My friend from Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, Nguyen Chi Trung, also a batchmate from SUS 2003 seminar on "sustainable agriculture" held in Sweden, commented on my earlier posting re. government support on farming. He wrote,
"Dear Nonoy and friends, I completely agree with you that farmers should not expect so much from support and subsidy in any form. However, at least in this stage, the number of independent farmers like yourself is not much, and remember that farming is your moonlight play, not the main livelihood. For most farmers, subsidy is still playing an important role. Generally speaking, most farmers could not attend my lectures, if I were not paid by the state or a project. Similarly, I could have never been attended the SUS 2003 training without the kind sponsor from SIDA."
Well, Trung is right. Before I get misinterpreted, let me say that I am not advocating zero government support in agriculture. One government support that I see is very helpful to farmers, are farm-to-market roads and bridges, and irrigation. Good roads support not only farmers but also their children who go to school, their spouses who go the public markets, etc. But beyond infrastructure support, the impact of most government support to farmers are little. Like price support and credit support.
Many agricultural economists and consultants propose that governments should focus on "production support", not "price support", like government buying "high" from farmers and selling "low" to consumers. In this kind of scheme, a lot of waste and corruption are happening.
For the "independent farmers", they are driven more by bigger profit when they harvest their crops and fruits, and less of any subsidy that they can get from government. For mango producers like Cocor Soriano (SUS 2006) and me, there are almost zero government support for mango production, but we continue producing because the price of mango is good very often, not to mention that our families and friends get to taste our very sweet mangos.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Weeds, drought and soil conservation
My friend from Morocco, Nahid Elbezzaz, my former batchmate in an international training on “Sustainable Agriculture in an Environmental Perspective” in 2003, held in Sweden and sponsored by SIDA, wrote the following comments to my earlier posting, “Weeds and Herbicides”. She said,
“Hi Nonoy, Your article is interesting and can provide some good solutions to some problems encountered by some farmers in some areas worldwide as you said. But in my opinion, it is quite simplistic because the problem is different from one part of the world to another. In some areas, it is compulsory to use herbicides and (-cides) in order to have a good yield. The production is the target and it is essential to do the maximum of work in a very small lap of time. However, in other areas, the farmers can use the manual work to remove weeds because they are more close to their lands and also they don't have the same perspectives than other farmers under others skies. Each area has its own characteristics and conditions.”
Yes, Nahid is right that there should be different applications to different problems and situations, there should be more approaches to more and varied situations, no single approach will work everywhere. My point of view when I wrote that short paper was how to accumulate lots of organic materials for mulching, organic fertilizers production, soil and water conservation, and over the long-term, higher yield for crops. It's one of several approaches in the cycle of deplete-replace- deplete-replace. .. of rich soil for the crops.
What also prompted me to write that paper is after my short readings on banana culture and production from some materials available on the web. A number of the papers I read say that application of herbicides is necessary for bananas. But then I also read that bananas when their fruits are maturing, need around 2.5 kilos of NPK fertilizers per banana to support the fruits. That's a big amount and should be expensive for the farmers.
In addition, a new (or maybe old) development that I have read is "no tillage" farming. Which means not disturbing the soil's current compactness and hence, minimize if not control soil erosion. Having lots of uprooted grass and weeds as mulch for the crops should be consistent with "no tillage" farming. The earthworms and other soil micro-organisms that feed on decomposing organic materials will provide the aeration of roots of the crops.
Then Nahid replied back:
“Dear Nonoy, Your analysis is very interesting regarding the use of fertilizers and it is worthy of a soil scientist if the expression is right. The point is, in our region, the Mediterranean, we have experienced the phenomena of drought since quite a long time. All the projects of development had focused on natural resources protection. If my information is right, drought has and still occurs since more than 20 years. So you can imagine that since then, many approaches are being tested and implemented.
However, they were mainly top down oriented and the managers had omitted to involve local communities and population, wasting a potential local know-how to address environmental concerns. Nowadays, the intervention is conducted with and for people. The protection of natural resources remains the main concern of numerous projects. Water and soil conservation is a one of the main component of the projects implemented. But water conservation and soil conservation are, in some cases, implemented separately and this is one of the reasons why many actions are turning to failure…”
Well, I'm no soil scientist. Just a trying-hard farmer (hehehe) who likes to touch the soil as often as possible and in the process, learn from it.
Drought means prolonged dry spell, prolonged lack of rain. So, any water that you can conserve by reducing direct evaporation from the soil to the atmosphere, can be used by the roots of crops, right? Hence, the more that farmers should practice mulching using uprooted weeds and other organic matter as soil cover. And in the process, you not only conserve soil from erosion by strong winds, but you even "create" new rich soil, with the help of earthworms and other soil micro-organisms that feed on decomposing matter.
About the practice of many government agriculture agencies or departments of "top-down" approaches, I think it applies to many if not all agri countries in the world. There is even a danger called "moral hazards" in economics, where the people, farmers in particular, become less innovative and less entrepreneurial because they expect that government assistance (local, national, and multilateral or foreign aid) -- from credit subsidy to seed and farm tractor support, etc. -- will come anyway, at no cost to them.
Farms that are sustainable and profitable, in my observation here in the Philippines, are those that rely the least assistance and dependence from government. If you wait for government assistance, you waste time and money waiting for it, following it up at the municipal or provincial or national level. And you also become indebted to the politicians, whether local or national. Farming should be an apolitical, zero politics, endeavor. And farming should be an entrepreneurial, business project where farmers and investors produce food for themselves and sell the extra output for cash and profit. When farmers have plenty of profit and savings, then they can escape from poverty.
