climate and nutrition smart gardens · under the k to 12 basic education scheme, edukasyong...
TRANSCRIPT
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART GARDENS
Oro, Emilita;Agdeppa, Imelda;Baguilat, Irish;Anunciado, Ma. Shiela;Gonsalves, Julian;
Capanzana, Mario;de Castro, Ronnie;
© 2018, EMILITA ORO, IIRR
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original work is properly credited.
Cette œuvre est mise à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons
Attribution (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode), qui permet
l’utilisation, la distribution et la reproduction sans restriction, pourvu que le mérite de la
création originale soit adéquatement reconnu.
IDRC Grant/ Subvention du CRDI: 108156-001-Improving food and nutrition security in the
Philippines through school interventions
Annex 5. Working paper on Climate and Nutrition Smart Gardens
Climate and Nutrition
Smart School Gardens
'
Ct \ menlafiun
-zu
IIRR=T= \ Px?aEP \ \ W %% CR”
'
Ct \ menlafiun
-zu
IIRR=T= \ Px?aEP \ \ W %% CR”
Emilita Monville Ovo. RN. MPH
Country Director, Philippine ProgramRegional Center for Asia
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction
Km 39, V.C James Yen Center. Eiga, Silang, Cavite A118
Philipp nes
Tel.‘ 634.5 A30 0016
Email emily.rnt)nville@iirrorg
Dr. Imelda Angeles-Agdeppa, PhD
Assistant Scientist
Food and Nutrition Research |nstitute—DeparlrnerIt of Science and
Technology iFNR|—DOST)
FNRI Bldg, DOST Compound, Gen. Santos Ave., Bicutan, Taguig City.Metro Maniha, PhilippinesTel: 837—293A. 837—2o71 to 51 Inc 2281.
Email iangelesagdeppa@yahoo (om.ph
Project title
Improving Food and Nutrition Security in the
Philippines through School Interventions
Project Impiementatio '
workingpaper
Imelda Angeles»Agdeppa. run
ii
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Principal Investigators
Emilita Monville Oro, RN, MPH
Imelda Angeles-Agdeppa, PhD
Researchers
Ma. Shiela S. Anunciado
Ronnie M. De Castro
Kirstein D. Itliong Carmina Alicia N. Lainez
Ian Curt R. Sarmiento
Technical Advisers
Mario V. Capanzana
Julian F. Gonsalves
Project Manager
Irish P. Baguilat
Department of Education
Rizalino Jose T. Rosales
Ella Cecilia G. Naliponguit
Maria Corazon C. Dumlao
Magdalane Portia T. Cariaga
Ferdinand M. Nuñez
Mei-Ling V. Duhig Diosdado M. San Antonio
Annaliza T. Araojo
Neil B. Evangelista
Romeo E. Endraca
Rolando B. Talon, Jr.
Virgilio O. Guevarra
Yolanda S. Oliver
Galileo L. Go
Sentinel Research Schools
Julugan Elementary School Personnel
Sunnybrooke Elementary School
Personnel Tinabunan Elementary School
Personnel
Region IVA Lighthouse Schools
Personnel
Department of Agriculture
Felix Joselito H. Noceda
iii
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. OBJECTIVES 2
III. METHODOLOGY 3
IV. RESULTS .. 4
SCHOOL GARDEN PROFILE 4 BIG PRACTICES: ADOPTION AND SCALABILITY 5 SOIL QUALITY STATUS AFTER THE INTERVENTION IN THE THREE SENTINEL SCHOOLS 13 SCHOOL NUTRITION TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP 14 ADOPTION OF ANNUAL GARDEN PLANNING 14 GARDEN AS PLATFORM FOR LEARNING AND SHARING NUTRITION AND ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION 15 GARDEN OUTPUT AND PESO VALUE 16 GARDEN UTILIZATION 17 SAVINGS IN 200 AND 120 FEEDING DAYS 20 ISSUES AND CONCERNS OF IMPLEMENTERS 21
V. DISCUSSION 21
VI. CONCLUSIONS 23
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 25
VIII. REFERENCES 26
IX. ANNEX 27
iv
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
List of Tables
1 Garden profile of 58 lighthouse schools from start to end of project implementation ......................... 4 2 Adoption of deep-dug and raised beds in 58 lighthouse schools ............................................................ 5 3 Presence of fertilizer trees in the gardens of 58 lighthouse schools ....................................................... 6 4 Presence of cover crops during vacation in 58 lighthouse schools .......................................................... 6 5 Presence of crop diversity in the gardens of 58 lighthouse schools ........................................................ 7 6 Application of organic mulch in 58 lighthouse schools ............................................................................. 9 7 Use of green manure in 58 lighthouse schools ......................................................................................... 9 8 Practice of crop rotation in 58 lighthouse schools .................................................................................. 10 9 Adoption of rainwater recycling in 58 lighthouse schools ...................................................................... 10 10 Adoption of chemical-free gardening in 58 lighthouse schools ............................................................. 10 11 Application of organic matter in 58 lighthouse schools ......................................................................... 11 12 Practice of composting in 58 lighthouse schools .................................................................................... 11 13 Liquid fertilizer application in 58 lighthouse schools .............................................................................. 11 14 Seed saving practice in 58 lighthouse schools ........................................................................................ 12 15 Presence of functional nurseries in 58 lighthouse schools..................................................................... 13 16 Results of soil analysis in the three sentinel schools .............................................................................. 13 17 Presence of a NTWG in 58 lighthouse schools ........................................................................................ 14 18 Adoption of annual garden planning in 58 lighthouse schools .............................................................. 15 19 Garden use as platform for learning and sharing nutrition and environment information in 58 lighthouse schools ..................................................................................................................................... 15 20 Integration of garden visitation in different learning areas of 36 lighthouse schools for SY 2016 - 2017 ........................................................................................................................................... 15 21 Use of gardens as learning venues in different learning areas of the sentinel schools for SY 2016 - 2017 and SY 2017-2018 ............................................................................................................ 16 22 Average yield and garden size of 21 lighthouse schools for SY 2016-2017 ........................................... 17 23 Total yield and peso value of output of the three sentinel and four lighthouse schools for SY 2016 - 2017 ........................................................................................................................................... 17 24 Utilization of garden produce for feeding in 58 lighthouse schools ...................................................... 18 25 Savings on expenses in a 200-day feeding cycle in sentinel schools ..................................................... 20 26 Savings on expenses in a 120-day feeding cycle in sentinel schools ..................................................... 21 27 Estimated number of beneficiaries to be served with vegetable meal based on the garden produce shared to SBFP in the three sentinel schools. ......................................................................................... 21
List of Figures
1 Distribution of different types of crops planted in SY 2016-2017 in the three sentinel schools............ 8 2 Percent distribution of indigenous and exotic crops in the 37 lighthouse schools ................................. 8 3 Available essential elements at soil pH 7.2–7.5 ...................................................................................... 14 4 Utilization of garden produce in 21 lighthouse schools for SY 2016-2017 ............................................ 18 5 Distribution of garden produce for feeding, use in canteen, sale, and sharing for free, by type of vegetables, in JES for SY 2016-2017 ......................................................................................................... 19 6 Distribution of garden produce for feeding, use in canteen, sale, and sharing for free, by type of vegetables, in SBES for SY 2016-2017 ...................................................................................................... 19 7 Distribution of garden produce for feeding, use in canteen, sale, and sharing for free, by type of vegetables, in TES for SY 2016-2017 ........................................................................................................ 20
v
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
List of Annexes
1 BIG principles and practices developed in Phase 1 ................................................................................. 27 2 Schools under Phase 1 and 2 project implementations ......................................................................... 29 3 Baseline and endline survey forms on the adoption of BIG standards .................................................. 31 4 Survey form on garden diversity .............................................................................................................. 34 5 Survey form on garden output and utilization ........................................................................................ 35 6 Survey form on garden usage as learning venue .................................................................................... 36 7 Forms given at the start and end of the project to determine garden size ........................................... 37 8 Reasons for adoption and non-adoption of BIG practices ...................................................................... 38 9 Adoption of BIG practices in 58 lighthouse schools ................................................................................ 42 10 Percentage of indigenous and exotic crops in 37 lighthouse schools for SY 2016-2017 and SY 2017- 2018 ..................................................................................................................................... 45 11 Julugan Elementary School's usage of the garden as a learning venue for different learning areas ... 47 12 Sunnybrooke Elementary School's usage of the garden as a learning venue for different learning areas ............................................................................................................................................ 47 13 Tinabunan Elementary School's usage of the garden as a learning venue for different learning areas ............................................................................................................................................ 48 14 Garden output and distribution of garden produce in 21 lighthouse schools for SY 2016-2017 ........ 48 15 Prevailing prices (PHP) of selected vegetables from PSA, market in Cavite, and online ...................... 49 16 Julugan Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017 .................................. 51 16 Sunnybrooke Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017 ......................... 52 16 Tinabunan Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017 ............................. 53 16 Carlos Batino Memorial Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017........ 54 16 Gen. Alona Memorial Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017 ........... 55 16 Isidro Cuadra Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017 ......................... 56 16 Upli Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017 ........................................ 57 16 Julugan Elementary School's distribution of garden produce for SY 2017-2017 .................................. 57 16 Sunnybrooke Elementary School's distribution of garden produce for SY 2017-2017 ......................... 58 16 Tinabunan Elementary School's distribution of garden produce for SY 2017-2017 ............................. 58 16 Factors that hinder garden sustainability as perceived by 42 lighthouse schools ................................ 58 16 Good practices followed in 42 lighthouse schools to sustain gardens .................................................. 58
1
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Climate and Nutrition - Smart School Gardens
Ma. Shiela S. Anunciado
I. Introduction
There is an alarmingly high rate of underweight (31%), stunting (31%), and wasting (thin) (8.4%)
among our schoolchildren as revealed by the National Nutrition Survey conducted by Food and
Nutrition Research Institute of the Department of Science and Technology (FNRI-DOST) in 2015.
The response of DepEd to address the undernutrition problem is the implementation of the School-
Based Feeding Program (also known as SBFP) and Gulayan sa Paaralan Program (also known as GPP).
SBFP subsidized by the government provides one lunch per day per child costing P18.00 per day,
including operational cost which aims to improve school attendance and reduce dropout rates.
Meanwhile, GPP or school gardening was institutionalized by the Department of Education (DepEd) in
2007. It is one of the subprograms of the National Greening Program (NGP) of DepEd, aims to promote
food security in schools and communities. School gardens will serve as a ready food source of
vegetables in sustaining feeding programs and as a laboratory for learners, inculcating in them the
values of gardening, good health and nutrition, love of labor, and caring for others. However, there are
areas for improvement identified and disconnect in the actual implementation of the SBFP and GPP.
Under the K to 12 basic education scheme, Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) in
elementary schools (Grades 4 to 6) and Technology and Livelihood Education (TLE) in secondary
schools encompass the field of Home Economics (HE), Industrial Arts (IA), Agri-Fishery Arts (AFA),
and Information, Communication, and Technology (ICT). Agriculture, including food production
through school gardening, is under the scope of AFA. The time allotted is flexible as long as 200
minutes per week within a 2-month period is spent for each field (DepEd K-12 Program).
In 2016, DepEd issued Memorandum 223 entitled “Strengthening the Implementation of the Gulayan Sa
Paaralan Program in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools Nationwide” to ensure sustainable
development of school gardens where the Bio-Intensive Gardening (BIG) approach and a crop museum
are recommended for adoption in all schools. In 2017, the Department of Agriculture (DA) supported
this GPP-strengthening effort by allotting PhP 20 million for the endeavor. DA will provide technicians,
gardening tools, seeds, organic fertilizers, and irrigation equipment. The departments will work together
for the eventual implementation of a national school gardening program.
2
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Bio-Intensive Gardens
In 1984, upon the invitation of UNICEF, the International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR)
developed and packaged the BIG technology in the Philippines to ward off widespread starvation in
Negros Island, brought about by the collapse of the sugar industry. BIG focuses on achieving long-term
sustainable production through agro-ecological and biodiversity intensification in small plots of land.
Deeply dug beds, rich in organic matter, help conserve water, enrich soil biological life, and generally
rebuild natural soil fertility processes (IIRR, 1993).
Gardens have received renewed attention because of the food crisis and the effects of climate change. In
response, IIRR has revived its garden efforts to meet the country’s increasing need for better nutrition.
The bio-intensive approach now features principles and practices that promote garden health while
addressing food and nutrition issues.
In 2012, IIRR partnered with DepEd and the Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) to test and
develop bio-intensive methods for school gardens (see Annex 1). An action research was also carried
out to demonstrate the value of iron-fortified rice and recipes featuring indigenous vegetables produced
from school gardens. This was accompanied by nutrition education given during feeding sessions. This
action research was funded by the International Development Research Centre of Canada (IDRC).
II. Objectives
The sustainability of school gardening programs is a major concern mainly because conventional
gardens rely heavily on external inputs. Schools cannot afford the inputs needed to maintain gardens
year-round. Soils in schools have degraded over the past 2- 3 decades because of nearly total reliance
on chemical inputs and purchased seeds. Organic matter and humus are typically low with no soil life.
Gardens are neglected over the summer vacation, resulting in further depletion of organic matter.
Climate change exposes schools to extreme weather conditions, making the task of growing crops
more challenging due to droughts, floods, and extreme weather events.
In the second phase (2016 to 2018), the research undertaken in the first phase was expanded and was
so designed to extract more meaningful results. The geographic area covered increased, to five
provinces in one entire region (Region IVA). The integration of school gardens, school feeding, and
nutrition education was studied more carefully and in greater depth in Phase 2. Dubbed ‘GarNeSup,’
this project features three components: gardens, nutrition education, and supplementary feeding.
Sentinel schools served as primary research sites, while a more extensive network of lighthouse
schools served as a demonstration facility, playing an important role in scaling out such innovation.
Lighthouse schools also served as crop museums where agro-biodiversity was showcased and
propagation and distribution of vegetable materials were undertaken. Research done at the lighthouse
schools complemented that conducted in sentinel school research sites.
3
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
III. Methodology
Fifty-eight (58) public elementary schools within Region 4A were selected for the implementation of
GarNeSup model (henceforth referred to as the “lighthouse schools” [LH]). LH are the designated focal
point for decentralized and location-specific action research of GarNeSup. Every LH will feature a
regular school feeding program, a well-sustained bio-intensive garden, and related school-based
nutrition education activities. They will also serve as crop museums where nutritionally relevant and
climate-hardy indigenous vegetables are conserved and propagated for schools and communities. LH
schools also have the function of disseminating and out-scaling these approaches.
Seventeen out of the 58 LH were part of Phase 1 (see Annex 2). Three LH schools were assigned as
research schools (sentinel schools): Julugan Elementary School (JES), Sunnybrooke Elementary School
(SBES), and Tinabunan Elementary School (TES).
A. Scope of action research
This research aimed to generate information on factors affecting the adoption, sustainability, and
scalability of a set of BIG standards (see Annex 1 for these BIG standards). Garden size,
productivity per unit area, extent of crop biodiversity achieved, utilization of garden produce, use of
gardens as learning laboratory, and linkage of garden to feeding were some of the aspects studied
and discussed in this report.
B. Interventions
A range of interventions was undertaken in support of this action research, which featured the
implementation of gardens, feeding, and education programs on a regional scale (LH and sentinel
schools). Capacities of the school system at different levels were strengthened, with mentoring
provided and monitoring conducted over a 2-year period. Some of the main support activities are
herein presented.
Training of teachers. A training course was conducted on April 27, 2016 for the agriculture and
home economics teachers of the 58 LH schools. An orientation session and knowledge transfer of
BIG practices and nutrition-related subjects were undertaken.
Study visits and cross-visits. Exposure trips and exchanges between LH schools helped schools to
identify good practices and find opportunities for improvement
Monitoring and technical assistance. Periodic visits to give technical assistance and monitor
progress were undertaken to assist LH schools in the implementation of GarNeSup. In a 26-month
period (August 2016-September 2017), the teams had four monitoring visits to LH schools. The
three sentinel schools, being the primary research sites, were visited 55 times.
4
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Provision of inputs. Diversity seed kits and cuttings, basic tools, and information, education,
communication materials were distributed to all schools at the beginning of project implementation.
C. Data-gathering tools
Survey forms and questionnaires (see annexes 3-6) were developed and distributed to teachers to
support the collection of data in schools. A survey form distributed and filled up, at the start and at
the end of the project, helped assess impacts and contributions of the gardens on the extent of garden
diversity and the range of crops planted. Data on garden output and utilization were also recorded by
teachers (daily harvest and use of garden produce by SBFP [school feeding], by the canteen, or
those sold or given free). Data on the usage of gardens as a learning venue was also recorded to
track how these were used for learning purposes.
D. Statistical tools
Descriptive analysis was employed to analyze various variables profiling the different
characteristics of school gardens. The McNemar’s change test was used to analyze the adoption of
the standards set in gardening before and after the intervention.
IV. Results
A. School garden profile
Data on school garden size, availability of sunlight, water supply, and presence of a drainage system
were recorded at the 58 LH schools at the start and at the end of project implementation. These
parameters were evaluated to assess how schools conformed to the prescribed set of garden
standards (see Table 1).
