




































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

  

African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management ISSN 2375-0707 Vol. 5 (2), pp. 286-289, February, 
2017. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 

 
Full Length Research Paper 
 

Challenges of open dumping of animal wastes on the 
environment: A case study of S and D farms, Odeda, 

Nigeria 
 

James Akintola, Balogun Lateef  and Jude Abiola 
  

Department of Environmental Science, Citygate University, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. 
 

Accepted 03 January, 2017 
 

The study investigated the effect of open dumping of animal wastes on the farm workers’ health and the environment. 
The study employed Chi-Square’s test of result reliability revealed on hypothesis tests. The χ

2
 calculated value 0.013 

for hypothesis I which is less than χ
2
 tabulated value of 3.84 at level of significance 0.05, indicates that the open 

dumping of animal wastes as a method of disposal has significant effect on health of the workers and the 
environment. Similarly for hypothesis II; χ

2
 calculated value of 0.06 is far less than the χ

2
 tabulated value of 3.84 at 

level of significance 0.05. This implies that level of waste disposal education of the workers significantly affects the 
method of disposal being employed on the farm. For the Hypothesis III; χ

2
 calculated value of 0.05 is also less than 

the χ
2
 tabulated value of 3.84 at level of significance 0.05, implying that the industrial training being given to the 

workers on waste disposal methods is not adequate. 
 

Keywords: Animal waste, open dumping, waste disposal, waste management. 

 
INTRODUCTION 
 

Animal wastes include livestock and poultry manure, 
bedding and litter, waste water, feedlot runoff and even 
wasted feed (Ajayi, 2008). Animal wastes abound when too 
much waste is produced by farm animals in a particular 
environment with no safe or cost-effective means to either 
use the wastes productively or dispose off overtime (David, 
1993). These wastes can affect the air or water quality if 
proper practices are not followed. Waste from animal 
concentrations which are not protected can wash into nearby 
streams. Such diffused flow of animal waste is referred to as 
non-point source (NPS) pollution (Downing and Gibson, 
1984 and Oreyemi, 1988). Non-point source pollution is the 
largest remaining water quality problem in United States 
(John and Steven, 1999).  

In Nigeria, approximately one third of the agricultural NPS 
pollution is caused by animal waste run-off from feedlots, 
holding areas and pastures (John and Steven, 1999). Such 
waste in surface waters reduces dissolved oxygen (DO) and 
endangers aquatic life. The added nutrient produces 
excessive algae growth therefore causing eutrophication, 
unpleasant taste and odours. 
Drinking of water with nitrate concentration above 10ppm 
can cause development deficiencies in infants and death in 
severe cases due to oxygen deprivation (Akinsanmi, 2000). 
High nitrate concentration is also believed to have 
caused spontaneous abortion and possibly cancer in farm 

 
 
 
 

animals (Rached et al., 2001). Animal waste should 
therefore be disposed off properly and regularly to avoid 
wastes emitting pungent obnoxious odour and also prevent 
favourable breeding place for microbes, which could aid the 
spread of diseases (Barth, 1995). A waste management 
system should be a part of the total soil and water 
conservation plan for farms producing livestock and poultry. 
Therefore, it is important to examine and evaluate vividly the 
nature of waste generated, as well as disposal methods 
employed by the farm to determine whether it is adequate or 
not. 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

 

Study Area 

 

Serah and Deborah (S and D) Farms is situated along 
Abeokuta-Ibadan road in Odeda Local Government Area of 
Ogun State, Southwestern Nigeria. 

 

 

 

 
Corresponding author. E-mail:james_akintola@gmail.com



Akintola et al.          287 
 
 
 

 
Table 1. Effect of Open Dumping on Workers 
and Environment 

 
 Variables Agreed Not Agreed Total 
 Ha 25 32 57 
 Ho 27 36 63 
 Total 52 68 120 
 
 
 

The farm covers 0.5km
2
 expanse of land with staff 

strength of 250. The farm consists of livestock, fishery 
and poultry sections which are well equipped for mass 
production of meat, fish and poultry products. 

 
 

Research Methodology 
 

120 copies of questionnaire were randomly distributed 
among the staff of the component units of the farm. They 
were later retrieved and processed. Observation of the 
work process and environment was also carried out vis-à-
vis the waste disposal method adopted by the farm. 

 
 

Hypotheses 
 

Three hypotheses were tested and are listed below: 
 

 Hypothesis I 

Ha: Open dumping disposal of waste tends to 
have negative effect on the workers and the 
environment 

Ho: Open dumping disposal of waste does not 
tend to have negative effect on the workers and 
the environment. 

 Hypothesis II 

Ha: Level of waste disposal education of the 
workers affects the method being used. 

Ho: Level of waste disposal education of the 
workers does not affect the method being used. 

