CAN RICE GROW WITHOUT IRRIGATION?

CAN RICE GROW WITHOUT IRRIGATION?

If rice could grow without irrigation, then why are we not doing it? This is not a rhetorical question—it’s a practical one that needs a practical answer. I may not be a farmer, but I do know something about databases, technology, and systems. And to me, this is not just an agricultural issue—it’s an information and planning problem.

If we can map out where drought-tolerant rice varieties can grow, and if we know where to source those seeds, then we can actually make this work. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), we could identify specific plots of land that are suitable for rainfed or upland rice farming. We already have the technology; what’s missing is the coordinated effort and political will to use it for national food security.

The Philippines is traditionally a rice-eating country, and our farming culture is deeply tied to the image of flooded paddies and carabaos wading through mud. But that mindset might be limiting us. What if part of the reason we are so dependent on irrigation—and consequently on imported rice—is simply cultural? We’re so used to thinking that rice must be grown in flooded fields that we don’t even explore other ways.

Now, with climate change threatening our water supply and weather patterns becoming less predictable, we cannot afford to stick to old habits. Maybe it’s time to think out of the box—or rather, out of the paddy.

Yes, rice can grow without continuous irrigation. In fact, there are three major approaches already tested and validated by research institutions like PhilRice and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI):

1. Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD).
This method allows fields to dry intermittently between irrigation cycles instead of keeping them flooded. Using a simple observation tube, farmers can see when the water level drops to a certain depth and irrigate only when necessary. This technique can save up to 30% of water without reducing yield—and it even cuts methane emissions, helping fight climate change.

2. Upland Rice Cultivation.
Upland rice is grown in rainfed, non-flooded areas—often in hilly or mountainous regions. These varieties rely entirely on rainfall and are planted in well-drained soils. They mature faster (usually within 90–110 days) and have deep root systems to tap into stored soil moisture.

3. Drought-Tolerant Varieties.
PhilRice has already developed several varieties under its “Sahod Ulan” program—aptly named “rain-fed.” Varieties like NSIC Rc192 (Sahod Ulan 1), Rc222, and Rc238 have proven resilience under dry spells. These are not experimental—they exist, and they work. The question is: are we planting them widely enough?

These technologies and seed varieties can make a real difference in ensuring food security—especially now that irrigation infrastructure is either inadequate or too costly to maintain in many rural areas.

Beyond the technical side, this shift could also be a cultural and educational opportunity. State universities such as UPLB, CLSU, and MSU could conduct field research on rainfed and upland rice cultivation, combining agricultural science with climate adaptation. Meanwhile, cooperatives and local governments could initiate pilot projects under barangay-level food sovereignty programs.

Imagine barangays equipped with modular rainwater harvesting systems, soil moisture sensors, and community-managed seed banks for drought-resistant rice. These would not only reduce our dependency on irrigation systems but also strengthen local food systems from the ground up—literally.

Of course, there are challenges. Without water to suppress weeds, weed control becomes more labor-intensive. Soil compaction and nutrient loss can occur if drying cycles are poorly managed. And yields might be lower than irrigated rice—though this can be offset by lower costs and reduced water use.

Still, these are manageable problems compared to the risk of widespread crop failure due to drought or the national embarrassment of having to import rice year after year. As of 2024, the Philippines remained one of the world’s top rice importers, bringing in millions of metric tons annually, mainly from Vietnam and Thailand. For a country that once prided itself on its fertile soil, that’s a sobering fact.

So I ask again—if rice can grow without irrigation, why aren’t we doing it on a larger scale? Could it be because irrigation systems are tied to large infrastructure budgets and vested interests, while rainfed rice doesn’t generate contracts or ribbon-cutting ceremonies?

If that’s the case, then the problem is not agricultural—it’s political.

The government must fund serious research and pilot projects on rainfed and upland rice systems. PhilRice has already shown the science works. What we need now is scale, support, and strategy.

