USF Libraries

Animal waste management practices in the Monteverde Zone: Perceptions, barriers, and solutions

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Animal waste management practices in the Monteverde Zone: Perceptions, barriers, and solutions
Translated Title:
Prácticas de manejo para residuos de animales en la zona: Percepciones, retos y soluciones ( )
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
Text in English
Creator:
Atnip, Jordan
Flavin, Jillian
Friedman, Joseph
Curry, Elana
Patel, Radhe
Decker, Thomas
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Animal waste management
Gestión de residuos de animales
Community Health 2013
Salud comunitaria 2013
Costa Rica--Puntarenas--Monteverde Zone
Costa Rica--Puntarenas--Zona de Monteverde

Notes

Abstract:
Using methodologies from medical anthropology and environmental engineering animal waste treatment practices in Monteverde were investigated to assess current practices, future intentions, and how perceptions of farm impacts are changing in the region, and identify potential practices and technologies that could facilitate changes.
Abstract:
El uso de metodologías de la antropología médica y las prácticas de ingeniería de tratamiento de residuos de animales del medio ambiente en Monteverde fueron investigados para evaluar las prácticas actuales, las intenciones futuras, y cómo las percepciones de los impactos agrícolas están cambiando en la región, e identificar posibles prácticas y tecnologías que podrían facilitar los cambios.
General Note:
Student affiliations: California State University; Boise State University; Ohio State University; Columbia University; University of Vermont; SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York

Record Information

Source Institution:
Added automatically
Holding Location:
Added automatically
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - M38-00101
usfldc handle - m38.101
System ID:
SFS0044330:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Jordan Atnip, Jillia n Flavin, Joseph Friedman, Elana Curry, Radhe Patel, and Thomas Decker

PAGE 2

Abstract Monte Verde, Costa Rica has experienced an influx of capital associated with environmentalism and tourism in recent years. 1 This has begun to shift the economic focus of the Zone from agriculture to tourism. 2 Farm waste management practices sit at a unique crossroad between shifting food production patterns and increasing concerns of environmentalism and the promotion of eco tourism. Using methodologies from medical anthropology and environmental engineering animal waste treatment practices in Monte Verde were investigated. Interview (n=10), focus group (n=2), and survey data (n=49) were collected in order to assess current practices, as well future intentions of producers who manage animals. Ethnographic data were also used to assess how perceptions of farm impacts are changing in the region. Community informants with relevant experience defined aspects of animal waste management they would like to see improve in Monteverde. Where possible, quantitative and observation data were collected in order to explore the concerns raised. Interv iews with local experts and literature research were conducted in order to identify potential practices and technologies that could facilitate the desired changes. Keywords: Animal Waste Management, Anaerobic Digestion, Monte Verde Costa Rica. 1 Vicanco, Luis. Green Encounters: Shaping and Contesting Environmentalism in Rural Costa Rica Studies in Environmental Anthropolgy and Ethnobiology 3. New York: Bergham Books, 6. 2 Himmelgreen, David A., Nancy Romero Daza, Maribel Vega, Humberto Brenes Cambronero, and Edgar Ecolog y of Food and Nutrition 45, no. 4 (August 1, 2006): 295 321.

PAGE 3

Contents Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 1 Goal ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 1 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 2 Free listing and Pile Sorting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 2 Structured Interviews and Questionnaires ................................ ................................ .............. 2 Semi Structured Interviews ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 2 Focus Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2 Ethnographic Investigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3 Results and Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3 Community Perceptions of the Impact of Animal Waste ................................ .................... 3 Negative Associations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 3 Positive Associations ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4 Perceived Relative Importance of Farm Impact ................................ ................................ .. 4 Contextualizing Perceptions of Animal Farm Impact ................................ .......................... 4 Visibility of Pollution ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4 ................................ ................................ ............... 5 Changing Conceptions of Environmental Harm ................................ ................................ .. 5 Current and Future Wa stewater Treatment Practices ................................ ........................ 6 Field or Pasture Application ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 6 Wastewater Retention Tanks ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 7 Facultative Lagoons ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 7 Composting ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 8 Biodigesters ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 Areas of Desired Improvement ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 11 Reduction of Water Usage ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 Bokashi ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 12 Improved Management of Whey ................................ ................................ ............................ 12 Improved Anaerobic Digestion Technology ................................ ................................ ....... 13 Improved Wastewater Reuse ................................ ................................ ................................ 15 Potential Challenges and Possible Solutions for Improving Practices i n the Zone 16 Lack of Enforcement and Understanding of Government Regulations ................. 17 Current Mindsets and Awareness ................................ ................................ ........................ 17 Economic Difficulties ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 18

PAGE 4

Providing Economic Incentives ................................ ................................ ............................ 18 The Need for Support ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 19 Maintaining the change: Farmer Investment ................................ ................................ .. 19 Limitations and Future Directions ................................ ................................ ................................ 19 Implementation Case Studies ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 19 Other Aspects of Waste Management ................................ ................................ ................... 20 Acknowledgments ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 20 Biography ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 20 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 22 Appendix I survey from San Luis ................................ ................................ ........................... 23 Appendix II survey from Santa Elena ................................ ................................ ................... 26 Appendix III Theoretical Design for Generalized Farm ................................ ................. 29 Appendix IV UASB reactor ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 30 Appendix V ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 30

PAGE 5

1 Introduction This study was conducted as part of the 2013 University of South Florida Globalization and Community Health Field School, working in collaboration with the Montev erde Institute, and funded by the National Science Foundation. The group is composed of six students from different fields of study From late June through July students conducted community based research in Monte Verde, Costa Rica using me thodologies from applied medical anthropology and environmental engineering. The Monte Verde Zone, or la Z ona is located in the northern region of the Costa Rican province of Puntarenas. It includes the village of Monteverd e, originally settled in the 1 950 s by Quakers, as well as the surrounding towns. 3 Despite the used in this study for culturally salient meaning it conveys locally. It indicates Santa Elena, the econom ic center of the region that largely caters to tourism, as well as the surrounding dairy sprawls over the mountainous highlands near the continental divide 4 The region has received significant international attention recently, both as a tourist attraction, and a location of nature conservation efforts. 5 The influx of capital associated with environmentalism and tourism has begun to shift much of the economic focus of the Zone from agriculture to tourism. 6 Farm waste management practices sit at a unique crossroad between shifting food production patterns and increasing concerns of environmentalism and the promotion of eco tourism. In this context, animal farm waste practices were investigated afte r being identified as important areas of concern by community partners. Goal This study attempted to explore waste management practices in the Zone, a theme identified as important by community partners. In order to approach the issue in a holistic manne r, three research questions were identified. What are the current community perceptions of farms and their impacts on the environment? What wastewater treatment practices are currently used, and how successfully? What are 3 Vicanco, Luis. Green Encounters: Shaping and Contesting Environmentalism in Rural Costa Rica Studies in Environmental Anthropolgy and Ethnobiology 3. New York: Bergham Books, 2006. 6. 4 ibid 5 ibid. 6 Himmelgreen, David A., Nancy Romero Daza, Maribel Vega, Humberto Brenes Cambronero, and Edgar Ecology of Food and Nutrition 45, no. 4 (August 1, 2006): 295 321.