 Hypothesis III 

Ha: Industrial  training  on  waste  disposal 
methods in the farm is inadequate 

Ho: Industrial training on waste disposal methods 
in the farm is adequate 

 
Chi-Square Test 

 
In order to validate the hypothesis, chi-square or 
goodness of fit test was used to test data collected 
quantitatively.  

χ2  = Σ (___ )
_
 

_ 
 

where: 

 

 
 
 
 

χ
2
 = test statistics 

Σ = summation  
O =observed frequency 
E = expected frequency  
(r) = no. of rows  
(c) = no. of columns  
Df = degree of freedom 
Df = (r – 1) (c – 1)  
= (2 – 1) (2 – 1)   
= (1) (1)   
= 1  

 
RESULTS 

 
The response to the effect of open dumping of animal 
wastes, as a method of disposal, on workers and the 
environment is presented in Table 1. 25 out of 57 

respondents agreed with Ha while 32 out of 57 did not, 27 

out 63 respondents agreed with Ho while 36 out of 63 did 
not. 

 
Hypothesis I 

 
Ha: Open dumping disposal of waste tends to have 
negative effect on the workers and the environment  
Ho: Open dumping disposal of waste does not tend to 
have negative effect on the workers and the environment 

 
Level of significance at 0.05 
Let test statistics be 

χ2  = Σ (___ )
_ 

_ 
Df = (r – 1) (c – 1  
= (r – 1) (c – 1)   

= (2 – 1) (2 – 1)   
= (1) (1)  
= 1  

Decision rule: reject Ho if χ
2
 calculated is greater than χ

2
 

tabulated.  
Compute test statistics 

 
E1 = _  __ 

= 24.7 
    

 

  __     
 

            
 

 
E2 =  _   __ 

= 32.3     
 

  __        
 

            
 

 E3 = __  __ 
 =  27.3    

 

       

    __         
 

 
E4 = 

 __  __ 
= 35.7 

   
 

 __      
 

           
 

         
 

 OE    O – E(O – E)
2
  (_ − _ )

_
  

 

           _  
 

        
 

 25 24.7  0.3 0.09 0.004  
 

 32 32.3  -0.3 0.09 0.003  
 

 27 27.3  -0.3 0.09 0.003  
 

 36 35.7  0.3 0.09 0.003  
 

              

           0.013  
 

 
χ

2
 calculated = 0.013 

χ
2
 tabulated (0.05) = 3.84 



288          Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
Table III. Level of Industrial Training of the workers 

on Table 2. Effect of Waste Disposal Education on Method Waste Disposal Methods 
Adopted  

 Variables   Agreed Not Total 
Variables    Agreed    Not Agreed      Total Agreed   
Ha 26 32 58 
Ho 29 33 62 
Total 55 65 120 

  
Yes 25 32 57 
No 29 34 63 
Total 54 66 120 

 
 
 
Since χ

2
 calculated is less than χ

2
 tabulated (i.e. 0.013 < 

3.84 respectively)  
We reject the Ho and conclude that open dumping 
method of waste disposal tends to have negative effect 
on the workers and the environment. 
 
Hypothesis II 
 
Ha: Level of waste disposal education of the workers 
affects the method being used.  
Ho: Level of waste disposal education of the workers 
does not affect the method being used.  
The effect of waste disposal education given to the 
workers on method adopted by the respondents is shown 
on Table 2. 32 out of 58 respondents did not agree with 
Ha while 29 out of 62 agreed with Ho; this invariably 
implies that 61/120 x 100 (i.e. 
 
Level of significance = 0.05 
Let test statistics be 

χ2  = Σ (___ )
_ 

_ 
 
Df = (r – 1) (c – 1)  
Decision Rule: Reject Ho if χ

2
 calculated is greater than 

χ
2
 tabulated 

Compute test statistics 
E1 = __  __   = 26.9     

 

          

 __         
 

E2 = __  __   = 31.4     
 

          

 __         
 

E3 = __  __ 
 =  28.4     

 

       

 __         
 

E4 = __  __ = 33.6     
 

      

 __         
 

           
 

O    E  O – E (O – E)
2
  (_ − _ )

_
  

 

          _  
 

      
 

26 26.9 -0.9 0.81 0.03  
 

32 31.4 0.6 0.36 0.01  
 

29 28.4 0.6 0.36 0.01  
 

33 33.6 -0.6 0.36 0.01  
  

0.06 
 
χ

2
 calculated = 0.06 

χ
2
 tabulated = 3.84  

Since χ
2
 calculated is less than χ

2
 tabulated (i.e. 0.06 < 

3.84) we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the 
level of waste disposal education of the workers 

 
 
 

significantly affects the method of the disposal being 
employed. 

