Dr.Chao Nokyoo
Director of Inland Water Division
Water Quality Management Bureau
Pollution Control Department
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Thailand1
The 11th Annual Meeting of Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA), Workshop and field Visit in Vientiane,
Lao P.D.R. (25-27 January 2016) at Vasana riverside Hotel, Vientiane, Lao P.D.R.

Content
1. Swine Breeds in Thailand
2. Classification of Swine Farm
3. Pollution from Swine Farm
4. Wastewater from Swine Farm
5. Swine Waste Management in Thailand
5.1 Effluent Standard for Pig Farm
5.2 Good Agricultural Practices for Pig Farm
5.3 Institutional Mechanisms to Mitigate Pollution Problems
5.4 Swine Waste Treatment
5.4.1 Open ponds / lagoons
5.4.2 Manure to the crop farm or fishing feed
5.4.3 Biogas systems
2

1. Swine Breeds in Thailand• Although modern swine breeds was first introduced in the
1960s, and programs were put in place in the mid-1970s to
train farmers in modern production and farm management,
major changes in the Thai swine industry only began totake place in the mid-1980s.
• The introduction of exotic pig breeds and evaporation shedcooling has begun to move Thailand into industrial swine
production.
• The production of swine increased from just less than 11
million pigs in 1983 to over 16 million in 2001.
• The pace of expansion has been slowed by diseaseproblems that limit exports to high-value markets, and also
by the regulation of slaughterhouses in a way that
constrains growth in the sector. Burgeoning environmental3
concerns have also been a factor.

• The three largest pig-producing provinces, Nakorn
Pathom in the West, and Chachoengsao andCholburi in the East, cannot accommodate newlarge-scale farms because of land constraints andthe high risk of spreading disease in already highanimal density areas.
• Therefore, new pig farms have expanded into
Ratchaburi (in the West), and Saraburi and
Lopburi (in the East).
• These provinces, particularly the latter two, haveabundant water resources.
• Another constraint is the increasing level of waterpollution caused by the farms situated near theextensive river system in Nakorn Pathom and 4
Chachoengsao.

• Before 1970, more than 70% of total pig
population was kept in backyard farm. Locallycontact farming. The biggest farm confined < 400sows. No recording system was applied. Solid
floor with individual pen found incommon.
• From 1970 – 1990, the system developed tomodern farming, confinement and intensive. A
gestation crate, Taiwan design, was first used.
Breeding companies and other related businessexpanded very fast. Herd book and white broadwere available, but no farm data analysis. Small
farm possessed 60% of total pig population. Big
farm populated up to 5,000 sows in a single site.
5• From 2000 – present, housing is equipped with evaporative
cooling system. Standard farming is controlled and certified
by the Department of Livestock Development.
• Big enterprises have expanded their business throughcontact farming. Swine practitioner and farm consultants are
more popular.
• Environmental awareness becomes a hot issue.
• Farm biosecurity are more concerned. Farm owners are
better educated and some of them are replaced by new
generation.
• Pig Board has been established. Misused and off-label usingchemical, vaccines and drugs in pig farms are more often
seen. Minimal disease farms and Specific Pathogen Free
herds are available.
• Small and middle-size farms are less than 40% of total pig
populations.
6• Pig Populations• In 2013, the standing populations of all-age pig were 9.51
million head. The annual production was 16.2 million
heads (Table 2). Farming system based on shelteredaccommodation with little outdoors pig keeping.
• The number of small and medium-size farms dramaticallydecreased, but pig populations increased due to up-scale.
There were 210,978 households. The majority of thesehousehold (94.15%) raised <50 pigs, while 0.11% were
big farm with >5,000 pigs.
• The number of breeder pigs was approximately 1.01
million heads, 46% of which owned by the two big
companies. Only 6.1% of standing populations are
indigenous breed.
78Form the study of the Department of Livestock
Development and the Pollution control
Department, total amount of pigs in Thailand is
10 million, which distribute over the parts ofcountry.
• Central region has the highest pig farming,
approximately 42%. In this region, most of pig
farm is located in Ratchaburi and Nakorn
Phatom Provinces.
• 19% of pig farming are located in northeasternregion, mostly in Nakorn Rajasima andUbonrajatani Provinces.
• Eastern region has 15% of pig farming, mostly
located in Cholburi and Chachoeng sao
Provinces• Northern region has 14% farming, mostly
located in Chiang Mai and Lumphun Provinces.
• Southern region distributes 10% in Chumporn
and Nakorn Sri thumaraya Provinces.

