AWARENESS OF LIVESTOCK FARMERS REGARDING THE

POLLUTION CONTROL RULES AND REGULATIONS

IN KERALA

Anu George and Shibu K Jacob, Assistant Professor, Kerala veterinary and Animal Sciences
University, Kerala, India

INTRODUCTION

Livestock is a part of global food production systems and a key commodity for human

well-being. It is considered as one of the important sector for generating food, income,

employment and health factors to mankind. Livestock sector plays a multi-faceted role in

socio-economic development of rural households. Livestock rearing has significant positive

impact on equity in terms of income and employment and poverty reduction in rural areas as

distribution of livestock is more egalitarian as compared to land. In Kerala, about 50 per cent

of the rural households own livestock and a majority of livestock owning households are

small, marginal and landless households. Small animals like sheep, goats, pigs and poultry

are largely kept by the land scarce poor households for commercial purposes due to their low

initial investment and operational costs.

Rapid industrialization and development of modern technology are amongst the

foremost factors to blame for the general pollution. Livestock sector is one of the several

industries that have faced criticism because of its influence on the environment. There is

particular concern about the pollution caused by effluents, gases, heavy metals, industrial

contaminants and particulate emissions which significantly affect health of both livestock and

man. Reciprocally, pollutants from livestock system can affect atmosphere, water and the

food chain. However, with rapid population growth there is phenomenal increase in the

demand for livestock products, this situation has led to change in the farming system from

subsistence farming to commercial and from pastoral livestock systems to more intensive

systems of production. Thus, there is a need to address these problems at various levels.
 Increase in population coupled with rapid urbanization and industrialization and

consumerism, without due regard to environmental considerations, have led to extensive

pollution of air, water and land. The raw materials consumed during these activities has

resulted in the dwindling of non-renewable resources and accumulation of wastes. These

wastes are indiscriminately disposed and as a consequence the water air and land becomes

more polluted. Added to these the recurrence of drought and water scarcity and sand mining

resulting in the death of rivers and rivulets, change in land use pattern leading to severe soil

erosion, depletion of biodiversity, increasing incidence of natural disasters like earth quakes,

landslides and so on are undermining the once serene and splendid environment of this 'God's

own land.

Rules and regulations related to pollution control aspects in the state 1. Kerala

Panchayat Raj Act 2012

From 2012 onwards, starting and running of livestock farms should be according to

the Kerala Panchayati Raj Act 2012. It is considered hen issuing licence to livestock farms

from the local bodies. According to this act, livestock farms are classified as the following.

Table. 1 Classification of farms according to Kerala Panchayati Raj Act 2012

Sl. No Type of farm Specification

1. Cattle Farm More than 5 animals
2. Goat Farm More than 20 animals
3. Pig Farm More than 5 animals
4. Rabbit Farm More than 25 animals.
5. Poultry Farm More than 100 birds.

Table 2 shows the minimum area of land required for starting various livestock units.

Table. 2 Minimum area of land required for livestock units

Sl. No Animal/Bird Number Area of land

 1 Cattle For 1 1 cent
2 Goats For 4 1 cent
3 Pigs For 2 1 cent
4 Rabbit For 10 1 cent
5 Poultry For 15 1 cent

Table 3 expresses the quantity of waste materials released from an animal per day.

Table. 3. Quantity of waste from an animal per day

Sl. No Farm From 1 animal per day

Dung (Kg) Urine +waste water(litre)
1 Cattle 25 80
2 Goat 1.25 1
3 Pig 4 3.6
4 Rabbit 0.34 ---
5 Poultry 0.035 --
Source: Farmukalum Paristhithi Samrakshanavum: Kerala State Pollution Control Board

2. Guidelines of Kerala State Pollution Control Board

According to the guidelines of Kerala State Pollution Control

Board regarding farms and environmental protection, based on the rate of pollution, livestock

Units are categorised as Red, Orange and Green. The cattle farms of herd size less than 20 are

regarded as green and above 20 as orange. For farms spent capital investment upto 1 lakh, the

fee is Rs.440 for green and Rs. 490 for Orange category. Based on the herd size and capital

expenditure, the fee will change. Refer Annexure-II for more details.

