CAN ORGANIC FERTILIZERS WIN OVER CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS?

 CAN ORGANIC FERTILIZERS WIN OVER CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS?

I have often heard it said that organic fertilizers can never be as good as chemical fertilizers. The argument is usually simple: organic is less “potent,” while chemical fertilizers deliver fast, visible results. Another common argument is that organic farming is costlier—that is why organically grown fruits and vegetables usually fetch higher prices in the market.

But I have always wondered about the economics of this comparison. Why should something that could be produced cheaply and locally, like organic fertilizers from farm waste, be measured against imported chemical fertilizers that are not only expensive but also heavily subsidized by the government?

And now comes a farmer from India, Ramesh Khangoudar, who has provided proof of concept that organic farming can actually be more profitable than chemical-dependent farming. Faced with fertilizer bills crossing ₹1 lakh (around ₱67,000) per year, Ramesh shifted to organic farming. But he did not stop there—he trained more than 10,000 other farmers, showing them that they too could farm profitably without being trapped in the cycle of costly chemical inputs.

With the support of the SELCO Foundation and the Karnataka State Agriculture Department, Ramesh even brought AI-powered robots into small farms—machines that monitor soil health, help with precision planting, and reduce labor burdens. Add to that renewable energy, mobile sales units, and closed-loop systems, and you have a self-sustaining ecosystem that links clean energy, dignified livelihoods, and affordable food.

This is not just farming. This is systems thinking in action.

What About the Philippines?

Skeptics might say, “Well, that’s India. Could this happen here?” The truth is: it already has.

In Pangasinan, the Teraoka Family Farm has built a name around indigenous crops and certified organic vegetables. By reviving nearly-forgotten local produce like sineguelas, duhat, kamias, and santol, they have proven that biodiversity and profitability can go hand in hand.

In Davao del Sur, Green Farm, founded by Glenn Ferrer, started as a backyard garden but has since grown into a full ecosystem—fishponds, mushrooms, bees, and poultry—all run on integrated organic farming methods. They even teach others how to make organic soil amendments and concoctions from local materials.

And then there’s MASIPAG, a nationwide farmer-led network that promotes seed sovereignty and agroecology. For decades now, they have empowered farmers to save and exchange their own seeds, breaking free from dependence on corporate seed and chemical suppliers.

These are not isolated stories. They are models of resilience and self-sufficiency, quietly flourishing across the country.

The Real Economics

Now let us return to economics. Chemical fertilizers are energy-intensive to produce, imported, and priced according to global supply shocks. When the Russia-Ukraine war disrupted fertilizer supply chains, Filipino farmers immediately felt the pinch, as urea prices more than doubled. In contrast, organic fertilizers—whether made from compost, animal manure, or crop residues—can be produced locally with minimal cash outlay.

Yes, organic fertilizers may deliver nutrients more slowly than chemicals. But they also improve soil health, water retention, and biodiversity in the long term. Chemicals may give an instant boost, but overuse leads to soil degradation, declining yields, and greater dependence on ever-higher doses. In other words, chemicals mortgage the future; organics invest in it.

As for consumer prices, yes, organic produce is currently more expensive. But as more farms transition to organic, economies of scale will bring costs down. If India can show proof of concept, so can we. The Department of Agriculture and LGUs should seriously invest in farmer training, subsidies for organic inputs, and support for direct-to-consumer sales to make organic more affordable.

Beyond Economics: Health and Longevity

Of course, the greater benefit of organic food is not just its market price—it is our health. By reducing exposure to pesticide residues, synthetic additives, and degraded soils, organic food supports long-term wellness. What good is cheap rice, cheap chicken, or cheap vegetables if they slowly erode our health over time?

Food security, after all, should not just mean that food is available and cheap. It should mean that food is safe, nutritious, and sustainable. That is why organic fertilizers—and the farming systems they support—should be seen not as an alternative curiosity, but as a foundation for national food sovereignty.

Final Thoughts

So, can organic fertilizers win over chemical fertilizers? My answer is yes—not overnight, not without challenges, but steadily and surely. The proof is already out there—in India, in Pangasinan, in Davao, and across MASIPAG communities nationwide.