9
Source: FAO, LEAD Project and OAE

Pig
32 %

10

2. Classification of Swine Farm
Livestock Unit

Swine Number

Swine Farm Size

> 6 to 60> 50 to 500

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

Medium Scale> 600> 5,000

Large Scale

Note: 1 livestock unit = 500 kg. live weightSource: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE)
11

Type of Swine Farm
• Type 1 Backyard farms - very small• Type 2 Open housing farms - small /medium• Type 3 Close housing farms (withevaporative cooling) – large

12Type 1 Backyard farm - very small

13

Type 2 Open housing farm - small / medium

14Type 3 Close housing farms - Large / very large(with evaporative cooling)15

3. Pollution from Swine Farm
• Solid waste– Bad Smell– Insect16• Wastewater– Bad Smell– Insect17

Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

18

4. Wastewater from Swine Farm
Swine
Type

water uses wastewater BOD(mg/l)
rate
rate

COD

SS

TKN

(mg/l)(mg/l)(mg/l)

1,700 900350(l/Head/day)(l/Head/day)Breeder

92

64

800

Fattener

48

24

3,500 7,400 4,700 700

Nursery32

20

2,500 5,400 3,000 350- Wastewater Discharge 40%- Wastewater Treatment 70% (Efficiency 80%)
Source: Pollution Control Department, Thailand

19

Discharge
Generatio
Number of Pig
BOD
Rate of
Number n Rate of
Loading Wastewat
Yea FarmofWastewatr scale(Kg.BOD/der
Farmerer
Breeder Nursery Fattener Total(Kg.BOD/day)(CM/day)
ay)

201
4

Large 407,782 1,051,721 2,432,155 3,891,658

249

105,504.19

277,765.51

48,886.73

Mediu
222,164 583,597 2,205,788 3,011,549
m

2,633

78,829.35

225,840.84

39,747.99

Small 124,916 274,198

591,224 990,338

8,083

27,667.96

69,768.42

12,279.24

Verysmall 168,934 406,096 1,036,346 1,611,376

180,551

43,806.00

116,007.28

20,417.28

Total 923,796 2,315,612 6,265,513 9,504,921 191,516

255,807.50

689,382.05

121,331.24

Source ofwastewater

Wastewater

Percentage(%)(CM/day)

Discharge of wastewater

Percentage(%)(Kg.BOD/day)