With this background a study was designed to assess the awareness

of livestock farmers regarding the pollution issues in livestock sector and the rules and

regulations prevailing in the state.

Methodology
 The study was conducted in the Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam and Alappuzha districts

of Southern Kerala. Respondents were purposively selected from those districts as follows:

Table 4. Distribution of respondents based on the District

District Frequency Percentage

Thiruvananthapuram 13 18.6
Kollam 26 37.1
Alappuzha 31 44.3
Total 70 100

Personal interviews were conducted to collect primary data from the respondents. The

schedule included questions related to socio-economic profile, waste disposal methods, and

pollution aspects of livestock farmers. A total of 70 livestock farmers were interviewed and

all the required information were taken for the analysis.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This contents in the chapter are classified as the following sub headings

(a). Socio-economic profile of the respondents

(b). Livestock rearing practices

(c). Awareness of rules and regulations related to pollution control

(d). Management of pollutants from livestock enterprise

(e). Suggestions for improvement

(a). Socio-economic profile of the respondents

Socio-economic profile of the respondent comprises of age, education, occupation,

land area possessed, number of livestock possessed, monthly income etc.

Table 5. Socio-economic profile of the respondents n=70

Sl. No Frequency Percentage
1 Age
20-35 years 5 7
36-60 years 58 83
60+ years 7 10
2 Educational qualification
Up to 10th standard 52 74
Above 10th standard 18 26
3 No of Family members
Up to 4 38 54.28
5 and more 31 44.28
No response 01 1.42
4 Area of land
Less than 10 cents 10 14
10-100 cents 46 67
100 cents-1000 cents 11 16
More than 1000 cents 2 3
No response 1 1
5 Major occupation
Livestock rearing 52 74
Others 18 26
6 Monthly Income Frequency Percentage
Less than 10000 5 7
10000-50000 62 90
More than 50000 2 3
No response 1 1
Total 70 100

Age groups of the respondents showed a somewhat similar trend of general human

population in the state. Majority of them belonged to middle age group of 36 to 60 years

followed by old and young age groups. This is an alarming sign since in about two or three

decades, these farming population will not be able to work independently and there will not

be many new generation to fill that gap.

Majority of the livestock farmers had studied up to tenth standard (74%) and over

one-fourth of them had studied more than that. The persons having more educational

qualification don’t prefer engaging in livestock enterprises due to the less reputable social

status. This also accounts for the decreasing livestock population in the state. Government

should whole heartedly support good ventures in this sector for motivating the newer

generations.
 Majority of the respondents belonged to small families having up to 4 members only.

This is also the general trend resulting in severe scarcity of labour for small family

enterprises.

Generally livestock enterprises were run by small and marginal farmers in the state

who were having a maximum of 100 cents of land. Nowadays there are some gulf returnees

having more infrastructures like land coming forward to invest in livestock businesses. This

is a good sign of revamping the sector. New Government policies should emerge supporting

these types of initiatives.

Livestock rearing was the major occupation for the majority of selected respondents.

The rest handled the enterprise along with their salaried job and other businesses. Women

folk and children in the house helped the farmer in all the activities in the farm where it was

the major occupation. Reported income of majority of the farmers was in the range of Rupees

10000 to 50000 per month.

(b). Livestock rearing practices of the respondents

Table 6: Distribution of respondents based on the number of livestock possessed by the

respondents

Flock size of livestock Frequency of farmers rearing livestock

Cattle Goat Pig Rabbit Poultry
Less than 10 29 12 1 7
10-100 23 13 12
More than 100 1 1 1 16

There was a mixed population of respondents when the flock size of the animals or

birds reared was considered. There was even one commercial farmer each rearing more than

100 cattle, pigs and poultry among the respondents. Also there were farmers rearing one

cattle or goat for making their living.

Figure 1 Graphical representation of the number of livestock possessed by the farmers

Number of livestock possessed by the farmers

35
29
30

25 23

20
16
15 12 13 12

10 7

5
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
0
Cattle Goat Pig Rabbit Poultry
Less than 10 10-100 More than 100

Table 7: Distribution of respondents based on the experience in Animal Husbandry

sector

Experience in Animal Husbandry sector Frequency Percentage

Less than 10 years 7 10.1

10-30 years 47 68.1

More than30 years 15 21.8

No response 1 1

Total 70 100

Majority of the respondents had an experience of 10 to 30 years and even one-fifth of

the farmers had more than 30 years of experience in animal husbandry sector.