This is not a passing trend. It is a pathway toward healthier soil, healthier people, and longer lives. If we truly want food security—not just in terms of quantity, but quality—then investing in organic is not optional. It is essential.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-29-2025

PROTESTING AGAINST GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS

 PROTESTING AGAINST GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS

Just when I thought the battle against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was a lost cause, something unexpected happened on an island in the Philippines that could turn the tide.

Why did I think it was lost? Because GMO products and byproducts are practically everywhere now—on grocery shelves, in processed foods, and even in restaurant menus. Many of us have resigned ourselves to the thought that there is no point in fighting anymore. But suddenly, the people of Negros Island Region (NIR) stood up, and what was meant to be a local cry has now become a global rallying point.

What makes this story remarkable is that it is not led by politicians, celebrities, or big corporations. It is led by ordinary people—farmers, advocates, and community leaders like Ramon Uy Jr., who simply cares about livelihood, food security, and long-term health. Their spark has lit a fire, and the world is now watching.

Negros: The GMO-Free Island

For almost two decades, Negros Island has proudly worn the badge of being GMO-free. Through Provincial Ordinance No. 07, Series of 2007—known as The Safeguard Against Living Genetically Modified Organisms—Negros built a global reputation as the “Organic Capital of the Philippines” and even the “Organic Food Bowl of Southeast Asia.”

Now, that identity is under threat. The Provincial Board is considering a new ordinance that could repeal the ban and open the doors to living GMOs. Local groups fear this will undermine years of effort, investments, and trust in organic farming.

And the world agrees. Over 50 international organic organizations have expressed solidarity with the GMO-Free Negros Coalition. At the 8th Organic Asia Congress in Vietnam, leaders like Edgardo Uychiat of IFOAM Organics International and Mathew John, President of IFOAM Organics Asia, warned that Negros risks diluting its hard-earned reputation. As John put it: “After building up such a strong identity and statement to the rest of the world, it’s a pity that GMOs are now weakening the strength of organic agriculture.”

In fact, Negros has been chosen to host the Organic World Congress in 2027—a prestigious event that could highlight the Philippines on the global organic map. Why throw that away for short-term experiments with GMOs?

The Bigger Battle

Supporters of GMOs argue that genetic modification can increase crop yields, resist pests, and help feed a growing global population. But critics point out that GMOs bring long-term risks:

• The loss of biodiversity, as monoculture crops replace native varieties.
  
  

• The dominance of multinational seed companies, which could trap farmers in cycles of dependency.
  
  

• Uncertain health effects, as studies on GMO consumption remain contested.
  
  

• The weakening of organic industries, which rely on GMO-free certification to maintain consumer trust.
  
  

Do we really want to risk all this, when Negros already has a thriving organic economy and global recognition?

David vs. Goliath

This is beginning to look like a modern-day David versus Goliath battle. On one side are small farmers, organic advocates, and local leaders. On the other side are big corporations, lobbyists, and even some policymakers who are eager to “modernize” agriculture.

But let us not forget: in the biblical story, David won. And perhaps Negros could, too. After all, the global tide is not entirely in favor of GMOs. Europe remains cautious, with many countries imposing restrictions. Consumers worldwide are demanding organic, natural, and GMO-free products. This is the market Negros has already positioned itself for.

What Can Be Done

First, the Negros Provincial Board should listen to its people. When farmers, NGOs, and citizens rise in protest—backed by international allies—shouldn’t that weigh more heavily than industry lobbying?

Second, national agencies like the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health must take a clearer stand. It is not enough to allow GMOs in by default while ignoring the concerns of local organic producers.

Third, ordinary citizens should care about this issue, even if they don’t live in Negros. Why? Because food is everyone’s concern. If Negros falls, other provinces may follow. And once GMOs spread, there is no turning back—cross-pollination can erase decades of organic farming in a single season.

Final Thoughts

What began as a “silent cry” in Negros is now echoing across the globe. The lesson here is simple: even when the odds seem overwhelming, people who care can still make a difference. Negros Island has shown that resistance is not futile—it is necessary.

The GMO debate is not just about crops. It is about identity, health, sovereignty, and the future of food. And perhaps, just perhaps, this small island in the Philippines will remind the world that sometimes, it is worth fighting Goliath.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-28-2025

ENFORCING LAWS AGAINST ILLICIT WILDLIFE TRADING

 ENFORCING LAWS AGAINST ILLICIT WILDLIFE TRADING

How can we strictly enforce laws against illicit wildlife trading when the Department of Justice itself, through its spokesman, has admitted that our borders are porous? If people can be smuggled out of the country, how much easier would it be for wildlife—and not just live animals, but also eggs, hides, horns, scales, and even fish brood stock?