 
Hypothesis III 

 
Ha: Industrial Training on waste disposal methods in the 
farm is inadequate  
Ho: Industrial Training on waste disposal methods in the 
farm is adequate (See table 3)  
Level of significance at 0.05 
Let test statistics be 

χ2  = Σ (___ )
_ 

_ 
Df = (r – 1) (c – 1)  

= (2 – 1) (2 – 1)   
= (1) (1)  
= 1  

Decision Rule: Reject Ho if χ
2
 calculated is greater than 

χ
2
 tabulated 

Compute test statistics 
 

E1 =  
_  __ 

= 25.7 
   

 

  __     
 

           
 

 E2 = _  __  =  31.4     
 

        
 

  __       
 

 E3 = __  __  =  28.4     
 

        

  __       
 

 E4 = __  __ =  34.7    
 

      

     __       
 

         
 

 O E   O – E    (O – E)
2
  (_ − _ )

_
  

 

         _  
 

        
 

 25 25.7  -0.7 0.49 0.02  
 

 32 31.4  0.6 0.36 0.01  
 

 29 28.4  0.6 0.36 0.01  
 

 34 34.7  -0.7 0.49 0.01  
 

         0.05  
 

 
χ

2
 calculated = 0.05 

χ
2
 tabulated = 3.84  

Since χ
2
 calculated is less than χ

2
 tabulated (i.e. 0.05 < 

3.84) we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that 
industrial training on waste disposal methods in the farm 
is significantly inadequate. 

 
 

DISCUSSION 
 

The open dumping method of waste disposal adopted in 
the farm has significant effect on the workers and the 



Akintola et al.          289 
 
 

 
environment. This is evident from the result of Hypothesis 
I. The dumping site creates growth conditions for disease 
vectors, insect pests also lay their eggs on the rotten 
wastes. This later hatch and invade the farm animals 
(Olusi, 1998) and workers inclusive.  

Result of Hypothesis II shows that the workers adopted 
the open dumping method because they had little 
knowledge about any other safer and more hygienic 
methods of waste disposal. The farm has been using this 
method year-in year-out since its inception; they possibly 
consider open dumping method as the cheapest. 
Moreover, the wastes generated while the farm was still 
small, at the inception, were considerably low to what is 
being generated now when the farm is big. Hence, the 
farm needs to review and change the open dumping 
method being used year long (Ajayi, 2008).  
Hypothesis III shows that the workers were not 
adequately informed on various safer and more 
hygienic waste management methods. Hence they are 
limited to open dumping, thereby recording low waste 
management and poor prevention of air-pollution and 
air-borne diseases. The whole heap of the dump site 
creates obnoxious odour and encourage the growth of 
pathogens and insect pests lay their eggs on the heap 
(Madukwe et al., 1996). 
 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
Agricultural wastes can be used as a form of resource 
recovery; the waste can be reused in the term of waste 
recycling. Waste management in form of organic manure 
can improve overall farming operations as well as 
improving the environment while reducing fertilizer costs.  
Frequent and up-to-date waste disposal review is also 
very important so as to check the impact of a waste 
disposal method being used. S and D Farms should 
therefore embark on waste management plan, which 
allows the farmers to fully utilize the plant and animal 
waste to reduce cost.  
The management should also organize seminars on 
regular basis to keep their workers abreast of safe and 
hygienic methods of waste disposal. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Ajayi FF (2008). Solid Waste Management Problem and its Implication 

on Health, Environmental Management in Nigeria, vol.11, pp. 34 – 
38.  

Akinsanmi, O. (2000): Pollution Control for Animal Production, Journal 
of Agricultural Management, vol. 6. Pp. 112 – 115.  

Barth CL (1995). Livestock Waste Characteristics; a New Approach, 

Agricultural Waste Utilization and Management. 5
th

 International 
Symposium on agricultural Wastes. Pp 286 – 294.  

David D (1993). Waste Disposal Methods in Agricultural Industries. 3
rd

 
Ed. Academic Press Inc. Florida pp. 17 – 21.  

Downing, Gibson (1984). How do Chemical Substances affect the 
Environment? Archives of Environmental Contamination and 
Toxicology, vol. 15: pp. 427 – 434. 

 

  
 
 

 
John BN, Steven W (1999). Farm Waste Management. Granid 

Publishing Ltd. 2
nd

 Ed. Great Britain. Pp. 291 – 299.  
Madukwe MC, Okoli EC, Eze SO (1996). Analysis and Comparison of 

the Agricultural Technology transfer system in Nigeria. African 
Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol 26 pp.111 – 115.  

Olusi JO (1998). Agricultural Technology adoption on small-holding 
farmers; Policy options for Nigeria. Journal of Food Science. Vol. 7 
pp. 617 – 624  

Oreyemi MK (1998). Ecological Sanitation of water and Environmental 
Conservation Technology Options: the case study of slums in Oyo 
state, Nigeria. J. African Environmental Issues, vol. 3. Pp 12 – 16.  

Rached E, Rathgeber, Brooks DB (2001). Water Management in Africa 
and the Middle East – Challenges and Opportunities, International 
Development Research Council (IDRC). Canada. 