Table 8: Distribution of respondents according to the information related to farm

licencing

Variables
Having licence to the farm Yes No Total
 20 49 69
Number of days taken to get licence Below 15 15-30 Above 30
10 6 4
Any difficulty to get licence Yes No Total
8 12 20
Any expenditure to get Licence 15 5 20
Attended training related to commercial 40 29 69
farming

Majority of the farmers (71%) had not obtained license to their enterprises. One

farmer had to close the farm due to some issues related to pollution which he didn’t want to

disclose. Half of the farmers having license reported that they got it within a fortnight and

majority reported that they didn’t face any difficulty in getting their farms licensed. Majority

of the farmers reported that they had spent some amount in addition to the prescribed fee in

getting their enterprises licensed. Majority of the farmers had attended trainings related to

commercial farming.

Table 9: Distribution of respondents according to the satisfaction related to farms

Yes No Total
Are you satisfied with the present condition of your 33 36 69
enterprise
Are you aware of the pollution control rules regarding 25 44 69
farms
Are you following the rules & regulations in your 23 46 69
enterprise
Is your livestock enterprise running profitably 40 29 69

Majority of the farmers reported that they were running their farms profitably and

about half of them were satisfied with the present condition of the enterprise. But majority of
the farmers reported that they were not aware of the pollution control rules and hence not

following them in their farms.

Table 10: Distribution of respondents according to the reported expenditure on farm

licencing.

Reported expenditure on farm licencing Frequency Percentage

Below 500 5 25
20
500-1000 4
30
Above 1000 6
25
No response 5
100
Total 20

Table 11: Distribution of respondents according to the constraints reported

Opinion Frequency Percentage

Needed more land 6 8.7
17.39
Should reduce the price of fodder 12
14.5
Should get more price for milk/meat etc. 10
Financial help is needed 5.8
4
No response 53.62
37
Total 100
69
The constraints reported by the farmers included lack of land area for expansion of the

unit and including advanced facilities for waste disposal, high price of fodder and low price

of livestock products. They also demanded some financial assistance from authorities.

Majority of the farmers didn’t want any additional facility.

(c). Awareness of pollution issues in livestock sector

Table 12: Distribution of respondents according to awareness related to pollution from
livestock sector
Yes No Total
Have you heard of pollution in livestock sector 64 5 69
Have you encountered with any problem related to 16 53 69
pollution in livestock sector?
Do you know any rule or guideline to control pollution 34 36 69
Majority of the farmers knew about pollution related to livestock farms, but didn’t encounter

any problem personally. Many knew at least one rule or guideline in controlling the pollution

in the farms.

Table 13: Distribution of respondents according to the awareness of respondents

regarding the agency monitoring pollution issues

Agency to control pollution No of respondents Percentage

Pollution Control Board 31 45
Panchayat 28 41
Don’t know 10 14
Total 69 100

The farmers didn’t have complete awareness regarding the agency monitoring the pollution

issues in livestock enterprises. Some thought it was Pollution Control Board while others

thought local self-governments and others didn’t know any agency.

Table 14: Distribution of respondents according to the opinion about the probable
wastes/pollutants from their enterprises

Wastes/Pollutants Frequency Percentage

Dung/grass/urine 49 71
No waste 18 26
Waste water 2 3
Total 69 100

Majority of the respondents consider animal excreta like dung and urine as the pollutant from

the farms. A lesser percentage thought waste water from the farms was polluting the

environment. One-fourth of the farmers reported that there was no waste produced from the

farms.
(d). Management of pollution from livestock enterprise

Table 15: Distribution of respondents according to the method of disposing the wastes

Method of waste disposal Frequency Percentage

Used for agriculture 17 24.64
1.44
Used for making biogas 1
40.58
Digging a pit for waste 28
5.79
Drying the dung 4
20.29
Cleaning shed with water & flow out to the nearby fields 14
7.25
Selling dung 5
Total 69 100

The various farmer respondents adopt different methods for disposing the wastes from their

farms. Keeping in manure pits, sale of dung, drying dung, making biogas, used for agriculture

purpose etc were the methods commonly adopted by the farmers. About 20 per cent of the

farmers reported that they were cleaning the shed and flowing out the waste water to nearby

field or roads since they had no place for proper waste disposal.