Outbound smuggling is one problem, but let us not forget inbound smuggling. What do you call that? Illegal imports. Both flows—outbound and inbound—are happening, and both are serious.

The sad thing is, there are speculations that in some cases, the very officials who are supposed to enforce the law are the ones breaking it. This undermines not only enforcement but also public trust.

The good news is that there is already a mechanism for coordination. The Philippines has a Wildlife Law Enforcement Action Plan (WildLEAP 2018–2028), which brings together agencies like the DENR, PNP, NBI, BFAR, Bureau of Customs, and even LGUs. The bad news? We do not hear much about what they are doing. Silence breeds suspicion. If they are making arrests, why are we not hearing regular reports? Transparency is itself a form of deterrence.

Smuggling Cases Close to Home

Over the years, we have heard about the illegal export of sabalo (mother milkfish), vital for aquaculture seed supply. More recently, there are whispers about ludong (lobed river mullet), one of the rarest and most prized fish in the Philippines, being smuggled out. This is alarming. Ludong is already nearly endangered; smuggling only pushes it closer to extinction.

Wildlife crimes are not victimless crimes. Every pangolin smuggled, every hornbill poached, every ludong exported illegally—these are losses to our biodiversity, our food security, and even our cultural heritage.

Who’s Supposed to Enforce the Law?

The Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) under DENR is the lead agency implementing RA 9147 (Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act). But enforcement requires a whole network:

• PNP – conducts raids and arrests.
  
  

• NBI – investigates organized wildlife trafficking and cybercrime links.
  
  

• BFAR – protects aquatic wildlife, especially endangered fish and marine species.
  
  

• Bureau of Customs – intercepts smuggled wildlife at airports and seaports.
  
  

• LGUs – enforce local ordinances and monitor public markets.
  
  

• DOJ – prosecutes wildlife crimes.
  
  

Internationally, the Philippines also coordinates with CITES, INTERPOL, UNODC, and the World Customs Organization. So the framework is there. The problem is execution and follow-through.

What Needs to Be Done

First, the WildLEAP Task Force should report regularly to the public: How many arrests? How many convictions? How many wildlife rescues? Publishing these numbers will show taxpayers that the law is being enforced.

Second, Congress should review their budget. If the problem is underfunding, then allocate more resources. If the problem is inefficiency, then impose stricter oversight.

Third, we need to strengthen border security. DOJ Assistant Secretary Mico Clavano has publicly acknowledged that our archipelagic geography makes guarding borders difficult. But “difficult” does not mean “impossible.” The Philippine Coast Guard and the Navy should be part of the wildlife enforcement system. If we can guard against pirates and smugglers of cigarettes and oil, why not smugglers of wildlife?

Fourth, LGUs should step up. Illegal wildlife trade is not only international—it also happens locally, right in our markets. If LGUs inspected public markets more often, many cases of illegal selling of turtles, exotic birds, and protected fish could be stopped before they even enter the export chain.

The Bigger Picture

Why is this so urgent? Because the Philippines is a megadiverse country, hosting more species per square kilometer than most nations. Sadly, we are also a hotspot for wildlife trafficking. Pangolins, geckos, ivory, and even corals have all been seized in Philippine ports. The United Nations has warned that the illegal wildlife trade is now the fourth largest transnational crime in the world, after drugs, arms, and human trafficking.

We must remind ourselves: protecting wildlife is not just about saving cute animals. It is about maintaining ecological balance, supporting sustainable fisheries, and even preventing future pandemics. Many diseases—SARS, Ebola, COVID-19—are linked to wildlife trade.

Final Thoughts

The enforcement gaps are glaring, but the solutions are within reach. Coordination already exists on paper; it just needs to be lived out in practice. Transparency and accountability must be non-negotiable. And above all, communities must be part of the solution. Barangay-level monitoring, citizen reporting hotlines, and stronger cooperatives can create a grassroots shield against wildlife crime.

Food security and biodiversity are deeply intertwined. Smuggling out sabalo and ludong is not just theft from nature; it is theft from our people.

