NEW HOPE FOR USING INSECTS, BACTERIA AND FUNGI TO BREAK DOWN PLASTIC WASTE

NEW HOPE FOR USING INSECTS, BACTERIA AND FUNGI TO BREAK DOWN PLASTIC WASTE

I have no doubt that in the final analysis, it will be science that will provide the solutions to most of our socio-economic problems. But even if the solutions are already there, I also have no doubt that it will be politics that will get in the way of science. If not politics, it will be greed—or more specifically, corporate greed—that will block the way.

Take plastic waste as an example. It would seem that we are losing the battle. Everywhere we look—in the streets, in rivers, in the ocean, and even in the food chain—we see traces of plastic. Globally, only about 9% of all plastic ever produced has been properly recycled, according to the Geneva Environment Network. The rest is either incinerated, landfilled, or dumped into the environment, where it can linger for centuries.

Yet with the latest scientific breakthroughs, there is new hope that we could still win this war. Around the world, researchers are studying how insects, bacteria, and fungi have evolved enzymes that can break down even the toughest plastics—polyethylene, polystyrene, polypropylene, PVC, and more. Some of these microbes live in the guts of humble mealworms, superworms, and waxworms. What these creatures digest naturally could someday be scaled up for industrial recycling.

In the United States, researchers like Mark Blenner at the University of Delaware are experimenting with the microbes found in mealworm stomachs. These microbes secrete enzymes that chop up plastics into smaller chemical pieces, which can then be reused. A startup called Plasticentropy has even identified enzymes from wax caterpillars—nicknamed “Demetra” and “Ceres”—that can dissolve thin plastic in just hours. In Kenya, scientists are exploring how local worm species might be harnessed for community-level waste management.

Imagine this for a moment: instead of shipping mountains of plastic waste to dumpsites, every local government unit (LGU) in the Philippines could have its own biological recycling center. This is not rocket science. It’s a no-brainer. We just need to apply it.

This is where government agencies like the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) should step in. They should jointly spearhead the adoption of this technology, and not just in Metro Manila or the big cities. The real goal should be to bring this innovation down to the LGU level. Barangays could eventually manage their own plastic waste with localized, biological solutions.

Of course, politics will come into play. Will big waste haulers and corporations that profit from landfills allow this technology to spread? Will plastic manufacturers resist efforts to make plastics truly biodegradable? These are real obstacles. But if we don’t act, the Philippines will continue drowning in plastic. A 2021 study by the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy named the Philippines as the single largest contributor of plastic waste into the ocean—responsible for more than a third of global ocean plastic leakage.

We should also identify and support our own Filipino scientists who may already be studying this field. Surely, among the bright minds at UP, Ateneo, La Salle, and our state universities, there are microbiologists and bioengineers working on microbial solutions to plastic waste. Let us give them the funding, laboratories, and incentives they need to turn research into reality.

Perhaps the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) or DEPDEV could do some studies on the economic impact of this technology. Just think of the possibilities: less money wasted on landfill operations, fewer health costs from polluted air and water, and new industries based on bio-recycling. This could also create jobs for LGUs and communities who would manage these micro-bioreactors.

But let us also temper our excitement with caution. As some environmentalists warn, these technologies are not silver bullets. They should not become an excuse to keep producing plastic at the same rate—or worse, at an even greater scale. We must still focus on reducing plastic use, banning unnecessary single-use plastics, and promoting alternatives.

Still, I believe that this is a battle worth fighting, and science is giving us the weapons to fight it. Worms, bacteria, and fungi may not look like warriors, but in their microscopic way, they could help humanity reclaim the environment from the plague of plastic. The question is—will we let politics and greed stand in the way, or will we finally act on this new hope?

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

12-17-2025 

TRANSFORMING SAND TO SOIL

  TRANSFORMING SAND TO SOIL

Norwegian scientists have developed a technology that can transform dry sand into fertile soil in just seven hours. At first glance, this seems like science fiction—but it is real, and it is already being tested in desert countries like the United Arab Emirates.

The technology, called Liquid Nanoclay (LNC), mixes natural clay with water and applies it directly to sand. Within hours, the particles bind with the grains of sand, creating a moisture-retaining layer that acts like fertile soil. It can cut water usage by as much as 50% while increasing crop yields by up to 62%. Imagine that: barren desert lands made to grow crops in less than a day.

Of course, this was originally designed for desertification, but I see other applications. Why not use it here to convert beach sand into fertile soil? Why not use it to transform lahar-covered areas into productive farmlands? That would be nothing short of revolutionary for a country like ours.

