.27

82.72

Small Farm
Stabilization
Pond
Cover
LagoonFixed Dome

Saichol Seanghaisuck, 201522

Policy Measures for Piggery Wastewater
Management• Government Stakeholders & Their Roles in Piggery WW
management
 MONRE (PCD): Pig Effluent standard and Inspection of pig
farms MOAC (DLD): livestock development
 MOE (DEDE, EPPO): biogas promotion in swine farms (subsidy+ technology)
 Local Administrative Organization (LAO)/TAO: permit/license,
inspection visit
 ERDI: Biogas technology research and dissemination

23

Policy Measures for Piggery Wastewater
Management• Acts
1. The Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental
Quality Act, 1992
 is the umbrella Act based on this Act, MONRE endorsed swine farms as a point source of waterpollution
 PCD established pig effluent wastewater standard since February 2002

2. Public Health Act, 1992
 This Act authorizes Tambon (sub-district) Administrative Office (TAO) toclose the farm that violates the environmental regulations, which may leadto public health hazards

24Policy Measures for Piggery Wastewater
Management
Legal Instruments
1. Pig Effluent Standard PCD- water Quality Bureau in 2002 – established the pig effluent standard PCD Inspection & Enforcement Department monitors the pig farms
 This standard serves as the first reference point towards minimizing thepollution from pig farms
 Lenient standards?
 Loading at the receiving water bodies?
25

Piggery Effluent Standard
Parameter

Maximum Permitted values
Large Farms(> 600 LU)
5.5‐9

Small‐Medium Farms(60‐600 LU)
5.5‐9

BOD (mg/L)

60

100

COD (mg/L)

300

400

SS (mg/L)

150

200

TKN (mg/L)

120

200

pH

PCD, MONRE

26

Comparison of Pig and Industry effluent
Standard (PCD)
Parameter

Maximum Permitted values(Pig Farms)

Maximum Permitted values(Industrial Effluent standard)

Large Farms(>600 LU)

Small-Medium
Farms (60-600 LU)

5.5-9

5.5-9

5.5-9

BOD (mg/L)

60

100

not more than 20 mg/L depending on receiving water ortype of industry under consideration of PCC but notexceed 60 mg/L

COD (mg/L)

300

400

not more than 120 mg/L depending on receiving water oftype of industry under consideration of Pollution control
committee (PCC) but not exceed 400 mg/L

SS (mg/L)

150

200

not more than 50 mg/l depending on receiving water ortype of industry or wastewater treatment system underconsideration of PCC but not exceed 150 mg/L

TKN (mg/L)

120

200

not more than 100 mg/l depending on receiving water ortype of industry under consideration of PCC but notexceed 200 mg/L

pH

PCD, MONRE

27

Non-Compliance Penalty
Case Categories

Rate Fees (Baht)

Case 1: wastewater effluent parameters do not meetstandard* Analysis result is less than 2 times of standard Analysis result is between 2-4 times of standard Analysis result is between 4-7 times of standard Analysis result is between 7-10 times of standard Analysis result is more than 10 times of standard<10,000
10,000 – 50,000
25,000 – 100,000
50,00 – 150,000
75,000 – 200,000

Case 2: Discharge wastewater without using treatment
systemCase 3: Damage environmental, water body or
surrounding area

10,000 – 200,000
10,000 – 200,000

28Complaints About Pig Farms

Year

Environmental Problems
Odor

Wastewater

2014
2015
2016

19
16
19

2
5
6

2017

3

0

Total No. ofComplaints

57

13
PCD

29

Policy Measures for Piggery Wastewater
Management• Guidelines
1. Thai Agricultural Standardpractices for pig farm (2008)

TAS

6403-2009

on

good

agricultural Voluntary standards to provide guidance to pig farmers and promote healthy
and hygienic pig farming practices reference point for Provincial and Regional
DLD Livestock Offices to accredit and monitor pig farms
 It refers to pollution control measures including, safe disposal of animal
carcasses, proper management of pig manure – reducing bad smell in theneighborhood, operation of proper wastewater treatment system meeting theeffluent standard
30

Other Guidelines on Pig Farm Management
2. Feed regulation (Animal Feed Quality Control Act B.E.2525 (1982)
 It encompasses; raw material inspection, production inspection, and issuance of Certificate/License
to produce animal feed
 Inspections are made to ensure quality and safety of feed :@ the point of feed distribution, inspection at feed shop is conducted and license to sell feedis issued.
@ Port of entry - inspects and certifies the import animal feed ingredient@ Piggery Farm - check the quality and safety of on-farm manufactured feed, and checks theuse of banned substance, illegal veterinary drugs etc.