PAGE 6

2 other methods by which waste can b e treated in the context of Monte Verde? What barriers prevent the community from implementing change in the Zone? Methods The data for this report was collected using a mixed methods approach combining methodologies from environmental engineering and medical anthropology. Both qualitative and quantitative data were gathered in order ground results in various perspective. A combination of formal interviews (n=10), structured int erviews and questionnaires (n=49), focus groups (n=2), and free listing/pile sorting activities (n=9) were used in order to gather data to a) asses community perceptions of animal farms, b) highlight current waste management practices, c) define areas of d esired change and potential practices and technologies that could facilitate the desired changes, and d) explore barriers to the implementation of change as well as potentia l solutions to these barriers. Free listing and Pile Sorting Members of the Santa Elena community (n=9) w ere presented with topics, and asked to list words that they associated with the subject. This exercise was a primary measure, serving to generate themes and areas of interest within our research areas that were further explored with subsequent in vestigation. Structured Interviews and Questionnaires A total of n=49 structured interviews and questionnaires were administered; n= 28 Elena. Survey instrumen ts used in San Luis and Santa Elena can be found in Appendices I and II respectively. Data analysis was carried out using SPSS Semi Structured Interviews A total of n=10 interv iews were conducted with members of the Santa Elena and San Luis communities; n =6 with agricultural producers and n=4 with other community members. Focus Groups Focus groups of community members were conducted in both S an Luis and Santa Elena Groups discussed themes of: community perceptions of animal farms, waste treatment prac tices and perceptions of environmental contamination in the Zone. Participants were recruited with assistance from the students and faculty of the Montv erde Institute.

PAGE 7

3 Ethnographic Investigation Participant observation and informal interviews were used throughout the data gathering process to gain a holistic understanding of the research areas. Ethnographic note taking was used, and field noted were coded with grounded theory analysis when possible. Results and Discussion Community Perceptions of th e Impact of Animal Waste In general community informants did not tend to see animal farm waste as an exorbitant environment issue. Only n=1 of 46 survey participants believe d farms had environment (figure 1) contrast n=14 (30.4%) respondents indicated that they have no effect. Various aspects of the perceived effects of animal farms have further explored with structured and semi s tructured interviews in order to delineate t he fairly nebulous ffect ing the environment Negative Associations Negative sentiments associated with animal wastes were stated in environmental, social, and aesthetic terms. Concerns were expres sed about the quantity of water used to clean the farm and maintain the animals. When asked to free list words associated with animal farms, n=5/9 respondents gave water a s a related element. In surveys 73.5% of individuals reported the belief that farms cause river contamination to some extent, and interview data further support this idea. Quantity of water use was an important facet, and several informants felt that becomes contaminated. Odor pollution is also an important negative association. One inform ant considered odor generated said that it is that odors from animal farm s constitute a form of environmental pollution. F igure 1 : Perceptions of the extent to which animal farms affect the environment. 0 10 20 None Little Some A lot How much do you think that animal farms affect the environment?

PAGE 8

4 Positive Associations One highly positive trend noted was the possibility to aprovecha r or take advantage of animal waste. Many survey respondents convey ed the sentiment that animal waste was a great opportunity to generate biogas and organic fert ilizer. Several respondents felt that if well managed animal waste h as no impact on the environment. Many individuals explained that since animals "are part of nature," farms are environmentally beneficial. A focus group participant stated in no uncertain terms Perceived Relative Importance of Farm Impact According t o survey data, most community members perceive that farm animals ination. When compared to other potential contaminants, the data suggest that this effect is conceptualized as less intensive than that of chemica l fertilizer, domestic inorganic trash, grey water, black water and factories (figure 2). The only elements viewed as less contaminating to the river were tourism and domestic organic waste. Contextualizing Perceptions of Animal Farm Impact Visibility of Pollution Several informants discussed the visibility of animal farm pollution in relation to its perception by the community. In structured and semi structured interviews garbag e was consistently ranked as a more substantial pollutant than animal farms. When asked about this phenomenon, one community informant suggested "you do n't see cows pooping trash bags, liquid waste is far less glaring than the trash bags attributed to the impacts of tourism on the Zone. Farm waste may also be less visible to many community members due to their distant location from residential areas. When asked about the issue, one commu nity member reported Average Percieved Degree of Contamination Little Some A lot None Figure 2: Relative Perceived Degree of Contamination for Seve ral Factors

PAGE 9

5 perceived impact on the environment. In focus group discussions community members claimed to be mor e accepting of the pollution generated from small scale animal farms over other larger entities that jobs and local organi c products for community members. In this way small farms reintroduce capital into the community, rendering whatever environmental contamination they may produce "more tolerable." Using this concept informant s contrasted small farms to larger agricultural operations, which were seen as having a different economic effect on the community. As one community member explained and the profits are centralized in a few large farms use com munity and environmental resources like land and water, but do not benefit the community as small farms do in return. Changing Conceptions of Environmental Harm Several community informants felt the way that people in Monte Verde conceptualize farming practices is changing. One individual claimed that historically there has been a longstanding association between farms and economic prosperity. He discussed this idea in the context of the Spanish word for cattl e, g anado The word comes from the Spanish verb ganar, regardless of the larger quantities of waste or pollution that might local understandings of the environmental aspects of farms have been changing. Monteverde has been host to a variety of external influences; from Quakers in the 1970s to environmentalists in the 1990s, the region has experienced multiple groups of outsi ders in recent decades 7 Several interview participants discussed how various groups of international volunteers, students, tourists, and business owners have brought new idea s to the Zone. This influx of perspective they explained, has influenced environ mental priorities and practices. One educator from the community discussed how the exchange of ideas his students are exposed to from international volunteers affects the way they understan d environmental issues. He attributes much of the change his schoo l has experienced in recent years to this importation of external concepts. Foreign ideas also have influence in the community due to their economic import. As the zone experiences an sentiments of ou tsiders has serious financial benefits 8 Many farms profit from expeditions are ubiquitous in Santa Elena. As one farm owner, who has cabins and other touristic services 7 Vivanco, Confronting Environmentalism, 6. 8 Ibid, 155.