Table 16: Distribution of respondents according to the expense of Wastes Disposal

Yes No Total
Spending any money for Waste Disposal 18 51 69
Get any income from waste 39 30 69

Majority of the farmers (56.52%) got some income from their farm waste. Many used to sell

the excreta while others made use of it for own purposes like agriculture or biogas.

Table 17: Distribution of respondents according to the observed waste water

accumulation.

Waste water accumulation Frequency Percentage

In Pit 16 22.9
Flow out 5 7.1
Logging in premise 19 27.1
No waste water accumulation 30 42.9
Total 70 100

The research team observed that in 42.9 per cent of the farms, there was no accumulation of

waste water. In 27.1 per cent of farms, waste water was seen logging in the premises. In 22.9

per cent pit was constructed to collect water. About 7 per cent of the farmers were flowing

the waste water to nearby roads or fields making the surroundings unhygienic.

Table 18: Distribution of respondents according to the type of urine collecting tank

Urine Collecting Tank Frequency Percentage

Cement plastering 22 31.9
Covered with slab 20 29.0

Readymade 1 1.4

No Urine Collecting Tank 45 65.2

Total 69 100.0

Majority of the farmers (65.2%) had not constructed separate urine collecting tank in their

farms. Others constructed tanks with cement plastering (31.9%) or pits covered with slab

(29%). A minority (1.4%) used readymade sintex tanks.

Table 19 : Distribution of respondents according to the awareness of production of

biodiesel

Heard of Biodiesel Frequency Percentage

Yes 23 33
No 46 67
Total 69 100
Majority of the farmers (67%) were not aware of biodiesel produced from animal/ poultry

slaughter waste.

Table 20: Distribution of respondents according to the measures that were taken to
control pollution in the enterprise

Measures to control pollution Frequency Percentage

Remove the dung frequently 9 13.04
Cleaning shed using lotion 41 59.42
Construction of manure pit 4 5.8
Need more land to dispose waste 1 1.4
No pollution in the farm 14 20.29
Total 69 100
The farmers suggested that cleaning the shed using lotion more frequently, removing excreta

and using proper manure pit would help in controlling the pollution in the livestock

enterprises. While 20 per cent reported that there was no pollution in their farms, 1.4 per cent

of the farmers complained of lack of space for disposing wastes.

Table 21 : Distribution of respondents according to legal issues pending regarding

pollution from their enterprises

Any case pending Frequency Percentage

Yes 5 7.25

No 65 92.85

Total 70 100

Majority of the farmers (92.85%) reported that there were no legal issues regarding pollution

from their enterprises while a minority (7%) had legal cases pending in courts.

(e).Suggestions for improvement

Table 22: Distribution of respondents according to their suggestions to reduce the cost
and time for getting clearance from the authority for the enterprises
Suggestions by the respondents Frequency Percentage
Awareness classed should be there at panchayat level 25 36.23
Panchayat meetings should be conducted for issuing licence 18.8
13
more speedily
Subsidy should be given to farmers 16 23.2
Field inspection should be done in time 11 15.7
Reduce the minimum required land area for getting license 3 4.3
Encouragement to farmers should be done 5 7.2
File movement should be in time 7 10.0

Certificates should be issued in time 3 4.3

Fees to be reduced 6 8.6

 REFERENCE

Ali, J.2007. Livestock sector development and implications for rural poverty alleviation
in India, Agriculture Management Centre (AMC), Indian Institute of Management, Luck
now - 226 013 (UP) India, http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/2/ali19027.htm

Ashalakshmi, K.S. and Arunachalam, P. 2010. Solid Waste Management: A Case Study
of Arppukara Grama Panchayat Of Kottayam District, Kerala (India) Journal of Global
Economy, Volume 6 No 1