3. Thai agricultural commodity and food standard: good manufacturing practices for
pig abattoir B.E. 2549 (2006)
 Guideline developed by the National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards – MOAC
 applies to pig transportation from farm to abattoir, humane slaughtering, good hygienic practices
and thereafter distributing of pig carcass, pork and products from abattoir to market.
 Waste water treatment system shall be in place in compliance with relevant laws
31

Summary: Existing Issues in Piggery
Wastewater Treatment
 Smallholder farms (1-50 pigs) are excluded from the effluent
standard commitment

 Majority of farms (small, medium, and large) opt for primary level
pond/lagoon system as treatment option

 No post-treatment (of effluent from AD and sludge from ponds) for
nutrient recovery

 Biogas in pig farms as Carbon projects (capital cost, scale of biogas
production= CDM Challenges)

 Both technology and policy measures targeted as the end of pipe
solution than prevention measures

32

Conclusion & Way Forward
Effective Enforcement of Pig Effluent Standard• Regular monitoring of pig farms & publication of wastewater reports• Stricter enforcement of penalties for non-compliance• Non-compliance color code as a warning (red, yellow, green)• Bringing smallholder pig farms into pollution control regime – lenient
standards• New supportive regulation? (Ex. European Commission Nitrates
Directive, 1991)

Closing the resource loop
• Mandates for post-treatment technologies to remove/recover nutrient• Reusing the treated wastewater in pig farm operation

33

Proposed Revision of the Pig Effluent Standard• Cancellation of COD• Addition of Total P≤ 35 mg/L (for all scale of farms)• Addition of Total N
Large Farm ≤ 200 mg/L
Medium Farm ≤ 300 mg/L
Small Farm ≤ 350 mg/L
Saichol Seanghaisuck, 201534

Conclusion & Way Forward
Piggery Wastewater from
Environmental Pollution to
Climate Solution• Biogas potential from pig
manure Vs Current Success

Ethanolwastewater,
7%

Palm oilwastewater,
4%• Explore new Carbon
Finance/market regime

Pineapple…
Sugar
industry ww,
0%
Slaughterhou
se ww, 0%Cassava pulp
(cake), 19%• Scale of the projects- cluster
approach in pig farmscentralized piggery
wastewater treatment plant?
• Learning from the past CDM
projects on pig biogas

Tuna industry
ww, 1%

Cow manure,40%

Pig manure,
11%

Cassava
wastewater,
17%

Biogas Potentials: Manures 610 Ktoe
Industrial Wastewater 460 ktoe(> 20,000 million baht a year)
Morakot Tantichareon
35

Conclusion & Way Forward
Mainstreaming Sustainability in Pig Production• Sustainable animal production (reducing farm inputs of water,energy, land area)• Mandatory separation of dry manure and wastewater• Ensuring Quality of feed/ and feeding practices and other good farm
practices for reducing N&P in pig manure• Enabling Sustainable Supply chain on pork (low carbon footprint
certificate/logo etc.)