PAGE 10

6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Biodigester Put on Field Use for Compost Put in Garden Lagoons Retention Tank Interested Already Use Use and Interest In Treatment Methods (n=21) they think of nature, beauty, and When tourists come to Monte Verde they have certain expectations as to what they will experience as part of eco tourism, and these preconceptions have an effect on the presentation of natural spaces in the Zone. One shopkeeper felt that through way foreign capital catalyzes the adaptation of external ideal, at least superficially. As foreign ideas and capital wash over the Zone, they affect the way that people These changing conceptions impact the way that people think about animal waste treatment practices in the Zone. Current and Future Wastewater Treatment Practices Wastewater management methods currently used in the Monte Verde region were identified using interview data. The frequency of various practices was assessed using survey data, and the results can be seen in figure 4 Each treatment method was subsequently explored using survey, structured and semi structured interview data Farmers were also asked about which treatment practices they were interested in pursuing in the future Interest in the potent ial utilization of various treatment practices can be seen in Figure 4 overlaid on top of current usage patterns for comparative purposes. Field or Pasture Application Applying waste to fields was the second most frequent method of waste management reported in survey data (n=11/21), in interview s many respondents also reported using the practice Perceptions of this practice were mixed; many informants felt it wa s acceptable and did not pose an ecological concern, as waste is explained that applying waste to Figure 4: Interest in Various Animal Waste Treatment Methods Among Individuals with Farm Animals in San Luis

PAGE 11

7 0 5 10 15 20 Aleady Use Interested Not Interested Interest in Retention Tank tural purposes. Most farmers felt that using animal waste on their fields was an excelle nt way to take advantage of organic material. Several farmers who use animal waste on their pastures reported that they noticed a great improvement in the quality of th e ir grass after waste application. As one farmer described, the general belief is that an economic benefit. Despite the benefits, some individuals expressed concerns about waste being put on fields that were located close to water sources or residential areas. They felt that farms located near water sources could potentially contaminate the environment as rain often washes waste into rivers. One farm hand felt that although t he river located close to his farm was usually very clean, during the rainy season preventing contamination from waste carried by rainwater was nearly impossible Wastewater Retention Tanks The use of a retention tank system to hold waste prior to dispersal is a common practice for medium and large scale farmers This usually involves collection pipes to carry wastewater from barns to the tank, a pump to pu sh the waste through the system and pipes carrying wastewater slurry to the fields Some farmers felt that the electricity or fuel required to pump waste onto fields was a major drawback to the technique. The process can also be time consuming if manual labor is requi red for waste distribution, and one field hand described the many hours he spent moving tubing from pasture to pasture. In several observed retention tanks only about two days of water could be accommodated. Therefore, treatment of the wast e is minimal. N evertheless, these system s have the benefit of effectively storing and dispersing wastewater with precision, and most farmers interviewed were overall happy with the ir tanks performance Despite the positive views of farmers who use such systems, there was very little interest among other i ndividuals in implementing them to manage their own animal was te. As demonstrated in figure 5 only two individuals not currently using retention tanks expressed interest in implementi ng such a system, compared to eight een individuals who where not interested. This lack of interest was expressed in the comments of fa odor and ineffective in their lack of actual treatment of waste. Facultative Lagoons Figure 5: Interest in Retention Tanks for Animal Waste Manage ment Among Farmers

PAGE 12

8 0 5 10 15 20 Aleady Use Interested Not Interested Interest in Lagoons A facultative lago on is essentially a man made open air pond, which is used as a space for sedimentation and biological breakdown to occur. 9 Waste is fed into the system on one end, is retained in the system for a period of time, and is then discharged out the other end into a receiving body of water 10 Although lagoons are found in some industrial and farm settings in the area, the public most ly considers these lagoons to be ineffective. One farmer do anything. They are mainly an excuse for factory owners and farmers to dump waste In semi structured interviews m ost informants w ere uninterested in implementing a lagoon on their property explaining smell bad, One farmer who had previously considered a facultative lagoon as a potential wastewater treatment method decided against it s implementation due to the large space requirement and long retention time. This trend is reflected in the survey data, in which only n= 2 farmers would consider implementing a lagoon on their property, while n=17 were uninterested (F igure 6 ). Despite the negative sentiment expressed by most informants the interview respondent who had work ed with facultative lagoons were reportedly very ha ppy with their performance. One individual highlighted the sustainability of one such system, arguing that as the lagoons used fish, shellfish and turtles to break down waste it was an effective and natural method of waste management. Composting The survey data suggest s that the most well entrenched animal waste treatment practice is compost ing More than half of survey participants who have animals (n=12/20) already use the technique, and only (n=6/21) had no interest (figure 7 ) Many farmers reported using the technology with great success, and being overall very with the results. Several individuals described composting as e better use of the nutrients in the organic waste. 9 Taylor, Catherine. Purdue, "Lagoon Systems Can Provide Low Cost Wastewater Treatment." https://engineering.purdue.edu/~frankenb/NU prowd/lagoons.htm. 10 ibid. Figure 6: Interest in Facultative Lagoons For Animal Waste Management 0 5 10 15 Aleady Use Interested Not Interested Interest in Compost Figure 7: Interest in Composting For Animal Waste Management

PAGE 13

9 Figure 9: Interest in a Biodigester for Animal Waste Management A variety of materials being composted were observed such as food scraps, manure, and organic bypr oducts from other processes. Several coffee harvesters were als o observed compost ing their coffee bean shells, using regular or vermicomposting and reported it worked well for them. Despite the overall enthusiasm for the technique, some producers did not feel that it was appropriate for their operations. One farmer who owned pigs described how it would be impossible for her to compost given the large degree of labor it would require to collect the semi liquid waste. Aggregating the w aste is regarded as the most intensive step of the process; therefore some individuals felt that composting is better suited for waste that is produced in one location, such as food scraps or coffee shells. Even for small a mounts of waste, composting requi re s manual labor, and this may render it less desirable to farmers who have little free time do not want to pay for labor, or have large operations. Biodigesters One area of interest to many parties in Monte Verde is the use of tubular polyethylene anaerobic digesters commonly biodigesters These systems are large cylinders made of polyethylene plastic sheeting (see F i gure 8 ) They maintain an internal oxygen depleted environment in order to facilitate anaerobic digestion process es Wastewater slurry is added to one end of the digester and digested biologically as it moves through the system us ually for a period of 30 + days depending of the characteristics of the site and waste. Slurry then exit s the system from the other end as treated organic fertilizer, which can be appl ied to fields. The system also has the advantage of producing methane ga s (usually referred to as biogas), which can be stored in tanks or bags and burned as fuel for cooking, electricity generation, or other purposes. The community gen erally viewed these systems quite favorably Although only n=3 survey respondents currentl y use biodigesters, n=10 respondents were interested in implementing one, compared to Figure 8: Diagram of Tubular Biodigester energypedia uwe.idea sketch.com 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Aleady Use Interested Not Interested Interest in Biodigesters

PAGE 14

10 n= 8 people who were not interested (F igure 9 ) These data s uggest that biodigesters are one of the most theoretically popular, a lbeit less imple mented, waste treatment systems among our respondents Interview data further support the idea that many people in the Zone view biodigesters positively Several farmers frame a biodigester as Small scale producers reported using biodigesters to treat waste products including: cow, chicken, and pig manure, animal blood, coffee shells, food scraps, and human excrement Many individ uals felt that biodigesters had a multiplicity of benefits, not only reducing environmental contaminat ion but also generating biogas and organic fertilizer. The methane gas generation aspect of the system was especially important to community members. On several occasions families who had biodigesters were enthusiastic to show off there biogas powered sto ve, explaining that they provided 3 5 hours of gas per day on average A our waste and e xtract biogas, b but now that we know Local activists and entities have also supported this technology Through their campus in San Luis, t he University of Georgia (UGA, has played an especially dominant role in spreading the biodigester technology. UGA has worked with local farmers providing information, suppor t, and occasional funds for development of the technology They have also implemented biodigester systems to treat the waste produced at their facilities. One iodigesters are a] f unctional, s imple, and inexpensive technology tha t acts to transform a problem for the community into an opportunity Regardless of some respondent s enthusiasm, a few agricultural producers shared problems with biodigesters. One farmer feels that the system can be a without sufficient education and support in terms of design, installation, and maintenance, failure is likely. H e installed a biodigester on his y, but had to scrap it due to poor performance. Another farmer shared her reservations; she feels that although the technology could be very effective for some regions the climate of Monte Verde was too cold for it to work efficiently. Sh e is interested i n potentially using a biodigester, but is afraid that the significant investment such a system would require would go to waste if there was poor performance. Sh e has failing in other places in Monte Verde and fee ls that s he wo uld have to see a system work in the high altitude climate of Monteverde before s he would be willing to risk installing one herself. Nevertheless, biodigesters remain a very popular and po liticalized technology in the Zone Several interview respondents who had tried to build biodigesters unsuccessfully reported that they were still very interested in employing the technology. T he general sentiment conveyed from informants was that there is substantial social momentum as well a s growing economic support for t he development of biodigesters in the region.