Hartung, J. 1986. Rules and regulations related to preventing pollution from animal
manure in the Federal Republic of Germany, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
Volume 16 (3–4): 273–279

http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0261e.pdf

http://www.universalecoservices.com/wastemanagement_in_kerala.cfm

http://www3.epa.gov/region09/animalwaste/problem.html

Indira, P.S. 2011. Environmental Problems of Kerala,

http://indiraps.blogspot.in/2011/10/environmental-problems-of-kerala.html

Iqubal, M.A. 2013. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications,

Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2013 1 ISSN 2250-3153 www.ijsrp.org Livestock Husbandry
and Environmental Problems .Dr. Md. Asif Iqubal Guest Faculty, Course of
Environmental Awareness, Faculty of Arts, AMU, Aligarh
João Felippe Cury Marinho Mathia, Manure as a Resource: Livestock Waste
Management from Anaerobic Digestion, Opportunities and Challenges for Brazil,
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review Volume 17Issue 4, 2014

Kerala State Pollution Control Board. 2015. Farmukalum Paristhithi Samrakshanavum:

14 pages
 ANNEXURE I

An assessment of the impact and implications of pollution control rules and regulations
on livestock enterprises in Kerala.

Interview schedule

A. Personal information

Name:

Address:

Phone No:

Email:

B. Socio-economic profile

1. Age:

2. Education:

3. No. of Family Members: Adult:

Children:

4. Major occupation:

5. Area of land possessed:

6. Area of land used for livestock rearing:

7. Annual income:

8. Income from livestock enterprises:

9. Number of members engaging in the enterprise:

10. Type and number of livestock reared:

Livestock No Income
Cattle
Goat
Pig
Rabbit
Poultry

11. Experience in animal husbandry activities:

C. Information behavior

Please mention the regularity of acquiring scientific information regarding livestock

husbandry

Sl. Source Regularity

No Daily Once in Once in a Once in Never
a week month a year
1 Scientists/university/ other
research stations
2 Veterinarians of AHD
3 Leaflets/folders/ Journals/
Books/magazines
4 Newspaper/Radio/television
/Internet
5 Trainings/seminars
6 Informal contacts with
progressive farmers
7 Others (specify)

D. Licensing:

1. Do you have license for your livestock enterprise? Yes/No

(a) If yes, how many days taken to get the license?

2. Have you faced any difficulty for getting the license?

3. Are you following the rules and regulations to maintain livestock enterprises? Yes/No

(a) If yes, what are the rules?

(b)If No, what are the major difficulties to maintain a livestock enterprise?
4. Do you incur any expenditure to get license for your enterprise from the authority? Yes/No

(a) If yes details of expenditure.

5. Are you satisfied with the present condition of your enterprise? Yes/No

(a)If No, what others needed?

6. Is your livestock enterprise running profitably?

E. Pollution due to Livestock enterprises

1. Have you heard of pollution in livestock sector?

2. Have you encountered with any problem related to pollution in livestock sector?

3. Do you know any rule or guideline to control pollution?

4. Which is the agency for pollution control in livestock enterprises?

5. What are the wastes/probable pollutants from your enterprise?

6. Which method you follow for discarding the wastes now?

7. What are the difficulties for waste disposal?

8. Are you spending any money for waste disposal?

(a) If yes, how much?

9.Do you get any income from waste like selling of cow dung , poultry dropping etc?

F. Waste Disposal
1. Do you have the following facilities for waste disposal?

Facilities Yes/No
Waste Tank
Compost pit
Biogas Plant
Manure pit
Pit for Carcass

2. Where the waste water from the manure pit is accumulated?

3. Within how many days the dung from the dung pit is disposed?

4. Do you have Urine Collecting Tank?

(a)If yes,

Facilities Yes/No
Cement Plastering
Covered with Slab
Is it readymade

5. Within how many days urine is removed from the tank?

6. Have you heard of biodiesel?

7. What are the measures that can be taken to control pollution in your enterprise?

G. Miscellaneous

1. Do you get any training related to livestock?

2. Are you facing any case from anywhere relating to this enterprise?

If yes give details?

3. What are your suggestions to simplify rules and regulation for livestock rearing?

4. What is your opinion to reduce the cost and time for getting clearance from the authority
by the enterprise?

ANNEXURE II

Guidelines of Kerala State Pollution Control Board regarding farms and environmental
protection

Categorisation of Livestock Units.

