AUTONOMOUS LICE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR AQUACULTURE

 AUTONOMOUS LICE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR AQUACULTURE 

Norway has done it again. The Norwegians, already leaders in aquaculture, are now deploying autonomous lice control systems that use computer vision to kill parasites in salmon pens. Imagine that—machines working 24/7, spotting sea lice and zapping them with precision, without chemicals, without stress, and without harming the fish. 

If they can do this for salmon, why not for milkfish (bangus), our national fish? Why not for groupers, or even maliputo? The truth is that lice are not the only parasites attacking farmed fish. We have nematodes, protozoans, fungi, and flatworms in our own fish pens. In fact, local studies have already documented how these parasites weaken fish, slow down growth, and reduce survival. If Norway is investing in technology to protect its aquaculture industry, why should we in the Philippines settle for outdated methods? 

Parasites are no small problem. Globally, sea lice infestations alone cause over $1 billion in losses every year. Locally, outbreaks of parasites like anisakid nematodes or “white spot” disease have devastated fish farmers, sometimes wiping out entire pens. The question is: do we want to continue fighting these outbreaks with costly chemicals, or do we want to leap ahead with sustainable, AI-powered solutions? 

This Norwegian technology offers us a glimpse of what is possible. But then comes the next question—how do we acquire it? Do we simply import it, or do we develop it ourselves? 

If we develop it locally, agencies like DOST, DICT, and BFAR should take the lead. DOST has the scientists, DICT has the digital infrastructure expertise, and BFAR knows the realities of aquaculture on the ground. With a proper collaboration, we could create our own Filipino version of AI-powered parasite control. On the other hand, if developing it from scratch would take too long, then let us seek help from Norway through the DFA. After all, that is what diplomacy should also be about—not just politics, but technology transfer. 

I propose we task our embassy in Norway to open a technology cooperation channel on aquaculture innovations. If they can use lasers and machine vision for salmon, we can adapt it for milkfish. Why not create a Philippine-Norway Aquaculture Technology Partnership? 

Let me point out that parasites are not only a threat to farmed fish—they are also a public health risk. Some, like anisakis worms, can infect humans if raw or undercooked fish is consumed. This means controlling parasites is not just about protecting farmers’ livelihoods—it is also about food safety for consumers. 

But let me go further: this lice-killing technology is only one example of how artificial intelligence (AI) can be applied to agriculture and aquaculture. Why not explore AI-powered systems for monitoring water quality in fish pens? Or for detecting early signs of disease outbreaks in ponds? Or even for predicting algal blooms that could suffocate fish stocks? 

This is why I believe there should be a joint task force composed of DOST, DICT, DA, and BFAR—not just to talk about AI, but to identify emerging technologies worldwide and see how they can be localized. We cannot just wait for technology to arrive at our doorstep. We must actively monitor, acquire, adapt, and innovate. 

Here is my challenge: can we imagine a barangay-level aquaculture model where small fish farmers can access low-cost, AI-driven parasite monitoring kits? Can we design modular systems that use sensors or cameras to detect fish health problems before they become disasters? Can we build bio-secure pens that reduce parasite infestations without relying on chemicals? 

Norway’s systems are not science fiction. They are already real and operating in over 200 salmon farms. If they can do it, why can’t we? 

In fact, the bigger question is: what other AI-powered technologies are out there for farming and fishing that we have not yet even considered? Drones that monitor rice fields, robots that sort harvests, sensors that track soil nutrients, apps that guide farmers in real time. The opportunities are endless—if we are willing to act. 

So let me end with a strong suggestion: the Philippines should not just be a passive consumer of foreign technology. We must be an active developer and adapter of AI systems for our own industries. Yes, let us learn from Norway. Yes, let us seek their help. But let us also invest in our own research and development. 

We owe it to our fish farmers. We owe it to our consumers. And most of all, we owe it to our future food security.  

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres 
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-12-2025 

LET US TRY KELP FARMING IN THE PHILIPPINES

LET US TRY KELP FARMING IN THE PHILIPPINES 

Off the coast of Norway, something fascinating is happening. Instead of growing crops on land, they are cultivating kelp on an industrial scale. Yes, kelp — the giant seaweed that grows like underwater forests. And this is not just any farming. Kelp farming absorbs carbon dioxide from the water at rates up to 50 times faster than land-based forests. Imagine that: a climate tool that not only produces food, fuel, and packaging materials but also helps fight ocean acidification and improves biodiversity. 

Why should this matter to us? Because we, the Philippines, are also a maritime nation with a long coastline and millions of people depending on the sea. We already grow seaweeds in many coastal communities. Why not try kelp? The same areas that are now producing seaweeds could also cultivate kelp, perhaps even more profitably. 

In Norway, the technology is already advanced. They are using giant grids with ropes seeded with young kelp plants, which grow into long green curtains underwater. No freshwater needed. No fertilizers. No arable land taken away from rice or corn. Just the sea, sunlight, and carbon dioxide. Can you think of a more sustainable kind of farming? 