In the end, true food sovereignty means not just having enough food, but having the ability to produce it sustainably—even when the rains fail or the irrigation canals run dry. If we can grow rice without irrigation, we might finally grow out of our dependence on imported rice—and that would be a harvest worth celebrating.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/05-04-2026

BANNING GENETICALLY MODIFIED CORN AND REVIVING NATIVE CORN VARIETIES

 BANNING GENETICALLY MODIFIED CORN AND REVIVING NATIVE CORN VARIETIES

Banning genetically modified (GM) corn and reviving native corn varieties may sound like two separate advocacies — but really, they’re two sides of the same coin. One protects our people and environment from corporate-driven dependence, while the other revives our connection to nature, biodiversity, and our farming heritage.

That’s why what just happened in Mexico deserves our full attention. In a landmark move that stunned the global agricultural community, Mexico has officially amended its Constitution — yes, not just a law, but the Constitution itself — to ban genetically modified corn and phase out harmful herbicides that are commonly used with GM crops.

To me, that’s not just a policy reform. That’s a national awakening.

Under the new law, Mexico will replace 16 million tons of imported GM corn (mostly from the U.S.) with native, non-GMO varieties, especially those used for traditional foods like tortillas. This is a move to protect not only biodiversity but also food sovereignty — the right of people to control how their food is grown, processed, and consumed.

🌽 Mexico’s Bold Stand

Mexico is the birthplace of maize, home to more than 60 native varieties cultivated by indigenous farmers over millennia. By constitutionally banning GM corn, the country is preventing genetic contamination that could permanently alter these heirloom species. It is also protecting its farmers from becoming dependent on patented GM seeds owned by multinational corporations.

At the same time, Mexico is phasing out herbicides that have been linked by the World Health Organization to being “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Other countries — such as Germany, Austria, and Sri Lanka — have also moved to ban or restrict these herbicides due to health and ecological concerns.

The United States, unsurprisingly, challenged Mexico’s earlier restrictions under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), claiming it violated trade rules. But despite a U.S. victory in a December 2024 trade ruling, Mexico went ahead anyway, asserting its sovereign right to protect public health and biodiversity.

That’s what you call political will.

🌱 Lessons for the Philippines

Here at home, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Far from banning harmful herbicides or GM crops, the Philippine herbicide market is actually growing, projected to expand by 3.9% annually through 2029. The Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority does not list it among banned or restricted chemicals.

That raises a simple but serious question: Have we given up the fight?

We are an agricultural country. Yet we seem more dependent than ever on imported seeds, fertilizers, and herbicides — many of which harm our soil, water, and farmers’ health. How much longer will we allow multinational corporations to dictate what Filipino farmers can plant, and what Filipino families can eat?

If Mexico can constitutionalize food sovereignty, why can’t we at least study it? Shouldn’t our own Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Science and Technology (DOST), and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) form a task force to evaluate these issues?

🧭 Reviving Our Native Corn

It’s not too late. There are still Filipino farmers — especially in Mindanao, the Cordilleras, and parts of Visayas — who preserve native corn varieties, often handed down from generation to generation. These traditional strains are naturally resilient to local conditions, drought-tolerant, and pest-resistant. They also have distinct flavors that connect us to our culinary roots — from binatog to korniks to tortang mais.

Reviving native corn is not just an agricultural project; it’s a cultural restoration. We can start by:

1. Mapping and saving existing native seeds, with the help of state universities and local agricultural offices.
   
   

2. Creating barangay-level seed banks, run by cooperatives or community associations.
   
   

3. Supporting organic and regenerative farming, so we don’t rely on chemical-based weed control.
   
   

4. Educating farmers and consumers alike, so they understand the link between native crops and national independence.
   
   

Imagine a Philippines where our children eat food grown from seeds that truly belong to our soil — not to a patent office in another country.

⚖️ Balancing Modernity and Sovereignty

I’m not against science or innovation. I believe biotechnology has its rightful place — but not when it overrides the rights of farmers, threatens biodiversity, and undermines food security. Genetic engineering should serve humanity, not enslave it.

Our policy makers often talk about food security, but rarely about food sovereignty — the ability to feed ourselves with what we grow, from seeds that we own. Mexico has shown the world that defending sovereignty can go hand in hand with defending biodiversity.

So I ask again: Could our corn survive without harmful herbicides? Could we still find and save our native seeds? These are not hypothetical questions anymore — they’re urgent policy questions that our government must answer now, not later.