6,601,602
13,793,272

4.1
8.6

517,990413,79745
36

Swine Farm 124,284

0.1

140,80212

949,148
138,092,136
159,560,443

0.6
86.5
100

13,21834,95533,585
1,154,346

1
3
3
100

Community
Industry

Aqua culture
Paddy Farm
Fish stew
Total

22

Wastewater Dischargeof Thailand
Aqua culture
1%

Paddy3%
Fish stew
3%

Swine Farm

Community

12%

45%

Industry

36%

ชุมชน

อุตสาหกรรม

ฟาร์มสุ กรเพาะเลี้ยงสัตว์น้ านาข้าว

ปลากระชัง

• As a consequence of deterioration of water quality in cannel andriver in Thailand form point sources including municipalities andindustries, related organization have conducted management ofpollution released from these sources.
• However, agricultural activities cause high volume ofwastewater, which affect water quality, especially pig farms.
• Form the study of the Department of Livestock Development
and the Pollution control Department, total amount of pigs in
Thailand is 10 million, which distribute over the parts of country.
• It is estimated that wastewater form pig farm releases over
121,331 kg.BOD/day, generated from large, medium and small
pig farm, approximately 45%, 37% and 18%, medium and small
pig farm, respectively.
• Since most pig farms are located along with water resources,
wastewater discharge from pig farm is taken into account as amajor cause of water pollution.
24• Usually, wastewater form pig farm is varied on
characteristic of farming style. Characteristic of thewastewater is widely depended on farm operation.
– Baud Concentration of wastewater is morally up
to 10,000 mg/l
– Separation of pig manure can reduce half ofwastewater concentration to approximately
1,500–3,000 mg/l with this high concentration,
the wastewater would definitely caress waterpollution.
• Whenever it is discharged into environment, either
low carrying capacity water resources on large
water bodies such as the Tha Chin or the
Bangpakong River.
25

5. Swine Waste Managementin Thailand
1.Effluent Standard
2.Good Agricultural Practices for Pig Farm
3.Institutional Mechanisms to Mitigate
Environmental Pollution Problems
4.Swine Waste Treatment26

5.1 Effluent Standard• Livestock farming could cause environmental pollution throughwasted water, odor and flies. Among the major livestock farmingin Thailand, swine farming has been the one that cause serious
environment problems. At times, the problem is heightened by
the expansion of community towards farm areas and by farmconcentration and expansion of farms near the rivers.
• According to a figure from the Pollution Control Department(PCD) in 1999, 23 percent of Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) loading in Tha Chin River was caused by swine farming
due to the high concentration of swine farms in the central region
along the Tha Chin River and lack of proper waste treatment. In
2000, water quality at Tha Chin River became critical as the levelof Dissolved Oxygen (DO) has dropped to near zero for mostparts of the river. There was the complaint that swine production
is a cause of water pollution in Bangpakong River in the Eastern
Region. Consequently, in 2001, PCD has added the swine farms
27
in the regulated list.

Table 1 : Effluent Standard for Pig Farm
Maximum Permitted Values
Large Farm

Small /
Medium
Farm

-

5.5-9

5.5-9

pH meter

2. Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
(BOD)

mg/l

60

100

Azide Modification, or Membrane
Electrode

3. Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD)

mg/l

300

400

Potassium Dichromate Digestion ;Open Reflux or Closed Reflux

4. Suspended solids
(SS)

mg/l

150

200

Glass Fiber Filter Disc, Dry
Evaporation
103-105 °C

5. Total Kjedahl
Nitrogen (TKN)

mg/l

120

200

Kjeldahl; Colorimetric or Ammonia
Selective Electrode

Parameters

1. pH

Units

Method for Examination

28

Remarks : For large and medium farm will be effective on February 24, 2002.
Large farm is more than 600 Livestock Unit (LU.)
Medium farm is 60-600 LU.
Small farm is 6 - < 60 LU.
1 LU. = 500 kg.
Weight of breeding pig = 170 kg./head
Weight of fattened pig = 60 kg./head
Weight of nursling pig = 12 kg./head
Notification of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment issued under the Enhancement andConservation of the National Enviromental Quality Act, B.E.2535, published in the Royal Government Gazette, Vol.
118, Special Part 8, page 11-18, dated February 23, B.E.2544 (2001) effective since February 24, B.E. 2545 (2002)
and Notification of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment issued under the Enhancement andConservation of the National Enviromental Quality Act, B.E.2535, published in the Royal Government Gazette, Vol.
118, Special Part 8, page 11-17 dated February 23, B.E.2544 (2001) effective since February 24, 2545 B.E.(2002)
was revoked by a) and b)

Source : a) Notification of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment ,Effluent Standard for Pig Farm dated
November 7, B.E. 2548 (2005) published in the Royal Government Gazette, Vol. 122 Part 125 D, dated December
29, B.E. 2548 (2005)b) Notification of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment issued under the Enhancement andConservation of the National Enviromental Quality Act. dated November 7, B.E. 2548 (2005) published in the Royal
Government Gazette, Vol. 122 Part 125 D, dated December 29, B.E. 2548 (2005)29