“Hi Nonoy, Your article is interesting and can provide some good solutions to some problems encountered by some farmers in some areas worldwide as you said. But in my opinion, it is quite simplistic because the problem is different from one part of the world to another. In some areas, it is compulsory to use herbicides and (-cides) in order to have a good yield. The production is the target and it is essential to do the maximum of work in a very small lap of time. However, in other areas, the farmers can use the manual work to remove weeds because they are more close to their lands and also they don't have the same perspectives than other farmers under others skies. Each area has its own characteristics and conditions.”
Yes, Nahid is right that there should be different applications to different problems and situations, there should be more approaches to more and varied situations, no single approach will work everywhere. My point of view when I wrote that short paper was how to accumulate lots of organic materials for mulching, organic fertilizers production, soil and water conservation, and over the long-term, higher yield for crops. It's one of several approaches in the cycle of deplete-replace- deplete-replace. .. of rich soil for the crops.
What also prompted me to write that paper is after my short readings on banana culture and production from some materials available on the web. A number of the papers I read say that application of herbicides is necessary for bananas. But then I also read that bananas when their fruits are maturing, need around 2.5 kilos of NPK fertilizers per banana to support the fruits. That's a big amount and should be expensive for the farmers.
In addition, a new (or maybe old) development that I have read is "no tillage" farming. Which means not disturbing the soil's current compactness and hence, minimize if not control soil erosion. Having lots of uprooted grass and weeds as mulch for the crops should be consistent with "no tillage" farming. The earthworms and other soil micro-organisms that feed on decomposing organic materials will provide the aeration of roots of the crops.
Then Nahid replied back:
“Dear Nonoy, Your analysis is very interesting regarding the use of fertilizers and it is worthy of a soil scientist if the expression is right. The point is, in our region, the Mediterranean, we have experienced the phenomena of drought since quite a long time. All the projects of development had focused on natural resources protection. If my information is right, drought has and still occurs since more than 20 years. So you can imagine that since then, many approaches are being tested and implemented.
However, they were mainly top down oriented and the managers had omitted to involve local communities and population, wasting a potential local know-how to address environmental concerns. Nowadays, the intervention is conducted with and for people. The protection of natural resources remains the main concern of numerous projects. Water and soil conservation is a one of the main component of the projects implemented. But water conservation and soil conservation are, in some cases, implemented separately and this is one of the reasons why many actions are turning to failure…”
Well, I'm no soil scientist. Just a trying-hard farmer (hehehe) who likes to touch the soil as often as possible and in the process, learn from it.
Drought means prolonged dry spell, prolonged lack of rain. So, any water that you can conserve by reducing direct evaporation from the soil to the atmosphere, can be used by the roots of crops, right? Hence, the more that farmers should practice mulching using uprooted weeds and other organic matter as soil cover. And in the process, you not only conserve soil from erosion by strong winds, but you even "create" new rich soil, with the help of earthworms and other soil micro-organisms that feed on decomposing matter.
About the practice of many government agriculture agencies or departments of "top-down" approaches, I think it applies to many if not all agri countries in the world. There is even a danger called "moral hazards" in economics, where the people, farmers in particular, become less innovative and less entrepreneurial because they expect that government assistance (local, national, and multilateral or foreign aid) -- from credit subsidy to seed and farm tractor support, etc. -- will come anyway, at no cost to them.
Farms that are sustainable and profitable, in my observation here in the Philippines, are those that rely the least assistance and dependence from government. If you wait for government assistance, you waste time and money waiting for it, following it up at the municipal or provincial or national level. And you also become indebted to the politicians, whether local or national. Farming should be an apolitical, zero politics, endeavor. And farming should be an entrepreneurial, business project where farmers and investors produce food for themselves and sell the extra output for cash and profit. When farmers have plenty of profit and savings, then they can escape from poverty.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Weeds and herbicides
Among the problems encountered by farmers in their crops are weeds and their cousins -- grasses, vines, unwanted herbs, other short plants. And among the "-cides" that farmers resort to, is buying herbicides to control said weeds. Oh, the other "-cides" are pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, etc. to control other problems in the crops.
But crops, from rice and maize to vegetables and bananas, deplete lots of minerals in the soil as they mature and produce grains, edible leaves and fruits. So that in many agricultural literatures, the application of fertilizers, say a certain mixture of N-P-K, is a must if farmers want to continue getting high yields.
In our experience in our farm, those weeds can be our allies. But we have to put lots of time cutting them, if not uprooting them, then put them above the roots of trees and plants as mulch, and wait for them to decompose naturally. Of course the more weeds you put there, the higher the pile becomes, and new soil from decomposed organic matter is being created. Then we need to put stones around these piles so that they won't be eroded by raintwater or strong winds. But overall, after these laborious activities, we have lots of new rich soil, lots of organic fertilizers to replace the depleted minerals, and better yield from the crops and fruit trees.
If those weeds are not allowed to grow because of herbicides, then there will be more evaporation from the soil since those grasses and weeds help cover the soil. There will also be more topsoil erosion during heavy rains since those grasses and weeds help absorb strong raindrops before they reach the soil. And there will be less materials for production of organic fertilizers. So those weeds can be a farmer's ally somehow, huh? Yes, but the farmer must put extra effort and labor to manually cut and uproot them when they become big and tall and use them for mulching.