Table 1. Garden profile of 58 lighthouse schools from start to end of project implementation.
BIG practice
Start of project End of project
No. of
schools
%
N=58
No. of
schools
%
N=58
Garden area is adequate (at least 200 m2) 50 86.21 54 93.10
Receives direct sunlight for at least 6 h 56 96.55 58 100.00
With good water source (water for the
garden available when needed) 52 89.66 56 96.55
With proper drainage system 42 72.41 45 77.59
1. Garden size. A study of the available garden area at the 58 LH was undertaken. At the start of
the project, 50 schools reported having more than 200 m2 and eight schools had less than 200 m2
garden area (see Annex 3).
5
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Twelve schools managed to extend their school gardens, thus increasing their area for food
production. However, seven schools reported a decrease in garden size due to the construction of
additional classrooms and buildings.
2. Garden water and sunlight requirements. Availability of sunlight was also considered to ensure
proper crop growth. All schools managed to provide at least 6 hours of sunlight in the current
location of their gardens.
Another important consideration for growing plants is the availability of enough water supply on
a year-round basis. Most of the schools had water sources. Some even improved their access to
water by the end of the project. Two schools are seeking support from parents and local
government units to address their water problems.
3. Drainage system. Soil life, soil quality, and root growth are affected by frequent flooding. A
proper drainage system is needed to prevent this loss of soil fertility and biological life. Thirteen
schools needed a proper drainage system to prevent flooding incidence in schools every rainy
season. Flood-prone schools are usually found in low-lying areas (catch basin) and near rivers
and lakes.
B. BIG practices: adoption and scalability
1. Use of raised and deep-dug beds
Raised and deep-dug beds are considered a climate-smart practice as they ensure both good
drainage and good water storage (IIRR, 1993). In fact, this is considered an essential practice for
a school garden. The survey results confirmed that this practice is now widespread among
participating schools.
Fifty-three schools (91.38%) are now practicing deep-dug and raised bed technology. Eleven
schools (18.97%) included in Phase 1 continued its adoption; 34 (58.62%) schools that
demonstrated improved knowledge and understanding of the benefits of deep-dug and raised
beds adopted the practice. Lack of continuity or non-adoption was mainly due to the lack of
proper turnover of the garden project to newly assigned agriculture teachers (3.45%) or due to
perceived conflicts with existing gardening programs implemented by other organizations
(3.45%) (see Annex 8).
Table 2. Adoption of deep-dug and raised beds in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
Schools
%
N=58
Schools practicing deep-dug and raised beds 53 91.38
Schools NOT practicing deep-dug and raised beds 5 8.62
TOTAL 58 100.00
6
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
2. Planting of fertilizer trees
Organic matter is considered as another essential practice mainly because of its role in
conserving moisture, rebuilding soil biological life, and lowering soil temperature, among other
reasons. While the BIG standards encourage compost production via conventional means, the
inclusion of green manure trees (an agro-forestry variation) was considered an easy way of
providing the needed supply of green manure. Trees (usually Gliricidia sepium or Kakawate) are
recommended for boundaries, thereby also helping reduce the impacts of wind on the garden and
helping to lower ambient temperature (IIRR, 1993; FAO-RAPA, 1988). This practice is slowly
receiving wider attention.
Kakawate trees (G. sepium) were planted in the garden perimeter of 50 schools (86.21%). The
provision of kakawate seeds and seedlings (55.17%) and regular monitoring with technical
assistance (18.96%) helped in the promotion of planting fertilizer trees within the garden. Seven
schools (12.07%) that were part of Phase 1 continued the adoption. However, eight schools
(13.79%) were not able to plant fertilizer trees such as kakawate due to limited space (6.89%).
Schools opted to maximize the garden area by planting vegetables rather than non-edible crops
(see Annex 8). The continued adoption of green manure trees like kakawate (as illustrated by the
low number of Phase 1 schools that continue the practice) in school is still assured.
Table 3. Presence of fertilizer trees in the gardens of 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools WITH > 70% fertilizer trees in gardens 50 86.21
Schools WITHOUT fertilizer trees in gardens 8 13.79
TOTAL 58 100.00
3. Use of cover cropping
Cover cropping is also regarded an important practice, especially during vacation time, as it
conserves the soil, the moisture, and, most importantly, the soil biological life (IIRR, 1993;
Rhoades and Forbes, 1986).
Table 4 shows that 54 schools (93.10%) have planted cover crops during the previous summer
vacation (March to June 2017), whereas four schools (6.90%) were not able to plant legumes
due to lack of planting material (see Annex 8). The distribution of rice bean (tapilan) and
cowpea (paayap) as cover crops before the end of the school year facilitated cover cropping
during summer. This is an essential practice in order to maintain organic matter status in the
plots. High summer temperatures destroy organic matter and, along with it, the associated
belowground biodiversity.
7
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Table 4. Presence of cover crops during vacation in 58 lighthouse schools.
No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools WITH cover crops during summer vacation 54 93.10
Schools WITHOUT cover crops during summer vacation 4 6.90
TOTAL 58 100.00
4. Maintaining crop diversity
Another key practice in bio-intensive gardens is the maintenance of diversity in a garden. This
diversity is important for a number of reasons, including the need of school feeding programs to
have access to a diverse range of vegetable options, to make certain that production is spread
across the year (seasonality considerations), ensuring that the soil is not exhausted (different
crops have different nutrient requirements and different rooting patterns), and finally to reduce
the incidence of pests (diversity is known to reduce pest infestation) (IIRR, 1993).
As result of wider promotion and partly due to the promotion of the concept of crop museums
(where diversity is maintained and promoted), diversity is being achieved. In the past, a typical
school had three to five crops. That has changed considerably now as the data demonstrate
(Table 5).
Table 5. Presence of crop diversity in the gardens of 58 lighthouse schools.
No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools WITH crop diversity (more than 12 types of crops) 52 89.66
Schools WITHOUT crop diversity (less than 12 types of
crops 6 10.34
TOTAL 58 100.00
Nine schools (15.52%) that were also under Phase 1 and 43 schools (74.14%) with improved
knowledge on the benefits of crop diversity maintained a pool of diverse planting materials and
crop diversity (more than 12 types of crops) in their school gardens. The limited amount of
planting materials led to the absence of garden diversity in 8.62% of the schools. This is why the
crop museum concept was developed and introduced to DepEd (see Annex 8).
Relying on 37 LH schools (with complete data on crops planted every month), the average
recorded number of crops planted in one school year (SY 2016-2017) was 26 crops. This
included leafy, root crops, legumes, fruit-bearing vegetables, and fruit trees (see Annex 9).
Figure 1 indicates that, among the groups of crops planted in three sentinel schools for SY 2016-
2017 (fruits, legumes, leafy, root crops, fruit-bearing vegetables, and herbs), the range of crops
per group was 8-11, which is high. Leafy vegetables and herbs have the greatest diversity, with
8
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
11 types of crops; followed by fruits, fruit-bearing vegetables, and root crops with 10 different
crops; and legumes with 8 types. Crop diversification ensures the production of a diverse range
of food sources throughout the year without sacrificing soil health.
Figure 1. Distribution of different types of crops planted in SY 2016-2017 in the three sentinel schools.
Building on the understanding that locally adapted crops perform better under low external input
conditions and under a changing climate, the school garden project emphasizes the use of
indigenous crops (at least 70%). Exotic crops are also grown (e.g., greens) but only up to 30%.
This is only to reduce the risk of crop failure due to heavy rain and long drought periods.
Figure 2 indicates that the average indigenous
crops planted in the 37 LH schools (with
complete data) comprised 81.59% over exotic
crops, which was 18.41%. This simply might
mean that indigenous and locally adapted crops
and varieties are preferred. This could also be
the result of the presence of the crop museum.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fruit tree Fruit
vegetable
Herb Leafy Legume Rootcrop
10 10
11 11
8
10
Cro
ps
pla
nte
d
Figure 2. Percent distribution of indigenous and
exotic crops in the 37 lighthouse schools.
Indigenous Crops
82%
Exotic Crops18%
9
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
5. Application of organic mulch
Organic mulch (recommended application of Calliandra leaves or other trees) on the soil
surface is very important for reducing soil temperatures, feeding soil life, and reducing soil
erosion during the rains (IIRR, 1993; IIRR and NAPC, 2016). Such gardens may appear
unkempt and dirty, but it is significant that, in spite of that view, schools are gradually adopting
the practice.
Regular application of organic mulch for soil protection is now being done by 77.59% of the
schools with improved knowledge of the benefits of organic mulching (51.72%). However, it is
still a challenge to 22.41% of the schools with school heads still not fully understanding the
importance of this garden practice (12.07%) and with garden teachers having no time to do the
task (6.90%).
Table 6. Application of organic mulch in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools WITH organic mulch 45 77.59
Schools WITHOUT organic mulch 13 22.41
TOTAL 58 100.00
6. Application of green manure
The importance of green manure as a source of fertilizer and organic matter is stressed in bio-
intensive gardens.
Garden teachers with improved knowledge of green leaf manuring (70.69%) and 11 schools
(18.97%) included in Phase 1, were found incorporating leaves and grass clippings into their
beds. On the other hand, 3.45% of schools with a limited source of green leaves and 3.45% of
those with garden teachers having different times attending to garden activities resulted in the
non-application of green manure (see Annex 8).
Table 7. Use of green manure in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools using green manure 52 89.66
Schools NOT using green manure 6 10.34
TOTAL 58 100.00
7. Use of crop rotation
Crop rotation is important to reduce the buildup of pests and diseases and ensure that soils are
not depleted by continued planting of the same crop in the same area (IIRR, 1993).
10
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Successive planting of different crops in the same area was practiced by 49 schools (84.48%):
nine (15.52%) schools included in Phase 1, 25 (43.10%) schools with improved knowledge on
the benefits of crop rotation, and 25.86% of teachers assisted in rotational planting through
frequent monitoring and technical assistance. Yet still, six schools (10.34%) were not able to
adopt the practice because cropping is dictated by the availability of seeds on hand (see Table
8).
Table 8. Practice of crop rotation in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools practicing crop rotation 49 84.48
Schools NOT practicing crop rotation 9 15.52
TOTAL 58 100.00
8. Practice of rainwater recycling
Forty-five schools (77.59%) are now recycling rainwater with the support of the school head
and DPWH, while 13 schools (22.41%) indicated that they need funding support to buy
containers and construct a rainwater catchment facility (see Annex 8).
Table 9. Adoption of rainwater recycling in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools practicing rainwater recycling 45 77.59
Schools NOT practicing rainwater recycling 13 22.41
TOTAL 58 100.00
9. Presence of chemical-free gardens
Fifty-six schools (96.55%) are now producing chemical-free vegetables to supplement their
canteen and feeding requirements. Yet, two schools (3.45%) reported using chemical
fertilizer and pesticide when there is high pest incidence.
Table 10. Adoption of chemical-free gardening in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools practicing chemical-free vegetable
production 56 96.55
Schools NOT practicing chemical-free vegetable
production 2 3.45
TOTAL 58 100.00
11
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
10. Application of organic matter
All schools apply organic matter regularly. These factors aided the application of organic
matter in the schools: provision of commercial organic fertilizer from the Department of
Agriculture (29.31%); availability of local materials such as chicken dung and vermicast
(12.07%); 25.86% schools included in Phase 1 continuing the practice; and 19 (32.76%)
schools moving through monitoring and technical assistance. Established partnerships with
the community and private companies have provided schools with local organic materials
and, in some cases, commercial organic fertilizer.
Table 11. Application of organic matter in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools WITH application of organic matter 58 100.00
Schools WITHOUT application of organic matter 0 0.00
TOTAL 58 100.00
11. Composting
Fifty-three (91.38%) schools are now composting kitchen waste and other biodegradable waste,
although this remains a challenge to 5.17% of schools with issues on proper waste segregation.
Composting was facilitated by regular monitoring (72.41%) and improving the compost area as
supported by the school head (18.97%).
Table 12. Practice of composting in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools practicing composting 53 91.38
Schools NOT practicing composting 5 8.62
TOTAL 58 100.00
12. Liquid fertilizer application
Liquid fertilizers that are typically promoted come from the fermentation of kakawate leaves in
water. These fertilizers provide micronutrients as well and they are more quickly available to
the plants in this form. Liquid fertilizer is especially important in the first 3 weeks of a
seedling’s life. Heavy feeders such as tomato, eggplant, and okra benefit from this application
(IIRR, 1993). Thirty-nine schools (67.24%) are now using liquid fertilizer. Adoption was
facilitated by regular monitoring and improved knowledge of this technology. On the other
hand, the remaining 19 schools (32.76%) gave the following reasons for their slow adoption:
lack of time in preparing the fertilizer due to overlapping activities in school (13.79%), lack of
12
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
kakawate and materials in making liquid fertilizer (5.17%), and lack of proper project turnover
(5.17%) with staff changes.
Table 13. Liquid fertilizer application in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools practicing liquid fertilizer application 39 67.24
Schools NOT practicing liquid fertilizer application 19 32.76
TOTAL 58 100.00
13. Seed saving practices
Saving seeds ensures the sustainability of garden interventions while reducing cash input needs
from year to year. Seed-saving efforts also help the school to preserve the agro-biodiversity of
nutritionally important plants. It is a fact that many indigenous crops have high nutritional
value. (Orange and violet sweet potatoes have existed for centuries!) They are still around and
need to be conserved. Schools are considered an appropriate location for conserving these
valuable genetic resources (IIRR, 1993).
The project therefore promoted methods for conserving crops in schools and provided
appropriate educational interventions and educational materials. A survey assessing the
acquisition of good practices was undertaken. The wider community of teachers reported
having acquired new information and knowledge of seed processing (67.24%). Twelve schools
(20.69%) that were part of Phase 1 attained self-reliance on seeds. However, garden teachers
expressed concerns about spending extra time for seed processing, considering the multifarious
tasks that they need to do. (5.17%), Others were not interested in saving seeds because the local
LGUs and DA do this for them (6.90%) (see Annex 8). However, overall, the vast majority of
LH schools were engaged in seed saving (Table 14).
Table 14. Seed saving practice in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools practicing seed saving 51 87.93
Schools NOT practicing seed saving 7 12.07
TOTAL 58 100.00
14. Functional nursery
Functional nurseries were established in 46 schools (79.31%). Twelve schools (20.69%)
needed funding support for the construction and maintenance of these nurseries. Newly
established nurseries were reported in five schools, supported by the principal and parents (see
Table 15).
13
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Table 15. Presence of functional nurseries in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools WITH functional nurseries 46 79.31
Schools WITHOUT functional nurseries 12 20.69
TOTAL 58 100.00
C. Soil quality status after the intervention in the three sentinel schools
Bio-intensive garden techniques help regenerate the soil and replenish its capacity to grow healthy
crops and provide nutritious food. The soil conditions and nutrient status do affect product quality.
Two years after the introduction of bio-intensive gardening, soils were tested in the three sentinel
research schools.
Two types of soil sample were collected and analyzed from the three schools: (1) soil collected from
sites without intervention and (2) soil collected from sites where BIG practices were used. Table 16
provides evidence of the improvement in soil fertility status (availability of essential soil nutrients)
(Figure 3) in soils using the set of garden standards for bio-intensive gardens. The implications of
these changes were important. For example, a decrease in soil pH from 7.6 to 7.2 can be expected to
result in improved availability of most essential elements (N, P, K, CA, and Mg) needed for growing
vegetables. However, especially significant were the high amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
organic matter in gardens that employed bio-intensive gardening practices.
The use of climate- and nutrient smart practices─i.e., application of organic matter and fertilization
(compost and liquid fertilizer), cover cropping, crop rotation, green manuring, mulching, crop
diversification─would have contributed to overall improvement of soil nutritional status and health.
Table 16. Results of soil analysis in the three sentinel schools.
Non-BIG area BIG area
JES TES SBES JES TES SBES
Soil pH 7.6 7.6 7.8 7.2 7.2 7.5
Nitrogen (N) Low Low Low High High High
Phosphorus (P) Medium Medium Low High High High
Potassium (K) Sufficient Sufficient Sufficient Sufficient Sufficient Sufficient
Organic matter
(OM), % 1.56 1.37 0.92 2.23 5.68 1.46
Calcium (Ca)
cmolc/kg soil 21.19 15.75 17.25 15.41 16.31 18.02
Magnesium
(Mg) cmolc/kg
soil
15.41 4.5 5.17 5.62 6.14 2.2
14
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Figure 3. Available essential elements at soil pH 7.2–7.5. (Source: Pioneer)
D. School nutrition technical working group
To promote school-based teams for supporting nutrition, the project came up with the idea of a
school nutrition technical working group (NTWG).
Fifty-two schools (89.66%) have formed NTWGs whose role was to include garden improvement in
the school’s annual improvement plan and to promote closer partnership between garden teachers,
feeding program coordinators, and educators.
Table 17. Presence of a NTWG in 58 lighthouse schools.
No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools WITH identified NTWG 52 89.66
Schools WITHOUT identified NTWG 6 10.34
TOTAL 58 100.00
E. Adoption of annual garden planning
The practice of garden planning is considered important to ensure that ingredients are available to
support the school’s feeding program. Seasonality has to be kept in mind too.