• As for the odor problem, large swine farms often locate
over massive land spaces away from community. Thiscan reduce the conflicts on acerbic odors. For the smallerscaled farms that have been operating for a long periodof time in swine communities, expanding civilization could
quickly catch up with their current locations, and cause
conflict between the farms and the community. In themunicipal district of Nakhon Ratchasima province in the
Northeastern region, complaints have frequently been
filed regarding the pollution from farms, restrained bytheir limited lands, which have no pond of any kinds toameliorate toxic wastewater. The farms simply discharge
wastewater directly into public waterways, leading toendless friction between farm owners and protests fromthe community.
30

5.2 Good Agricultural Practices for Pig Farm

31

32

•

REQUIREMENTS AND INSPECTION METHODS

33

34

• GUIDANCE ON GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES FOR PIG FARM
Recommendations for good agricultural practices for pig farm are aimed toprovide pig farmers to use as guidance on pig farming practices. The details ofsuch recommendations are explained in Appendix A.

5.3 Institutional Mechanisms to Mitigate Pollution
Problems• The major government offices that are
responsible for establishing the rules andregulation for environmental pollution resultsfrom livestock production are– Pollution Control Department (PCD), Ministry ofnational resources and environment;– Department of Livestock Development (DLD), Ministryof Agriculture and Cooperatives; and Ministry of Public
Health.

38• The Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental
Quality Act B.E. 2535•••

Under the responsibility of Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment,
the National Environment Quality Act was first enacted in 1969 as acomprehensive package for institutionalization of environmental policy andplanning. The act was amended in 1992 as the Enhancement andConservation of National Environmental Quality Act B.E. 2535 (NEQA), whichis dubbed the environmental constitution of Thailand.
The new act put more emphasis on the conservation of natural resources andenvironmental quality. The key provisions include the establishment of the
National Environmental Board (NEB), the measurement for environmental
protection which also includes Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), themeasurement of pollution control, the environmental protection and thestatement on civil liability.
NEB is a high-powered policy-making committee chaired by the Prime
Minister. NEB aims to coordinate the environmental protection efforts ofgovernmental agencies at the central level and with those of local
governments at the provincial level. The main powers of the NEB include thesubmission of policies and plans to the Cabinet for approval, the prescriptionof environmental standards, the approval of Environmental Quality
Management Plans and provincial action plans, the amendment,
improvement and enforcement of laws, and the monitoring of environmental39
compliance by government agencies and state enterprises.

• PCD has set the regulation for chanelization in respect of waste
dumping into water courses. This regulation is implemented to prevent
sedimentation which a navigational obstruction and to prevent
pollution effects on living resources. Regarding the livestock activities,
the effluent standard for pig farm is presented in Table 1• The Energy Conservation and Promotion Act B.E 2535
• Another Act is the Energy Conservation and Promotion Act B.E 2535
(ECPA). Swine production is linked through the energy sector via
recovering and renewing use of methane to produce electricity. This
production could replace the conventional demand, thus reducing
potential required supply. ECPA has had appreciable impacts for
Thailand and provided quite a comprehensive window for supporting
projects in the energy sector that will yield other additional local andglobal benefit.

40• The Public Health Act B.E 2535
• The Ministry of Public Health plays a significant role on environmental
protection. The Public Health Act B.E 2535 has authorized Tambon(sub-district) Administrative Office (TAO) to be an inspection office on
the environmental control in the sub-district level. Accordingly, TAO has
an authority to close the farm that violates the environmental
regulations, which lead to public health hazards.

• Public subsidy to mitigate environmental problems.
• To induce more farms to treat their waste properly, some government
agencies such as Department of Livestock Development (DLD),National Energy Policy Office (NEPO) and Department of Agricultural
Extension (DAE) have provided partial funding for construction thewaste treatment system such as biogas digester and multi-level pond.
The amount provided by the governmental funds for installing of waste
water treatment system ranged from 20,000 to more than 150,000 baht
per farm, approximately 40-60 percent of the total installation cost. By
1999, NEPO has subsidized 10 swine farms build power generation to41
turn swine waste into bio-gas and electricity (NaRanong, 1999).