But what if the area is wide? It will be almost impossible for the farmer/s to manually cut and uproot those weeds. One solution are those ruminants like cows and goats. They feed on the grasses, make the area relatively clean, while leaving animal wastes that can help fertilize the soil. And when those animals are mature enough, they can be sold for cash or slaughtered for food.
But crops, from rice and maize to vegetables and bananas, deplete lots of minerals in the soil as they mature and produce grains, edible leaves and fruits. So that in many agricultural literatures, the application of fertilizers, say a certain mixture of N-P-K, is a must if farmers want to continue getting high yields.
In our experience in our farm, those weeds can be our allies. But we have to put lots of time cutting them, if not uprooting them, then put them above the roots of trees and plants as mulch, and wait for them to decompose naturally. Of course the more weeds you put there, the higher the pile becomes, and new soil from decomposed organic matter is being created. Then we need to put stones around these piles so that they won't be eroded by raintwater or strong winds. But overall, after these laborious activities, we have lots of new rich soil, lots of organic fertilizers to replace the depleted minerals, and better yield from the crops and fruit trees.
If those weeds are not allowed to grow because of herbicides, then there will be more evaporation from the soil since those grasses and weeds help cover the soil. There will also be more topsoil erosion during heavy rains since those grasses and weeds help absorb strong raindrops before they reach the soil. And there will be less materials for production of organic fertilizers. So those weeds can be a farmer's ally somehow, huh? Yes, but the farmer must put extra effort and labor to manually cut and uproot them when they become big and tall and use them for mulching.
But what if the area is wide? It will be almost impossible for the farmer/s to manually cut and uproot those weeds. One solution are those ruminants like cows and goats. They feed on the grasses, make the area relatively clean, while leaving animal wastes that can help fertilize the soil. And when those animals are mature enough, they can be sold for cash or slaughtered for food.
Cloud watching and cloud seeding
It's now the last day of July, and monsoonal rains are not yet in. The past few days, we have some rains, short ones like several mnutes long. I thought that at least those thick rain clouds up there are falling somehow. Then it was reported that many of those rains were a result of cloud seeding operations by the government. Maybe the government feels guilty that it has neglected several millions of hectares of public forest lands that it own and manage, that have become bald and deforested.
When it's very hot at noontime when it's already July, you tend to look up the sky to watch and see where the clouds are that can provide a wide umbrella from the sun's scorching energy. Of course when it's very hot, it means the clouds are either absent or they're far away from where the sun is situated. And so you wish that the clouds would come quick to your rescue; or at least to your crops' rescue if you're a farmer.
Last week, some broadsheet papers here in Manila headlined things like "Power outage and water rationing looms". This is after knowing that some hydro-power plants have to shut off operations even temporarily for lack of strong water to fall down and turn the turbines. And the conflict between the need for irrigation water for rice and other crops, and the need for drinking water has once again resurfaced as the water level in some dams are breaching critical levels. Of course some of those headlines maybe exagerrated and are too alarmist, but somehow there are grains of truth in their stories.
At least one province in the northern part of the Philippines has already declared a state of calamity due to prolonged drought. When provincial officials do this, they intend to get a certain percentage from the nation's calamity fund and give the money to their people, also to themselves. One measure that the provincial officials have thought, is to give free fuel to farmers (xx liters per farmer) so they can pump water from the drying creeks and rivers with low water level, into their rice fields.
Tomorrow it will be August. Historically, it is among the wettest month of the year. I remember in August 2003, when Europe was wobbling from a terrible heatwave that killed around 35,000 people, the Philippines, or at least Metro Manila and its neighboring provinces, had 7 days and 7 nights of non-stop rains! So that tens of thousands of hectares of rice lands were flooded, resulting to huge crop losses as many rice varieties cannot recover after being submerged in water for several days. For those rice varieties that survived, the harvest was adversely affected.
As the Philippines and other countries slightly north of the equator are sizzling, other countries, especially those slightly south of the equator, are having floods. Rather weird. Similar to Europe middle of this month -- where southern Europe is scorching, north Europe like Britain is flooding.
This climate change will spur people to adjust accordingly -- economically, physically, even biologically. If this trend will continue, maybe 1 or 2 decades from now, us Malays, our brown skin will slowly become dark brown. Especially those who work under the sun too often.
What we shall be watching in the coming weeks, aside from cloud watching, is if there are mutant diseases that will pose serious threat to public health. Or at least pose threat to livestock, animals that we eat as supply of grains and other crops will decline relative to demand in the coming months.
When it's very hot at noontime when it's already July, you tend to look up the sky to watch and see where the clouds are that can provide a wide umbrella from the sun's scorching energy. Of course when it's very hot, it means the clouds are either absent or they're far away from where the sun is situated. And so you wish that the clouds would come quick to your rescue; or at least to your crops' rescue if you're a farmer.
Last week, some broadsheet papers here in Manila headlined things like "Power outage and water rationing looms". This is after knowing that some hydro-power plants have to shut off operations even temporarily for lack of strong water to fall down and turn the turbines. And the conflict between the need for irrigation water for rice and other crops, and the need for drinking water has once again resurfaced as the water level in some dams are breaching critical levels. Of course some of those headlines maybe exagerrated and are too alarmist, but somehow there are grains of truth in their stories.
At least one province in the northern part of the Philippines has already declared a state of calamity due to prolonged drought. When provincial officials do this, they intend to get a certain percentage from the nation's calamity fund and give the money to their people, also to themselves. One measure that the provincial officials have thought, is to give free fuel to farmers (xx liters per farmer) so they can pump water from the drying creeks and rivers with low water level, into their rice fields.