Molybdenum
& 1“ m us 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 85 9 95 10
pH
Soil pH at
7.2 to 7.5
15
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Forty-four (93.10%) schools had developed annual garden plans, taking into consideration climate,
season, and feeding requirements. Garden plans in conjunction with feeding requirements are
facilitated by coordination and planning among members, especially the home economics garden
teachers and the school head (93.10%).
Table 18. Adoption of annual garden planning in 58 lighthouse schools.
No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools WITH annual garden plans 54 93.10
Schools WITHOUT annual garden plans 4 6.90
TOTAL 58 100.00
F. Garden as a platform for learning and sharing nutrition and environment information
Gardens have the potential to serve as focal points for learning and education in relation to
science, environment, health, nutrition, food education, and the like.
The integration of garden visits into different learning or subject areas, especially in
Edukasyong Pantahanan at Panlipunan (EPP) and Science for demonstration (50.00%), was
taken on for the reason that gardens are functional year-round (32.76%) and because school
heads had encouraged the use of gardens as venue for learning (6.90%).
Table 19. Garden use as platform for learning and sharing nutrition and environment
information in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools using garden as learning laboratory 52 89.66
Schools NOT using garden as learning laboratory 6 10.34
TOTAL 58 100.00
Table 20 shows the different learning areas where garden visitation is integrated in the 36 LH
schools with complete record for SY 2016-2017. EPP (100.00%), Science (100.00%) and
Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao or EsP (93.55%) are the regular subjects that use gardens as
demonstration and learning venues. This additional role of gardens is considered a significant
finding.
Table 20. Integration of garden visitation in different learning areas of 36 lighthouse schools
for SY 2016-2017.
Learning area Grade
level Schools with garden visits integrated
No. of schools Percentage
EPP 4 - 6 31 100.00
Science 3 - 6 31 100.00
16
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
EsP 1 - 6 29 93.55
Mathematics 1 - 6 12 38.71
Meeting time 2 Kinder 12 38.71 Araling Panlipunan/HEKASI/Agham/ MAPEH/English/Filipino/Mother
Tongue/Work period 2 1-6 Less than 8 < 25.81
Table 21 shows data on integration of garden visitation into different learning areas in three
sentinel schools for SY 2016-2017 and SY 2017-2018. The garden is used for learning and
sharing consistently in EPP, Science, and Filipino subjects across Grades 1-6.
Table 21. Use of gardens as learning venues in different learning areas of the sentinel schools
for SY 2016-2017 and SY 2017-2018.
JES SBES TES
EPP EPP EPP
Science Science Science
Filipino MAPEH MAPEH
Mathematics Araling Panlipunan Filipino
Araling Panlipunan Filipino
English English
MAPEH Mother Tongue Base
Mother Tongue Base
Edukasyon Sa Pagpapakatao
G. Garden output and peso value
Schools do not regularly maintain production records. The need for basic gross production data
is considered important. Total output estimates and total cash value were estimated from current
garden areas.
Garden output was determined from the 21 LH schools with complete yield data for one entire
school year (see Annex 13). The peso value of the garden output was computed in a smaller sample
of the three sentinel schools and in four selected LH schools.. The unit price per kilogram of
vegetables was based on 2016 data from the Philippine of Statistics Authority; prevailing market
prices in Silang, Cavite; and online prices. (See Annex 14 for the complete price list of vegetables.)
Table 22 shows that the average yield of 21 schools with complete data on garden output for SY
2016-2017 was 191.52 kg from an area with an average size of 598.52 m2. Yield ranged from 790
kg (maximum) to 27.50 kg (minimum); garden size ranged from 2,025.00 m2 (maximum) to
120.00 m2 (minimum).
17
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Table 22. Average yield and garden size of 21 lighthouse schools for SY 2016-2017.
Total yield (kg) Garden area
(m2)
Average (N=21) 191.52 598.52
Maximum 790.00 2,025 .00
Minimum 27.50 120.00
Table 23 indicates the garden output and peso value of total yield in the three sentinel schools and
four LH schools. Data on the three sentinel schools show that a 200-m2 garden can generate 818.11
kg of vegetables, worth PhP 49,259.01. Meanwhile, the four LH schools with an average garden
size of 450 m2 can yield 1,175.17 kg (PhP 48, 504.60). This suggests that garden output is not
dependent on garden size but on such factors as crop intensification, yield potential of different
crops, etc.
Table 23. Total yield and peso value of output of the three sentinel and four lighthouse schools
for SY 2016-2017.
School Area (m2)
Total yield
(kg) (all crops
planted)
Peso value of
total yield (PhP)
Julugan ES (JES) 200.00 527.72 30,534.10
Sunnybrooke ES (SBES) 200.00 818.11 44,370.42
Tinabunan ES (TES) 200.00 795.67 49,259.01
Carlos Batino MES (CBMES) 200.00 337.60 19,465.89
Isidro Cuadra ES (ICES) 200.00 101.07 5,378.52
Gen. Aloña MES (GAMES) 400.00 544.72 26,742.77
Upli ES (UES) 450.00 1175.17 48,504.60
H. Garden utilization
It is important to understand how garden produce is used. Gardens are rarely established solely
for the purpose of meeting the requirements of a feeding program. The studies showed that, as a
result of this DepEd and Project advocacy, there is now enhanced utilization of garden produce
in feeding programs. Canteens also use garden produce, thus bringing the culture of eating
vegetables to teachers and students.
Fifty-six schools (96.55%) utilized garden produce in feeding and canteen as expressed by the
garden teachers. From the 56 schools who expressed utilization of garden produce in feeding, 21
schools (36.21%) have complete records. Coordination and planning with the SBFP coordinator
improved the utilization of garden produce in feeding (89.66%) despite the low adoption of non-
recommended indigenous recipes (5.17%).
18
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Table 24. Utilization of garden produce for feeding in 58 lighthouse schools. No. of
schools
%
N=58
Schools utilizing garden produce in school feeding 56 96.55
Schools NOT utilizing garden produce in school feeding 2 3.45
TOTAL 58 100.00
Figure 4 illustrates the average percent
distribution of garden produce in 21
LH schools (with 1-year complete data
on garden produce utilization). Results
showed that 41.96% of garden produce
was provided to the school-based
feeding program (SBFP), 17.39% was
shared with the canteen for school
snacks, 16.95% was sold, and 23.70%
was shared with volunteer parents,
students, and teachers who helped in
the gardening activities.
Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of
garden produce, by type of vegetables,
in JES: 82.01% was supplied to SBFP,
followed by vegetables given for free to parent volunteers, students and teachers helping out in
garden activities (9.00%), used in canteen (5.54%), and sold (3.44%). It also shows that leafy
vegetables were the most utilized in SBFP (70.58%).
Figure 6 demonstrates that, in SBES, 66.13% of the garden produce was supplied to SBFP which
are mostly leafy vegetables (40.55%), followed by vegetables sold (17.87%), then by garden
produce given for free to parent volunteers, students and teachers (8.07%), and used by the
canteen (7.93%).
Figure 7 shows that 54.34% of the garden produce in TES was contributed to SBFP (mainly
leafy [25.54%] and fruit-bearing vegetables [22.27%]), followed by vegetables provided for free
to parent volunteers, students, and teachers assisting in garden activities (31.99%), used in
canteen (8.07%), and sold (5.59%).
SBFP42%
Canteen Use17%
Sold17%
Shared to Other for
Free24%
Figure 4. Utilization of garden produce in 21 lighthouse
schools for SY 2016-2017.
19
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Figure 5. Distribution of garden produce for feeding, use in canteen, sale, and sharing for free, by type of
vegetables, in JES for SY 2016-2017.
Figure 6. Distribution of garden produce for feeding, use in canteen, sale, and sharing for free, by type of
vegetables, in SBES for SY 2016-2017.
CondimentsFruit
Fruit-VegetableLeafy and Flowers
Legumes and BeansRootcrop
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
SBFP CanteenUse
Sold Sharedfor free
Condiments 3.52% 0.27% 0.00% 0.38%
Fruit 13.55% 0.09% 0.00% 0.00%
Fruit-Vegetable 3.82% 0.24% 0.33% 1.74%
Leafy and Flowers 58.53% 4.93% 0.76% 6.37%
Legumes and Beans 1.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%
Rootcrop 1.27% 0.00% 2.35% 0.49%
Dis
trib
uti
on
of
Gar
den
Pro
du
ce, %
Condiments
Fruit
Fruit-Vegetable
Leafy and Flowers
Legumes and Beans
Rootcrop
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
SBFP CanteenUse
Sold Sharedfor Free
Condiments 3.45% 1.20% 9.90% 1.88%
Fruit 11.00% 3.06% 7.33% 2.90%
Fruit-Vegetable 4.68% 0.55% 0.55% 0.41%
Leafy and Flowers 40.55% 2.41% 0.02% 2.64%
Legumes and Beans 4.37% 0.21% 0.06% 0.24%
Rootcrop 2.08% 0.49% 0.00% 0.00%
Dis
trib
uti
on
of
Gar
den
Pro
du
ce, %
20
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Figure 7. Distribution of garden produce for feeding, use in canteen, sale, and sharing for free, by type of
vegetables, in TES for SY 2016-2017.
I. Savings on 200-day and 120-day feeding cycle
When schools grow vegetables in their gardens and when menus feature diverse vegetables,
schools can reduce the cost of feeding. Savings accumulate over a typical feeding cycle.
Table 25. Savings on expenses in a 200-day feeding cycle in sentinel schools.
School
[a]Total no.
of
beneficiaries,
[b] SBFP total
food cost for
200-day
feeding (PhP) (a X PhP16 X
200days)
[c]Peso value of
garden produce
used in SBFP
(PhP)
[d]Savings per
student in 200-
days feeding (PhP)
(c/a)
[e]Savings per
capita (PhP)
(d/200)
JES 278 889,600.00 35,127.63 126.36 0.63
SBES 769 2,460,800.00 36,389.64 47.32 0.24
TES 131 419,200.00 26,953.57 205.75 1.03
Average 393 126.48 0.42
Table 25 shows the savings obtained from the 200-day feeding cycle wherein 80 days is added
on a regular 120-day feeding cycle in the three sentinel schools. The total cost per child was
computed by factoring the number of beneficiaries and the PhP16 budget estimate per child per
day, which is the allocated budget by DepEd. JES had 278 SBFP beneficiaries, with savings of
PhP126.36 per student; SBES with 769 feeding beneficiaries had a total savings of PhP 47.32 per
student; and TES, with 131 beneficiaries, had PhP 205.75 savings per student. An average
Condiments
Fruit-Vegetable
Leafy and Flowers
Legumes and Beans
Rootcrop
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
SBFP CanteenUse
Sold Sharedfor Free
Condiments 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 2.83%
Fruit-Vegetable 22.27% 0.16% 1.01% 5.54%
Leafy and Flowers 25.54% 6.35% 2.17% 9.79%
Legumes and Beans 2.89% 0.00% 1.89% 8.71%
Rootcrop 3.61% 1.57% 0.50% 4.34%
Dis
trib
uti
on
of
Gar
den
Pro
du
ce,
%
21
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
savings of PhP 126.48 per student in a 200-day feeding cycle in the three sentinel schools was
recorded.
Table 26. Savings on expenses in a 120-day feeding cycle in sentinel schools.
School
[a]Total no.
of
beneficiaries,
[b] SBFP total
food cost for
120-day feeding
(PhP) (a X PhP16 X
120days)
[c]Peso value of
garden produce
used in SBFP
(PhP)
[d]Savings per
student in 120-
days feeding (PhP)
(c/a)
[e]Savings per
capita (PhP)
(d/120)
JES 278 533,760.00 18,398.63 66.18 0.55
SBES 769 1,476,480.00 20,578.02 26.76 0.22
TES 131 251,520.00 10,194.88 77.82 0.65
Average 393 41.74 0.35
Table 26 shows the savings obtained from a 120-day feeding cycle in the three sentinel schools.
An average savings of PhP41.74 per student in a regular 120-day feeding cycle in the three
sentinel schools was recorded.
Table 27. Estimated number of beneficiaries to be served with vegetable meal based on the
garden produce shared to SBFP in the three sentinel schools.
School
Total vegetables
needed in recipe per
child in 120 feeding
days (kg)
Total garden
produce used in
SBFP recipe (kg)
% of garden
produce used in
SBFP
Estimated
number of
beneficiaries
JES 7.72 294.18 75.7 38
SBES 8.94 349.25 40.9 39
TES 8.82 168.87 60.1 19
Average 8.50 270.76 58.8 32
Forty-one to seventy-six percent (41-76%) of the vegetables from the garden was used in the
SBFP. On the average, 32 students are estimated to be served with vegetable meal in 120 days
considering that about 270 kilograms of various vegetables are produced in the school garden.
Issues and concerns of implementers
School gardens have long been challenged by the reality that garden teachers have other primary
responsibilities, with gardens being an additional responsibility. School administrators and
teachers were asked about what factors hinder garden management in their schools (see Annex
26). It was found that garden teachers were tied-up with their teaching load and other school
activities such as sports contests, camping, and academic contests. Forty-two (40.48%) teachers
said that additional human resources are needed to execute garden activities, given that the
garden teacher does the supervision and planning. Flooding of gardens during the rainy season
22
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
was another concern in some schools (reported by19.05%). The lack of a specific budget to
cover garden expenses for maintenance was also mentioned by 16.77% of the garden teachers.
However, the teachers gave were some facilitating factors (see Annex 27). These included
partnerships with different stakeholders, including the parents, LGUs, and other private agencies
(95.24%), which supported garden improvement. A supportive principal (45.24%) who provides
monitoring, encouragement, and funding support and improved coordination of garden
management by the NTWG (21.43%) also helped in the maintenance of the school gardens.
V. Discussion
A set of bio-intensive garden standards using climate-smart and nutrient-smart principles was a
factor contributing to the overall improvement in establishing and managing school gardens,
especially in the target LH schools. Out of 14 recommended practices, 12 showed significant
adoption rate at the end of the project. Chemical-free gardening showed the highest adoption
rate among the set of garden standards because most schools were already aware of concerns
about chemical use in schools. This improvement in knowledge and understanding of the
practices, accompanied by regular monitoring, led to the adherence and implementation of the
garden set of standards, thereby supporting a further out-scaling of the BIG approach.
An improvement of soil nutrient status and health with the use of organic systems with low
external input was evident. Various soil and water conservation techniques implemented─i.e.,
mulching, crop rotation, application of green manure and organic fertilizer (compost and liquid
fertilizer), cover cropping during summer, and crop diversification─contributed to a healthy
garden environment. The use of locally available organic materials and the aid of leguminous
trees like kakawate in the garden contributed to improved soil fertility and soil health.
Planting of indigenous vegetables and maintaining garden diversity managed to keep the pest
problem under control, thus increasing production and ensuring the availability of vegetables
year-round (Keatinge JDH et al. 2012). An extreme range of 101.07 kg (minimum) to 818.11 kg
(maximum) was reported in the three sentinel schools and four LH schools having a garden size
of 200 m2. This is above the reported range yield of 0.20-1.3 lb/ft2 (Rabin et al. 2012) from a
study of yield on mixed-stand, small-scale home gardens in New Jersey, USA. Planting resilient
and drought-tolerant indigenous and locally adapted crops made gardens easier to maintain,
considering seasonality and climate aspects.
Different types of vegetables such as leafy, fruit-bearing, legumes, root crops, fruit trees, and
herbs are planted in the schools, with an average of 26 crops recorded. The promotion of
indigenous vegetables led to 82% and 18% distribution of indigenous and exotic crops,
23
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
respectively. Popularization of climate-hardy and nutritionally relevant indigenous vegetables
through the distribution of IEC materials containing nutritional benefits and posting of crop
labels in gardens attracted the attention of parents, students, community, and nearby schools. The
conduct of seed exchanges contributed to improved agrobiodiversity and maintenance of a
diverse pool of indigenous seeds in the districts.
School gardens have the mandate to serve as supplementary food basket for school feeding.
Most of the garden produce were distributed to the feeding program (42%), given free to parent
volunteers, students, and teachers (24%) who helped out in garden activities, used in the canteen
(17%), and sold (17%). The development of indigenous recipes by FNRI steered the utilization
of garden produce toward feeding. Among the types of vegetables, the leafy oneswere the most
consumed since most of the recipes in the cycle menu for the feeding program are malunggay-
based. Several leafy vegetables like Japanese malunggay, kulitis, alugbati, and talinum were
used to substitute for the native malunggay when supply is limited and to introduce variation to
minimize taste fatigue. Consumption of root crops as source of carbohydrates and of legumes as
source of protein should be encouraged in all schools to distribute sources of macronutrients and
improve the intake of micronutrients found mostly in vegetables. Crop diversification also
helped improve the availability of different types of vegetables with varying nutrient content,
making possible diverse menu options and providing teachers the flexibility in the choice of
ingredients. Having students bring home garden produce for tasting or cooking at home secured
the participation of parents in school garden activities and in the establishment of home gardens.
