NEW PLASTIC INVENTION DISSOLVES IN SEAWATER

 NEW PLASTIC INVENTION DISSOLVES IN SEAWATER

Plastic pollution is choking our oceans, and yet humanity keeps producing more of it—about 400 million tons every year, according to the United Nations. Less than 10% gets recycled, while the rest ends up in landfills, rivers, and the sea. By 2050, global plastic production is projected to triple. Against this backdrop, two parallel inventions have emerged that could change the way we think about plastics forever.

The first comes from Japan, where researchers at RIKEN and the University of Tokyo have created a plastic that literally dissolves in seawater within hours. This is not science fiction. In lab tests, a sheet of this material disappeared in about 60 minutes when stirred in seawater. Unlike traditional plastics that break down into harmful microplastics, this one decomposes into natural compounds like nitrogen and phosphorus, which marine microbes actually absorb.

How did they do it? By using supramolecular chemistry—a system of ionic monomers linked by reversible salt bonds. In plain language: strong enough to behave like normal plastic while in use, but weak enough to collapse in saline conditions. To add to its appeal, it is flame-resistant, non-toxic, and carbon-neutral during decomposition.

The second breakthrough is homegrown. A young Filipino inventor from Cebu, Denxybel Montinola, has developed a bioplastic made from mango peels (pectin) and seaweeds (carrageenan). Instead of chemistry-driven bonds, this invention uses organic materials abundant in the Philippines. It’s flexible, strong, and, most importantly, dissolves completely in water without leaving behind microplastics or toxic residue.

Now let me say this: the Philippine government should immediately take a deep interest in both inventions. But naturally, my bias is with Montinola’s work. Here is a young Filipino scientist showing us that the solution to plastic pollution may lie in our very own backyards—or in this case, in our leftover mango peels and seaweed farms. Why are we not giving him full support?

I do not know how much help he is already getting, but at the very least, Montinola’s invention deserves a research grant from the Department of Science and Technology (DOST). Beyond that, agencies like the DENR, DA-BFAR, and the UP Marine Science Institute should be in the picture. These institutions could provide not just funding but also the scientific muscle to move this invention from prototype to commercialization.

Let’s also ask a few hard questions. Why is it that in the Philippines, brilliant young inventors often get recognition abroad before they get support at home? How many Filipino innovations have been wasted because no agency stepped in early enough? Are we content to let Japan, the US, or Europe buy the patents and commercialize them while our own talents fade into obscurity?

The Japanese invention is clearly a technological marvel, but Montinola’s approach might actually be more practical for the Philippines. Why? Because it is locally sourced, low-cost, and scalable. We grow mangoes by millions of tons, and we are one of the world’s top producers of seaweed. Imagine turning agricultural byproducts into a plastic substitute that could save our oceans. That is circular economy thinking at its best.

The challenge, of course, is scale. Both the Japanese and Filipino versions are still at the research stage, far from mass production. But isn’t that exactly where the government should come in? Instead of waiting until the product is perfected abroad, why not invest now? Why not make the Philippines a hub for bioplastic production in Asia?

Even at this early stage, the potential is staggering. These materials could replace single-use plastics—the sachets, bags, and bottles that clog our esteros and wash up on our beaches. And if perfected, they could even address the more insidious problem of microplastics. Scientists recently discovered microplastics in human blood, lungs, and even placentas. In other words, the plastic problem is not just an environmental crisis—it is a public health crisis.

In my view, Montinola’s work deserves not just a grant, but a national innovation program that brings together government, universities, and industry. Why not a pilot project with coastal barangays, turning seaweed farming into both a livelihood and a solution to plastic pollution? Why not integrate it with local packaging cooperatives, so communities themselves become part of the solution?

Here is my bottom line: whether chemical or organic, whether from Tokyo or Cebu, the future of plastic is one that does not outlive us. The question is whether the Philippines will lead—or just follow—when that future arrives.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

01-01-2026

USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO MANAGE FLOATING FARMS

 USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO MANAGE FLOATING FARMS

It is already a revolutionary idea to build floating farms. But what is even more revolutionary is to use artificial intelligence (AI) to manage these floating farms. Imagine platforms on our lakes and rivers, producing both fish and vegetables, while AI quietly works in the background—adjusting water quality, controlling nutrients, monitoring fish health, and even predicting harvest yields.