• The Biogas Dissemination Program in Livestock
Farms: Medium and Large Size Farms.
• The NEPO has also cooperated with the Biogas Advisory Unit (BAU),
Chiang Mai University (CMU) on subsidizing the farm to inspect thebio-gas system. The program was called "The Biogas Dissemination
Program in Livestock Farms: Medium and Large Size Farms." In thisprogram, NEPO will subsidize up to 38 percent of the construction
cost and low cost loan as well as loan facilitation will be sought toassist the farm owners. The subsidy was tied to the condition ofcomplete construction of BAU design and specification. (Intarangsi
and Kiatapakdee, 2001)• The loan from commercial banks• As the governmental sources are limited and insufficient to support
all the farmers who need to construct the water treatment system,some farmers use their own funds or the loan from commercial
banks or Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC)
to build these facilities.
42

• Scaling-Up and Environmental Control• As the livestock sector has been more industrialized, livestock farms
tend to be larger in size. Since most of the large farm belongs to big
businesses, they tend to be under more closely scrutiny by thecommunity and the local authority. Also, they tend to face a more
stringent standard than medium and small farms. Moreover, theauthority tend to have the enforcement policy that is bias against thelarge farms.
• Swine production is probably the least environmental friendly
livestock production. As a result, the PCD has set the regulation tocontrol its sewage. As stated earlier, most attention has been paid tolarge farms, both in regulation and enforcement. According to datafrom PCD, all pig farms of sizes greater than 500 have invested incertain type of water treatment, while some small-scale farms (12.7
percent) have no sewage treatment system at all.

43• In terms of treatment techniques (Table 2) employed by farm of different
size, all of the large scale farms (with 5,000 pigs or more) use pond
system or solid-liquid system to treat their sewage. Medium-scale andsmall-scale farms tend to equip the reception pond (which consist of only
one pond and therefore not very effective in treating the sewage, as thewater that is spilled-over to the drainage would still be very polluting.
Interestingly, according to the PCD data, only small and medium farms
use biogas digesters. It is possible that large farms do not find thistechnique cost-effective. As most of the large farms are new farms settled
in land-ample areas, they have enough land to build a pond system
instead.
• It is not clear whether pollution from swine increases or decreases withfarm size. While it is most likely that pollutant per animal is lower for large
farms-as all of them have system of treatment ponds compare with theless efficient reception pond, in some cases, the higher volumes ofsewage created by large farms could provide more pollutant per area thana smaller farm. Therefore absorptive capacity is also an important issue.
• In this respect, however, there have been more evidences of serious
pollution created by concentrated smaller farms in certain rivers than a44sole problem in certain area created by a large farm

Table 2 : Treatment Techniques Employed in Swine Farm
Farm Size
Treatment Techniques

Average

1-500

501-5,000

5,000 up

Pond system (2-10 ponds)

42.0%

36.6%

38.2%

100%

Solid-liquid system + holding pond

7.0%

3.6%

8.8%

Biogas digester

6.0%

9.1%

2.9%

0.0%

Reception pond (1 pond only)

37.0%

34.5%

44.0%

0.0%

No treatment at all

7.0%

12.7%

0.0%

0.0%

TOTAL

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%
45

• Enforcement Problems• Although number of rules and regulations on wastewater
management are announced and some incentives are offered to thelivestock farms in investing in waste treatment technology, there has
been a lack of enforcement.
• DLD is one of the inspection offices and is expected to be a key
institution to enforce the environmental protection law. Ironically,
DLD's main job is on the extension program and serves as support
unit for livestock farmers. To act as an inspection office might causesome conflicts between the department and the farmers which willlead to the difficulty while working with the farm owners.
Consequently, DLD may not be able to act efficiently as an inspection
agency. Thus, the more effective enforcement and implementation ofexisting laws are needed to achieve responsible environmental
management46

5.4 Swine Waste Treatment
5.4.1 Open Ponds / Lagoons
5.4.2 Manure to the crop farm or fishing feed
5.4.3 Biogas System
1) Fixed Dome System 3) Covered Lagoon System
2) Plastic Bag System 4) Channel Digester System