PAGE 15

11 Areas of Desired Improvement Interviews with local farmers and waste management experts revealed several aspects of animal waste m anagement practices that were considered desi rable by some or all parties. Subsequent interviews as well as literature research also highlighted potential technologies and practices that could help address the concerns. Reduction of Water Usage As in many regions of the world, farmers in Monte Verde use water in large quantities to maintain a clean farm environment. Spraying down barns and other livestock areas allows farmers to clean without needing to employ extensive labor. Water is abundant and cheap in Mont e V erde S prings and rivers provide water for most farmers a situation which results in a seemingly unlimited supply Nevertheless, as several famers and experts shared, high water use does have consequences. The removal of water from natural sources upstream can impact wildlife, incite geological change, and decrease the water ac cess of others downstream. L ocally, the usage of high volumes of water generates a large quantity of waste that farmers must manage. The greater the volume of water used, the larger capacity an adequate w aste treatment system must have. According to one environmental expert, a s consciousness about waste treatment practices in the Zone grows, there is increasing awareness about the benef its of water use reduction. Some fa r mers reported working in this aim, and felt that it was important both in economic and ecological terms. The opinions of l ocal waste treatment experts coincide with the farmers to clean animals, so we have to use it as little a s possible. Reducing the quantity of water used is paramount, and it is the single most important step to take in Despite the level of awareness about the issue, barriers to water usage are still prevalent. Without water wast e management can be extremely labor intensive. E ducational facilities often have access to free student and intern labor, which can make management practices requiring less water more feasible. In contrast, small farmers often feel they cannot afford to ma intain hygienic facilities without f requent washing. A nother concern is that by cleaning less, odor pollution can become a greater issue, potentially resulting in wor sening relations with neighbors. In order to reduce water use, one farmer discussed his decision to use high pressure, low volume nozzles on hoses us ed for washing. Some P roducers involved in the research also add substances to barn floors in order to reduce odor, and allow for less frequent washing. This can include limestone, which pre tre ats waste microorganism solutions, which accelerate digestion.

PAGE 16

12 Bokashi As discussed previously odor was a major community concern in relation to animal farms. Perhaps not surprisingly then, respondent s who manage animals generally felt that odor reduction was an important aspect of their waste treatment system. One technology that can improve odors is a liquid concentrate containing a slew of microbes that help breakdown waste, called effective microor ganisms (EM). The Japanese researcher Teruo Higa invented this technology in the 1980s, and it has since been adopted and promoted by several academic institutions in Costa Rica. Bokashi can be applied to barn floors which begins the process of breaking down waste and thereby reducing odor. The use Bokashi can therefore permit less frequent washing of barn surface, resulting in water use reduction. The EM liquid is relatively expensive, costing approximately $250 for 100 liters of solution from local so urces in Costa Rica. It can also be produced on site at farms, and there is some support available in the form of starter kits and informational materials for farmers who wish to attempt the process. According to local activists who are promoting the techn ology, production is simple, and EM liquid represents an effective way for farmers to reduce odors, treat wast e, and protect the environment. Improved Management of Whey In the Zone dairy farming constitutes a large portion of agricultural production. Much of this milk is used to produce cheese, and the refore whey, a cheese byproduct is readily available. Whey is a w hite mixture containing about 6 7 % solids, which is mainly composed of proteins and sugars. 11 12 The B OD 5 (a measure of organic content) of whey can range from 27,000 to 60,000 mg/L which is equivalent to the pollution load of one hundred times the volume of common domestic wastewaters 13 The treatment of whey is a tricky issue; its chemical composition does not allow for rapid breakdown in th e environment, and its concentrated nutrients can heavily impact wastewater quality causing eutrophication and issues associated with rapid algal growth. 14 Whey is perceived as a major source of water pollution in the Zone. Some p ig farmers in Monte Verde have regular access to whey as a food source for their animals, in some cases obtaining it for no cost above the expense of transportation. Farmers feed the pigs wh e y several times a day, and report that it Many people viewed feeding whey to pigs as a great opportunity for pig farmers to take advantage of a waste product while also reduce whey contamination of the river. 11 Carvalho, Ftima, Ana R. Prazeres, and Javier Rivas. Science of The Total Environment 2004. 445 446. 12 Dr.William Wendorff, University of Wisconsin Madison, "Uses of Whey in the Farmstead Setti ng." http://future.aae.wisc.edu/publications/farmstead_whey_use.pdf. 13 Carvalho et al., 2004. 14 ibid.

PAGE 17

13 In order to prevent environmental degradation from whey, it must be fed to pigs in a conscientious manner, and the resultant manure managed with an adequate treatment system. A basic measure is simply for farms to take only the amount of whey needed for th e pigs being raised 15 Although this seems simple interview respondents report that occasionally excess whey is simply allowed to drain off into local bodies of water or fields when animals cannot consume all of it. One farmer avoids routine spillage by us ing storage tanks that connect directly to feeding troughs. This reduces labor demands and accidental spills, and provides more accurate whey consumption control. A list of associated literature with the treatment and use of whey can be found in Appendix V. Improved Anaerobic Digestion Technology The anaerobic processes that occur in a biodigester happen naturally in any oxygen depleted environment, and are utilized for wastewater treatment all over the world. 16 Although tubular anaerobic biodigesters represent the cheapest form of anaerobic digestion technology, in many respects they are not suited to some of the waste treatment challenges found in Monte Verde They are fragile, and are vulnerable to the harsh wi nds and rain of the Monte Verde climate. A dditionally they may not function as effectively in the colder seasons found at higher altitudes in the Zone Tubular biodigesters also have a retention time of 30 + days, which means for farms with large quantities of wastewater the digester size has to be extremely large for effective treatment to occur. This section explores other anaerobic reactors that, although have higher installation costs, may be better suite d for certain producers in the Zone Anaerobic Baffle d Digester One system that can be effective in Costa Rica and the Monte Verde Zone is an anaerobic baffle reactor (ABR) The system utilizes multiple chambers to br eak down pathogens and organic materia ls. The system has liquid waste retention time of only 4 12 hours, which means that reactor size can be much smaller than a tubular biodigester for the same quantity of water treated 17 ABRs are built from durable materials and consequently do not require l arge amounts of maintenance compared to systems construc ted of polyethylene. The systems may have a higher installation and construction cost t han other less extensive systems, but they last longer, can be smaller, and may perform better. 15 According to Wendroff, between 80 and 130 pounds, the amount of whey should not ex ceed 2.25 gallons. 16 Anaerobic digestion has three stages: hydrolytic in which complex organic materials in the waste substrate are broken down, acid forming, where simple sugars produced in the first stage are reduced to simple organic acids, and finally methanogenic where acids, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide are converted to methane and carbon dioxide using methanogens (Xiaoqi Zhang Chapter 5 Anaerobic processes). 17 ity of Massachusets Lowell.