As I always say: if other countries can do it, we can do it too!

And why not? We have no shortage of space. The Philippines has more than 7,100 islands, countless lakes and rivers, and one of the longest coastlines in the world. Just look at Laguna de Bay, our largest freshwater lake, which already hosts floating solar projects. If we can float solar panels, why not aquaponics farms?

We also have the human resources. Filipino architects and engineers are more than capable of designing floating structures—whether modular pontoons, bamboo rafts, or steel platforms. Our software developers are world-class, servicing clients from Silicon Valley to Singapore. Why not challenge them to build AI systems that could monitor water quality, oxygen levels, or nutrient flows in real time?

And let us not forget the market. Even without exporting, our own population of over 115 million people provides enough demand for the aquatic products that floating farms can yield. Milkfish, catfish, lettuce, and kangkong grown sustainably could feed millions while reducing pressure on overfished coastal areas.

So what’s missing? At the moment, not a single company in the Philippines is operating floating farms of this kind. Yes, we do have fish pens and fish cages, but these are often single-use, fragile, and unsustainable. The leap to floating, AI-managed, closed-loop systems may seem big—but in truth, the transition is not impossible. Fish pen operators already know aquaculture. What they need is innovation.

Take the example of Brazil. In the Amazon basin, engineers have launched AI-powered floating farms that combine aquaculture with hydroponics. Fish waste fertilizes crops, while AI algorithms adjust lighting, nutrients, and water flow automatically. The result? Food production is three times higher per hectare than traditional methods. These farms also adapt to rising waters and operate off-grid with solar panels—protecting rainforests while feeding remote communities.

Why can’t we do something similar in the Philippines?

In fact, we already have a stepping stone: floating solar farms. ACEN Corp., SunAsia Energy, and Blueleaf Energy are building massive floating solar projects in Laguna Lake, with more than 1,800 MW planned across 2,000 hectares. These projects prove we can deploy modular floating platforms on a large scale, with regulatory approval from the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) and the Department of Energy (DOE). If solar panels can float, so can farms.

But as I see it, the real challenge is governance. Which agencies should lead? Certainly DA-BFAR for fisheries, DENR-BMB for ecosystems, DOST for research, and DICT for digital infrastructure. But unless these agencies coordinate, projects may drown in bureaucracy before they even float in the water. Perhaps the best way forward is a pilot project on one of our lakes, jointly managed by government, private investors, and local cooperatives.

Consider this scenario: a barangay in flood-prone Agusan Marsh or Candaba Swamp sets up a floating aquaponics hub. The platform is solar-powered, equipped with AI sensors that monitor fish health and crop growth. Local farmers and fisherfolk run the system as a cooperative, selling produce directly in nearby towns. The result? Food security, jobs, and resilience—all in one.

The benefits go beyond economics. Floating farms could reduce land conversion, protect watersheds, and bring food production closer to urban centers. With AI integration, they could also give us real-time data to anticipate fish kills, adjust feeding schedules, and minimize waste. This is precision farming on water.

So here are my questions:

• Why wait for foreign investors when our own engineers, programmers, and farmers are ready?
  
  

• Why let floods and rising waters be disasters, when they could become opportunities for food production?
  
  

• And why should Brazil lead in this field, when we have more lakes, more coasts, and more need for food sovereignty?
  
  

We are already proving we can lead in floating solar. Now it is time to extend that vision to floating farms. If done right, the Philippines could be the first in Asia to pioneer AI-powered floating food systems—feeding our people while setting an example for the world.

To me, the choice is clear. Instead of asking whether floating AI farms are possible, we should already be asking: Where will we pilot the first one, and when do we start?

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-31-2025

PROMOTING VERTICAL FARMING IN VACANT BUILDINGS

 PROMOTING VERTICAL FARMING IN VACANT BUILDINGS

Vacant buildings are an eyesore. They stand like ghosts of progress, reminders of unfinished business or failed development. In developed—or should I say overdeveloped—countries, urban blight often leaves behind entire blocks of empty offices, malls, and warehouses. The Philippines is no stranger to this either, though in our case it’s often smaller commercial buildings and old factories that end up idle.