Tomorrow it will be August. Historically, it is among the wettest month of the year. I remember in August 2003, when Europe was wobbling from a terrible heatwave that killed around 35,000 people, the Philippines, or at least Metro Manila and its neighboring provinces, had 7 days and 7 nights of non-stop rains! So that tens of thousands of hectares of rice lands were flooded, resulting to huge crop losses as many rice varieties cannot recover after being submerged in water for several days. For those rice varieties that survived, the harvest was adversely affected.
As the Philippines and other countries slightly north of the equator are sizzling, other countries, especially those slightly south of the equator, are having floods. Rather weird. Similar to Europe middle of this month -- where southern Europe is scorching, north Europe like Britain is flooding.
This climate change will spur people to adjust accordingly -- economically, physically, even biologically. If this trend will continue, maybe 1 or 2 decades from now, us Malays, our brown skin will slowly become dark brown. Especially those who work under the sun too often.
What we shall be watching in the coming weeks, aside from cloud watching, is if there are mutant diseases that will pose serious threat to public health. Or at least pose threat to livestock, animals that we eat as supply of grains and other crops will decline relative to demand in the coming months.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Prolonged summer, heatwave and evolution
It's now the 4th week of July and there are not enough rains yet in the country. I went to our farm 2 weeks ago, and I saw along the way that hundreds of hectares of rice land in the municipality and neighboring towns in Pangasinan are still not planted with rice. I doubt that said lands have been planted with rice by now as there were no strong rains yet that could really wet the lands for easier plowing and planting.
I really believe that poverty and hunger will rise in the coming months in this country. If rice production is delayed for just 1 month over thousands of hectares of rice lands, then rice output should decline and hence, rice price will rise. If the delay is 2 months, then the adverse impact is worsened. This situation can only be prevented if there are lots of rice output in other parts of the country, say from the Visayas and Mindanao. But this does not seem probable because the whole country is experiencing lack of rain. At this time, typhoons will be welcomed by many people, if it's the only way that can bring in plenty of rain.
Today I read in the papers how southern Europe is scorching with a deadly heat. It's reported that in Hungary alone, about 500 people have died from the heat just last week alone. And thousands of hectares of forest land are burning in many parts and countries of southern Europe -- southern Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Romania, Bosnia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, etc.
The worst-affected country in Europe during the 2003 heatwave was France, with some 15,000 people estimated to have died. My country is near the equator. And yet when the temperature hits 38 degrees Celsius, life is very uncomfortable already. So I cannot imagine staying in a place where you can have snow during winter, and temperature can rise to 41 degrees, even 45 degrees!
Meanwhile, central Britain was swamped by heavy rains and flooding. I wondered earlier where the big evaporated water from the Philippines, southern Europe, and other continents are being dumped in the form of heavy rains.
This climate change is really tragic. Perhaps this is a new round of evolution and extinction of some species by nature. People have to live with this, endure this new climate development, and consequently, evolve with it. Food science and agriculture too, will need to change and evolve. Drought-resistant crops will be in bigger demand in the coming years, along with flood-resistant crops and varieties. Really ironic, but this seems to be the way if current trends will continue.
I really believe that poverty and hunger will rise in the coming months in this country. If rice production is delayed for just 1 month over thousands of hectares of rice lands, then rice output should decline and hence, rice price will rise. If the delay is 2 months, then the adverse impact is worsened. This situation can only be prevented if there are lots of rice output in other parts of the country, say from the Visayas and Mindanao. But this does not seem probable because the whole country is experiencing lack of rain. At this time, typhoons will be welcomed by many people, if it's the only way that can bring in plenty of rain.
Today I read in the papers how southern Europe is scorching with a deadly heat. It's reported that in Hungary alone, about 500 people have died from the heat just last week alone. And thousands of hectares of forest land are burning in many parts and countries of southern Europe -- southern Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Romania, Bosnia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, etc.
The worst-affected country in Europe during the 2003 heatwave was France, with some 15,000 people estimated to have died. My country is near the equator. And yet when the temperature hits 38 degrees Celsius, life is very uncomfortable already. So I cannot imagine staying in a place where you can have snow during winter, and temperature can rise to 41 degrees, even 45 degrees!
Meanwhile, central Britain was swamped by heavy rains and flooding. I wondered earlier where the big evaporated water from the Philippines, southern Europe, and other continents are being dumped in the form of heavy rains.
This climate change is really tragic. Perhaps this is a new round of evolution and extinction of some species by nature. People have to live with this, endure this new climate development, and consequently, evolve with it. Food science and agriculture too, will need to change and evolve. Drought-resistant crops will be in bigger demand in the coming years, along with flood-resistant crops and varieties. Really ironic, but this seems to be the way if current trends will continue.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Our dogs in the farm
We have 6 dogs in our farm. A Japanese spitz, named "Vampy", a Dalmatian, named "Spotty", a cross-breed of Labrador and native breed, named "Jenny", and 3 native breeds named "Tiger", "Elma", and "Ryan".
Vampy is sort of a toy dog, she just stays in my tree house. With her long furs, she easily gets lice and other pesky dog insects in her body if she stays in a concrete house. In my tree house, with fresh air around her, I notice she hardly gets any lice there. She's the pet dog of my former girlfriend, now my wife, Ella. Ella loves her so much -- before, when we didn't have a daughter yet.