Growing various vegetables needed for the feeding program can reduce the cost of feeding and
can generate savings to cover garden expenses. In studying the savings generated for feeding in a
120-day feeding cycle, PhP 0.35 per student daily can be saved, given that garden produce
utilized in the duration of feeding is about 270 kg of various vegetables.
The garden link to feeding was also strengthened by proper planning and coordination among the
school NTWG whose members include the school administrator and the garden and feeding
coordinators. Proper planning of what to plant in consideration of climate, season, and feeding
requirements established the link between garden and feeding. SBFP coordinators were also
encouraged to visit the garden at least once a week to identify the vegetables that can be used in
feeding. However, there were schools with difficulty achieving crop diversity (10%) because of a
limited supply of seeds and seedlings. Another group (12% of the schools) had problems with
seed saving. Training on seed-saving methods is needed to achieve seed self-reliance and crop
diversity.
Lighthouse schools also served as living crop museums where students, teachers, parents, and the
community can see diverse, nutritionally relevant, and hardy vegetables. School gardens were
used as a platform for learning and for sharing nutrition and environment information, with
frequency of usage depending on its status. Integration of garden visitation into learning areas
such as EPP, Science, and MAPEH is likely to happen if gardens are diverse and productive
24
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
throughout the school year. It also occurs when the teacher is interested enough to use the garden
as an outside classroom; in this case, the garden is most likely utilized more often. The formal
integration of garden as demonstration and laboratory shows teaching methods that
simultaneously make use of multiple senses to reinforce learning and ensure better recall of the
subject being taught. Integration of gardens as a learning laboratory in the curriculums of EPP
and Science can be expanded to other learning areas such as MAPEH and other social sciences,
which can then lead to better teacher compliance in incorporating nutrition and science topics.
Time, manpower, and resources are important factors in sustaining school gardens year-round
(Tomomi et al. 2016). Forty-two (40.48%) garden teachers expressed the need for additional
manpower under their supervision to keep school gardens functional throughout the year.
Programs with only one “champion” or leader at the school site are vulnerable to failure in the
event of staff turnover, exhaustion, or other aggravating circumstances. School garden programs,
to be adequately sustained, require long-term commitment and effort on the part of the principal
and the school community. Practitioners have frequently cited parent involvement as essential to
achieving sustainability. The need for widespread support emphasizes the importance of learning
more about how effective “buy-in” can be achieved, particularly for schools with low resources
and many competing demands. Involvement of students, school staff, parents, and community
volunteers are vital in planning, raising funds for, and sustaining school gardens, as manifested
in 95.24% of the schools with well-maintained school gardens and with established partnerships
with different stakeholders, including school administrators, parents, LGUs, NGOs, and other
community members.
VI. Conclusions
A garden set of standards using the BIG approach, accompanied by capacity building and regular
monitoring, can result in productive school gardens throughout the school year. Various soil and
water conservation practices can improve soil health and ensure a healthy garden environment
while at the same time addressing climate-related issues brought about by climate change.
Maintaining crop diversity with emphasis on climate-hardy and nutritionally relevant indigenous
vegetables that can thrive under extreme weather conditions can provide a diverse range of
vegetables for the feeding program year-round. From 26 types of crops, yields of 101.07-818.11
kg can be obtained using a 200-m2 garden area.
Diversified school gardens can provide fresh and diverse sources of vegetables for school feeding
programs. Garden produce is being distributed as follows: feeding (42%), given free to volunteers
24%), and being sold (17%) or given to school canteen (17%). Annual crop planning based on
seasonality and feeding requirements with the school NTWG can result in direct utilization of
garden produce for feeding. The development of indigenous recipes by FNRI also enhanced
25
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
utilization, generating savings amounting to Php 0.35 per capita in a 120-day feeding cycle.
Moreover, the school’s generosity in sharing garden produce and planting materials to students,
parents, and the community motivated parents to participate in garden activities and establish home
gardens.
Schools serve as crop museums in conserving heritage crops; maintaining agrobiodiversity is
strengthened with the conduct of seed exchanges. IEC materials containing nutritional benefits
and posting of crop labels in gardens made parents, students, community, and nearby schools
interested in this important undertaking. Seed exchanges contributed to improved
agrobiodiversity and maintenance of a diverse pool of indigenous seeds in the districts.
School gardens are used as platform for learning and sharing nutrition- and environment-related
topics. Integration of gardens as a learning laboratory in the EPP and Science curricula can be
expanded to other learning areas such as MAPEH and other social sciences, which can lead to
compliance of teachers in incorporating nutrition and science topics. This activity likewise steered
the year-round maintenance of school gardens.
Sustainable school gardening programs require long-term commitment and efforts on the part of
the school and members of the community. The role of students, school staff, parents, and
community volunteers are vital in planning, supporting, and sustaining school gardens, which
was suggested by 95.24% of the schools that had partnered with different stakeholders and that
had successfully maintained school gardens throughout the year.
VII. Recommendations
• Garden diversification and intensification can provide a diverse selection of vegetables
and can improve the dietary intake of students for feeding programs. It can generate
savings and additional income to cover garden expenses and thereby sustain school
gardens.
• Participatory recipe development involving school members and the community can
improve the utilization of garden produce for feeding, thus engaging parents in school
activities.
• Using gardens as a learning venue for sharing nutrition and environment topics is an
effective way to engage students and parents and increase their knowledge and
understanding of these issues. It is an opportunity to motivate community members to
establish home gardens.
26
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
• Establishment of crop museums, at least one per district, is fundamental in preserving the
underutilized but nutritionally relevant heritage crops that are slowly diminishing.
• Intensive monitoring and capacity building of garden teachers by supervisors and school
principals are motivating factors that can sustain the interest of teachers and ensure their
adherence to programs of DepEd.
• Specific budget allocations and partnerships with stakeholders for funding and other
support should be considered, especially to schools with low resources. Long-term
commitment and support of community members and school members are essential in
gaining access to resources needed to maintain school gardens. The apparent need for
extensive support emphasizes the importance of learning more about how an effective
“buy-in” can be achieved, particularly for schools with low resources and many
competing demands.
VIII. References
CountrySTAT Philippines. http://countrystat.psa.gov.ph/?cont=10&pageid=1&ma=J50PRFPC. Accessed
December 2017
Department of Education. Grades 1-10 subjects. http://www.deped.gov.ph/k-to-12/curriculum-
guides/Grade-1-10. Accessed February 12, 2018
FAO-RAPA. 1988. Nitrogen-Fixing Trees for Wasteland. FAO, Bangkok.
H. L. Rhoades, R. B. Forbes (1986) Effects of fallow, cover crops, organic mulches, and fenamiphos on
nematode populations, soil nutrients, and subsequent crop growth. NEMATROPICA Vol. 16, No. 2, 1986
IIRR (1993) The Bio-intensive Approach to Small-Scale Household Food Production. Silang, Cavite.
IIRR and NAPC (2016) Integrated Community Food Production: A compendium of climate-resilient
agriculture options. Silang, Cavite.
Keatinge JDH, Holmer RJ, Ebert AW (2012) Promotion of underutilized indigenous food resources for
food security and nutrition in Asia and the Pacific. Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Rabin J, Zinati G, Nitzsche P (2012) Sustaining Farming on the Urban Fringe. Yield expectations for
mixed stand, small-scale agriculture, Vol. 9, Issue 7. URL http://sustainable-farming.rutgers.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/urbanfringe-v07n01.pdf
27
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Tomomi M, Jennifer P, Timothy B (2016) Educators’ perceptions associated with school garden
programs in Clark County, Nevada: practices, resources, benefits and barriers. J Nutr Food Sci 6: 465.
doi: 10.4172/2155-9600.1000465
IX. Annexes
Annex 1. BIG principles and practices developed in Phase 1.
1. School gardens function as a demonstration of climate-smart and nutrition-smart agriculture
(adapted to climate change, have low greenhouse emissions, and use nutrients efficiently).
Gardens also serve as learning venues for school children and their parents.
2. School gardens function as a source of nutrient-rich food for feeding programs.
3. A school nutrition technical working group consisting of the school administrator,
agriculture teacher, feeding center teacher, and other stakeholders is established to identify
opportunities for promoting school-level nutrition.
4. Garden plan including cropping pattern and garden layout are prepared on an annual-basis,
taking into consideration water/climate and feeding center requirements. Gardens are laid
out in 100-m2 blocks.
5. Garden beds are water- and nutrient-smart. Gardens beds should be dug deep (1 ft deep) and
raised to store more water, encourage roots to grow deep, and prevent loss of top soil during
rainy season.
6. Diversity within the garden is maintained, taking into consideration season and feeding
center and school canteen requirements. Diversity in school gardens means that there are
more than 12 different crops and fruit trees planted at a given time in this proportion: 70%
indigenous and 30% exotic.
• Drought-tolerant and nutritionally dense leafy vegetables (e.g., amaranth, long-
fruited jute, etc.) are grown for the feeding program and school canteen.
• Root crops such as sweet potato, cassava, taro, yams, etc. are grown as energy
source. Sweet potatoes of orange, yellow and red violet hues are an essential
component of every school garden (as source of antioxidants [beta carotene] and
anthocyanins).
• Legumes such as mungbean, cowpea, rice bean, hyacinth bean, lima bean, winged
bean, and pigeon pea are grown to serve as protein and fiber sources.
7. Trees that serve as source of fertilizers are planted within the school garden for easy
access to green manure sources, to improve the garden microclimate, and to serve as
windbreaker. Kakawate (Gliricidia sepium) and Calliandra are grown all around the
boundaries of gardens (in a ratio of 7:3).
28
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
• Trees are planted 0.5 m apart on the boundaries of the garden or within the school
vicinity (as green manure bank). Gliricidia sepium provides green manure and
Caliandra calothyrsus provides green mulch (applied directly on the soil surface).
• Protective leguminous trees along the perimeter and regular use of organic matter
help lower soil temperature. The cooler environment helps reduce the high impact
of high temperature and rainfall variability.
8. Those who tend school gardens practice soil and water conservation techniques.
a. Regular use of natural green leafy and compost fertilizers to improve soil quality
and keep the soil moist, thus enriching biological life
b. Use of mulch (dried grass/leaves) to cover garden beds to help reduce evaporation
to lower soil temperature and weed growth. Green leaf mulch (e.g., Calliandra) is
also used to improve soil fertility.
c. Rainwater is stored and recycled (roof top or pond collection) and used in the
gardens. Alternate-day watering is practiced: good heavy watering two to three
times a week only. 9. Composting of leaves and plant remains in a compost bin is practiced all year-round.
Other locally available materials such as animal manure, egg shells, and wood ash may be
incorporated to improve soil quality. 10. Organic matter is regularly applied to beds to encourage earthworms, nitrogen-fixing
bacteria and mychorriza fungi (whitish fungi that help roots get nutrients from the soil).
11. Liquid fertilizer (green leaves such as kakawate soaked in water-liquid extract is used) is
applied on a weekly basis to all seedlings less than a month old to boost root growth and
plant health.
12. Crop rotation is practiced in every plot.
13. School gardens practice cover cropping/ground cover during school vacation/summer
season (using hyacinth bean, rice bean, cowpea). Drought-tolerant cover crops are planted
on garden beds to protect the soil from drying out, rebuild fertility, and suppress weed
growth.
14. School gardens are free of chemical pesticides. Botanical insecticides are used only as
needed. Flowering plants such as marigold attract beneficial insects. Crop rotation with
beds and intercropping reduce pest buildup.
15. A school garden is self-reliant in seeds/planting materials. Seed saving is practiced. A
functional nursery provides year-round supply of seedlings.
29
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Annex 2. Schools under Phase 1 and 2 project implementations.
Division Phase 1 pilot schools Phase 2 lighthouse schools
Cavite Province
1. Felipe Calderon Elementary School 1. Alulod Elementary School*
2. General Aloña Memorial Elementary School* 2. Amadeo Elementary School*
3. Alfonso Central School 3. Bagbag 2 Elementary School
4. Alulod Elementary School* 4. Bailen Central School*
5. Amadeo Elementary School* 5. Bulihan Sites & Services Project Elementary
School*
6. Anuling Elementary School 6. Carlos Batino Elementary School*
7. Bailen Central School* 7. Carmona Elementary School*
8. Bancaan Elementary School 8. General Aloña Memorial Elementary School*
9. Bulihan Sites & Services Project Elementary
School* 9. Indang Central School*
10. Carlos Batino Elementary School* 10. Isidro Cuadra Elementary School
11. Carmona Elementary School* 11. Julugan Elementary School
12. Diego Mojica Elementary School 12. Kalubkob Elementary School
13. Ternate Central Elementary School* 13. Lapidario Elementary School*
14. Indang Central School* 14. Maguyam Elementary School
15. Lapidario Elementary School* 15. Malabag Elementary School*
16. Magallanes Elementary School 16. Maragondon Elementary School*
17. Malabag Elementary School* 17. Mariano Anacay Memorial Elementary School
18. Maragondon Elementary School* 18. Medina Elementary School
19. Pacifico O. Aquino Elementary School 19. Naic Elementary School
20. Potol Sta. Isabel Elementary School* 20. Noveleta Elementary School
21. Rosario Elementary School 21. Panungyan Elementary School
22. San Gabriel 1 Elementary School 22. Potol Sta. Isabel Elementary School*
23. San Roque Elementary School* 23. Pulong Bunga Elementary School
24. San Gabriel II Elementary School
25. San Roque Elementary School*
26. Sunnybrooke Elementary School
27. Ternate Central Elementary School*
28. Upli Elementary School
Bacoor City 24. Talaba Elementary School* 29. Talaba Elementary School*
25. Real Elementary School 30. Bacoor Elementary School
31. Malipay Elementary School
Imus City 26. Governor Camerino Elementary School* 32. Governor Camerino Elementary School*
27. Imus Pilot Elementary School* 33. Imus Pilot Elementary School*
34. Tinabunan Elementary School
Dasmariñas City 35. Dasmariñas II Central School
36. Dr. Jose P. Rizal Elementary School
37. Langkaan Elementary School
38. Malinta Elementary School
30
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Division Phase 1 pilot schools Phase 2 lighthouse schools
39. Paliparan Elementary School
Cavite City 40. Sangley Elementary School
Laguna
Province 41. Liliw Central Elementary School
42. Majayjay Elementary School
Sta. Rosa City 43. Caingin Elementary School
Biñan City 44. Timbao Elementary School
Calamba City 45. Eduardo Barretto Senior Elementary School
San Pablo City 46. San Roque Elementary School
Batangas
Province 47. Ayao-Iyao Elementary School
48. Pinagtungulan Elementary School
Batangas City 49. Malitam Elementary School
Tanauan City 50. Tinurik Elementary School
Lipa City 51. Lumbang Elementary School
Quezon
Province 52. Pitogo Elementary School
53. San Antonio Central School
Tayabas City 54. North Palale Elementary School
Lucena City 55. Lucena East III Elementary School
Rizal Province 56. Binangonan Elementary School
57. Wawa Elementary School
Antipolo City 58. Kaysakat Elementary School
31
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Annex 3. Baseline and endline survey forms on the adoption of BIG standards.
ma sum »..
i:in|MnwusmuI Zknnnnlszhnul
MOVES“'5 "“""'“‘ "‘
rate M. In .......... n .:_...l
, mm.m;am.»4.u..;.zm<. ml
2 mmam,wl;m~.ml.mmm
w.m:nm.t..;..m. Mawinrrh:zamarusamlablgwnzn
n....al
. w.mp«na.m..m.ml.n.
ml mg pm." nlzns .m..mm. mum run... and M.”
int n ..= u~.m..<.m an .m..:rr..,....m mm mlmdaritlmi
w.l..m.mm...a.m.m.r.=um..m...u 4c...¢.nmun
..l.m.., wt
a.m.m.am dapduilmaufliandraisad m.;...m..
5 ND?! willf, mmn mm m {law “(vi ..a When: Icsnfl
lflF1uidIlllVlflYil'W§:ml:VViQI!(kdEBlitfli§uiwilitirll0(i
ummmm. l§ mmn (Kiri! m mnruhin ,2 an...,masmm. M .. a given W...» 70% mum: and N n
..m luselulmx nnanswarlhlsfluesmrvi
nnmgh: ..u.,.m...: m.m...m.:.m. my lwounlulzll
amunmm, rm ivwmflmt, ..x iureqrwmllzmzisedma
mm .mm mmans nmrzmurmmmxwatpmzwm
mnuw,wm,W"E,atr we gmwmmgnm. your
Pvtumes am:-ye, y=«»«wa».s,m.m»..,. mn.,,...«.«
mlflunnenlflfslltfvzllaéianmrvi r.m..«nmm.,..mm.
ramvenei andmiuxwnvrx
u.,..m..«i..:.r fluialrtrmirrmrran/K flail
iivnllureurrvlnmrllflumri
32
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
maman: vmlmms m an
inmate l§§uml1>1 m...:......... no pun»!!!