PAGE 18

14 Construction The system shares some design features with tubular biodigesters. Wastewater flows in the inlet located below the reactor water level, facilitating a process in which heavier organic matter sink s while lighter material float s to the top (figure 10 ). As wastewater passes through each chamber, b arriers that are connected to the sides of the tank force it through a series of sludge blanket s located at the base of each c ompartment In the sediment layer, sol id particles are caught and interact with the bacterial elements of the activated sludge. Methane gas is produced throughout the process, and it is collected at the top of the unit. Although reactors with various numbers of chambers can function, studies h ave shown that reactors with 4 or 5 chambers work the most efficiently and produce the most biogas 18 Once an ABR is built, activated sludge seed needs to be added from another anaerobic reactor, which can be obtained from a tubular biodigestor or industri al waste treatment plant. At full potential the syst em requires minimal interaction and wastewaters with a wide variety of characteristics can be treated 19 One i mportant caveat for this system is that the wastewater needs to enter the system at a constant rate 20 Therefore a storage system such as an equilibrium basin, is necessary to release waste to the digester slowly. Design Working with a local expert in digester construction, locally available materials were identified that could be used for construction of the reactor. Similar systems have been built in Costa Rica using concrete and rebar, w ith a ceiling of zinc and iron. U sing calculations found in Decentralized Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries by Ludwig Sasse a hypothetical case study was conducted using rough estimates of a medium farm in Monte Verde The case study can be found in A ppendix I Upflow Anaerobi c Sludge Blanket Although the ARB system is a very effective technology in many cases, it may not be the most appropriate solution for all waste management situations. Another system that would be feasible for the Monte Verde Zone is an Upflow Anaerobic Sl udge Blanket (UASB). The system is similar to an ARB, differing mainly in that it uses less 18 c Bioresource Technology 1998, no. 61, 1 6. 19 ity of Massachusets Lowell. 20 Heinzle Figure 10: Diagram of Anaerobic Baffle Digester

PAGE 19

15 ground space as it stands upright, and requires more regular sludge removal. More details about the reactor can be found in Appendix II. Improved Wastewater Reuse As previously discussed, contamination from animal farms is seen by many members of the community as a major contributor to river contamination in the Zone Some farms that are located near residential areas avoid spraying waste onto fields, in order to minimize odor. This has the effect, however, of causing non uniform dispersal patterns onto fields. This, a long with heavy rainfall in the wet season, and the steep slopes of many pastures, leads to run off into surrounding forest areas and bodies of water. Due to a lack of pre treatment, this run off poses a risk to the community and the environment. Subsurface Wastewater Infiltration S ystem Used in conjunction with a waste treatment system, a subsurface wastewater infiltration system (SWIS) can be used to disperse wastewater in a slow and even fashion, to avoid runoff. SWIS are widely considered to be the treatment system of choice in rural unsewered areas 21 A SWIS begin s with a distribution box that is connected by tubing to the main treatment reactor. This box serve s to disperse wastewater into underground pipes, which are buried throughout pastures or fields. The buried pi pe is completely surrounded in a porous material such as gravel to provide initial space for infiltration and to prevent erosion (figure 11 ) The gravel is lined with geofabric that would permit water to leave the system while preventing soil from cloggi ng essential pore space A llowing liquid waste to enter the gravel drainage promotes natural filtering, as b acteria growing in this space will decompose the harmful bacteria. As the waste infiltrates into the soil oxygen is reintroduced into the liquid while pathogens are removed 22 The underground dispersal utilized in SWIS both reduces odors, and slows water movement through fields considerably allowing the soil to retain nutrients for improved plant growth The main barrier for the installation of a SWIS, is the considerable financial investment involved in installation of the pre treatment system and underground 21 Wastewater Treatment System Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. 22 i bid. Figure 11 : Diagram of SWIS [advancewateronline.com]

PAGE 20

16 pipes. A pre treatment system is necessary to prevent heavy solids from clog ging the pores o f the gravel infiltration layer. These two re quirements are examples of the financial barrier s that farmers in the Zone face. Nevertheless, if overcome, a SWIS can be an excellent solution for the irrigation problems faced in the Zone Improved Overland Flow A popular method of wastewater dispersal for many farms in the Zone is overland flow. This simply entails using pipes or hoses to distribute waste on the surface of pastures, allowing it to infiltrate the soil from above. If SWIS is not a feasible solution then properly managed overland flow can be an effective alternative. Surface Spraying A common method of overland flow distribution involves the use of sprinkler surface spray systems on fields. This does however require that pastures are left uneaten for at least 15 days according to Costa Rican law 23 This technique is usually used in concert with a filter during spraying as well as waste pre treatment 24 Spraying ensures uniform waste distribution upon pastures, which reduces runoff. Anaerobic digesti on can be used to minimize odor, which can be an issue when waste aerosolizes in the sprayer. Berms and Swales One technique that can help slow the movement of wastewater over pastures is the install ation of rows of rock berms, which are lines of stone m ounds that follow contour lines going down the pasture. The rocks allow for increased infiltration time by establishing a barrier that slows water movement over soil. G iven that the ideal slope for overland flow is 2 to 8%, and many pastures in Monte Verde have a grade of over 20% these measures can help counteract the inherent tendency towards run off. Berms can also be installed in strategic locations in order to ensure no wastewater can directly enter a water source. A stone and dirt structure can be constructed in the bounds fields near water sources to divert water flow The water can be shunted into swales, which are gravel lined collection ditched that direct the flow of water and promote infiltration. Using these techniques, was tewater can be more effectively contained, and nutrients can be better utilized, ideally reducing the need for chemical fertilizers. Potential Chal lenges and Possible Solutions for Improving Practices in the Zone In interviews and focus groups, community members, farmers, and experts explained what they perceived to be the challenges of improving animal waste treatment practices in the Zone, as well as possible ways to break these barriers. 23 July 3 rd 2012. 24 EPA. Onsite Wastewater Treatment, 2002.