This is where I suggest a practical course of action. First, let us task the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR) to take the lead in piloting kelp farming projects here. They already have the mandate and the network of local fisherfolk organizations to test and expand such programs. Second, let us instruct our embassy in Norway to initiate a technology transfer program. Why reinvent the wheel when Norway has already done the heavy lifting? We can learn, adapt, and localize their methods to fit our tropical waters. 

And should BFAR be the only agency involved? I don’t think so. Perhaps the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) should also play a role, given the ecological benefits of kelp forests. Kelp not only helps capture carbon but also provides shelter for fish and other marine life, which ties directly into biodiversity conservation. On the community side, the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) should also be tapped. Why? Because fisherfolk cooperatives are the natural partners in organizing, managing, and profiting from kelp farming ventures. 

Now, I know some will ask: will kelp grow in our warmer waters? Good question. Norway has cold nutrient-rich seas, and that may not be the same as ours. But remember, we already cultivate other types of seaweeds successfully. It is worth conducting trials to see which kelp varieties might adapt to Philippine conditions. Scientific research must be part of the equation, but we should not be afraid to experiment. 

If successful, kelp farming could open up many opportunities. Food production, animal feed, biodegradable packaging, biofuels — all from the sea. And let us not forget the most important part: capturing carbon in significant amounts, helping us fight climate change in a way that is cost-effective, and nature based. 

The way I see it, kelp farming is not just an agricultural experiment. It could become a pillar of our climate strategy, a livelihood opportunity for coastal families, and a biodiversity booster all at once. If Norway can lead the way, why can’t the Philippines follow? We have the seas, the fisherfolk, and the need. All we must do is try. 

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres 
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-11-2025  

USING PLASTIC BRICKS FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION

 USING PLASTIC BRICKS FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION 

The last I checked, using bricks for building roads has not gone out of style. As a matter of fact, it has quietly come back into style—mainly because of environmental reasons. We usually think of bricks as something we see in old European streets or historical plazas, but they’re more than just “heritage” pieces. Bricks—especially if they are made from recycled plastics—might just be part of the solution to our local road woes.

Firstly, bricks are good for roads and pavements because they let the earth breathe. Those tiny cracks between the bricks allow water to seep through, instead of flooding the surface. This simple fact is often ignored when we cover everything with concrete and asphalt, which trap heat, cause runoff, and worsen urban flooding. Isn’t it ironic that what is considered an “old” material could be more climate-adaptive than the modern ones we now depend on?

Secondly, used plastics can now be recycled into bricks. This gives us a two-in-one solution: we reduce plastic waste while creating useful materials for road and pavement construction. In Cebu, for instance, experiments with plastic pavers are already showing promise. To me, this is not only good for the environment—it is also good for the economy. Instead of plastics ending up in our rivers and seas, they could be repurposed into infrastructure that communities need.

Now, let me be clear. I am not talking about EDSA or the North Luzon Expressway. I am talking about minor roads, side roads, and pathways that are not subjected to heavy truckloads. More importantly, I am talking about “farm-to-market” roads. For decades now, farmers have been promised these roads so they can bring their produce to market more efficiently. And for decades, these roads have remained mostly promises. What if farmers could build them themselves—using recycled plastic bricks?

This idea is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Farmers could form cooperatives, if they have not already done so, and set up simple extruders to produce plastic bricks. The technology is not complicated, and the raw materials—waste plastics—are in abundant supply. Imagine turning a problem (plastic waste) into a solution (farm-to-market roads).

Some cooperatives could even take it a step further: build their own toll roads to sustain the costs of construction and maintenance. Why not? If private corporations can do it for expressways, why can’t farmers’ cooperatives do the same on a smaller scale for their own benefit? The revenues could go back into maintaining the roads or even expanding them.

Does anyone know of a cooperative that might want to try this idea? If not, perhaps an LGU could step in to pilot it. Local governments are constantly grappling with two issues: waste management and lack of infrastructure. Here’s an approach that could address both at once. By investing in small-scale facilities that produce plastic bricks, LGUs could convert a liability into an asset.

Let’s be realistic, though. Plastic bricks may not be the best choice for heavy traffic or major highways. Laying bricks is more labor-intensive and requires more time compared to pouring asphalt. Still, for barangay roads, eco-village walkways, or even school grounds, plastic bricks are not only acceptable—they are practical. They are modular, easy to repair (you just replace the damaged brick), and visually appealing compared to plain concrete.

We already have precedents in the Philippines. Green Antz Builders, a social enterprise, has been producing “EcoBricks” made from shredded plastic sachets mixed with cement. Their products are five times stronger than traditional hollow blocks, with added insulation benefits. These EcoBricks are already used in schools, daycare centers, and barangay facilities. Why not extend this innovation to road pavements?

Meanwhile, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) has gone a step further by approving the use of plastic waste in asphalt mixes. This is a big deal because it makes plastic waste part of the national road network standard. But again, I return to my earlier point: not all roads have to be highways. Barangay and farm roads deserve their own innovations.

In the end, the question is simple: will we continue to wait for big-ticket infrastructure projects that may never come, or will communities empower themselves to build their own solutions? Plastic bricks may not pave all our problems away, but they could pave enough pathways to make a real difference—especially for our farmers who have waited too long.

Yes, brick roads are still acceptable. And in the right context, they may even be the most forward-looking option we have.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

12-10-2025