Spotty is an adopted dog from Ella's auntie in Quezon City. Some neighbors complained of Spotty's loud barking, so he was transferred to our farm, inside his metal cage. There, when he barks, his voice could be heard sometimes in another barrio or village more than 1 km. away! He's in a cage most of the time, as we can't let him loose all the time because he might walk away and never find his way back home.
Tiger (name taken from his tiger-like fur) is our "chief security" in the farm. He's the oldest there, he's about 4 or 5 years old now. Anyone passing by our farm, whether people, or rats and birds, he'd chase them. But his habit of chasing people is more of scaring them. He has never bitten anyone all these years, nor came close to biting anybody. But in the evenings, I don't think Tiger will hesitate to bite any intruder, say a theft, who will come close to my tree house.
Jenny (name taken from a famous Filipina golfer, Jenny Rosales) is also very brave. She can bark all day or all night, so long as there are faces or creatures that she doesn't like. Our farm caretaker has several cows. When he goes home down the barrio, he has to leave his cows somewhere between our farm and his house. And Jenny would come and guard the cows all night! Not every night, but on a number of evenings.
Ryan (name taken from former champion of the Philippines' multi-stage cycling race, Ryan Tanguilig) is another brave dog. When I'm not in the farm, here in Manila, Ryan does not stay near my treehouse, he stays in another hut where the mango trees are. There, some children from the barrio would come to steal some of our coconuts, or cashew, or calamansi, even mangos during mango fruiting season. And Ryan makes sure that they don't come too often. When he barks continiously, Tiger and Jenny would come quick to join him.
And last, Elma (taken from former Filipina athlete, sprint and long-jump queen, Elma Muros). She's also brave, but when the 3 dogs are out chasing something or somebody, or if they're accompanying our farm caretaker, Mang Endring, Elma stays behind to guard my tree house and other things inside the house.
We have a 7th dog before, Zorro (name taken from famous Mexican hero, Zorro). He's also a Japanese spitz, supposedly to become Jenny's boyfriend. He was very brave, and he'd bark loudly and continiously when 1 or more dogs are barking. Unfortunately, he died. He was ran over by a "pugpog", a barrio truck used in hauling various farm and forest products, which entered a public forest land via barangay road in our farm. I talked to all the barangay leaders there and requested that said barangay road be closed from "pugpog" because those vehicles are used mainly to transport illegally-cut trees for firewood, charcoal and poles. Plus the fact that said vehicle killed my dog. The barangay leaders gave me that permission.
In a sense, Zorro's death became a trigger for the closure of that barangay road. Now there are less cutting of trees in the public forest land. In addition, we put a tomb (made of cement) for Zorro right beside the barangay road. So some people who walk to the mountains to cut some trees for their household needs are scared that there's a tomb nearby. Maybe they thought that a person was buried there.
Whenever I visit our farm, our dogs are among the happiest welcome sights that I see there. They are just too happy, too loud, to welcome me. And I always bring lots of food for them.
In the evening, where I talk to Mang Endring on some plans for the farm, all of the 6 dogs would also enter my treehouse and just stay there. Before we go to sleep, all of them have to get out, except Vampy. When I wake up in the morning, the dogs are already waiting at the door, waiting to be touched and wanting to walk around with me.
Tiger and Ryan don't exactly like each other though. They'd fight from time to time, especially over food. Maybe this is one reason why Ryan stays out of my tree house area, where Tiger stays and guards most of the time.
Dogs are indeed man's best friends. You can get 100% loyalty from them, and your properties they help secure. This week, a new puppy, local breed, was added to the farm. She will be our 7th dog. I still have to think of a new name for her though.
Vampy is sort of a toy dog, she just stays in my tree house. With her long furs, she easily gets lice and other pesky dog insects in her body if she stays in a concrete house. In my tree house, with fresh air around her, I notice she hardly gets any lice there. She's the pet dog of my former girlfriend, now my wife, Ella. Ella loves her so much -- before, when we didn't have a daughter yet.
Spotty is an adopted dog from Ella's auntie in Quezon City. Some neighbors complained of Spotty's loud barking, so he was transferred to our farm, inside his metal cage. There, when he barks, his voice could be heard sometimes in another barrio or village more than 1 km. away! He's in a cage most of the time, as we can't let him loose all the time because he might walk away and never find his way back home.
Tiger (name taken from his tiger-like fur) is our "chief security" in the farm. He's the oldest there, he's about 4 or 5 years old now. Anyone passing by our farm, whether people, or rats and birds, he'd chase them. But his habit of chasing people is more of scaring them. He has never bitten anyone all these years, nor came close to biting anybody. But in the evenings, I don't think Tiger will hesitate to bite any intruder, say a theft, who will come close to my tree house.
Jenny (name taken from a famous Filipina golfer, Jenny Rosales) is also very brave. She can bark all day or all night, so long as there are faces or creatures that she doesn't like. Our farm caretaker has several cows. When he goes home down the barrio, he has to leave his cows somewhere between our farm and his house. And Jenny would come and guard the cows all night! Not every night, but on a number of evenings.
Ryan (name taken from former champion of the Philippines' multi-stage cycling race, Ryan Tanguilig) is another brave dog. When I'm not in the farm, here in Manila, Ryan does not stay near my treehouse, he stays in another hut where the mango trees are. There, some children from the barrio would come to steal some of our coconuts, or cashew, or calamansi, even mangos during mango fruiting season. And Ryan makes sure that they don't come too often. When he barks continiously, Tiger and Jenny would come quick to join him.