47

5.4.1 Open Ponds / Lagoons48

5.4.2 Manure to the crop farm or
fishing feed49

5.4.3 Biogas System

Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

50

Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

51

Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

52

53
Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

54
Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

55

Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

56

Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

57

Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

58

Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

59

Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

60

Source: Poon Thiengburanathum, Ph.D. (Biogas Technology Center, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

61

5.4.3 Biogas System
1) Fixed Dome System• It is a small biogas system for livestock
wastewater treatment• Promoted by Department of Agricultural
Extension (DOAE) and Energy Policy andPlanning Office (EPPO), Ministry of Energy

62• System is composedof wastewater fillingchamber, digester
unit, effluent tank andsludge drying beds

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

63Fixed Dome System Construction Record
Item

Phase,
Year

No. ofFarms

DigesterVolume,m3

CH4
Produced,
m3/year

CH4
Treatmen
Produced,
t for
tCO2e/year
Swine,heads

1

1, Year19982000

263

6,056

637,350

8,967

27,9652

2, Year20012004

887

45,464

4,773,720

67,166

220,405

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

64

Case Study for Fixed Dome System
Donkeaw Farm is a small pig
farm with 250 sows and 500
piglets. Discharged
wastewater 20 m3/day with
BOD 10,000 to the open
ponds

Problem :• The unpleasant smell andnuisance flies• Complaint from neighbors to
the local government
Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

65

Results :1) Health – No bad smell and flies2) Economic - Produced biogas was piped to allneighbor houses for cooking gas. Each family
can save for 70 USD per year
3) Social issue - Good relationship between farmand neighbors

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

662) Plastic Bag System
 System had been developed by DEDE for small
livestock farms
 Concept
1) ease for construction, installation and operation
2) good performance and promptness forextension3) acceptable price for farmers
 Selected system was Bag Digester, made from
PVC sheet with prefabricated at the workshop
 Two model; DEDE1 treating capacity of 10 m3
wastewater/day DEDE2 treating capacity of 2 m3
wastewater/day
Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

67

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

68

Case Study for Plastic Bag System• DEDE had promoted the DEDE1 and DEDE 2
systems to nationwide for small livestock farms• Project extended to swine, dairy cow, beef cow,horse, and layer chicken farms• Typically, system was composed of wastewatercollecting tank, bar screen, bag digester, post
treatment ponds and sludge drying beds

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

69

Construction site survey

Photo courtesy from Thai Environment and Energy Development Co., Ltd.

70

Layout and Earth Work Preparation

Photo courtesy from Thai Environment and Energy Development Co., Ltd.

71

Bag Filter Installation

Photo courtesy from Thai Environment and Energy Development Co.,Ltd.

72

Finishing Bag Filter Installation

Photo courtesy from Thai Environment and Energy Development Co.,Ltd.

73

Wastewater Collecting Tank

Photo courtesy from Thai Environment and Energy Development Co.,Ltd.

74

Sludge Management Unit

Sludge Removal Pit

Sludge Drying Beds

Photo courtesy from Thai Environment and Energy Development Co., Ltd.

75

Post Treatment Ponds

Photo courtesy from Thai Environment and Energy Development Co., Ltd.

76

Wastewater Characteristics for Plastic Bag System
Source : DEDE Prototype monitoring data

Parameter

Influent, mg/l

Effluent after
DEDE2, mg/l
(Treatment
Efficiency, %)Effluent after
Post Treatment
Ponds, mg/l
(Treatment
Efficiency, %)Total Treatment
Efficiency, %pH (no unit)

7.0

7.2

7.9

-

BOD5

767

127 (83.4)

66 (48.0)

91.4

TCOD

4,258

1,445 (66.1)

298 (79.4)

93.0

TKN

288

439 (-)

173 (60.6)

39.9

TSS

1,599

537 (66.4)

115 (78.6)