PAGE 21

17 Lack of Enforcement and Understanding of Government Regulatio ns One barrier to improvement explained by informants is a lack of proper support or oversight from government agencies. Several informants felt that there is a lack of clarity; so many informants do not understand existing regulations. One farmer explaine d to us that government agencies rely on coops to distribute information to farmers, yet many producers are not part of these coops. At times is it unclear which government agency is responsible for the oversight of animal farm waste, and several farmers f elt as though no agency wants to claim responsibility for governing farm waste practices. Community informants also conveyed a perceived lack of trust. Several people recounted stories of failed government projects and initiatives which end up being det One striking example was a half constructed he farmer explained that a government program had encouraged and supported this project initially, but never followed through. These gove rnmental blunders damage relations with farmers and make collaboration more difficult. Current Mindsets and Awareness As explained by several community informants the impact of animal waste on the environment is a changing idea in the Zone An older community member expressed that for decades farmers believed that there was no need to treat waste, as it was simply a natural fertilizer. Farm animals are considered by many farmers to be a part of the environment and not a contaminant. One expert felt t hat farmers have been somewhat resistant to changing their animal waste practices, as they do not see a potential for environmental harm. Farmers and community members frequently spoke to the importance of changing local mindsets in order for farmers to improve their treatment practices. A local expert expressed that for change to occur, farmers must accept that they are thing we need to change." He believes that if fa rmers do not understand their practices have an affect on the environment, then there is no basis for change Nevertheless, many farmers did express care for the environment; they have no desire to be contaminating. The difficulty lies in knowing in certai n terms how they are affecting the environment. One farmer expressed that she had no way to know if he was contaminating, but if s he were to learn that the way she is treating now is Many farmers expressed desire to protect the environment and be efficient with waste. Others, who are beginning to understand animal waste can have an effect, still lack knowledge of their exact impact or what changes they might implement. Without a complete u nderstanding of the possible environmental issues, farmers are not in a position to change their treatment practices.

PAGE 22

18 Economic Difficulties Interview participants expressed the importance of the idea that farms are the foundation of liv elihood for many f amilies. They are the source of money and food that sustains the family. However, farmers in the Zone often lack financial security. Only some farmers in the Zone have the security and support that membership in a coops offer. Many farmers sell their products to large companies that do not provide contracts or support. S mall farmers often experience the constant pressure of competition with larger farms, fluctuating prices, and debt Farmers explained that implementing a new system would entail spending money with uncertainty of the result. Moreover, farmers explained they are very involved in day to day work running the farms and therefore have no time to investigate new ways to treat waste. The lack money, time and labor, are maj or barrier s for farmers who might wish to be more environmentally friendly but lack the means to change their practices Providing Economic Incentives Economic incentives were considered by many to bee the most important step in encouraging far mers to improve their practices A local expert said that in his experience, money to be able to open the door of changing treatment practices can include : the production of biogas or organic fertilizer reduced labor or water costs, and protection from fines. Importantly, community members mentioned that the use of environmentally friendly practices c an give farms increased access to tourism revenue. Tourists in search o f eco tourism may be interested in the tours, hotels and adventure services farms can offer. They also may be more interested in buying food that has been produced in an environmentally friendly manner. Several informants explained that if farmers wish to be member s of the global market they m ust consider international desires that have been produced with the environment and animal quality in mind, so this is promoting the benefits of new environmentally friendly technology, farmers are encouraged to make the change. Using Economic Benefits. Existing c ommunity examples demonstrate the effectiveness of new technolog ies, which has a major i nfluence in the Zone. Several informants spoke to the power of such community example s Five out of the six farmers interviewed spoke of how S ystems they might wish to have and their impres sions of different technologies are guided by what they have seen around them. One farmer spoke of how new technolog ies ha ve digester they are influenced to change their treatment practices as well. A community expert

PAGE 23

19 explained that when farmers who have received incentive, share the idea with other people the idea spread s The Need for Support Community members often felt that economic assistance was a key factor for the imp lementation of a new treatment system especially given the lack of financial security many farmers experience Several farmers reported that they had either received help creating their system or would need help with future improvements. Technical assist ance and education are critical for the implementation and maintenance of a new system. Without well informed help, farmers feel that the ir project s will likely fail. Most informants expressed how pivotal the role of academic institutions and NGOs can be in providing financial, technical, and educational support to farmers. Organizations initiate change, help implement new technolog ies educate farmers, and help with the finan cial barriers Maintainin g the change: Farmer Investment In order to ma intain change put in motion many people expressed the necessity for community and farmer project ownership. An expert mentioned that it was key for farmers to have a physical (i.e. digging foundations for a new system) and financial stake in projects. The act of tak ing ownership and creat ing an investment plant s the seeds for success. One farmer explained that he was expected to dig the hole for a bio digester that an organization helped him implement at his farm. It was also his responsibility to create a fence and a roof for the digester. By having the support of a local organization in concert with personal investment in the project, the endeavor is more often successful Limitations and Future Directions This study should be considered preliminary work based on limited resources. The research conducted was limited to the rainy season of Monte Verde, and therefore does not represent the full scope of climatic diversity found in the region. It is possible that important differences exist in social or econo mic practices during other times of the year. The study also reflects interactions with a limited number of famers, and the scope of agricultural producers may not be fully reflected. This study was conceptualized as preliminary from its origin, and a major aim of the research is informing the work that will be done in future years as part of the USF Community and Community Health Field School. Areas of interest for future work are detailed below. Implementation Case Studies In this study several techn ologies have been discussed, both in their technical specifications as well as how they fit into existing social dynamics in the Zone. These

PAGE 24

20 data could be used as the basis for implementation case studies, in which technologies could be designed and implem ented with community partners. This would provide a valuable opportunity to continue to explore how engineering and anthropology can inform each other for pragmatic applications. It would also stand true to the goals of community based research; the applic ation of knowledge production to tangible benefit as specified by community members. If performed in the context of substantial community interest, the facilitation of technological development in the Zone would give local partners a model for further deve lopment, as well as new data about technological and social aspects of implementing change. Other Aspects of Waste Management Although animal waste management has proven to be a topic of substantial interest to community members, our results suggest th at it is not seen as the most significant contaminator of the local environment. Our data indicate that grey water and solid trash represent more substantial ecological polluters than animal waste for many individuals in the Zone. Therefore, further investig ation of these issues with a focus on current perceptions, socio economic dynamics and technological solutions, could be of interest to the community. Acknowledgments Our student research team would like to thank the National Science Foundation, the University of South Florida and the Monteverde Institute for support. We want to thank our advisors, Dr. Nancy Romero Daza, Dr. David H immelgreen and Dr. Serena Ergas for all their excellent guidance We would also like to thank our graduate assistants A li Cantor, Stephanie Paredes and Adib Amini for helling us as colleagues as friends We also want to express our great appreciation to Gaudy Picado, Jenny Pea, Randy Picado, and all the MVI staff. A special thank you to Luis Carazo, our community advisor. Biography Jillian Flavin is and Environmental Science, Technology and Policy student at California State University, Monterey Bay. She is in her Senior year and hopes to s School of Public Health and furthering her education in the field of environmental and public health.

PAGE 25

21 Jordan Atnip is a sophomore honors student at Boise State University studying Civil Engineering and Spanish. After she graduates, she is planning o n obtaining her joining the Peace Corps. Elana Curry is a sophomore honors student at Ohio State University majoring in Public Health and minoring in Spanish and Statistics. After graduation, she hopes to attend medical school and pursue a Master of Public Health. Radhe Patel is a junior at Columbia University. She studies chemical eng ineering and political science, and hopes to pursue further education in public h ealth and public administration. She aspires to lead new initiatives introducing engineering to international economic development platforms Joe Friedman is a senior studyi ng medical anthropology and pre medical sciences at the University of Vermont He is minoring in Spanish and b iochemistry, and aspires to attend medical school His future career goals involve combining methodologi es of medical anthropology with a medical career. Thomas Decker is an undergraduate environmental engineering student at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, New York. Thomas has been involved in development engineering projects in Honduras, Mexico, Peru, and Costa Rica and hopes to continue pursuing education in international development and environmental engineering.