And last, Elma (taken from former Filipina athlete, sprint and long-jump queen, Elma Muros). She's also brave, but when the 3 dogs are out chasing something or somebody, or if they're accompanying our farm caretaker, Mang Endring, Elma stays behind to guard my tree house and other things inside the house.
We have a 7th dog before, Zorro (name taken from famous Mexican hero, Zorro). He's also a Japanese spitz, supposedly to become Jenny's boyfriend. He was very brave, and he'd bark loudly and continiously when 1 or more dogs are barking. Unfortunately, he died. He was ran over by a "pugpog", a barrio truck used in hauling various farm and forest products, which entered a public forest land via barangay road in our farm. I talked to all the barangay leaders there and requested that said barangay road be closed from "pugpog" because those vehicles are used mainly to transport illegally-cut trees for firewood, charcoal and poles. Plus the fact that said vehicle killed my dog. The barangay leaders gave me that permission.
In a sense, Zorro's death became a trigger for the closure of that barangay road. Now there are less cutting of trees in the public forest land. In addition, we put a tomb (made of cement) for Zorro right beside the barangay road. So some people who walk to the mountains to cut some trees for their household needs are scared that there's a tomb nearby. Maybe they thought that a person was buried there.
Whenever I visit our farm, our dogs are among the happiest welcome sights that I see there. They are just too happy, too loud, to welcome me. And I always bring lots of food for them.
In the evening, where I talk to Mang Endring on some plans for the farm, all of the 6 dogs would also enter my treehouse and just stay there. Before we go to sleep, all of them have to get out, except Vampy. When I wake up in the morning, the dogs are already waiting at the door, waiting to be touched and wanting to walk around with me.
Tiger and Ryan don't exactly like each other though. They'd fight from time to time, especially over food. Maybe this is one reason why Ryan stays out of my tree house area, where Tiger stays and guards most of the time.
Dogs are indeed man's best friends. You can get 100% loyalty from them, and your properties they help secure. This week, a new puppy, local breed, was added to the farm. She will be our 7th dog. I still have to think of a new name for her though.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Physics of global warming
The most dominant thinking nowadays about global warming and climate change is that their main cause is man-made pollution and green house gases (GHGs) emission. But I read some articles saying this is wrong. It's more of the earth's natural cycle of global cooling-then- warming-. .., in relation to the sun's magnetic field and cosmic activities, largely created by natural nuclear activities in our solar system and from the outer space.
One such article that I've read is written by a Physicist, Dr. Michael J. Fox. He's saying that recent discoveries in climate physics show that the sun's current magnetic field is strong, more than 2x its normal force, and it's deflecting cosmic rays that are supposed to help form clouds that help cool the planet. With strong magnetic field by the sun, there are less cosmic rays, less clouds, and we have global warming.
Thus, while I fully believe that there is global warming and climate change, I don't fully believe that it's mainly because of man-made pollution. I would say it's a mixture of humanity's pollution and the sun's internal dynamics, though more of the latter.
Below is a portion of Dr. Fox’s article, posted in Hawaii Reporter. For brevity purposes, I removed certain paragraphs. If you want to see the full article, see
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e9e9ac7e-64b1-4fc5-a8ae-fe52f699adac
When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming
By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 7/1/2007
Studiously hidden from public view are some extraordinary findings in physics which are providing new understanding of our planetary history, as well as providing a much more plausible scientific understanding of Global Warming. Regrettably, the current hysteria about global warming is based much more on fear, political agendas, and computer models that don’t agree with each other or the climate, rather than hard-nosed evidence and science.
The climate forces which have led to the estimated 0.6C degree temperature increase over the past 100 years or more (according to the International Panel on Climate Change) have been assumed to be man-made CO2 emissions from advanced nations including the US. We know this can’t be true for several reasons.
The first is that water vapor provides 95% of the total of the greenhouse gases, not CO2. The total of the CO2 represents less than 3% of the total. The second is that of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory, the manmade fraction is less than 3% of the CO2 total and therefore far less than 1% of the total greenhouse gas inventories. Third, studies of the recent climate variations are finding, for example, (See article by J. Oestermans, Science, p. 375, April 29, 2005) that glaciers have been receding since 1750 or so, well before any significant man-made CO2 emissions occurred….
Basically, the more cosmic rays, the more clouds are formed and the cooler the temperature. Since many of the cosmic rays can be deflected by the Sun’s magnet field, the cosmic ray intensity varies inversely with the strength of that field. The stronger the solar magnetic field, the fewer cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, fewer clouds are formed, and the climate becomes warmer.
Today the Sun’s magnetic field is more than twice as strong as it was at the turn of the last century. During the mid 1700s during the Little Ice Age there was a 70 year period when there were no sunspots (called the Maunder Minimum), and the solar magnetic field was very weak.
The cosmic rays were not deflected as much by a weakened solar magnetic field, more clouds were formed, thus a cooler climate at that time. These findings provide a simple plausible explanation, defensible with sound physics, and don’t involve a major role for CO2 at all….
It appears that the Sun’s magnetic field has had a stronger effect on our climate than just the variations in solar irradiance could explain.
Political leaders, environmental advocates, and even Oscar-winning documentarians who claim that “the debate of climate science is over”, have been shown once again to be very wrong.
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyist for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level.