Yraeuim Serve}: ,....:. ..u..m..5 are nlzrvmi Wllhln .2.
mm mm «gnaw arms: HVIVIEH manure and m mm.
mam mxmdlrnirl ma .5 .m...... mum mm Ind
Enllinnflrl lscmnvlnwm .u ...,.m. buunflunn mum-m
_lllullllvuunnmrllliihnlum m.mm«.mm.mmm.
mlluwlvImwhdbmoxmlmumrlmnnmnnhinininllrih
um-wirnmnnrwnnlMwludlrnfimnnrvnnhclluainnllnd
an mmmlai..m.»luu...........al
lznrvwuxnnoilumnmdilnnxnmwumlmmpmlmlx"
Dmmululvotrmm
smnal mm. 0V$|ImlfliP9lllKlHh( lalmnllmuuirla-x
1. cutnuxudnrw-xnndvmmnnul m..mnl.m.m«
mnillmdmlllrunhnnnfimlmum
as Ewemuinnlnvrxnullnmwblnr
‘Ismnul mm Iuciluu aw mam um] mm... mmmm vxvrlnn/xunvmi nun
:1 urnmulrnlnvmnmal
smnullltdnnlxmi-ullnnlmud!/blxnnnmmnun gm"
.nnm«-cum
nmacoucmllv_
mnqmc.-.n.m
33
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
nous“‘“"""""‘ "‘
vniruevssnvxtnlnnvrzdnflhvlmxti
1; mnmnnal mawamasyu. rmnusualfltmsadliné
in... wnriiiham 5: W: mnrdinnun arwnaztnnmswamr...4...».m mm nznuvmen manasamem and ....
rm.” mam.“ ulam mama.» mm; am...
at-ml-..m..m.r.m ;..mm..»=n
m.,n:..a..o.ml.....;;...:.l.m..m..x rkhiuminrkdtilil"
Wwrims <a.m...mm.mm..l.m.aimam
Sduxnlflilflanmnnimnzsaleirvlwvanualurallsannlanldlan“
AM m.m.l.m.5 .u van ruunfl lemma mvsrfl
DMIIKMEGEJDV ammmrmm M.
iilnllureurevlrmglflumri
34
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Annex 4. Survey form on garden diversity.
khbni am: No
CI hglvmnl-nsraiul |:| Sdmzml mm
KmdlrnlarcammrmamVIMvlfitrnucvlfilamcalnmlaordcnanmanmmlnrmnnm
um
nwwr
.. Ruiunnnu
mm."
M.l..mms...a.
mwnamv
m.i.an
.»».mmm.:a..
mm
Amman
nrzsrmncn
um-4
YALINIIM
ml .. mm.
Muxusn
».m...a
mm
Immn mmxmu:
mm
ulul
mm»: rmsmmts
am am/n.lsm
Mmcnmmdlv one Mfevlna mm/x bare
m».......,...»..m.4».,.n.;
35
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Annex 5. Survey form on garden output and utilization.
umumomnnmnuunul vnuunu
um.
|:| flumhnmumanl l:| um»... Semi
l:|.w.. EDGE
ma... nu _nw.
wnnummm urvvwvmunrlrcm AM mm mm... .«.. 2noum.lM1l m.m..m walwm nu-«am..n.mrwm mu nxnunmllnfn.
um: or vzamms
Hawm Dale Mime -21 vzguanle Quamilv
l o o . Vl o o . V l o o . V soul
rv-welulv Mrnalrbii
I I N
luussauas KAMDIEYOPI 3... m. usku ...—.m M. "5-m=,;;‘_~m_
umu-4: ncunnlulnbm-Wiwhphfirt-i/fllfimnmnllitmnu-mnHhnmwnmAMncmn—m¢unl~A
~.=...l.¢.w..m...,.u.l.n»..............l..m.......p..»»....l..,...u.l........y....m.».................».....u..m..».....l.mu........
......m.».
nmmnnullr: mum”. mm Dam.
:svm.,.mm.4~.»..;
36
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Annex 6. Survey form on garden usage as learning venue.
mm
...m...... (.m......n »..,,...r,..,.u.l-.)
....m.~.l
1/as/am wine: 2... '-'~'-#~_“___;';~_n-°*- a....v..w.........._.. n.-.......u.
a...,.,....m.............,.......,......_.. MIL
Mrnmlicmllr nunhullnnnhtnnlt ..
52..-w....»v..~~.».4
37
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Annex 7. Forms given at the start and end of the project to determine garden size.
School Estimated garden size (m2)
Remarks
↓ - Decrease in garden size at the end of project
↑ - Increase in garden Size at the end of project ↔ - Same garden size at the end of project Start End
School 1 350 500 ↑
School 2 100 200 ↑
School 3 1500 1500 ↔
School 4 150 210 ↑
School 5 250 200 ↓
School 6 400 400 ↔
School 7 600 250 ↓
School 8 696 696 ↔
School 9 150 150 ↔
School 10 1000 1000 ↔
School 11 200 300 ↑
School 12 250 250 ↔
School 13 400 300 ↓
School 14 150 300 ↑
School 15 450 450 ↔
School 16 2025 1950 ↓
School 17 450 450 ↔
School 18 644 644 ↔
School 19 350 400 ↑
School 20 250 300 ↑
School 21 450 357 ↓
School 22 300 300 ↔
School 23 500 500 ↔
School 24 700 500 ↓
School 25 1000 1000 ↔
School 26 120 150 ↑
School 27 300 300 ↔
School 28 700 700 ↔
School 29 450 450 ↔
School 30 221 221 ↔
School 31 300 400 ↑
School 32 500 750 ↑
School 33 200 200 ↔
School 34 427 427 ↔
School 35 250 250 ↔
School 36 200 200 ↔
School 37 800 800 ↔
School 38 300 300 ↔
School 39 200 200 ↔
School 40 2000 2000 ↔
School 41 120 120 ↔
School 42 500 500 ↔
38
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
School Estimated garden size (m2)
Remarks
↓ - Decrease in garden size at the end of project ↑ - Increase in garden Size at the end of project
↔ - Same garden size at the end of project Start End
School 43 150 150 ↔
School 44 300 300 ↔
School 45 384 384 ↔
School 46 200 200 ↔
School 47 800 800 ↔
School 48 600 600 ↔
School 49 800 800 ↔
School 50 250 220 ↓
School 51 300 300 ↔
School 52 300 300 ↔
School 53 600 600 ↔
School 54 150 200 ↑
School 55 300 300 ↔
School 56 236 236 ↔
School 57 600 650 ↑
School 58 300 300 ↔
Annex 8. Reasons for adoption and non-adoption of BIG practices.
Raised and deep-dug beds
Reasons for adoption
Part of Phase1. Experiential learning facilitated
adoption 11 18.97%
Improved knowledge and understanding facilitated
adoption 34 58.62%
Monitoring & TA facilitated adoption 8 13.79%
Reasons for non-adoption
New EPP teacher without knowledge/without
proper turnover 2 3.45%
Conflict with other gardening programs/contest 2 3.45%
Lack of interest 1 1.72%
Planting of Kakawate trees
Reasons for adoption
School is part of Phase 1. Experiential learning
facilitated adoption. 7 12.07%
Facilitated by the provision of seeds/seedlings and
TA 32 55.17%
Monitoring & TA facilitated adoption 11 18.96%
Reasons for non-Adoption
Limited space for trees. wanted to plant vegetable
crops instead of fertilizer trees 4 6.89%
39
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Others: Too much workload/without turnover/conflict with
other gardening programs 4 6.88%
Cover cropping
Reasons for adoption
Provision of Tapilan seeds promoted cover cropping 47 81.03%
Monitoring & TA facilitated adoption 7 12.07%
Reasons for non-adoption
Lack of available seeds for cover cropping 4 6.90%
Crop diversity
Reasons for adoption
Experiential learning in Phase1 9 15.52%
Improved knowledge and availability of diverse
planting materials 43 74.14%
Reasons for non-adoption
Lack of diverse seeds to plant. Limited stored seeds 5 8.62%
Conflict with other gardening programs/contest 1 1.72%
Mulching
Reasons for adoption
Part of Phase1. Experiential learning facilitated
adoption 11 18.97%
Improved knowledge and understanding facilitated
adoption 30 51.72%
Monitoring and TA facilitated adoption 4 6.90%
Reasons for non-adoption
Conflict with the principal's practice 7 12.07%
New EPP teacher/without proper turnover 2 3.45%
Lack of time/too much workload 4 6.90%
Green manuring
Reasons for adoption
Part of Phase1. Experiential learning facilitated
adoption 11 18.97%
Monitoring and TA facilitated adoption 12 20.69%
Improved knowledge and understanding facilitated
adoption 29 50.00%
Reasons for non-adoption
Lack of/limited kakawate trees 2 3.45%
Lack of time. Too much workload of GPP
coordinator 2 3.45%
Conflict with other gardening programs/contest 1 1.72%
New EPP teacher/without proper turnover 1 1.72%
Crop rotation
Reasons for adoption
Part of Phase1. Experiential learning facilitated
adoption 9 15.52%
40
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Improved knowledge and understanding facilitated
adoption 25 43.10%
Monitoring and TA facilitated adoption 15 25.86%
Reasons for non-adoption
Crops planted dictated by seed availability 6 10.34%
Conflict with the practice of the principal 1 1.72%
Lack of time/too much workload 1 1.72%
New teacher/lack of knowledge/without proper
turnover 1 1.72%
Rainwater recycling
Reasons for adoption
RWC/containers/construction supported by school
head 33 56.89%
RWC/containers/construction supported by
LGU/stakeholders 12 20.69%
Reasons for non-adoption
Needs funding support for containers/structure 11 18.97%
RWC far from the garden 1 1.72%
Not functional. Lack of maintenance 1 1.72%
Chemical-free gardens
Reasons for adoption
Schools included in Phase1 continued the adoption 14 24.14%
Awareness of impact of chemicals on health and the
environment/improved knowledge 42 72.41%
Reasons for non-adoption
Use pesticides when there is high pest population
/Use chemical fertilizer for production 2 3.44%
Organic matterregularly applied
Reasons for adoption
Experiential learning in Phase1. 15 25.86%
Provided with compost/vermicast /organic fertilizer
by DA/LGU 17 29.31%
Monitoring & TA facilitated adoption 19 32.76%
With source of local materials 7 12.07%
Composting
Reasons for adoption
Monitoring and TA facilitated adoption 42 72.41%
New/improved compost area. Supported by school
head 11 18.97%
Reasons for non-adoption
Unsegregated garbage 3 5.17%
Dependence on the supply from DA/lack of time/too
much workload 2 3.44%
Liquid fertilizer application
41
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Reasons for adoption
Improved knowledge and understanding facilitated
adoption 20 34.48%
Monitoring and TA facilitated adoption 19 32.76%
Reasons for non-adoption
Lack of time/too much workload 8 13.79%
New EPP teachers without knowledge/without
proper turnover 3 5.17%
Newly planted kakawate/limited source of kakawate
leaves 3 5.17%
Conflict with other gardening programs/ foul smell
affects ongoing classes. Teachers complain about
the foul smell
3 5.17%
Others: Drum was stolen several times. Attitude of
garden teacher 2 3.44%
Seed saving
Reasons for adoption
Experiential learning in Phase1 12 20.69%
Improved knowledge on seed processing 39 67.24%
Reasons for non-adoption
Lack of time/too much workload 3 5.17%
Availability of seed source. Reliance on supply
from source 2 3.45%
New EPP teacher/without proper turnover /attitude
of garden teacher 2 3.45%
Functional nursery
Reasons for adoption
Maintained by teacher. 2 3.45%
Inputs/materials supported by school head 39 67.24%
New nursery supported by principal/stakeholder 5 8.62%
Reasons for non-adoption
Needs nursery. Seeking fund support from principal 10 17.24%
Ongoing construction 1 1.72%
Demolished nursery 1 1.72%
Presence of nutrition TWG
Reasons for adoption
Garden improvement included in SIP. Supported by
the principal 8 13.79%
Garden improvement is included in AIP/SIP. 44 75.86%
Reasons for non-adoption
Garden improvement is NOT included in AIP/SIP. 5 8.62%
Garden improvement is NOT included in AIP/SIP.
Limited supported from the school head 1 1.72%
Garden improvement included in SIP. Supported by
the principal 8 13.79%
42
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Garden improvement is included in AIP/SIP. 44 75.86%
Annual garden planning
Reasons for adoption
Well-coordinated with home economics teacher.
Supportive principal 42 93.10%
Reasons for non-adoption
Conflict among TWG members 2 3.45%
Without proper turnover to newly assigned teacher 2 3.45%
Garden as platform for learning and sharing
nutrition and environment info
Reasons for adoption
Encouragement of principal and TA 4 6.90%
Integration into learning areas 29 50.00%
Functional and well-maintained gardens facilitated
usage of garden for learning 19 32.76%
Reasons for non-adoption
New EPP teacher/without proper turnover. No data
available 5 8.62%
Distance of garden from classroom affects the
garden use for learning 1 1.72%
Garden utilization
Reasons for adoption
Coordination and planning with SBFP coordinator 52 89.66%
Encouragement of principal to use what is available
in the garden 1 1.72%
Adoption of FNRI recipes facilitated the utilization
of mostly grown indigenous crops 3 5.17%
Reasons for non-adoption
Lack of coordination and planning with the SBFP
coordinator. Few adopted FNRI recipes 2 3.45%
Annex 9. Adoption of BIG practices in 58 lighthouse schools.
BIG practice
Start End P value Remarks
No. of
schools Percentage
No. of
schools Percentage
Garden area is adequate (at least 150 sq.
m) 50 86.21 54 93.10 0.2188 No significant
change
Receives direct sunlight for at least 6
hours 56 96.55 58 100.00 0.5000 No significant
change
With good water source (water for the
garden available when needed) 52 89.66 56 96.55 0.2188 No significant
change
With proper drainage system 42 72.41 45 77.59 0.6072 No significant
change
43
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
BIG practice
Start End P value Remarks
No. of
schools Percentage
No. of
schools Percentage
Gardens beds are deep dug (1 ft deep)
and raised. These beds store more water,
encourage roots to grow deep, and
prevent loss of topsoil during rainy
season.
34 58.62 53 91.38 0.0000 Significant
Trees that serve as source of fertilizers
are planted within the school garden for
easy access to green manure and to
improve garden microclimate and as a
windbreaker. Kakawate (70 %) and
Calliandra (30 %) are grown all around
the boundaries of the gardens.
34 58.62 50 86.21 0.0004 Significant
Diversification is practiced (there are
more than 12 different crops and fruit
trees at a given time with 70%
indigenous and 30% exotic).
27 46.55 52 89.66 0.0000 Significant
School practices cover cropping using
legumes during school vacation/summer
season. 30 51.72% 54 93.10% 0.0000 Significant
Uses mulch to protect soil 36 62.07% 45 77.59% 0.0636 No significant
change
Regularly uses natural green leafy and
compost fertilizers to improve soil
quality and keep the soil moist and enrich
biological life
36 62.07% 52 89.66% 0.0004 Significant
Crop rotation is practiced in every plot 35 60.34% 49 84.48% 0.0026 Significant
Rainwater is stored and recycled (roof
top or pond collection) and used in
gardens 14 24.14% 45 77.59% 0.0000 Significant
School garden is free of chemical
pesticides. Botanical insecticides can be
used when needed. Flowering plants
such as marigold are used to attract
beneficial insects.
53 91.38% 56 96.55% 0.4531 No significant
change
Organic matter is regularly applied to
beds to encourage earthworms, nitrogen-
fixing bacteria, and mycorrhiza fungi
(whitish fungi that help roots access
nutrients in the soil).