36

Conclusion & Way Forward
How to Achieve Effective enforcement?
• Start at the Beginning - @ the Pig farm licensing/permit– Train Local Authorities to consider piggery wastewater treatment
criteria while granting a pig farm permit/license– Develop Detailed technical guidelines/ checklist, tools on pig farmestablishment- with consideration to wastewater treatment
technology and wastewater and nutrient recovery and recycling plans

37

Conclusion & Way Forward
How to Achieve Effective enforcement?
• Bring Pig farmers onboard: Raise Awareness, provide technicalguidance to pig farmers for sustainable piggery wastewater
management• Compliance Assistance Center/Programs: Helps stakeholders
to understand and comply with environmental requirements

38

THANK YOU

GHG from Pig Production
 Globally, pork production is estimated to emit about 668 million
tonnes CO2-eq, representing 9% of the livestock sector emissions

 10% of GHG emission from manure storage and processing(Gerber, et.al. 2013)

 GHG emission from Thai swine farm is estimated to be 3.6 kg
CO2e/kg live pig

 68% of this emission = from swine feed production
 32% = occurs at the pig farming stage(OAE, 2012. Annual Report)

40

History of Biogas Development in Thai
Pig Farms
 1960s:Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health 1960-1992: 6,000 floating drum type bio digesters
 1970-1980: National Energy Institute 1980-1989: Department of Agricultural Extension, MOAC
 1988-1995: Thai-German Biogas Programme (TG-BP)
Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) digesters
 1995: National Biogas Dissemination Program for medium and large
livestock farms Phase I (1995-1998), Phase II (1997-2003), and Phase
III (2002 to 2010) 2006-2010: Livestock Waste Management in East Asia (LWMEA)
41

Biogas from Pig Farms CDM Project• Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project
Name

Sor Pimonmas Farm

Veerachai Farm

Nong Bua Farm

Location

Pak Tho District, Rachaburi Province

Pak Tho District, Rachaburi Province

Pak Tho District, Rachaburi Province

Business Type

Piggery Farm

Piggery Farm

Piggery Farm

Volume ofTreatment System

26,000 m3

25,000 m3

33,000 m3Type of Treatment
SystemCMU-CD (Chiang Mai University
Channel Digester)

CMU-CD (Chiang Mai University
Channel Digester)

CMU-CD (Chiang Mai University Channel
Digester)Electricity
Production

2 Mega Watt (approximately 27M
Baht/year)

2.7 Mega Watt (approximately 38 M
Baht/year)

Project Participants

Thailand: SPM Feedmill Co., Ltd.
Denmark: Danish Ministry of Climate
and Energy

Thailand: Veerachai Farm Rangwai
Denmark: Danish Ministry of Climate
and Energy

3.8 Mega Watt (approximately 12.6 M
Baht/year)
Bunker Oil 2,750 L/day
LPG 2,300 kg/day
Thailand: Nong Bua Farm & Country Home
Village Co.
Denmark: Danish Ministry of Climate andEnergyDate of Registration
24 March 2008
for CDM

28 March 2008

27 March 2008

Date of acceptance

01 Apr 2011

01 Apr 2011

01 Apr 2011

CERs

23,556 metric tonnes CO2 equivalent
per annum

32,092 metric tonnes CO2 equivalent
per annum

15,958 metric tonnes CO2 equivalent per
annum

Crediting Period

24 Mar 08 - 23 Mar 18 (Fixed)

28 Mar 08 - 27 Mar 18 (Fixed)

27 Mar 08 - 26 Mar 18 (Fixed)

42

Biogas from Pig Farms CDM Project• Thailand Small Scale Livestock Waste Management Program- ERDI
Name of the project

Thailand Small Scale Livestock Waste Management
Program

Locationall 75 provinces of Thailand

Business Type

Piggery Farms

Type of Treatment
SystemAnaerobic Digestion

Project Participants

Thailand: Energy Research and Development InstituteNakornping of Chiang Mai University
Portugal: International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment as Trustee of the Carbon Fund for Europe;
Government of Portugal – Portuguese Carbon Fund

Date of Registration
for CDM

November 9, 2012

CERs

390,000

Crediting Period

November 9, 2012 and December 31, 2018.

Name of theParticipating
Farms

Number of pig(heads)Carbon Credit(ton/year)

K.S.O

11,000

3,160

A.P.

10,0003,581

Panas Amporn

8,288

2,213

V. Thai

11,673

3,104

Kanchana
Hybrid29,347

5,623

Kachana

22,400

7,730

Jung

20,1906,084

Supaluek

53,535

13,715Maneerat

15,060

4,476

Wanchai

18,7308,428

200,223

58,114

Total

43