Strictly speaking, desertification is not a Philippine problem because of our tropical climate and abundant rainfall. But we do have another problem: land degradation. Soil erosion already affects nearly half of our arable land, according to the UNCCD. Over-mining, improper waste disposal, and the overuse of chemical fertilizers have all contributed to declining soil health. And yes, even the creeping encroachment of sand beyond beach easement areas is a problem in coastal towns.

So while we may not have deserts like in Africa or the Middle East, we do face the same danger of losing productive land. In that sense, the solution offered by this Norwegian technology could be exactly what we need.

Now imagine this: combining Norwegian Liquid Nanoclay with Israeli water-conservation technology that allows crops to grow in arid zones. Add to that the knowledge of Filipino experts like Dr. Ed Paningbatan, who pioneered urban gardening methods such as the Enriched Potting Preparation (EPP). Dr. Paningbatan has shown us that even limited and degraded soils can be revived with the right science and ingenuity.

We should not stop there. The Philippines has many other soil scientists—at UPLB, PhilRice, Visayas State University, and beyond—who are studying everything from nitrogen-fixing bacteria to soil conservation in upland communities. Why not tap them all? Why not even include student researchers in this grand experiment? After all, the future belongs to them, and they may bring the fresh ideas we need.

The government, for its part, should adopt a whole-of-government approach. The Department of Agriculture (DA) should take the lead, but the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and academic institutions like UPLB should also be involved. If we cannot develop this technology locally, then let us bring it in through technology transfer agreements, just as we have done before in other sectors.

The cost right now is still a challenge—estimated at $2 to $5 per square meter. But costs always go down once production scales up. What if we pilot this in lahar-covered lands of Pampanga and Zambales? What if we test it in coastal areas where beach encroachment is threatening farmland? What if, in a bold move, we restore degraded uplands and watersheds with this technology, in partnership with community-based groups?

Remember, the Philippines has committed to Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) by 2030. That means restoring at least half of degraded croplands and 60% of forests, shrublands, and wetlands. But we cannot do this with tree planting alone. We need real soil restoration technologies.

The economics also make sense. If LNC can reduce irrigation needs by half, then farmers would spend less on water and still get higher yields. That could directly address rural poverty and food insecurity. For exports, restoring degraded land with this kind of technology would allow us to produce more organic and high-value crops for growing markets in Japan, South Korea, Europe, and North America.

So I ask: Why should we wait? The problem is already here. Millions of hectares of our croplands, forests, and wetlands are showing negative soil health trends. Farmers are being pushed into marginal areas, further degrading the land. Food insecurity is rising. Climate change is worsening the cycle.

The solution is already in front of us. The technology exists. We have the local scientists. We even have a national commitment to restore our land. What we need now is the political will to put all of these together into a coherent program.

If Norway can transform sand into soil in seven hours, then surely we Filipinos can transform degraded land into fertile farms within this decade—if only we dare to try.

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

12-16-2025 

THE ECONOMICS OF ORGANIC FERTILIZERS

 THE ECONOMICS OF ORGANIC FERTILIZERS

It is very clear that organic fertilizers are better than chemical fertilizers. The science is already there: organic fertilizers restore the soil, promote microbial life, and help farmers reduce dependence on petroleum-based inputs. But here is the dilemma—organic fertilizers are not always cheaper than chemical fertilizers. That is the wall many organic farmers run into, especially those who would like to grow organic fruits and vegetables but are constrained by economics.

My own dream is that one day, perhaps sooner than later, organic food will become the norm, not the exception. What would that mean? It would mean that organic food prices will be at par with non-organic food prices. At that point, consumers will simply choose according to preference, not by price. Imagine walking into a supermarket and seeing that organic bananas cost the same as ordinary bananas. Wouldn’t that make sense for both health and sustainability?

Price parity, however, is only one objective. The other objective is to tap both the growing domestic and export markets for organic foods. Here in Metro Manila, the demand for organic fruits and vegetables is steadily rising. Community markets like Salcedo in Makati draw health-conscious buyers every weekend, while online platforms like Farm2Metro deliver organic produce—from native ginger to heirloom squash—straight to households. This shows that consumer behavior is shifting in favor of sustainability and health.

Globally, the story is the same. Japan, South Korea, and China are buying more tropical fruits, with growing interest in organic-certified bananas, pineapples, and mangoes. Europe and North America, though stricter in certification, offer premium prices for certified products. This tells us that if we can meet standards, the Philippines could become a serious player in the global organic trade.

But let us be practical: organic fertilizer is just one side of the equation. The other side is the use of natural insecticides. In theory, the cost of natural insecticides should also be at par with chemical insecticides. Otherwise, the costs of organic farming will remain high, and so will the prices of organic food.

