7.6 Results for Average of Farm-Specific Measures of Environmental Mitigation Effort by Farm Size

One of the key questions addressed in this study is to investigate the relationship between size and internalization of environmental externalities. Small producers, with limited access to expensive technology and market for waste may spend more per unit of output than larger producers. That is, economies of scale may be present with regards to mitigating environmental externalities. The study examined how environmental costs varied by size for the four countries.

Following the methodology set out in Chapter 4, each country study estimated a farm-specific index of the money value per unit of output of specific efforts to mitigate negative environmental externalities from manure and dead animal disposal. It will be recalled from Chapter 4 that an aggregate figure per farm was first calculated and this was divided by total output to get each farm specific figure, and these were averaged across farms in each class. Positive additions to mitigation came from actual expenditures on compensating neighbors or colleting manure, or to build facilities to store it (suitably amortized). In addition, disposal of manure was counted, either at the sale price if actually sold, or the market price if spread on one's own fields, or not at all if no market existed. If no manure market existed, it is presumed that manure is in excess supply and applications to fields are not mitigating.

Table 7.10 shows environmental expenditures per kilogram of output for poultry. For broilers, smaller producers pay more in each country. This difference in cost by size is striking. In each country except Brazil, smaller producers pay on average over 5 times more in environmentally related cost. In Brazil the difference is a factor of 2. This may be because they have higher spreading costs. For layers the relative difference is less. For Brazil, Thailand cost for layer households are higher than for broiler producing households. In Brazil, the opposite holds. In the Philippines small contract producer pay less than independents, but larger contact producer pay more. The Brazilian layer costs seem much lower relative to the boiler costs. The reason for this needs to be further explored.

In Table 7.11, environmental costs per kilogram of output for swine are shown. Small-scale producers spend more than larger producers, except in the Philippines, where larger independent producers expend more than medium independent producers, but less than small producers. Larger producers in Thailand pay considerable less than smaller produce

Table 7.12 shows the environmental costs associated with dairy production. In India, costs decline with increasing size. They are relatively constant in Brazil. Small producers spend very little on environmentally related costs in Thailand, but medium producers spend five times more than large producers.

Table 7.1 Distribution of farmers by manure disposal methods, broiler production (%)

Source: Compiled from A. Costales, et.al., 2003; R. Mehta, et.al., 2003; V.P. Sharma, et.al., 2003; N. Poapongsakorn, et.al., 2003; G.S. Camargo Barros, et. al., 2003.

Table 7.2 Distribution of farmers by manure disposal methods, layer production (%)

Source: Compiled from A. Costales, et.al., 2003; R. Mehta, et.al., 2003; V.P. Sharma, et.al., 2003; N. Poapongsakorn, et.al., 2003; G.S. Camargo Barros, et. al., 2003.

Table 7.3 Distribution of farmers by manure disposal methods, swine production (%)

Note: * Multiple responses of farms so percents exceed 100%; Details of Thai wastewater is presented in Poapongsakorn et.al., 2003.

Source: Compiled from A. Costales, et.al., 2003; R. Mehta, et.al., 2003; V.P. Sharma, et.al., 2003; N. Poapongsakorn, et.al., 2003; G.S. Camargo Barros, et. al., 2003.

Table 7.4 Distribution of farmers by manure disposal methods, dairy production (%)

Source: Compiled from V.P. Sharma, et.al., 2003; N. Poapongsakorn, et.al., 2003; G.S. Camargo Barros, et. al., 2003.

Table 7.5 Manure markets in the Philippines

* Number of samples for Independent smallholders (IS), Contract Smallholders (CS), Independent Commercial (IC), and Contract commercial (CC) are13, 21, 17, 30 respectively.

Source: A. Costales, et.al., Annex I.

Table 7.6 Average price of manure by Brazilian state (R$/ton)

Source: G S., Camargo Barros, et. al., Annex V.

Table 7.7 Distribution of farmers by dead animal disposal method, broiler production (in percent)

Source: Compiled from A. Costales, et.al., 2003; R. Mehta, et.al., 2003; V.P. Sharma, et.al., 2003; N. Poapongsakorn, et.al., 2003; G.S. Camargo Barros, et. al., 2003.

Table 7.8 Distribution of farmers by dead animal disposal method, layer production (in percent)

Source: Compiled from A. Costales, et.al., 2003; R. Mehta, et.al., 2003; V.P. Sharma, et.al., 2003; N. Poapongsakorn, et.al., 2003; G.S. Camargo Barros, et. al., 2003.

Table 7.9 Distribution of farmers by dead animal disposal method, swine production (in percent)

Source: Compiled from A. Costales, et.al., 2003; R. Mehta, et.al., 2003; V.P. Sharma, et.al., 2003; N. Poapongsakorn, et.al., 2003; G.S. Camargo Barros, et. al., 2003.

Table 7.10 Environmental expenditures per kilogram output of liveweight broiler or eggs

Source: Compiled from A. Costales, et.al., 2003; R. Mehta, et.al., 2003; V.P. Sharma, et.al., 2003; N. Poapongsakorn, et.al., 2003; G.S. Camargo Barros, et. al., 2003.

Table 7.11 Environmental expenditures per kilogram output of swine product

Source: Compiled from A. Costales, et.al., 2003; R. Mehta, et.al., 2003; V.P. Sharma, et.al., 2003; N. Poapongsakorn, et.al., 2003; G.S. Camargo Barros, et. al., 2003.

Table 7.12 Environmental expenditures per unit output of dairy product

Source: Compiled from A. Costales, et.al., 2003; R. Mehta, et.al., 2003; V.P. Sharma, et.al., 2003; N. Poapongsakorn, et.al., 2003; G.S. Camargo Barros, et. al., 2003.