We’ve long prided ourselves on being rich in biodiversity. Let’s not lose that wealth for the sake of convenience or corporate deals. If Mexico could amend its Constitution to protect its corn, maybe it’s time we amend our mindset to protect ours.

Because in the end, the true measure of independence is not only political — it’s what we plant, what we grow, and what we eat.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com  09088877282/05-03-2026

YES, MICROPLASTICS CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE WATER

YES, MICROPLASTICS CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE WATER

Just when we thought that we are losing the war against microplastics, along comes a piece of wonderful news — and from the most unexpected of places. Two high school students from Texas have developed a groundbreaking system that can remove over 90% of microplastics from water. And they did it not with expensive laboratories or massive funding, but with curiosity, creativity, and compassion for the planet.

Their names are Victoria Ou and Justin Huang, both 17-year-olds from The Woodlands College Park High School. Their invention, called “Acoustic Filtration,” uses ultrasonic sound waves — yes, sound! — to create pressure fields in water. These fields gather and isolate microplastic particles, making them easier to remove. No filters. No chemicals. No clogging. Just sound waves doing the work of purification.

In laboratory tests, this simple yet elegant system removed 84% to 94% of microplastics in a single pass. It’s low-cost, portable, and can operate continuously — making it perfect for everything from industrial wastewater systems to household water purifiers, even ocean cleanup operations. For their brilliance, the young duo won the Gordon E. Moore Award at the 2024 Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair, earning a $50,000 prize and worldwide recognition.

Now here’s my question: If high school students from Texas could do it, why not our students here in the Philippines?

We have so many bright young minds in our science high schools, universities, and technical institutes. Many of them are already tinkering with electronics, robotics, and environmental solutions. Perhaps all they need is support, mentorship, and a challenge. Maybe it’s time for DOST, DENR, and DTI to collaborate on a national program to develop homegrown versions of this innovation.

Let’s not stop there. The Philippine Coast Guard should be part of the initiative too — after all, they are the ones who encounter tons of plastic waste floating in our seas every single day. They could test and deploy these acoustic filters in coastal cleanup operations or shipboard waste systems.

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), though not the usual player in environmental matters, has a key role to play. Many of the companies producing plastic waste are under its jurisdiction. Why not encourage these firms to fund pilot tests or adopt “acoustic cleanup” technologies as part of their corporate social responsibility?

And of course, DOST could help refine the design and adapt it to tropical conditions, while DENR could set guidelines for safe, large-scale deployment. If we’re serious about solving our plastic pollution problem, these agencies should set targets, deadlines, and demonstration sites.

Remember, the Philippines is consistently ranked among the top five contributors of ocean plastic waste in the world. That’s a shameful distinction. But it also means we have a moral obligation to be part of the solution, not just part of the problem.

I’m not saying we should copy the Texas students’ invention outright — that would violate their intellectual property. What I’m saying is, we can be inspired by their approach. We can design our own versions — perhaps adapted for barangay-level water systems, fish farms, or river estuaries where microplastics first accumulate.

In fact, this could be a great national science challenge: “The Philippine Acoustic Filtration Project.” Imagine if every science high school, university, and polytechnic in the country were invited to design their own low-cost microplastic removal system. The winning prototype could even be scaled up with government and private sector support.

What excites me most about this story is not just the technology — it’s the mindset behind it. These young inventors remind us that innovation doesn’t always require massive funding or global corporations. Sometimes, it just takes two curious teenagers and a good science teacher.

We’ve long complained that our environmental problems are too big to solve, that our systems are broken, that change takes too long. But here’s proof that a fresh idea, born in a school lab, can spark global hope.

If Texas high schoolers can remove 90% of microplastics from water with sound waves, then surely Filipino ingenuity can rise to the challenge too.

All it takes is for our government to believe in our own talent — and to set things in motion.

Because yes, microplastics can be removed from the water — and yes, the next solution could be Filipino-made.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/05-02-2026

DRIVERLESS CARS AND UNMANNED VEHICLES

 DRIVERLESS CARS AND UNMANNED VEHICLES

Driverless cars are a good idea—at least in theory. But before we start celebrating the arrival of vehicles that can think, drive, and park themselves, let us not forget that we have many jobless drivers in our country.