According to the rate of pollution livestock Units are categorised as Red, Orange and Green.

Farm Green Orange

Cattle Up to 20 More than 20
Goats Up to 50 More than 50
Pigs Up to15 More than 15
Rabbit Up to50 More than 50
Poultry Up to100 More than 100

Fees according to the Category

Capital Investment (in Rs) Green Orange

Up to 1 lakh 440 490
2 lakh - below 2 lakh 540 590
2lakh - below 3 lakh 640 690
3 lakh - below 4 lakh 740 790
4 lakh - below 5 lakh 840 890
5 lakh 940 1040
5 lakh-below 6 lakh 1270 1370
6 lakh-below 7 lakh 1370 1470
7 lakh-below 8 lakh 1470 1570
8 lakh-below 9 lakh 1570 1670
9 lakh –below 10 lakh 1670 1770
Below 10 lakh 1920 2120
Above 10 lakh- below 15 lakh 2920 3120
15 lakh- below 20 lakh 3170 3420
20 lakh-below 25 lakh 3420 3670
25 lakh-below 30 lakh 3670 4020
30 lakh-below 35 lakh 3670 4640
35 lakh- below 40 lakh 4170 4640
40 lakh- below 50 lakh 4800 5600
50 lakh- below 75 lakh 8000 10000
75 lakh- below 1 crore 10000 12000

Distance of Livestock Farms (including Source of Pollution and Decomposition of

waste)

Pig Farms (above 5 number)

Lowest Setback 25 metre

Lowest distance between houses/other 100 metre

institutions
Waste Disposal Biogas plant/Septic tank

Other Farms

Lowest setback According to the rules of building

constructions
Lowest distance between houses/other 5 metre (green)
institutions 25 metre (orange)

Arrangements to be done for waste disposal in Cattle Farms

Type of Number of Cattle reared in the Arrangements should be done for waste
Farm farm disposal
I <20 Collection Tank (2)
Compost Pit (for other solid wastes)
Biogas Plant
II 21-50 Collection Tank (2)
Compost Pit
Biogas Plant
III 51-100 Manure Pit
Collection Tank
Compost Pit
 Biogas Plant
IV 101-200 Manure Pit
Collection Tank
Compost Pit
Biogas Plant
V 201-400 Manure Pit
Collection Tank
Compost Pit
Biogas Plant
VI Above 400 Manure Pit
Collection Tank
Compost Pit
Biogas Plant

Arrangements to be done for waste disposal in Goat Farms

Type of Number of Goats reared in the Arrangements should be done for waste
Farm farm disposal
I <50 Collection Tank(2)
II 51-100 Collection Tank(2)
III 101-200 Collection Tank(2)
IV 201-500 Manure pit
Collection Tank(2)
V 501-750 Collection Tank(2)
VI More than 750 Collection Tank(2)

Arrangements to be done for waste disposal in Rabbit Farms

Type of Number of Pigs reared in the Arrangements should be done for waste
Farm farm disposal

I <50 Manure pit

II 51-100 Collection Tank
III 101-200 Collection Tank
IV 201-400 Collection Tank
V 401-500 Collection Tank
VI More than 500 Collection Tank

Arrangements to be done for waste disposal in Pig Farms

Type of Number of Cattles reared in Arrangements should be done for waste
Farm the farm disposal
I <15 Collection Tank (2)
Compost Pit
Biogas Plant
II 16-50 Collection Tank (2)
Compost Pit
Biogas Plant
III 51-100 Collection Tank(2)
Compost Pit
Biogas Plant
IV 101-200 Collection Tank(2)
Compost Pit
Biogas Plant
V 201-400 Collection Tank(2)
Compost Pit
Biogas Plant
VI Above 400 Collection Tank(2)
Compost Pit
Biogas Plant

Arrangements to be done for waste disposal in Poultry Farms

Type of Number of Poultry reared in the Arrangements should be done for waste
Farm farm disposal
I <250 Manure pit
II 251-500 Collection Tank

III 501-1000 Collection Tank

IV 1001-5000 Collection Tank

V 5001-10000 Collection Tank

Pit for Carcass
VI More than 1000 Collection Tank
Pit for Carcass