50 86.21% 58 100.00% 0.0078 Significant
Composting of leaves and plant remains
in a compost bin is practiced all year-
round. 24 41.38% 53 91.38% 0.0000 Significant
Applies liquid fertilizer (kakawate-based) 3 5.17% 39 67.24% 0.0000 Significant
School garden is self-reliant in seeds/
planting materials. Seed saving is
practiced. 35 60.34% 51 87.93% 0.0004 Significant
44
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
BIG practice
Start End P value Remarks
No. of
schools Percentage
No. of
schools Percentage
Functional nursery provides year-round
supply of seedlings. 22 37.93% 46 79.31% 0.0000 Significant
School garden functions as source of
nutrient-rich food for feeding programs. 40 68.97% 56 96.55% 0.0001 Significant
School garden functions as a learning
venue for all school children and other
stakeholders all year-round. 2 3.45% 52 89.66% 0.0000 Significant
School has garden plans, including
cropping pattern and garden layout, that
are prepared yearly, taking into
consideration water/climate and feeding
center requirements. (garden lay out,
calendar, SIP)
37 63.79% 52 89.66% 0.0007 Significant
(Team work) There is good coordination
among administrator and teachers toward
better garden management and use. 44 75.86% 54 93.10% 0.0063 Significant
45
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
School 1 26 88.89% 11.11% 34 77.27% 29.41% 39 77.42% 29.17% 47 73.53% 26.47% 38 76.67% 23.33% 48 73.53% 26.47% 33 82.61% 17.39% 41 80.00% 20.00% 34 87.50% 12.50% 38 84.00% 10.53%
School 2 34 75.86% 24.14% 38 75.61% 32.26% 37 74.19% 34.78% 38 75.61% 24.39% 37 75.00% 25.00% 38 75.61% 24.39% 40 75.76% 24.24% 38 75.61% 24.39% 38 79.31% 20.69% 38 75.61% 26.32%
School 3 34 80.00% 20.00% 29 76.92% 30.00% 34 80.00% 25.00% 31 75.86% 24.14% 36 78.79% 21.21% 30 75.00% 25.00% 36 78.79% 21.21% 29 81.48% 18.52% 36 78.79% 21.21% 28 84.00% 14.29%
School 4 12 84.62% 15.38% 18 80.00% 25.00% 15 77.78% 28.57% 21 66.67% 33.33% 16 73.68% 26.32% 27 65.22% 34.78% 16 73.68% 26.32% 25 68.42% 31.58% 10 90.00% 10.00% 21 78.57% 14.29%
School 5 5 100.00% 0.00% 24 94.12% 6.25% 6 100.00% 0.00% 29 83.33% 16.67% 11 69.23% 30.77% 29 83.33% 16.67% 12 69.23% 30.77% 28 78.26% 21.74% 11 66.67% 33.33% 28 78.26% 17.86%
School 6 22 75.00% 25.00% 27 76.19% 31.25% 22 75.00% 33.33% 28 72.73% 27.27% 25 75.00% 25.00% 31 69.23% 30.77% 29 75.00% 25.00% 28 75.00% 25.00% 34 72.41% 27.59% 25 80.95% 16.00%
School 7 11 90.00% 10.00% 38 78.13% 28.00% 12 90.00% 11.11% 39 78.13% 21.88% 16 85.71% 14.29% 38 80.00% 20.00% 22 85.00% 15.00% 36 85.19% 14.81% 27 83.33% 16.67% 34 88.00% 8.82%
School 8 4 75.00% 25.00% 8 83.33% 20.00% 15 75.00% 33.33% 10 85.71% 14.29% 18 73.68% 26.32% 11 85.71% 14.29% 19 70.00% 30.00% 12 77.78% 22.22% 19 73.68% 26.32% 12 77.78% 16.67%
School 9 39 77.14% 22.86% 42 75.68% 32.14% 40 77.14% 29.63% 43 75.68% 24.32% 38 78.13% 21.88% 44 76.32% 23.68% 36 80.00% 20.00% 47 72.50% 27.50% 23 82.35% 17.65% 47 72.50% 23.40%
School 10 14 77.78% 22.22% 39 80.77% 23.81% 24 76.19% 31.25% 50 73.53% 26.47% 31 69.23% 30.77% 53 72.97% 27.03% 32 72.00% 28.00% 54 72.97% 27.03% 41 72.41% 27.59% 51 76.47% 15.69%
School 11 19 83.33% 16.67% 48 80.00% 25.00% 34 76.67% 30.43% 51 77.27% 22.73% 37 72.73% 27.27% 52 75.56% 24.44% 32 74.07% 25.93% 52 76.74% 23.26% 36 72.73% 27.27% 51 78.57% 17.65%
School 12 27 85.00% 15.00% 37 96.67% 3.45% 28 81.82% 22.22% 37 96.67% 3.33% 30 80.00% 20.00% 41 91.43% 8.57% 30 86.36% 13.64% 41 88.57% 11.43% 35 85.19% 14.81% 38 90.32% 7.89%
School 13 13 84.62% 15.38% 14 91.67% 9.09% 15 85.71% 16.67% 13 90.91% 9.09% 15 85.71% 14.29% 13 90.00% 10.00% 18 87.50% 12.50% 23 71.43% 28.57% 18 87.50% 12.50% 26 75.00% 23.08%
School 14 28 92.86% 7.14% 23 78.95% 26.67% 28 92.86% 7.69% 23 78.95% 21.05% 28 92.86% 7.14% 26 78.26% 21.74% 28 92.86% 7.14% 26 81.82% 18.18% 29 93.33% 6.67% 25 85.71% 12.00%
School 15 5 83.33% 16.67% 25 84.21% 18.75% 6 85.71% 16.67% 28 77.27% 22.73% 9 80.00% 20.00% 28 77.27% 22.73% 9 80.00% 20.00% 24 80.00% 20.00% 12 76.92% 23.08% 24 80.00% 16.67%
School 16 19 80.00% 20.00% 31 79.17% 26.32% 19 80.00% 25.00% 31 79.17% 20.83% 20 80.00% 20.00% 30 78.26% 21.74% 24 80.00% 20.00% 31 76.00% 24.00% 27 70.83% 29.17% 29 77.27% 17.24%
School 17 45 81.48% 18.52% 49 85.71% 16.67% 45 81.48% 22.73% 49 85.71% 14.29% 45 81.48% 18.52% 47 87.10% 12.90% 44 84.62% 15.38% 48 87.50% 12.50% 44 84.62% 15.38% 48 87.50% 8.33%
School 18 35 65.38% 34.62% 34 66.67% 50.00% 35 65.38% 52.94% 35 65.38% 34.62% 35 65.38% 34.62% 30 71.43% 28.57% 38 68.97% 31.03% 28 77.78% 22.22% 38 68.97% 31.03% 29 73.68% 17.24%
School 19 42 75.68% 24.32% 29 75.00% 33.33% 40 74.29% 34.62% 29 75.00% 25.00% 41 75.00% 25.00% 29 75.00% 25.00% 40 74.29% 25.71% 26 76.19% 23.81% 39 74.29% 25.71% 22 93.33% 4.55%
School 20 1 100.00% 0.00% 19 87.50% 14.29% 3 100.00% 0.00% 21 84.21% 15.79% 6 85.71% 14.29% 27 80.00% 20.00% 10 70.00% 30.00% 27 80.00% 20.00% 10 70.00% 30.00% 27 80.00% 18.52%
School 21 40 76.67% 23.33% 26 80.95% 23.53% 42 78.13% 28.00% 27 81.82% 18.18% 41 77.42% 22.58% 26 80.95% 19.05% 40 80.00% 20.00% 26 80.95% 19.05% 40 80.65% 19.35% 25 84.21% 12.00%
School 22 9 75.00% 25.00% 22 86.67% 15.38% 10 60.00% 66.67% 26 84.21% 15.79% 14 75.00% 25.00% 27 89.47% 10.53% 24 78.95% 21.05% 26 94.44% 5.56% 26 76.19% 23.81% 27 89.47% 7.41%
School 23 20 89.47% 10.53% 39 90.00% 11.11% 20 89.47% 11.76% 39 90.00% 10.00% 23 90.91% 9.09% 38 89.66% 10.34% 23 90.91% 9.09% 43 77.78% 22.22% 23 90.91% 9.09% 44 78.38% 18.18%
School 24 11 77.78% 22.22% 40 69.70% 43.48% 12 77.78% 28.57% 40 69.70% 30.30% 12 77.78% 22.22% 36 72.41% 27.59% 12 77.78% 22.22% 30 76.00% 24.00% 13 72.73% 27.27% 30 79.17% 16.67%
School 25 37 70.97% 29.03% 26 94.44% 5.88% 37 70.97% 40.91% 26 94.44% 5.56% 37 70.97% 29.03% 27 89.47% 10.53% 37 70.97% 29.03% 27 89.47% 10.53% 37 70.97% 29.03% 31 79.17% 16.13%
School 26 0 75.00% 25.00% 24 78.57% 27.27% 0 0.00% 0.00% 26 72.22% 27.78% 0 0.00% 0.00% 26 72.22% 27.78% 0 0.00% 0.00% 32 76.47% 23.53% 0 0.00% 0.00% 34 76.47% 11.76%
School 27 1 86.96% 13.04% 28 85.19% 17.39% 13 86.96% 15.00% 28 85.19% 14.81% 23 86.96% 13.04% 27 85.19% 14.81% 24 90.00% 10.00% 22 85.19% 14.81% 23 90.00% 10.00% 20 84.62% 20.00%
School 28 15 100.00% 0.00% 26 72.00% 38.89% 15 70.00% 42.86% 26 72.00% 28.00% 15 73.68% 26.32% 26 70.83% 29.17% 15 71.43% 28.57% 29 72.73% 27.27% 15 73.68% 26.32% 34 70.00% 17.65%
School 29 17 81.82% 18.18% 46 78.95% 26.67% 53 81.82% 22.22% 45 78.95% 21.05% 55 81.82% 18.18% 47 78.95% 21.05% 55 81.82% 18.18% 45 80.00% 20.00% 55 81.82% 18.18% 44 76.00% 13.64%
School 30 38 87.50% 12.50% 45 76.47% 30.77% 37 76.32% 31.03% 46 75.76% 24.24% 38 75.61% 24.39% 48 71.43% 28.57% 41 75.61% 24.39% 50 72.73% 27.27% 44 75.61% 24.39% 50 71.88% 18.00%
School 31 12 84.00% 16.00% 10 87.50% 14.29% 19 83.33% 20.00% 17 84.85% 15.15% 24 84.00% 16.00% 19 84.85% 15.15% 24 78.57% 21.43% 21 80.00% 20.00% 23 77.42% 22.58% 21 80.00% 33.33%
School 32 31 83.33% 16.67% 31 75.00% 33.33% 31 71.43% 40.00% 31 75.00% 25.00% 31 78.95% 21.05% 31 76.47% 23.53% 31 78.95% 21.05% 31 77.78% 22.22% 32 83.33% 16.67% 32 84.21% 9.38%
School 33 26 87.50% 12.50% 25 87.50% 14.29% 26 87.50% 14.29% 22 87.50% 12.50% 26 87.50% 12.50% 22 87.50% 12.50% 26 87.50% 12.50% 21 87.50% 12.50% 26 88.00% 12.00% 24 88.00% 12.50%
School 34 14 70.37% 29.63% 53 68.18% 46.67% 23 70.37% 42.11% 54 72.22% 27.78% 29 70.37% 29.63% 56 72.22% 27.78% 34 70.37% 29.63% 55 76.47% 23.53% 29 70.37% 29.63% 53 71.43% 11.32%
School 35 41 100.00% 0.00% 44 72.73% 37.50% 43 66.67% 50.00% 45 73.53% 26.47% 44 68.18% 31.82% 43 72.22% 27.78% 42 74.07% 25.93% 43 73.53% 26.47% 37 85.71% 14.29% 43 75.76% 18.60%
School 36 20 66.67% 33.33% 21 77.14% 29.63% 20 67.65% 47.83% 24 77.78% 22.22% 27 68.57% 31.43% 24 76.47% 23.53% 32 72.73% 27.27% 23 76.47% 23.53% 29 77.78% 22.22% 23 76.47% 34.78%
School 37 25 0.00% 0.00% 34 87.50% 14.29% 25 75.00% 33.33% 34 83.33% 16.67% 25 80.95% 19.05% 34 88.89% 11.11% 23 73.08% 26.92% 34 75.00% 25.00% 24 75.00% 25.00% 33 75.00% 21.21%
Grand Total 767 1112 898 1175 971 1195 1008 1188 1013 1176
Average 21 80.24% 17.05% 31 80.87% 24.65% 25 76.76% 27.56% 33 79.18% 20.82% 27 75.75% 21.55% 33 78.93% 21.07% 28 76.04% 21.26% 33 78.80% 21.20% 28 76.78% 20.51% 33 79.94% 16.20%
Maximum 45 100.00% 34.62% 53 96.67% 50.00% 53 100.00% 66.67% 54 96.67% 34.62% 55 92.86% 34.62% 56 91.43% 34.78% 55 92.86% 31.03% 55 94.44% 31.58% 55 93.33% 33.33% 53 93.33% 34.78%
Minimum 0 0.00% 0.00% 8 66.67% 3.45% 0 0.00% 0.00% 10 65.38% 3.33% 0 0.00% 0.00% 11 65.22% 8.57% 0 0.00% 0.00% 12 68.42% 5.56% 0 0.00% 0.00% 12 70.00% 4.55%
Oct-01Indigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
Indigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
Sep-01Indigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
Indigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
Sep-02 Oct-02Indigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
Indigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
Aug-01 Aug-02Jul-01Indigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
Jul-02Indigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
Indigenous
Crops
Exotic
Crops
Jun-01 Jun-02Indigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
Annex 10. Percentage of indigenous and exotic crops in 37 lighthouse schools for SY 2016-2017 and SY 2017-2018.
46
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
No. of
Crops
School 1 39 80.00% 20.00% 37 87.50% 12.50% 40 76.67% 23.33% 37 87.50% 12.50% 36 75.00% 25.00% 34 80.77% 19.23% 35 60.00% 17.14% 30 81.82% 18.18% 30 81.82% 18.18%
School 2 40 77.42% 22.58% 38 75.61% 24.39% 36 75.00% 25.00% 38 75.61% 24.39% 31 73.91% 26.09% 30 72.73% 27.27% 29 55.17% 17.24% 24 72.22% 27.78% 24 72.22% 27.78%
School 3 36 78.79% 21.21% 27 83.33% 16.67% 36 78.79% 21.21% 27 83.33% 16.67% 33 80.00% 20.00% 29 84.62% 15.38% 27 74.07% 14.81% 23 85.00% 15.00% 23 85.00% 15.00%
School 4 9 100.00% 0.00% 16 100.00% 0.00% 9 100.00% 0.00% 16 100.00% 0.00% 9 100.00% 0.00% 7 100.00% 0.00% 7 100.00% 0.00% 7 100.00% 0.00% 7 100.00% 0.00%
School 5 9 60.00% 40.00% 28 78.26% 21.74% 6 83.33% 16.67% 28 78.26% 21.74% 5 100.00% 0.00% 5 100.00% 0.00% 5 80.00% 0.00% 5 100.00% 0.00% 5 100.00% 0.00%
School 6 32 74.07% 25.93% 20 93.33% 6.67% 32 77.78% 22.22% 20 93.33% 6.67% 32 77.78% 22.22% 31 76.92% 23.08% 30 63.33% 20.00% 26 100.00% 0.00% 25 80.00% 20.00%
School 7 22 81.25% 18.75% 34 88.00% 12.00% 21 76.47% 23.53% 34 88.00% 12.00% 20 76.47% 23.53% 22 94.12% 5.88% 26 69.23% 15.38% 25 77.27% 22.73% 22 87.50% 12.50%
School 8 12 81.82% 18.18% 10 83.33% 16.67% 10 100.00% 0.00% 9 100.00% 0.00% 11 100.00% 0.00% 16 92.31% 7.69% 26 53.85% 0.00% 26 100.00% 0.00% 39 82.76% 17.24%
School 9 21 82.35% 17.65% 47 72.50% 27.50% 19 86.67% 13.33% 47 72.50% 27.50% 18 86.67% 13.33% 18 86.67% 13.33% 18 72.22% 11.11% 36 83.87% 16.13% 34 89.29% 10.71%
School 10 40 78.57% 21.43% 50 75.76% 24.24% 42 80.00% 20.00% 47 73.33% 26.67% 39 85.19% 14.81% 37 87.50% 12.50% 33 54.55% 3.03% 32 94.44% 5.56% 32 94.44% 5.56%
School 11 38 74.29% 25.71% 51 78.57% 21.43% 38 77.42% 22.58% 50 80.49% 19.51% 39 77.42% 22.58% 40 78.13% 21.88% 39 61.54% 15.38% 35 85.19% 14.81% 37 82.76% 17.24%
School 12 35 85.71% 14.29% 38 90.32% 9.68% 31 86.96% 13.04% 38 90.32% 9.68% 29 90.48% 9.52% 29 86.96% 13.04% 22 54.55% 4.55% 21 100.00% 0.00% 20 100.00% 0.00%
School 13 21 88.89% 11.11% 23 75.00% 25.00% 24 82.61% 17.39% 22 78.95% 21.05% 27 80.77% 19.23% 29 82.76% 17.24% 25 84.00% 8.00% 23 90.48% 9.52% 19 94.12% 5.88%
School 14 29 93.33% 6.67% 25 85.71% 14.29% 29 93.33% 6.67% 25 85.71% 14.29% 29 93.33% 6.67% 29 93.33% 6.67% 29 48.28% 3.45% 29 87.50% 12.50% 28 86.67% 13.33%
School 15 13 78.57% 21.43% 24 80.00% 20.00% 14 73.33% 26.67% 24 80.00% 20.00% 21 71.43% 28.57% 20 70.00% 30.00% 19 73.68% 26.32% 14 92.31% 7.69% 13 83.33% 16.67%
School 16 26 70.83% 29.17% 29 77.27% 22.73% 26 70.83% 29.17% 29 77.27% 22.73% 26 70.83% 29.17% 27 72.00% 28.00% 27 66.67% 25.93% 20 83.33% 16.67% 18 92.86% 7.14%