This is where government should come in. The Department of Agriculture (DA) should lead a “whole of government” approach, with the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and research institutions like the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) developing low-cost technologies for both organic fertilizers and natural insecticides. If we cannot develop these technologies locally, then let us be bold enough to acquire them abroad through technology transfer agreements. Why not, if it means boosting our competitiveness in both local and international markets?

Let us not forget: the Philippines is an agricultural country. We should be producing more natural foods not only for our own health but also for export. Organic agriculture can be a sunrise industry if given the right support. The Philippine Statistics Authority reported that organic farming is still less than 2% of total agricultural land, yet the domestic and export markets are growing steadily. This is a gap waiting to be filled.

Certification costs, logistics, and scale remain challenges, but these are not insurmountable. Imagine if DA, DOST, and even DTI collaborated to create affordable certification programs, improved cold-chain logistics, and encouraged cooperatives of small organic farmers. That would lower costs, improve supply consistency, and make our products more attractive to global buyers.

So here is my suggestion: let us push for a national program that supports organic fertilizer and natural insecticide production. Let us aim for price parity between organic and non-organic food within the decade. And let us position the Philippines as an exporter of world-class organic products.

At the end of the day, the economics of organic fertilizers is not just about costs. It is about health, sustainability, trade competitiveness, and national pride. If we succeed, we would not only feed our people better but also carve a space for ourselves in the global organic movement.

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

12-15-2025 

USING A PORTABLE HYDROPOWER DEVICE WITHOUT DAMS

 USING A PORTABLE HYDROPOWER DEVICE WITHOUT DAMS 

It is a classic dilemma that has faced human civilization since electricity was discovered: how do we tap the power of flowing water without building dams? 

Dams have given us abundant electricity, but they also come with risks. If a dam bursts, the consequences are catastrophic. Even without accidents, the very act of building a dam often destroys human settlements, wildlife habitats, and agricultural lands. And yet, because of growing demand for electricity, the case for building dams usually wins. 

But now comes an innovation from Germany that might just change the equation: a suitcase-sized portable hydropower device that generates electricity without the need for a dam. This invention can be deployed in rivers or streams and produce enough power for 20 households—including refrigeration and small appliances. Multiple units can even be linked together to power larger communities. 

Can you imagine what this means for our country? Think of our many off-grid barangays, our upland communities in Mindanao, our island towns that remain unconnected to the national grid. Instead of waiting decades for grid extension—or relying on expensive diesel generators—what if they could simply place a portable turbine in a nearby stream and have instant renewable energy? 

The reports say this German device, often referred to as the HydroCase, is already commercially available. NGOs have begun placing orders, and trial runs have been piloted in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. It is not just a concept—it is already being used. 

This raises the next question: what about the Philippines? Could the Department of Energy (DOE) take the lead in conducting pilot projects here? Could we ask the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) or the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to engage with the German government or manufacturers for technology transfer or partnership? 

We must not waste this opportunity. God has given us the blessing of many rivers and streams, from the Cagayan River in the north to the Agusan in the south. These waterways could become sources of clean energy—without the cost, disruption, and ecological damage of large dams. 

I also ask: why stop at buying the technology? Could our Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and our local universities develop their own versions, perhaps cheaper, using local materials? If German engineers can do it, surely Filipino engineers can too. Imagine barangay-level cooperatives managing shared turbines, using apps to monitor output, and powering cold storage for fishers or rice mills for farmers. 

The beauty of this device is that it embodies the very principles we say we want for our development path: renewable, decentralized, low-cost, and community driven. It eliminates reliance on kerosene lamps and diesel generators. It avoids ecological disruption. And it empowers even the smallest communities to be energy self-sufficient. 

Of course, there are challenges. Who manages the devices? How do we ensure fair access to the water source? How do we protect the equipment from theft or damage? These are governance questions that LGUs and cooperatives would have to address. But these are manageable issues compared to the enormous problems caused by dam building. 

Let me suggest something bold: the Philippines should create a National Program for Micro-Hydropower without Dams. This could bring together DOE, DOST, DFA, DTI, and LGUs. Its mandate: acquire, adapt, and deploy these technologies nationwide, starting with the poorest, most remote communities. 

Just think--with a few thousand of these units, we could light up every barangay in the archipelago. And if we pair them with solar and wind systems, we will have a truly resilient, renewable energy future. 

This German invention is a game-changer. But it will only change our game if we act on it. Otherwise, we will watch other countries leap ahead while we stay in the dark—literally. 

So let us start the conversation now. Let us pilot these portable hydropower devices in our rivers and streams. Let us make energy sovereignty a reality for our barangays. 

Because at the end of the day, the question is simple: do we want to keep building dams—or do we want to start building the future? 

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

12-14-2025