92.8

Treatment Efficiency after
DEDE1, %Treatment Efficiency after
DEDE2, %

TCOD

72-88

78-82

BOD5

76-92

83-91

Parameter

77Benefit to farm :1) Produced biogas for DEDE 2 and DEDE1 range from 1622 m3/day and 1.1-3.2 m3/day, respectively. Averagemethane content is 60%2) Dry sludge (2.7% N, 3.2% P, 0.25% K) used as organic
fertilizer

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand783) Covered Lagoon System (CL) First Covered Lagoon came to Thailand in year 1996 bylarge scale agro-industry firm for the swine farm
wastewater treatment
 System is an earth pond covered with HDPE or PVC
plastic sheet Required most construction area because the design
long retention time
 Low construction cost, quick startup and less concrete
structure

79
Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand• There are many plants constructed in Thailand but no an
official record about the number of constructions• Estimation that there are 150 to 200 medium- to largescale swine farms nationwide with CL• From site surveys - overall system efficiency is 60 - 70 %• Design hydraulic retention time (HRT) is between 40-60
days

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

80

HDPE thick 1.0 mm

Gas Collector Pipe HDPEFree Board 1 m

Depth 4 - 6 meter

HDPE thick 0.3 mm

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

81

No GasGas start to producing

Gas Pipe

Generator

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand824) Channel Digester System (CD)• Channel digester is a biogas system that collects produced biogas
in PVC plastic dome
• System had been developed since 1995 by Energy Research andDevelopment Institute (ERDI) under the Project “Biogas System
Promotion in Medium and Large Scale Livestock Farms”• Project had been supported by Energy Policy and Planning Office(EPPO), Ministry of Energy• Aim of the Project is to promote the biogas system in medium andlarge scale livestock farms (mainly in pig farms), to produce and use
the biogas as the renewable energy

83
Photo Source : Energy Research and Development InstituteChannel Digester Flow Diagram
Effluent

Sludge Removal Pit

SludgeSand Trap

Sludge Drying Beds

Wastewater Collecting Tank
Influent from Farms

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

84

Channel Digester Structure

RC Structure

PVC orHDPE Dome

Bottom with
Concrete Lining
85
Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

Channel Digester System Aerial View

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

86Channel Digester System Construction Record
Item

Phase, Year

No. ofFarms

DigesterVolume,m3

CH4
Produced,
m3/year

CH4
Produced,
tCO2e/year

Treatment
for Swine,
heads

1

1, year 19951998

6

10,0001,600,000

22,51260,0002

2, year 19972003

14

46,00010,000,000

140,700

276,000

3

3, year 20022008

249

280,000

50,566,000

711,4631,864,000
2,200,000

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

87

Case Study for Channel Digester System
 Pisit Farm is a medium pig farm with 3,000
fattening pigs
 Daily discharged wastewater is about 72
m3/day with BOD 4,500 mg/l
 Wastewater system was comprised of collecting
tank, sand trap, channel digester (HRT = 8 days)
and two series of earth pond for post treatment(Total HRT = 60 days)

88
Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

Wastewater Characteristics for Channel Digester System

Parameter

Influent,(mg/l)

Effluent after
ChannelDigester,(mg/l)

Effluent after
Post Treatment
Pond,(mg/l)

Discharged
Standard,(mg/l)pH (no unit)

7.0

7.2

7.1

5.5-9.0

BOD5

4,544

530

13

100

TCOD

17,046

3,359

50

400

TKN

1,196

1,021

23.3

200

TSS

8,110

2,610

22

200

Source: Nipatphan Kulpredarat, DVM, Ph.D.(Department of Livestock Development, Thailand

89

Channel Digester System Efficiency at Case Study Farm

BOD5

ChannelDigester,
%
88.3

Post
Treatment
Pond, %
97.5

Overall
Efficiency,
%
99.7

TCOD

80.3

98.5

99.7

TKN

14.6

97.7

98.1

TSS

67.8

99.2

99.7

Parameter

Benefit to farm :1) Electricity produced from biogas generator 285 kWh/day from 238 m3 biogas
2) Dry sludge for organic fertilizer ingredient 150 kg per day
90