Climate and nutrition smart school gardens · Under the K to 12 basic education scheme, Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) in elementary schools (Grades 4 to 6) and Technology

Annex 5. Working paper on Climate and Nutrition Smart Gardens

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

9


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


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


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


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


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


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.

15


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


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


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%).

19


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.


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%



Rootcrop 2.08% 0.49% 0.00% 0.00%

Dis

trib

uti

on

of

Gar

den

Pro

du

ce, %

20



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%



Rootcrop 3.61% 1.57% 0.50% 4.34%

Dis

trib

uti

on

of

Gar

den

Pro

du

ce,

%

21


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


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


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


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


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


• 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


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


• 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


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


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


Annex 3. Baseline and endline survey forms on the adoption of BIG standards.

32


33


34


Annex 4. Survey form on garden diversity.

35


Annex 5. Survey form on garden output and utilization.

36


Annex 6. Survey form on garden usage as learning venue.

37


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


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


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%


Reasons for non-Adoption

Limited space for trees. wanted to plant vegetable

crops instead of fertilizer trees 4 6.89%

39


Others: Too much workload/without turnover/conflict with

other gardening programs 4 6.88%

Cover cropping


Provision of Tapilan seeds promoted cover cropping 47 81.03%



Lack of available seeds for cover cropping 4 6.90%

Crop diversity


Experiential learning in Phase1 9 15.52%

Improved knowledge and availability of diverse

planting materials 43 74.14%


Lack of diverse seeds to plant. Limited stored seeds 5 8.62%


Mulching



adoption 11 18.97%


adoption 30 51.72%

Monitoring and TA facilitated adoption 4 6.90%


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



adoption 11 18.97%



adoption 29 50.00%


Lack of/limited kakawate trees 2 3.45%

Lack of time. Too much workload of GPP

coordinator 2 3.45%


New EPP teacher/without proper turnover 1 1.72%

Crop rotation



adoption 9 15.52%

40



adoption 25 43.10%



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


RWC/containers/construction supported by school

head 33 56.89%

RWC/containers/construction supported by

LGU/stakeholders 12 20.69%


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


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%


Use pesticides when there is high pest population

/Use chemical fertilizer for production 2 3.44%

Organic matterregularly applied


Experiential learning in Phase1. 15 25.86%

Provided with compost/vermicast /organic fertilizer

by DA/LGU 17 29.31%


With source of local materials 7 12.07%

Composting



New/improved compost area. Supported by school

head 11 18.97%


Unsegregated garbage 3 5.17%

Dependence on the supply from DA/lack of time/too

much workload 2 3.44%

Liquid fertilizer application

41

46


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


(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


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 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


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


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.


(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



(PhP)

TOTAL YIELD

(kg) PESO VALUE

JACK BEAN 100.00 7.75 775.00



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 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


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.


(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


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


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


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


TALINUM 20.00 3.70 74.00

TALONG 50.00 11.90 595.00

TOMATO 47.64 8.65 412.09


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



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


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


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



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


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


SALUYOT 50.00 2.29 114.50

SQUASH 34.08 10.10 344.21

SWEET POTATO 36.77 8.50 312.55


TALINUM 20.00 3.35 67.00

TALONG 50.00 8.20 410.00


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


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


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


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


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




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


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




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


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

Documents

Climate and nutrition smart school gardens · Under the K to 12 basic education scheme, Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) in elementary schools (Grades 4 to 6) and Technology