---------
This, in relation to the Inter-government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, I cannot comment much because those technical reports and their corresponding scientific methodologies are beyond my intellectual comprehension. But I cannot dismiss that physics theory of the sun's strong magnetic field that deflect cosmic rays that reduce rain clouds. After all, the sun is very much an important equation in all of these discourses. Even islands and places where there are no factories and people living, meaning no pollution, there's sunlight. So any changes in the sun's nuclear energy emission or deflection will naturally impact positively or negatively, on earth and other planets especially in our solar system.
I think this will be a running debate for a long time. My concern is that if contrary opinions like those of Dr. Fox is correct, that those GHGs may affect global warming but only on a very minor role, then the proposed drastic actions by many governments and the UN can be dangerous. If many governments will double the petroleum taxes because they want to discourage the use of petroleum, us, the public, will bear the burden. And if many governments will strongly advocate the use of bio-fuels, then most of those corn and grains for human and animal consumption will be diverted to producing bio-diesel, then the price of those corn and grains will increase, and that will contribute to global hunger.
That is why I cannot fully accept at this time those alarmist analysis like Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie. We should be wary of alarmist analysis because the burden ultimately will be on us, not on politicians and international bureaucrats.
One such article that I've read is written by a Physicist, Dr. Michael J. Fox. He's saying that recent discoveries in climate physics show that the sun's current magnetic field is strong, more than 2x its normal force, and it's deflecting cosmic rays that are supposed to help form clouds that help cool the planet. With strong magnetic field by the sun, there are less cosmic rays, less clouds, and we have global warming.
Thus, while I fully believe that there is global warming and climate change, I don't fully believe that it's mainly because of man-made pollution. I would say it's a mixture of humanity's pollution and the sun's internal dynamics, though more of the latter.
Below is a portion of Dr. Fox’s article, posted in Hawaii Reporter. For brevity purposes, I removed certain paragraphs. If you want to see the full article, see
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e9e9ac7e-64b1-4fc5-a8ae-fe52f699adac
When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming
By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 7/1/2007
Studiously hidden from public view are some extraordinary findings in physics which are providing new understanding of our planetary history, as well as providing a much more plausible scientific understanding of Global Warming. Regrettably, the current hysteria about global warming is based much more on fear, political agendas, and computer models that don’t agree with each other or the climate, rather than hard-nosed evidence and science.
The climate forces which have led to the estimated 0.6C degree temperature increase over the past 100 years or more (according to the International Panel on Climate Change) have been assumed to be man-made CO2 emissions from advanced nations including the US. We know this can’t be true for several reasons.
The first is that water vapor provides 95% of the total of the greenhouse gases, not CO2. The total of the CO2 represents less than 3% of the total. The second is that of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory, the manmade fraction is less than 3% of the CO2 total and therefore far less than 1% of the total greenhouse gas inventories. Third, studies of the recent climate variations are finding, for example, (See article by J. Oestermans, Science, p. 375, April 29, 2005) that glaciers have been receding since 1750 or so, well before any significant man-made CO2 emissions occurred….
Basically, the more cosmic rays, the more clouds are formed and the cooler the temperature. Since many of the cosmic rays can be deflected by the Sun’s magnet field, the cosmic ray intensity varies inversely with the strength of that field. The stronger the solar magnetic field, the fewer cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, fewer clouds are formed, and the climate becomes warmer.
Today the Sun’s magnetic field is more than twice as strong as it was at the turn of the last century. During the mid 1700s during the Little Ice Age there was a 70 year period when there were no sunspots (called the Maunder Minimum), and the solar magnetic field was very weak.
The cosmic rays were not deflected as much by a weakened solar magnetic field, more clouds were formed, thus a cooler climate at that time. These findings provide a simple plausible explanation, defensible with sound physics, and don’t involve a major role for CO2 at all….
It appears that the Sun’s magnetic field has had a stronger effect on our climate than just the variations in solar irradiance could explain.
Political leaders, environmental advocates, and even Oscar-winning documentarians who claim that “the debate of climate science is over”, have been shown once again to be very wrong.
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyist for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level.
---------
This, in relation to the Inter-government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, I cannot comment much because those technical reports and their corresponding scientific methodologies are beyond my intellectual comprehension. But I cannot dismiss that physics theory of the sun's strong magnetic field that deflect cosmic rays that reduce rain clouds. After all, the sun is very much an important equation in all of these discourses. Even islands and places where there are no factories and people living, meaning no pollution, there's sunlight. So any changes in the sun's nuclear energy emission or deflection will naturally impact positively or negatively, on earth and other planets especially in our solar system.
I think this will be a running debate for a long time. My concern is that if contrary opinions like those of Dr. Fox is correct, that those GHGs may affect global warming but only on a very minor role, then the proposed drastic actions by many governments and the UN can be dangerous. If many governments will double the petroleum taxes because they want to discourage the use of petroleum, us, the public, will bear the burden. And if many governments will strongly advocate the use of bio-fuels, then most of those corn and grains for human and animal consumption will be diverted to producing bio-diesel, then the price of those corn and grains will increase, and that will contribute to global hunger.
That is why I cannot fully accept at this time those alarmist analysis like Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie. We should be wary of alarmist analysis because the burden ultimately will be on us, not on politicians and international bureaucrats.
Privatizing some public forest land
At the moment, the only sensible public "forest land" in the Philippines that I can think of are those in:
(a) Sierra Madre mountain range, northern Quezon-Aurora-eastern Cagayan & Isabela provinces, fronting the Pacific Ocean.