PAGE 26

22 References Bioresource Technology 1998, no. 61 : 1 6. Science of The Total Environment 445 446, no. 1 (February 15, 2013): 385 396. essed July 30, 2013. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969712015896. Higa, Teruo, and James F. Parr. Beneficial and Effective Microorganisms for a Sustainable Agriculture and Environment Vol. 1. International Nature Farming Research Center Atami,, Japan, 1994. http://www.emro asia.com/data/66.pdf. Himmelgreen, David A., Nancy Romero Daza, Maribel Vega, Humberto Brenes Cambronero, and Edgar Ecology of Food and Nutrition 45, no. 4 (August 1, 2006): 295 321. Ministerio de Gobernacin y Polica. Office of Co https://engineering.purdue.edu/~frankenb/NU prowd/lagoons.htm. Vicanco, L uis. Green Encounters: Shaping and Contesting Environmentalism in Rural Costa Rica Studies in Environmental Anthropolgy and Ethnobiology 3. New York: Bergham Books. ity of Massachuset s Lowell.

PAGE 27

23 A ppendix I survey from San Luis Iniciales del entrevistador ________ Cdigo del Participante: ________ Fecha: _________________ Lugar: _________________ Estamos interesados en saber las diferentes maneras de manejar residuos de animales en las fincas de la zona. Nos gustara hacerle unas preguntas para saber sus opiniones y experiencias sobre el tema. Demografa: Que edad tiene? ____ Cual es su fe cha de nacimiento? _____________ Gnero: ( Interviewer, mark as appropriate) Hombre ____ Mujer _____ Cual es su ocupacin actual? _____________________ En que pueblo vive? __________________ Cunto tiempo lleva viviendo ah? _________ 1). Le voy a leer una lista de cosas, por favor digame, que tanto cree usted que cada una de estas cosas contamina a los ros en la zona Cosa Mucho Algo Poco Nada Turismo Animales finqueros Abono qumico Fabricas Desechos (aguas grises) de casas (como por ejemplo de la cocina, del lavado de ropa) Desechos (aguas negr a s) de casas (de los servicios) Basura de casas Otro: 2). Tiene animales para la produccin o de trabajo? ( Si la respuesta es no, siga a la pregunta numero 6) S ___ No ___ 3). Que tipo de animales tiene usted? Dgame todos los que tenga. ___ Cerdos Cuantos? _____ ___ Vacas Cuantos? _____ ___ Pollos Cuantos? _____ ___ Cabras Cuantos? ___ __ ___ Caballos Cuantos? _____ ___ Otro_________________ ___ Otro_________________ 4). Que hace usted con los residuos de los animales? Dgame todos los que apliquen ___ Los usa para Compost/abono orgnico ___ Los pone en un tanque de retencin ___ Los tira en el campo

PAGE 28

24 ___ Los tira en el jardn /la huerta ___ Los usa en un Biodigestor ___ Los tira en lagunas spticas ___ Otro (especifique) __________ 5). Le voy a leer otras maneras de manejar desechos de animales. Por favor dgame cuales de ellas piensa usted que le gustara hacer en su casa (Interviewer read ONLY the ones the respondent does NOT already use) ___ Usarlos para Compost/abono orgnico ___ Ponerlos en un tanque de retencin ___ Tirarlos en el campo ___ Tirarlos en el jardn /la huerta ___ Usarlos en un Biodigestor ___ Tirarlos en lagunas spticas Para cada uno de los que escogi, por favor explique las ventajas que tendra ese mtodo de manejo de desechos. Para los que no escogio, porqu e no? 6). Tena usted animales de agricultura en su casa cuando era nio/nia? S ___ No ___ a). Que tipo de animales tena? ___ Cerdos Cuantos? _____ ___ Vacas Cuantos? _____ ___ Pollos Cuantos? _____ ___ Cabras Cuantos? ___ __ ___ Caballos__ Cuantos? _____ ___ Otro_________________ ___ Otro_________________ b)Que haca n en su casa con los residuos de los animales? Dgame todos los que apliquen ___ Lo s usa ban para Comp ost/abono orgnico ___ Lo s pon ian en un tanque de retencin ___ Lo s tira ban en el campo ___ Lo s tira ban en el jardn /la huerta ___ Lo usa ban en un Biodigestor ___ Lo tira ban en lagunas spticas ___ Otro (especifique) __________ c) Por que ha cambiado(o no ha cambiado) las maneras actuales de manejar los residuos de animales en comparacin con las de su juventud?

PAGE 29

25 7 ). Quien se beneficia de los animales para la produccin y el trabajo en la zona? (first free list, then sort ) Persona/Cosa Mucho Algo Poco 8 ). Como afectan a la comunidad los animales para la produccin y el trabajo en la zona? 9 ). Que tanto cree Usted que los animales de las fincas afecten el medio ambiente? ___ Mucho ___ Algo ___ Poco ___ Nada Por qu? 10 ____ 1) Muy de acuerdo ____ 2) De acuerdo ____ 3) Neutral ____ 4) En desacuerdo ____ 5) Muy en desacuerdo Por qu piensa eso? Gracias por su ayuda, hay alguna otra cosa que quisiera agregar sobre lo que hemos hablado?

PAGE 30

26 Appendix II survey from Santa Elena Iniciales del entrevistador ________ Cdigo del Participante: ________ Fecha: _________ ________ Lugar: _________________ Somos un grupo de es tudiantes del Instituto Monteverde Estamos interesados en saber las diferentes maneras de manejar residuos de animales en las fincas de la zona. Nos gustara hacerle unas preguntas para saber sus op iniones y experiencias sobre el tema. Demografa: Que edad tiene? ____ Cual es su fecha de nacimiento? _____________ Gnero: ( Interviewer, mark as appropriate) Hombre ____ Mujer _____ Cual es su ocupacin actual? _____________________ En que pueblo vive? __________________ Cunto tiempo lleva viviendo ah? _________ 1). Le voy a leer una lista de cosas, por favor digame, que tanto cree usted que cada una de estas cosas contamina a los ros en la zona Cosa Mucho Algo Poco Nada Turismo Animales finqueros Abono qumico Fabricas Desechos (aguas grises) de casas (como por ejemplo de la cocina, del lavado de ropa) Desechos (aguas negr a s) de casas (de los servicios) Basura de casas inorgnicos Basura de casas orgnicos Otro: 2). Ha tenido o ha trabajado con animales para la produccin o de trabajo en los ltimos diez aos ? ( Si la respuesta es no, siga a la pregunta numero 6) S ha tenido animales ___ Si, ha trabajado con animales___ No ___ 3). Que tipo de animales tiene o ha tenido usted? ___ Cerdos Cuantos? _____ ___ Vacas Cuantos? _____ ___ Pollos Cuantos? _____ ___ Cabras Cuantos? ___ __ ___ Caballos Cuantos? _____ ___ Otro_________________ ___ Otro_________________

