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.