School 17 50 81.82% 18.18% 48 87.50% 12.50% 50 81.82% 18.18% 48 87.50% 12.50% 50 81.82% 18.18% 49 84.38% 15.63% 49 55.10% 10.20% 55 76.32% 23.68% 46 75.00% 25.00%
School 18 38 68.97% 31.03% 29 73.68% 26.32% 38 68.97% 31.03% 29 73.68% 26.32% 30 75.00% 25.00% 28 83.33% 16.67% 24 50.00% 12.50% 24 80.00% 20.00% 24 80.00% 20.00%
School 19 36 83.87% 16.13% 22 93.33% 6.67% 28 81.82% 18.18% 22 93.33% 6.67% 23 82.35% 17.65% 21 87.50% 12.50% 19 63.16% 5.26% 17 100.00% 0.00% 18 100.00% 0.00%
School 20 8 71.43% 28.57% 22 89.47% 10.53% 5 100.00% 0.00% 22 89.47% 10.53% 5 100.00% 0.00% 5 100.00% 0.00% 5 80.00% 0.00% 5 100.00% 0.00% 5 100.00% 0.00%
School 21 41 80.65% 19.35% 25 84.21% 15.79% 40 83.33% 16.67% 25 84.21% 15.79% 38 85.19% 14.81% 39 85.71% 14.29% 36 61.11% 11.11% 30 85.00% 15.00% 29 84.21% 15.79%
School 22 27 77.27% 22.73% 27 89.47% 10.53% 29 78.26% 21.74% 27 89.47% 10.53% 25 89.47% 10.53% 22 88.24% 11.76% 18 66.67% 11.11% 16 81.82% 18.18% 15 88.89% 11.11%
School 23 23 90.91% 9.09% 44 78.38% 21.62% 26 81.48% 18.52% 44 78.38% 21.62% 27 82.14% 17.86% 28 82.76% 17.24% 27 85.19% 18.52% 26 84.62% 15.38% 26 84.62% 15.38%
School 24 13 75.00% 25.00% 30 79.17% 20.83% 13 75.00% 25.00% 30 79.17% 20.83% 15 64.29% 35.71% 16 66.67% 33.33% 16 62.50% 31.25% 8 85.71% 14.29% 9 85.71% 14.29%
School 25 37 70.97% 29.03% 32 76.00% 24.00% 36 70.00% 30.00% 32 76.00% 24.00% 33 77.78% 22.22% 32 80.77% 19.23% 25 64.00% 16.00% 25 80.00% 20.00% 26 80.95% 19.05%
School 26 0 0.00% 0.00% 34 76.47% 23.53% 1 100.00% 0.00% 34 76.47% 23.53% 5 63.64% 36.36% 7 64.29% 35.71% 10 180.00% 80.00% 17 76.19% 23.81% 22 73.68% 26.32%
School 27 21 93.75% 6.25% 20 84.62% 15.38% 19 93.33% 6.67% 20 84.62% 15.38% 19 93.33% 6.67% 19 93.33% 6.67% 17 82.35% 5.88% 16 93.33% 6.67% 14 92.86% 7.14%
School 28 15 80.00% 20.00% 38 70.00% 30.00% 15 91.67% 8.33% 38 70.00% 30.00% 15 91.67% 8.33% 14 91.67% 8.33% 17 52.94% 5.88% 17 90.91% 9.09% 17 88.89% 11.11%
School 29 54 81.82% 18.18% 44 78.57% 21.43% 53 81.82% 18.18% 44 78.57% 21.43% 51 81.82% 18.18% 43 80.00% 20.00% 33 30.30% 9.09% 22 76.92% 23.08% 16 76.92% 23.08%
School 30 44 75.00% 25.00% 48 71.88% 28.13% 46 74.36% 25.64% 48 71.88% 28.13% 50 75.68% 24.32% 50 75.68% 24.32% 49 38.78% 12.24% 45 86.67% 13.33% 41 88.89% 11.11%
School 31 22 80.65% 19.35% 19 84.85% 15.15% 22 79.41% 20.59% 19 84.85% 15.15% 19 81.08% 18.92% 19 81.08% 18.92% 36 83.33% 16.67% 19 83.87% 16.13% 22 86.21% 13.79%
School 32 32 82.35% 17.65% 33 87.50% 12.50% 33 82.35% 17.65% 33 87.50% 12.50% 32 85.71% 14.29% 31 85.71% 14.29% 31 38.71% 6.45% 30 85.71% 14.29% 28 82.35% 17.65%
School 33 26 83.33% 16.67% 24 84.00% 16.00% 27 76.92% 23.08% 24 84.00% 16.00% 26 76.00% 24.00% 27 78.26% 21.74% 26 69.23% 19.23% 26 81.82% 18.18% 26 89.47% 10.53%
School 34 25 70.37% 29.63% 53 71.43% 28.57% 25 71.43% 28.57% 53 71.43% 28.57% 26 70.37% 29.63% 27 71.43% 28.57% 28 67.86% 28.57% 28 70.37% 29.63% 36 70.37% 29.63%
School 35 36 93.75% 6.25% 43 75.76% 24.24% 38 93.75% 6.25% 43 75.76% 24.24% 37 73.68% 26.32% 36 75.00% 25.00% 36 44.44% 13.89% 36 76.19% 23.81% 36 81.48% 18.52%
School 36 36 74.07% 25.93% 23 76.47% 23.53% 39 79.31% 20.69% 23 76.47% 23.53% 39 82.14% 17.86% 35 84.62% 15.38% 32 68.75% 12.50% 26 84.62% 15.38% 23 84.62% 15.38%
School 37 19 64.52% 35.48% 33 75.00% 25.00% 18 61.76% 38.24% 33 75.00% 25.00% 18 80.00% 20.00% 18 75.00% 25.00% 18 44.44% 11.11% 18 81.25% 18.75% 17 85.00% 15.00%
Grand Total 1006 1155 996 1149 988 969 932 882 872
Average 28 77.47% 19.83% 32 81.41% 18.59% 28 81.78% 18.22% 32 81.96% 18.04% 27 81.96% 18.04% 26 83.09% 16.91% 25 66.49% 14.05% 24 86.34% 13.66% 24 86.29% 13.71%
Maximum 54 100.00% 40.00% 53 100.00% 30.00% 53 100.00% 38.24% 53 100.00% 30.00% 51 100.00% 36.36% 50 100.00% 35.71% 49 180.00% 80.00% 55 100.00% 29.63% 46 100.00% 29.63%
Minimum 0 0.00% 0.00% 10 70.00% 0.00% 1 61.76% 0.00% 9 70.00% 0.00% 5 63.64% 0.00% 5 64.29% 0.00% 5 30.30% 0.00% 5 70.37% 0.00% 5 70.37% 0.00%
ExoticIndigeno
us
Indigeno
us
Exotic
Feb-01Jan-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01Indigeno
us
Indigeno
us
Exotic Indigeno
us
ExoticIndigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
Nov-01 Nov-02 Dec-01 Dec-02Indigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
Indigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
Indigeno
us Crops
Exotic
Crops
47
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Annex 11. Julugan Elementary School's usage of the garden as a learning venue for different learning areas.
SY 2016-2017 (June 2016 to March 2017)
Learning area Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Total
1. EPP 0 0 1 6 9 16
2. Science & Health 1 0 2 0 0 3
3. Edukasyon Sa Pagpapakatao 0 0 1 1 0 2
4. English 1 3 0 0 0 4
5. Filipino 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total 3 3 4 7 9 26
SY 2017-2018 (June to November 2017)
Learning area Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Total
1. EPP 0 0 0 0 4 4
2. Science & Health 0 0 1 2 1 4
3. Edukasyon Sa Pagpapakatao 0 0 0 1 0 1
4. English 0 0 0 2 0 2
5. Filipino 0 0 0 1 3 4
6. Araling Panlipunan 1 1 0 1 0 3
7. MAPEH 1 1 0 0 0 2
8. Mathematics 0 1 0 1 2 4
9. Mother Tongue Base 0 1 1 0 0 2
Total 2 4 2 8 10 26
Annex 12. Sunnybrooke Elementary School's usage of the garden as a learning venue for different learning
areas.
SY 2016-2017 (June 2016 to March 2017)
Learning area Kindergarten Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 5 Gr 6 Total
1. EPP 0 0 0 0 13 1 14
2. Araling Panlipunan 0 1 0 0 2 0 3
3. Filipino 1 0 1 1 0 0 3
4. MAPEH 0 1 0 2 0 0 3
5. Mother Tongue Base 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
6. Science & Health 0 0 0 3 0 1 4
Total 1 3 1 7 15 2 29
SY 2017-2018 (June to November 2017)
Learning area Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Total
1. Araling Panlipunan 14 0 0 30 0 17 61
2. Filipino 0 0 0 0 15 0 15
3. MAPEH 28 26 0 0 30 0 84
4. Mother Tongue Base 12 0 0 0 0 0 12
5. Science & Health 0 0 28 45 15 16 104
48
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
6. English 0 0 0 0 15 0 15
Total 54 26 28 75 75 33 291
Annex 13. Tinabunan Elementary School's usage of the garden as a learning venue for different learning areas.
SY 2016-2017 (June 2016 to March 2017)
Learning area Kindergarten Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Total
1. EPP 0 0 0 0 4 42 3 49
2. Science & Health 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 5
3. MAPEH 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
4. Mathematics 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3
5. Meeting Time -2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
6. Mother Tongue Base 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
7. Work Period 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 4 3 3 4 4 42 3 63
SY 2017-2018 (June to November 2017)
Learning area Kindergarten Gr 3 Gr 5 Total
1. EPP 0 0 16 16
2. MAPEH 0 1 0 1
3. Science & Health 2 1 0 3
4. Filipino 0 0 4 4
Total 2 2 20 24
Annex 14. Garden output and distribution of garden produce in 21 lighthouse schools for SY 2016-2017.
Total yield SBFP Canteen use Sold Shared for free
kg kg % kg % kg % kg %
School 1 37.97 12.32 32.45 5.40 14.22 0.00 0.00 20.25 53.33
School 2 790.00 463.00 58.61 85.00 10.76 131.00 16.58 111.00 14.05
School 3 75.75 19.75 26.07 19.50 25.74 19.50 25.74 17.00 22.44
School 4 247.81 140.20 56.58 9.00 3.63 1.00 0.40 97.61 39.39
School 5 382.51 321.78 84.12 1.00 0.26 31.00 8.10 28.73 7.51
School 6 656.25 5.75 0.88 20.00 3.05 624.00 95.09 6.50 0.99
School 7 290.73 72.12 24.80 173.14 59.55 40.08 13.79 5.40 1.86
School 8 406.00 240.00 59.11 166.00 40.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
School 9 197.25 78.00 39.54 15.00 7.60 47.00 23.83 57.25 29.02
School 10 141.00 27.00 19.15 20.25 14.36 24.00 17.02 69.75 49.47
School 11 52.25 29.00 55.50 1.75 3.35 0.00 0.00 21.50 41.15
School 12 39.50 26.50 67.09 0.00 0.00 11.00 27.85 2.00 5.06
School 13 72.75 9.75 13.40 50.75 69.76 0.00 0.00 12.25 16.84
School 14 220.40 81.40 36.93 72.00 32.67 0.00 0.00 67.00 30.40
School 15 48.75 24.75 50.77 0.00 0.00 18.00 36.92 6.00 12.31
School 16 36.33 16.31 44.90 9.02 24.82 8.00 22.02 3.00 8.26
49
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
School 17 152.91 72.91 47.68 36.00 23.54 2.00 1.31 42.00 27.47
School 18 54.50 21.50 39.45 5.00 9.17 13.00 23.85 15.00 27.52
School 19 27.50 5.00 18.18 6.00 21.82 0.00 16.50 60.00
School 20 45.36 2.68 5.91 0.00 0.00 19.75 43.54 22.93 50.55
School 21 46.30 46.30 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 4021.82 1716.02 694.80 989.33 621.67
Maximum 790.00 463.00 173.14 624.00 111.00
Minimum 27.50 2.68 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annex 15. Prevailing prices (PHP) of selected vegetables from PSA, market in Cavite, and online.
Vegetable/commodity Price PSA
(National)
PSA
(Region 4A)
Market
(Silang, Cavite) Online
CEREAL
ADLAY 315.00 315.00
CORN GRAIN WHITE 22.77 22.77
ROOT CROPS
ARROW ROOT/URARO 60.00 60.00
CASSAVA 58.22 58.22
EDIBLE CANNA 60.00 Same as uraro
GABI CEBU (TARO) 42.73 45.61 42.73
LESSER YAM/TUGI 130.00 Same as ube
PURPLE YAM/UBE 130.00 130.00
RADISH 30.00 30.00
SINGKAMAS 20.00 20.00
SWEET POTATO 36.77 35.41 36.77 130.00
BEANS and LEGUMES
COWPEA/PAAYAP 150.00 150.00
HABITCHUELAS [SNAP BEANS] 67.18 66.49 67.18
HYACINTH BEAN/BATAW 150.00 150.00
JACK BEAN 100.00 Same as patani
LIMA BEAN/PATANI 100.00 100.00
MONGO [MUNGBEAN], GREEN 79.82 84.60 79.82
PEANUT WITH SHELL, DRY 63.31 63.96 63.31
PIGEON PEA/KADIOS 100.00 100.00 (P100 @ 200g)
RICE BEAN/TAPILAN 120.00 120.00
SOYA/UTAO 30.00 30.00
STRINGBEANS 57.16 52.98 57.16 150.00
50
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
WINGED BEAN/SIGARILYAS 120.00 120.00
MALUNGGAY PODS 25.00 25.00
CONDIMENTS
GARLIC CHIVES 210.00 210.00
GINGER HAWAIIAN 91.00 85.48 91.00
HOT PEPPER 500.00 500.00
LEMONGRASS/TANGLAD 48.00 48.00
ONION LEEKS 130.00 130.00
PANDAN LEAVES 96.25 96.25
SESAME SEEDS/LINGA 250.00 250.00
TURMERIC 85.00 85.00
CELERY 215.00 215.00
MINT LEAVES 900.00 900.00
OREGANO 100.00 100.00
FRUIT VEGETABLES
AMPALAYA [BITTER GOURD] 62.99 64.50 62.99
CHAYOTE 34.56 31.16 34.56
EGGPLANT LONG, ROUND 50.00 50.00 81.00
KUNDOL 20.00 Same as upo
OKRA 40.00 40.00
PATOLA 40.00 40.00
SQUASH 34.08 26.73 34.08
TOMATO 47.64 46.44 47.64
UPO [BOTTLE GOURD] 21.81 27.05 21.81
CUCUMBER 40.00 40.00
LEAFY VEGETABLES
ALUGBATI 20.00 20.00
AMARANTH/KULITIS 150.00 150.00
SWEET POTATO TOPS 39.51 31.24 39.51
CHAYA 60.00 Same as cassava tops
GABI, DAHON 60.00 60.00
HOT PEPPER, LEAVES 50.00 50.00 (P5 @ 100g)
JAPANESE MALUNGGAY 70.00 70.00 (P35 @ 500g)
KANGKONG 42.36 31.86 42.36
KATURAY FLOWERS 40.00 Nueva Vizcaya - 40.00
51
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
LAGIKWAY 60.00 Same as cassava tops
MALUNGGAY NATIVE 50.00 100.00 (P5 @ 100g)
MUSTASA 35.00 35.00
PECHAY NATIVE 49.26 55.52 49.26 80.00
ROSELLE FLOWERS 200.00 200.00
ROSELLE TOPS 60.00 Same as cassava tops
SALUYOT 50.00 50.00
TALINUM 20.00 Same as alugbati
AMPALAYA TOPS 60.00 Same as cassava tops
BANANA BLOSSOM 60.00 60.00 (P20 per bud)
BLUE TERNATE FLOWERS 1000.00 1000.00
CASSAVA TOPS 60.00 60.00
CHAYOTE TOPS 60.00 Same as Cassava tops
LETTUCE 75.00 75.00
LUBI-LUBI 60.00 Same as Cassava tops
PAKO 200.00 200.00
SQUASH FLOWERS 40.00 Same as katuray flowers
FRUITS .
BANANA SABA, RIPE* 27.04 27.70 27.04
CALAMANSI 58.33 50.28 58.33
MANGO CARABAO, RIPE 115.25 95.85 115.25
MANGO PIKO, RIPE 71.40 66.51 71.40
PAPAYA HAWAIIAN* 34.22 38.46 34.22
PINEAPPLE HAWAIIAN* 54.27 43.76 54.27
AVOCADO 60.00 60.00
GUYABANO 40.00 40.00
JACKFRUIT 60.00 60.00
SUGARCANE CENTRIFUGAL,
SUGAR 34.88 34.88
Banana saba, ripe*= 9 pieces/kg; Papaya Hawaiian*= 2.50 kg per piece; Pineapple Hawaiian*= 2.40 kg per piece
Annex 16. Julugan Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017.