PAGE 31

27 4). Que hace usted con los residuos de los animales? Dgame todos los que apliquen ___ Los usa para Compost/abono orgnico ___ Los pone en un tanque de retencin ___ Los tira en el campo ___ Los tira en el jardn /la huerta ___ Los usa en un Biodigestor ___ Los tira en lagunas spticas ___ Otro (especifique) __________ 5). Hay otras maneras de manejar desechos de animales que le gustara probar ? ( options, check off if they say ) ___ Usarlos para Compost/abono orgnico ___ Ponerlos en un tanque de retencin ___ Tirarlos en el campo ___ Tirarlos en el jardn /la huerta ___ Usarlos en un Biodigestor ___ Tirarlos en lagunas spticas ___ Otro (especifique) __________ Porque? 7 ). Le voy a leer una lista de cosas, por favor dgame, que tanto cree usted que cada una de estas cosas se beneficia de los animales para la produccin y el trabajo en la zona? Persona/Cosa Mucho Algo Poco Nada Las familias La comunidad, todos Los supermercados, vendedores Los agricultores, finqueros Los consumidores Las empresas, fabricas Los restaurantes, hoteles Otro: 8 ). Como afectan a la comunidad los animales para la produccin y el trabajo en la zona? 9 ). Que tanto cree Usted que los animales de las fincas afecten el medio ambiente? ___ Mucho ___ Algo ___ Poco ___ Nada Por qu?

PAGE 32

28 10 ). Que tan de acuerdo ____ 1) Muy de acuerdo ____ 2) De acuerdo ____ 3) Neutral ____ 4) En desacuerdo ____ 5) Muy en desacuerdo Por qu piensa eso? 11). Cules son los impactos posi tivos y negativos de los chincheros en la zona? Positivo: Negativo: 12). Quiere darnos su informacin de contacto para hablar mas de este tema? Nombre:_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Telefn o :____________________________________________________________________________________ C orreo electrnico :___________________________________________________________________________________ Gracias por su ayuda, hay alguna otra cosa que quisiera agregar o preguntar?

PAGE 33

29 Appendix III Theoretical Design for General ized Farm Cost Costs for the ABR were estimated using literature produced by the Centre of Science and Environment of India (CSE) regarding similar systems. In addition to the costs of the reactor shown below, an equilibrium tank estimate would need to be attained fr om a contractor. Table X shows the cost of two systems ; the first of which represents a reactor with a volume of 7.5 m 3 and the second with a volume of 2.5 m 3 The table demonstrates how reducing water can save money when implementing a treatment system, a barrier that is faced by the small farms of the Monte Verde Zone Table X: Costs of an Anaerobic Baffle Reactor ABR with current water usage R with reduced water usage Installation Cost $1982 $661 Construction Cost $2542 $1271 Total Installation and Construction Cost $4524 $1932 Annual Operation Cost $50 $85 Figure 11 : 3 D cross section of an ABR indicating flow direction (created by Ross Mazur)

PAGE 34

30 Appendix IV UASB reactor The sytem works by utilizing the energy of gravity in an upright tank. The influent, or waste from the source, enters at the bottom of the tank and rises through a months to develop a nd continually settle with gravity over time. The granules provide a medium for bacteria to survive that in turn decompose the harmful bacteria in the applied waste. The process of granule development can be accelerated by applying activated sludge from a neighboring reactor. Once the waste moves through the sludge blanket decomposition and release of biogas is nearing completion. At this point, an integral part of the reactor called the gas liquid and solid separator (GLSS) divides each component into its respective location (Xiaoqi Zhang Chapter 5 Anaerobic processes). With respect to the GLSS, the separation of the different states of the waste is important. In the UASB system the HRT or hydraulic residence time is between 4 to 12 hours. This means that the liquid waste can be treated to certain standards within 4 to 12 hours. However, the SRT or solid residence time is much more significant being around 30 days. Therefore keeping separate the different states of matter is essential in the functioning of the reactor. These decomposition times have been proven in practice in many countries, namely Brazil and Columbia who share a geographic similarity with Costa Rica ( Sustainable Treatment and Reuse of Municipal Wastewater: For Decision Makers and Practici ng Engineers ). The deliverables of the UASB system would be a greater decomposed waste that when applied to pastures had a lower impact in terms of environmental harm and would have more available nitrogen for plant life to take advantage of. The UASB sys would provide initiative for them to maintain upkeep on the system. What makes the UASB a secondary option to the ABR is the required maintenance to remove built up sludge and beca use of the GLSS. The GLSS is a commercial product and would be difficult to build or find in Costa Rica. Both of these reasons decreases the economic benefit to farmers in the Zone and has a lesser influence on removing the present social barriers. Appen dix V Use of Whey Dantas Martins, Terezinha Domiciano. 2008. Liquid serum from cheese as feeding supplement for growing pigs. Cincia agronmica 39, no. 2, (accessed July 31, 2013). Dewitt, J.N. "Nutritional and functional characteristics of whey proteins in food products." Dairy Science (1998): 597 608. Formigoni, A. November 2006. The influence of feeding fresh liquid whey on some blood metabolites, insulin, and cecal fermentations of growing pigs. Animal feed science and technology 131, no. 1 2, (accessed July 31, 2013).

PAGE 35

31 Landblom, Douglas. "Using Whey In Swine Growing Finishing Rations ." http ://library.ndsu.edu/tools/dspace/load/?file=/repository/bitstream/handle/10 365/4354/farm_37_5_2.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed August 1, 2013). Prazeres, An a R. 2013. Growth and development of tomato plants Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill. under different saline conditions by fertirrigation with pretreated cheese whey wastewater. Water science and technology 67, no. 9, (accessed July 31, 2013). Prazeres, Ana R. November 15, 2012. Cheese whey management: a review. Journal of environmental management 110, (accessed July 31, 2013). Sienkiewicz, T., & Riedel, C. L. (1990). Whey and whey utilization. Germany: Verlag Th. Mann. Siso, M. I. G. (1996). The biotechnolog ical utilization of cheese whey: a review. Bioresource Technology, 57, 1e11. Treatment of Whey Bertin, Lorenzo. January 2013. Innovative two stage anaerobic process for effective codigestion of cheese whey and cattle manure. Bioresource technology 128, ( accessed July 31, 2013). Carvalho, Ftima. February 15, 2013. Cheese whey wastewater: characterization and treatment. The Science of the total environment 445 446, (accessed July 31, 2013). Gutierrez, Rico. "Anaerobic treatment of cheese production waste water using a UASB reactor." Bioresource Technology (1991): 271 276. Kim, S.H. "Effect of whey pretreatment on composition and functional properties of whey protein concentrate." Food Sci (1989): 25 29. Pearce R.J. "Whey Processing ." Whey and Lactose Processing (1992): 73 89. Vlyssides, Apostolos G. November 2012. Anaerobic digestion of cheese dairy wastewater following chemical oxidation. Biosystems engineering 113, no. 3, (accessed July 31, 2013). Yan, J.Q. "Anaerobic digestion of cheese whey using up blanket reactor." Biological Wastes (1989): 289 305.