Sierra madre's western side, ie western Cagayan-Isabela-N.Vizcaya-N.Ecija-Bulacan-Rizal-southern Quezon provinces are generally deforested, converted to rice land, corn land, other agri lands, human settlements.
(b) Palawan, especially north of Puerto Princesa up to Busuanga.
(c) Cordillera, Mountain Province especially. Abra, Benguet, and Ifugao are highly deforested, large tracts of previously forest land converted to rice land (the famous rice terraces), vegetable land (baguio beans, carrots, cabbage, etc.).
(d) Zambales mountain range, especially north-east of Subic and Olongapo.
(e) Mindoro, especially the mountain areas (Mt. Halcon, other neighboring mojuntains)
(f) Romblon's Sibuyan island, especially around Mt. Guiting-guiting.
(g) Certain areas of Mindanao, like surrounding Mt. Apo, Mt. Kitanglad, Mt. Matutum, etc.
(h) Pockets of forested areas in other provinces like around Mt. Arayat ni Pampanga, Mt. Makiling in Laguna, Mt. Banahaw in Quezon, Mt. Canlaon in Negros, Cebu south of cebu city, etc.
Most of the other "public forest land" is either upland rice area, volcanoes, brushland, marginal forest land and grassland. And sadly, these areas comprise the majority of the public forest land.
Currently, these areas contain almost zero logging companies, but hundreds of thousands of poor households. I would say that almost 100% of current forest destruction and denudation is caused by poaching, logging, and slash-and-burn by poor households from the agri lowlands, to upland settlers. You can include military loggers sometimes, in military reservation areas and neighboring mountains to their military camps. Like Camp Magsaysay in Laur, N. Ecija.
The “tragedy of the commons” is at work here. Majority of those forest poachers, loggers and slash-and-burn farmers are in the thinking that “if I don’t cut this thigh-big tree now and wait for it to become bigger, someone else will cut this tomorrow or next week, so I better cut it now.” A resource like a “public forest” that is owned by everyone and no one in particular can unleash the energy of race to mass destruction.
Privatizing some public forest land, assuming it can be done when the next round of Constitutional change happens, is possible. The demand for industrial trees, cash and food crops, from bananas to mangos to pineapple to palms, as well as crops for bio-diesel and agri-petroleum, will keep increasing. These crops you cannot plant inside greehouses and via hydroponics. You need vast tracts of open land with lots of sunlight to grow these crops well.
Maybe we can start from there, the degraded, denuded, and turned-grassland "public forest land". Government has no real interest, much less incentive, to conserve and develop these lands back to real forest land. The first thing that the DENR and LGUs will ask if we expect them to do this is, "can you give us more money?" Which means actually, "can you raise more taxes for this job?"
(a) Sierra Madre mountain range, northern Quezon-Aurora-eastern Cagayan & Isabela provinces, fronting the Pacific Ocean.
Sierra madre's western side, ie western Cagayan-Isabela-N.Vizcaya-N.Ecija-Bulacan-Rizal-southern Quezon provinces are generally deforested, converted to rice land, corn land, other agri lands, human settlements.
(b) Palawan, especially north of Puerto Princesa up to Busuanga.
(c) Cordillera, Mountain Province especially. Abra, Benguet, and Ifugao are highly deforested, large tracts of previously forest land converted to rice land (the famous rice terraces), vegetable land (baguio beans, carrots, cabbage, etc.).
(d) Zambales mountain range, especially north-east of Subic and Olongapo.
(e) Mindoro, especially the mountain areas (Mt. Halcon, other neighboring mojuntains)
(f) Romblon's Sibuyan island, especially around Mt. Guiting-guiting.
(g) Certain areas of Mindanao, like surrounding Mt. Apo, Mt. Kitanglad, Mt. Matutum, etc.
(h) Pockets of forested areas in other provinces like around Mt. Arayat ni Pampanga, Mt. Makiling in Laguna, Mt. Banahaw in Quezon, Mt. Canlaon in Negros, Cebu south of cebu city, etc.
Most of the other "public forest land" is either upland rice area, volcanoes, brushland, marginal forest land and grassland. And sadly, these areas comprise the majority of the public forest land.
Currently, these areas contain almost zero logging companies, but hundreds of thousands of poor households. I would say that almost 100% of current forest destruction and denudation is caused by poaching, logging, and slash-and-burn by poor households from the agri lowlands, to upland settlers. You can include military loggers sometimes, in military reservation areas and neighboring mountains to their military camps. Like Camp Magsaysay in Laur, N. Ecija.
The “tragedy of the commons” is at work here. Majority of those forest poachers, loggers and slash-and-burn farmers are in the thinking that “if I don’t cut this thigh-big tree now and wait for it to become bigger, someone else will cut this tomorrow or next week, so I better cut it now.” A resource like a “public forest” that is owned by everyone and no one in particular can unleash the energy of race to mass destruction.
Privatizing some public forest land, assuming it can be done when the next round of Constitutional change happens, is possible. The demand for industrial trees, cash and food crops, from bananas to mangos to pineapple to palms, as well as crops for bio-diesel and agri-petroleum, will keep increasing. These crops you cannot plant inside greehouses and via hydroponics. You need vast tracts of open land with lots of sunlight to grow these crops well.
Maybe we can start from there, the degraded, denuded, and turned-grassland "public forest land". Government has no real interest, much less incentive, to conserve and develop these lands back to real forest land. The first thing that the DENR and LGUs will ask if we expect them to do this is, "can you give us more money?" Which means actually, "can you raise more taxes for this job?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)