So the challenge is clear: enforce the law, close the borders, and protect what is ours. Because once these species are gone, they are gone forever. And no amount of apologies or budgets will bring them back.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-27-2025

RICE AS THE BAROMETER OF FOOD SECURITY

 RICE AS THE BAROMETER OF FOOD SECURITY

It is already obvious that our rice farmers are forced to sell their palay harvests at prices lower than their production costs. Imagine this: farmers spend around ₱20–₱22 per kilo to produce palay, but are forced to sell at ₱10–₱14 per kilo. That is a straight loss of about ₱10 per kilo. Who would keep farming under such conditions?

Now, we hear proposals about selling rice at ₱20 per kilo to more consumers. Good news for the urban poor perhaps—but what about the rural poor, the farmers themselves? If they keep selling at a loss, eventually they will stop planting. What happens to food security then?

This leads us to a bigger question: what should really be the definition of food security?

Too often, food security in the Philippines is reduced to the size of the rice inventory. But what good is rice without viands to eat it with? Shouldn’t food security also mean a reliable supply of poultry, meats, fruits, vegetables, fish, and even root crops? In truth, food security should be defined holistically—not only in terms of quantity (consumption) but also in terms of quality (nutrition).

We should also include in that definition access to potable water, cooking fuel, and electricity, because what use is rice if you can’t cook it?

Palay Prices and the Role of Government

The palay price crisis did not come from nowhere. The Rice Tariffication Law (RTL) stripped the National Food Authority (NFA) of its buffer stocking and price stabilization role. The NFA’s 2026 budget is pegged at ₱11.18 billion, but once you deduct personnel and operating expenses (~₱6 billion), only about ₱5 billion remains for palay procurement. That’s enough to buy just 320,000 tons of palay—or a measly 1.6% of national output.

Now compare that with our neighbors:

• India’s Food Corporation procures 30–40% of rice output every year.
  
  

• Thailand’s rice pledging scheme once covered 20–25% of production.
  
  

If they can do it, why can’t we?

Some experts suggest that the Philippines should aim to procure at least 20% of palay output, roughly 4 million tons. That would require ₱100 billion for procurement plus another ₱100 billion for warehouse infrastructure. A steep price, yes—but is it any steeper than the social cost of losing our rice farmers to bankruptcy and migration?

Rice as the Barometer

Dr. Ted Mendoza is right: rice is the barometer of our food security. If our rice farmers are suffering, then the entire food system is in crisis. When rice prices collapse at the farmgate, it signals a larger problem of market stabilization and government intervention.

But let us not stop there. The 1996 World Food Summit gave us a globally accepted definition of food security that still applies today. It has four dimensions:

1. Availability – Is there enough food produced, stored, or imported to meet demand?
   
   

2. Access – Can people afford and physically reach the food they need?
   
   

3. Utilization – Is the food being consumed in a way that supports health? This includes nutrition, water, and cooking methods.
   
   

4. Stability – Are these conditions reliable over time, or are they vulnerable to shocks like typhoons, wars, or inflation?
   
   

Notice how rice only addresses the first dimension—availability. But access, utilization, and stability are just as critical.

A Call for Holistic Food Security

The truth is, food security should mean food sovereignty. We should not only ensure that rice is cheap and abundant; we should also ensure that farmers, fisherfolk, and food producers live in dignity. After all, how can we expect food producers to continue feeding the nation if they themselves cannot eat properly?

Food sovereignty means that communities should have control over how their food is produced, distributed, and consumed. It means strengthening farmer cooperatives, investing in local food systems, and promoting diversified farming—not just rice monoculture. It also means linking food security to environmental sustainability, because there is no food security in the long run without healthy soils, clean water, and stable ecosystems.

So yes, rice is the barometer of food security—but let us not mistake the barometer for the whole climate. If rice tells us that farmers are in crisis, then the entire food system is under stress.

The solution? Restore the government’s Market Stabilization Role. Ensure fair farmgate prices. Build strategic warehouses. Invest not just in rice, but in poultry, vegetables, and fisheries. And above all, treat farmers not as charity cases, but as partners in securing the nation’s future.

Because food security is not just about keeping rice cheap for consumers. It is about ensuring that both producers and consumers can live with dignity, health, and resilience. (With credits to Dr. Ted Mendoza).

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-26-2025