VEGETABLE UNIT PRICE/KG
(PhP)
TOTAL YIELD
(kg) PESO VALUE
ALUGBATI 20.00 7.95 159.00
AMPALAYA TOPS 60.00 3.26 195.60
BANANA BLOSSOM 60.00 1.75 105.00
BANANA FRUIT 27.04 62.50 1,690.00
52
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
CALAMANSI 58.33 1.25 72.91
CASSAVA 58.22 7.00 407.54
CELERY 215.00 3.86 829.36
CHAYA 60.00 7.75 465.00
GABI 42.73 2.75 117.51
GARLIC CHIVES 210.00 0.44 91.88
GINGER 91.00 4.25 386.75
HYACINTH BEAN 150.00 0.50 75.00
JAPANESE MALUNGGAY 70.00 51.25 3,587.50
KATURAY FLOWERS 40.00 0.75 30.00
KULITIS 150.00 29.37 4,405.50
KUNDOL 20.00 19.75 395.00
MALUNGGAY LEAVES 50.00 59.55 2,977.50
MUSTASA 35.00 8.00 280.00
OKRA 40.00 1.95 78.00
ONION LEEKS 130.00 6.31 819.98
PANDAN LEAVES 96.25 0.75 72.19
PAPAYA 34.22 8.25 282.32
PATOLA 40.00 1.00 40.00
PECHAY 49.26 28.41 1,399.48
PIGEON PEA 100.00 2.00 200.00
RADISH 30.00 1.50 45.00
SALUYOT 50.00 28.00 1,399.75
SESAME 250.00 0.50 125.00
SILI 500.00 7.87 3,936.25
SILI TOPS 50.00 0.63 31.25
SWEET POTATO 36.77 1.75 64.35
SWEET POTATO TOPS 39.51 27.80 1,098.38
TALINUM 20.00 108.91 2,178.10
TALONG 50.00 0.58 28.75
TANGLAD 48.00 4.74 227.52
TOMATO 47.64 0.47 22.51
TURMERIC 85.00 1.20 102.00
UBE 130.00 8.70 1,131.00
UPLAND KANGKONG 42.36 7.75 328.29
UPO 21.81 0.75 16.36
WINGED BEAN 120.00 4.62 554.40
ROSELLE TOPS 60.00 1.37 82.20
Grand total 527.72 30,534.10
Annex 17. Sunnybrooke Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017.
VEGETABLE UNIT PRICE/KG
(PhP)
TOTAL YIELD
(kg) PESO VALUE
ALUGBATI 20.00 5.88 117.50
BANANA BLOSSOM 60.00 13.00 780.00
BANANA FRUIT 27.04 198.75 5,374.20
CASSAVA 58.22 10.00 582.20
CHAYA 60.00 33.00 1,980.00
COWPEA 150.00 0.75 112.50
GABI 42.73 4.00 170.92
GARLIC CHIVES 210.00 3.41 716.10
53
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
HYACINTH BEAN 150.00 16.00 2,400.00
JACK BEAN 100.00 3.50 350.00
JAPANESE MALUNGGAY 70.00 11.50 805.00
KULITIS 150.00 41.95 6,292.50
KUNDOL 20.00 9.75 195.00
LAGIKWAY 60.00 2.00 120.00
LIMA BEAN 100.00 8.75 875.00
LUBI-LUBI 60.00 1.00 60.00
MALUNGGAY LEAVES 50.00 153.75 7,687.50
MALUNGGAY PODS 25.00 1.00 25.00
MUSTASA 35.00 13.60 476.00
OKRA 40.00 6.50 260.00
ONION LEEKS 130.00 1.20 155.35
OREGANO 100.00 2.00 200.00
PANDAN LEAVES 173.13 0.11 19.04
PATOLA 40.00 27.00 1,080.00
PECHAY 49.26 2.87 141.38
PIGEON PEA 100.00 0.50 50.00
SALUYOT 50.00 19.25 962.50
SILI 500.00 3.63 1,812.50
STRING BEANS 57.16 1.75 100.03
SWEET POTATO 36.77 3.00 110.31
SWEET POTATO TOPS 39.51 21.50 849.47
TALINUM 20.00 29.25 585.00
TANGLAD 48.00 127.75 6,132.00
TAPILAN 120.00 0.25 30.00
TOMATO 47.64 3.75 178.65
UBE 130.00 3.00 390.00
UPLAND KANGKONG 42.36 14.10 597.28
URARO 60.00 1.00 60.00
WINGED BEAN 120.00 7.50 900.00
ROSELLE TOPS 60.00 10.63 637.50
Grand total 818.11 44,370.42
Annex 18. Tinabunan Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017.
VEGETABLE UNIT PRICE/KG
(PhP)
TOTAL YIELD
(kg) PESO VALUE
MALUNGGAY LEAVES 50.00 0.25 12.50
ADLAY 315.00 6.00 1,890.00
ALUGBATI 20.00 10.25 205.00
ALUGBATI 20.00 0.50 10.00
CASSAVA 58.22 22.00 1,280.84
CASSAVA 58.22 4.00 232.88
CHAYA 60.00 1.00 60.00
CORN 22.77 0.25 5.69
COWPEA 150.00 0.30 45.00
GABI LEAVES 60.00 7.75 465.00
GINGER 91.00 0.25 22.75
54
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
VEGETABLE UNIT PRICE/KG
(PhP)
TOTAL YIELD
(kg) PESO VALUE
JACK BEAN 100.00 7.75 775.00
JAPANESE MALUNGGAY 70.00 4.73 330.75
KATURAY FLOWERS 40.00 5.00 200.00
KULITIS 150.00 66.08 9,912.00
KUNDOL 20.00 82.77 1,655.40
LAGIKWAY 60.00 0.75 45.00
LIMA BEAN 100.00 4.45 445.00
MALUNGGAY LEAVES 50.00 146.16 7,308.00
MALUNGGAY PODS 25.00 58.00 1,450.00
MUSTASA 35.00 5.00 175.00
OKRA 40.00 7.60 304.00
ONION LEEKS 130.00 0.75 97.50
PAKO 200.00 7.30 1,459.00
PATOLA 40.00 89.65 3,586.00
PECHAY 49.26 3.75 184.73
PIGEON PEA 100.00 3.16 316.00
RADISH 30.00 1.00 30.00
SALUYOT 50.00 13.09 654.50
SILI 500.00 2.97 1,485.00
SINGKAMAS 20.00 8.25 165.00
SUGARCANE 34.88 10.00 348.80
SWEET POTATO 36.77 6.50 239.01
SWEET POTATO TOPS 39.51 34.20 1,351.24
TALINUM 20.00 40.80 816.00
TALONG 50.00 12.50 625.00
TANGLAD 48.00 12.00 576.00
TAPILAN 120.00 1.25 150.00
TOMATO 47.64 34.50 1,643.58
TUGI 130.00 26.00 3,380.00
UBE 130.00 8.50 1,105.00
UPLAND KANGKONG 42.36 1.50 63.54
UPO 21.81 0.50 10.91
URARO 60.00 3.50 210.00
WINGED BEAN 120.00 32.37 3,884.40
ROSELLE TOPS 60.00 0.80 48.00
Grand total 795.67 49,259.01
Annex 19. Carlos Batino Memorial Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017.
VEGETABLE UNIT PRICE/KG
(PhP)
TOTAL YIELD
(kg) PESO VALUE
ALUGBATI 20.00 1.75 35.00
AMPALAYA 62.99 4.95 311.80
CASSAVA 58.22 1.00 58.22
CELERY 215.00 1.20 258.00
CHAYA 60.00 0.15 9.00
55
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
CHAYOTE 34.56 89.35 3,087.94
COWPEA 150.00 1.20 180.00
GABI 42.73 7.10 303.38
GINGER 91.00 1.00 91.00
HYACINTH BEAN 150.00 28.70 4,305.00
JAPANESE MALUNGGAY 70.00 0.40 28.00
KULITIS 150.00 0.90 135.00
KUNDOL 20.00 15.45 309.00
LETTUCE 75.00 31.50 2,362.50
LIMA BEAN 100.00 0.90 90.00
LUBI-LUBI 60.00 0.50 30.00
MALUNGGAY LEAVES 50.00 8.90 445.00
MUSTASA 35.00 1.75 61.25
OKRA 40.00 4.70 188.00
PAPAYA 34.22 14.00 479.08
PATOLA 40.00 14.60 584.00
PECHAY 49.26 4.40 216.74
RADISH 30.00 2.00 60.00
SALUYOT 50.00 1.40 70.00
SILI 500.00 0.18 90.00
SQUASH 34.08 5.00 170.40
SWEET POTATO TOPS 39.51 11.10 438.56
TALINUM 20.00 3.70 74.00
TALONG 50.00 11.90 595.00
TOMATO 47.64 8.65 412.09
UPLAND KANGKONG 42.36 2.20 93.19
UPO 21.81 27.30 595.41
WINGED BEAN 120.00 24.60 2,952.00
SNAP BEANS 67.18 5.17 347.32
Grand total 337.60 19,465.89
Annex 20. Gen. Alona Memorial Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017.
VEGETABLE
UNIT PRICE/KG
(PhP)
TOTAL YIELD
(kg) PESO VALUE
ALUGBATI 20.00 1.65 33.00
BANANA BLOSSOM 60.00 25.75 1,545.00
BANANA FRUIT 27.04 133.75 3,616.60
CALAMANSI 58.33 0.10 5.83
CASSAVA 58.22 2.50 145.55
CHAYOTE 34.56 11.55 399.17
COWPEA 150.00 0.85 127.50
CUCUMBER 40.00 0.01 0.40
GABI 42.73 6.25 267.06
GINGER 91.00 0.50 45.50
HYACINTH BEAN 150.00 14.50 2,175.00
JACKFRUIT 60.00 46.25 2,775.00
JAPANESE MALUNGGAY 70.00 18.78 1,314.60
KULITIS 150.00 12.80 1,920.00
LETTUCE 75.00 0.80 60.00
LIMA BEAN 100.00 2.25 225.00
56
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
MALUNGGAY LEAVES 50.00 28.00 1,400.00
MUSTASA 35.00 56.48 1,976.80
OKRA 40.00 12.44 497.60
ONION LEEKS 130.00 0.75 97.50
PANDAN LEAVES 96.25 0.02 1.93
PAPAYA 34.22 89.75 3,071.25
PATOLA 40.00 0.75 30.00
PEANUT 63.31 0.25 15.83
PECHAY 49.26 17.60 866.98
PINEAPPLE 54.27 0.50 27.14
RADISH 30.00 5.50 165.00
SALUYOT 50.00 7.68 384.00
SILI 500.00 2.20 1,100.00
SILI TOPS 50.00 3.00 150.00
STRING BEANS 57.16 6.45 368.68
SWEET POTATO 36.77 1.00 36.77
SWEET POTATO TOPS 39.51 3.52 139.08
TALINUM 20.00 2.00 40.00
TALONG 50.00 9.39 469.55
TANGLAD 48.00 0.10 4.80
TOMATO 47.64 0.50 23.82
TURMERIC 85.00 2.40 204.00
UBE 130.00 5.00 650.00
UPLAND KANGKONG 42.36 4.85 205.45
UPO 21.81 5.75 125.41
URARO 60.00 0.50 30.00
WINGED BEAN 120.00 0.05 6.00
Grand Total 544.72 26,742.77
Annex 21. Isidro Cuadra Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017.
VEGETABLE
UNIT PRICE/KG
(PhP)
TOTAL YIELD
(kg) PESO VALUE
ALUGBATI 20.00 0.14 2.80
BLUE PEA 1,000.00 0.15 150.00
CASSAVA 58.22 21.64 1,259.88
CUCUMBER 40.00 1.50 60.00
GABI 42.73 11.28 481.99
GINGER 91.00 1.62 147.42
HYACINTH BEAN 150.00 0.75 112.50
JAPANESE MALUNGGAY 70.00 0.24 16.80
KATURAY FLOWERS 40.00 0.12 4.80
KULITIS 150.00 0.51 75.75
LETTUCE 75.00 0.50 37.50
LIMA BEAN 100.00 2.45 245.00
LUBI-LUBI 60.00 0.80 48.00
MALUNGGAY LEAVES 50.00 15.23 761.25
MINT LEAVES 900.00 0.06 49.50
MUSTASA 35.00 0.57 19.95
OKRA 40.00 1.14 45.60
PATOLA 40.00 1.00 40.00
PECHAY 49.26 3.88 191.13
57
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
SALUYOT 50.00 2.29 114.50
SQUASH 34.08 10.10 344.21
SWEET POTATO 36.77 8.50 312.55
SWEET POTATO TOPS 39.51 1.79 70.72
TALINUM 20.00 3.35 67.00
TALONG 50.00 8.20 410.00
UPLAND KANGKONG 42.36 0.20 8.47
WINGED BEAN 120.00 1.99 238.80
ROSELLE TOPS 60.00 0.96 57.60
SQUAH FLOWER 40.00 0.12 4.80
Grand total 101.065 5,378.52
Annex 22. Upli Elementary School's garden output with peso value for SY 2016-2017.
VEGETABLE
UNIT PRICE/KG
(PhP)
TOTAL YIELD
(kg) PESO VALUE
BANANA BLOSSOM 60.00 0.50 30.00
BANANA FRUIT 27.04 50.00 1,352.00
CASSAVA 58.22 155.50 9,053.21
CELERY 215.00 0.75 161.25
CHAYOTE 34.56 767.00 26,507.52
GABI 42.73 8.50 363.21
GINGER 91.00 27.66 2,517.06
GUYABANO 40.00 13.00 520.00
KULITIS 150.00 3.75 562.50
LIMA BEAN 100.00 4.75 475.00
MALUNGGAY LEAVES 50.00 6.25 312.50
MUSTASA 35.00 2.10 73.50
OKRA 40.00 3.25 130.00
PATOLA 40.00 9.50 380.00
PECHAY 49.26 1.00 49.26
PIGEON PEA 100.00 1.25 125.00
RADISH 30.00 5.00 150.00
SALUYOT 50.00 3.75 187.50
SILI 500.00 0.41 205.00
SILI TOPS 50.00 2.50 125.00
SQUASH 34.08 18.50 630.48
STRING BEANS 57.16 2.00 114.32
SWEET POTATO TOPS 39.51 2.25 88.90
TALINUM 20.00 8.25 165.00
TALONG 50.00 4.00 200.00
TOMATO 47.64 5.50 262.02
TURMERIC 85.00 5.00 425.00
UPO 21.81 17.50 381.68
URARO 60.00 29.00 1,740.00
WINGED BEAN 120.00 1.75 210.00
SNAP BEANS 67.18 15.00 1,007.70
Grand total 1,175.17 48,504.60
Annex 23. Julugan Elementary School's distribution of garden produce for SY 2017-2017.
Total Yield SBFP Canteen use Sold Shared
58
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
kg % kg % kg % kg % kg %
Condiments 22.04 4.18 18.59 3.52 1.45 0.27 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.38
Fruits 72.00 13.64 71.50 13.55 0.50 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fruit vegetables 32.37 6.13 20.14 3.82 1.28 0.24 1.75 0.33 9.20 1.74
Leaves and flowers 372.49 70.58 308.87 58.53 26.00 4.93 4.00 0.76 33.62 6.37
Legumes and beans 7.12 1.35 7.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02
Root crops 21.70 4.11 6.70 1.27 0.00 0.00 12.42 2.35 2.58 0.49
Total 527.72 100.00 432.80 82.01 29.23 5.54 18.17 3.44 47.52 9.00
Annex 24. Sunnybrooke Elementary School's distribution of garden produce for SY 2017-2017.
Total yield SBFP Canteen use Sold Shared
kg % kg % kg % kg % kg %
Condiments 134.47 16.44 28.25 3.45 9.86 1.20 81.00 9.90 15.36 1.88
Fruits 198.75 24.29 90.00 11.00 25.00 3.06 60.00 7.33 23.75 2.90
Fruit vegetables 50.63 6.19 38.25 4.68 4.50 0.55 4.50 0.55 3.38 0.41
Leaves and flowers 373.27 45.63 331.75 40.55 19.75 2.41 0.20 0.02 21.57 2.64
Legumes and beans 40.00 4.89 35.75 4.37 1.75 0.21 0.50 0.06 2.00 0.24
Root crops 21.00 2.57 17.00 2.08 4.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 818.11 100.00 541.00 66.13 64.86 7.93 146.20 17.87 66.06 8.07
Annex 25. Tinabunan Elementary School's distribution of garden produce for SY 2017-2017.
Total Yield SBFP Canteen Sold Shared
kg % kg % kg % kg % kg %
Cereals 6.25 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.25 0.79
Condiments 23.00 2.89 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.03 22.50 2.83
Fruit vegetables 230.49 28.97 177.19 22.27 1.25 0.16 8.00 1.01 44.05 5.54
Leaves and flowers 348.90 43.85 203.23 25.54 50.50 6.35 17.25 2.17 77.92 9.79
Legumes and beans 107.28 13.48 22.96 2.89 0.00 0.00 15.00 1.89 69.32 8.71
Root crops 79.75 10.02 28.75 3.61 12.50 1.57 4.00 0.50 34.50 4.34
Total 795.67 100.00 432.38 54.34 64.25 8.07 44.50 5.59 254.54 31.99
Annex 26. Factors that hinder garden sustainability as perceived by 42 lighthouse schools.
Factor No. of
schools
%
(N=42)
Garden teachers lack time to attend garden activities due to teaching
load and other school activities such as sports contests, boy
scouts/camping, school contests, etc.
17 40.48
Crops are submerged in water during rainy season, thus affecting soil
fertility and making year-round planting difficult 8 19.05
Schools have no specific budget to cover garden activity expenses 7 16.77
Annex 27. Good practices followed in 42 lighthouse schools to sustain gardens.
Factor No. of
schools
%
(N=42)
Partnership with stakeholders (i.e., parents, LGUs, NGOs) 40 95.24
59
CLIMATE AND NUTRITION SMART SCHOOL GARDENS | Research Article
Principal provides monitoring, encouragement, and fund support for
garden maintenance and improvement 19 45.24
Planning and coordination in garden management with SBFP
coordinator, school administrator, and teachers in school 9 21.43
End