The usual answer to urban blight is “urban renewal.” But let’s be honest: renewal does not always come. Too often, we are left with structures that remain abandoned for years, sometimes decades. So here is a question worth asking: what do we do with these buildings while waiting for some developer to swoop in?

In the United States, communities are experimenting with something bold: converting empty malls into farms. Yes, farms inside buildings. In Cleveland, part of a shopping mall was turned into a greenhouse. In Houston and Kentucky, office buildings were converted into vertical farms. Crops are now being grown under LED lights and hydroponic systems where mannequins once stood. What was once consumer space is now food space.

Why not here?

In the Philippines, we may not have as many empty malls, but we certainly have enough vacant buildings scattered across our cities. Imagine if these were turned into vertical farms—not necessarily permanently, but at least temporarily. There would be no need to completely retrofit these buildings. The beauty of hydroponic and aquaponic systems is that they are modular and reversible. If the owner wants to turn the space back into a mall or an office later on, it can be done. In the meantime, the space earns money, creates jobs, and grows food.

The logic is sound. Urban farms not only provide organic fruits and vegetables, but also reduce costs because the food does not have to travel long distances. Transport is one of the hidden costs of agriculture in this country—just ask farmers from Benguet who have to ship produce to Manila. If lettuce, tomatoes, or pechay could be grown in Quezon City warehouses, why not?

And it doesn’t stop with vegetables. Poultry, fish, and even livestock could be raised in controlled urban farms. Aquaponics, for instance, allows fish and vegetables to grow symbiotically. The waste from fish becomes nutrients for the plants, while the plants filter the water for the fish. This is already being done in many countries, and the technology is neither new nor too expensive.

Think also of the social impact. Many farmers have migrated to cities in search of jobs that don’t always exist. What if they could be farmers again—this time inside the city, working in vertical farms? That is livelihood restoration with dignity.

And here’s the kicker: this is already happening in the Philippines.

Take the Navotas City Vertical Farm, a project by the Delbros Group with the support of the city council and even the Boy Scouts of the Philippines. They built a 12-tower vertical farm, one of the tallest in Metro Manila, producing leafy greens year-round with the help of computer-monitored systems.

Or look at NXTLVL Farms in Manila, which is pioneering climate-resilient vertical farming using hydroponics and LED lighting. Their mission is clear: tackle food insecurity and make the most of scarce urban land.

Even at the policy level, the idea is gaining traction. Senator Francis Pangilinan filed the Urban Agriculture and Vertical Farming Act (SB 257) to convert idle urban lands into vertical farms and gardens. The Department of Agriculture, for its part, has already outlined strategies to scale up urban farming nationwide.

Vertical farming is not just about food security. It is about climate resilience. Farms indoors are protected from typhoons, droughts, and floods—all too familiar realities in our country. Studies show that vertical farms use up to 95% less water and 40% less energy than traditional farms, thanks to recycling systems and efficient lighting.

But here is my challenge: why stop at isolated projects? Why not encourage barangay-level vertical farming hubs in idle buildings or warehouses? Imagine every community having its own local source of vegetables, fish, and maybe poultry. Imagine these being run as cooperatives, where revenues are shared and young people are trained not just in farming but in agritech.

The Philippines cannot rely forever on imported fertilizers, imported seeds, and imported food. We need to take food production closer to where the people are. And if vacant buildings are just sitting there, collecting dust and cobwebs, why not breathe new life into them as food factories?

It would be a win for building owners, a win for LGUs, a win for farmers-turned-urban-workers, and most of all, a win for the consumers who could finally buy fresh, healthy produce without breaking the bank.

We need to think beyond malls, beyond condominiums, beyond shopping districts. The future of food could very well be growing inside the very buildings that symbolize yesterday’s economy. And perhaps, with enough vision and support, the Philippines could lead the way in Asia in turning urban blight into urban bounty.

So I ask again: Why let our vacant buildings rot, when they could feed us instead?

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-30-2025

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