As with all technologies that promise convenience and efficiency, we must strike a delicate balance between embracing innovation and protecting the jobs of our workers. In a country where tens of thousands depend on driving for a living—from jeepney drivers to truck operators to delivery riders—the rise of driverless technology could be both a promise and a threat.

Yes, we should welcome progress. But we must also be smart enough to ask: progress for whom?

The Rise of the Driverless Era

Driverless cars, also called autonomous vehicles (AVs), are no longer science fiction. Companies like Tesla, Waymo, and Cruise have already deployed or tested self-driving fleets in cities across the United States. These vehicles are guided by an intricate network of sensors, radar, LIDAR, and artificial intelligence that allow them to detect obstacles, interpret traffic lights, and even make split-second decisions.

Globally, the autonomous vehicle industry is projected to reach over USD 600 billion by 2030, driven by the race to reduce human error—still the leading cause of road accidents worldwide. Governments in the U.S., UK, and China are now crafting new laws and infrastructure policies to prepare for a driverless future.

But while the technology speeds ahead, the social questions remain parked.

The Job Question

Let’s be practical. If driverless taxis, trucks, and buses eventually become common, what happens to all our drivers? Jeepney drivers, bus drivers, delivery riders, truckers—these are real people with families to feed.

This is not an argument against technology. It’s an argument for inclusion. We cannot just import driverless cars and let them replace human labor without a national plan. We need to think in terms of transition, retraining, and adaptation.

If we truly want to take advantage of the opportunities that new technologies bring, we should not only consume them—we should learn to produce them.

Building Instead of Buying

Here is where the opportunity lies. Even if we cannot yet produce the complex electronics or software behind driverless systems, we can certainly build the bodies for these vehicles.

Our jeepney and bus-building industries are already mature. In fact, many local manufacturers in Cebu, Cavite, and Bulacan can design and fabricate vehicle bodies that meet international standards. Our boat-building industry is also well established—and some shipyards are already exporting to the foreign market.

If we could channel the same craftsmanship and entrepreneurial spirit into producing the chassis, shells, or modular bodies for driverless cars and unmanned vehicles, we could position ourselves as a supply chain partner in the global autonomous mobility industry.

Even if we don’t make the AI brains, we can still make the body that houses it.

Unmanned Vehicles for Dangerous Work

It’s a different story when human risk is involved. Here, unmanned systems make perfect sense.

Driverless or remote-controlled vehicles can be used for bomb disposal, disaster response, or operations in chemical or radioactive environments. The defense and rescue sectors are already using unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)—better known as drones—for surveillance, mapping, and reconnaissance.

In these applications, the goal is not to replace humans for convenience, but to protect human lives. That is where we should focus our research and local innovation.

Logistics and Last-Mile Delivery

Another area ripe for innovation is logistics. Autonomous trucks are already being tested in the United States and China for long-haul routes. They save fuel, eliminate fatigue-related accidents, and optimize scheduling.

For us, perhaps the more immediate opportunity is in last-mile delivery—autonomous electric tricycles or small unmanned delivery bots that can navigate urban areas or barangays. Local universities and startups could easily develop prototypes, combining AI software with locally built vehicles.

Imagine barangay-owned or cooperative-owned fleets of autonomous vehicles that deliver goods or transport students within the community. That would be technology in the service of people—not the other way around.

A National Strategy Needed

The question now is—who will lead? Driverless technology cuts across many departments: the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) for research, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for manufacturing policy, the Department of Transportation (DOTr) for regulation, and even the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for job transition planning.

Without coordination, we might end up either overregulating innovation or letting it destroy jobs unchecked.

We need a national roadmap for autonomous mobility—one that supports local manufacturing, encourages responsible AI development, and protects workers affected by automation.

Balancing Progress and People

I am not against driverless cars and unmanned vehicles. Far from it. I believe they represent the next great leap in human technology. But technology must serve people, not replace them.

We can embrace driverless technology and defend drivers at the same time—if we plan ahead. Let us train displaced drivers to become technicians, AI operators, or maintenance specialists for autonomous systems. Let us ensure that Filipino-made parts find their place in this new ecosystem.

The future will not wait. But whether that future includes the Filipino worker depends on the decisions we make now.

Driverless cars may not need drivers—but our country still needs direction.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/05-01-2026