Agri-Tech Blog

Even as 2009 brought much cheer to the Indian economy with an unexpected growth rate of 7.9% in the second quarter, FM has cautioned that agriculture sector will prove to be a roadblock in achieving the coveted 9% overall growth rate in the current fiscal.

Pranab Mukherjee warned that agriculture may post negative growth during the third quarter and is capable of restricting the GDP growth. The agri segment has to post a minimum growth rate of 4% to help propel the GDP growth to 9%. With the first quarter recording 2.5% and second quarter -1% growth in the agriculture sector, the chances of posting a positive figure in the third quarter is bleak.

Despite this, Indian economy is displaying strong possibilities of 7.5% growth by the end of the financial year.

To give a boost to agriculture, government is planning to pump in more investment. The fiscal stimulus packages infused into the economy during 2008 and 2009 have been effective in bringing about the desired economic growth.

One of reasons for agriculture sector’s poor showing this year, especially in the second quarter is the failure of kharif crops due to unprecedented drought. Government is looking for lasting solutions to the perennial problems of monsoon and crop failure and inflation.

Another measure planned to help improve the situation is to perk up the public distribution system (PDS), at least for essential items such as sugar, kerosene, pulses and edible oil. This can help in curbing food price inflation, which is threatening to get out of control and damage the GDP growth.

May 20th, 2011 | Category: Agricultural Revolution, Agricultural Science | Comments (99)

Oh dear, not only has climate change turned me into a reluctant green, but now I’m having to rethink my attitudes to organic farming. This is all the fault of a conversation with Peter Melchett  and Ken Hayes from the Soil Association  , who are both fervent advocates of organic agriculture   (which Peter puts into practice on his own farm).

What struck me in our discussions was the presence of two very different ‘narratives’ on organics. The first could be caricatured as a nostalgia/hair shirt   world view – harking back to the ‘good old days’ when you bought local, grew local, knew your neighbours, ate only in-season food etc. The second is all about solutions – organics could be part of the response to a range of new and growing problems, above all climate change.

I am instinctively hostile to the nostalgia/hair shirt narrative (which when I was growing up felt more like bad old days of wilting lettuce at the local greengrocers, strawberries for only two weeks a year, not to mention the impact of ‘buy British’ localism on 1.5 million African agricultural labourers producing fruit and veg for export to Europe – see linked discussion on food miles  ) and think it deters a much wider potential audience.

But now (thanks to Ken) I have been reading up on organics-as-solution, and it looks much more interesting. The key question is how do we feed 9 billion people (the estimated global population in 2050) while cutting greenhouse gases by 80%? So (a) can organics feed the 9 billion and (b) how serious a dent can they make on GHG emissions?

A paper   by Catherine Badgeley et al in the journal Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (sorry, looks like you have to pay for this one – anyone know of a free online version?) pulls together the evidence on the first question and concludes: ‘For most food categories, the average yield ratio was slightly <1.0 for studies in the developed world and >1.0 for studies in the developing world’ i.e. going organic does indeed involve a loss in yields in some areas of intensive, rich world agriculture (eg potatoes, fruit and horticulture, especially from greenhouse production), but can actually increase yields in poor countries. Also, there is plenty of scope for increased production on organic farms, since 99% of agricultural research of the past 50 years has focused on conventional methods.

A recent paper by the FAO agrees on the relative neglect of research into organics, but remains concerned on the impact on world food supplies.: ‘a 100 percent conversion to organic agriculture could decrease global yields. According to various studies, this yield reduction could be 30 to 40 percent in intensively farmed regions under the best geo-climate conditions. In less favourable regions, yield losses tend to zero. In the context of subsistence agriculture and in regions with periodic disruptions of water supply brought on by droughts or floods, organic agriculture is competitive to conventional agriculture and often superior with respect to yields.’

What about the link to climate change? The FAO paper points out that each year, agriculture emits 10 to 12 percent of the total estimated GHG emissions and that sustainable agriculture, including organics, includes many techniques that drastically cut emissions, including
° recycling wastes as nutrient source,
° using nitrogen-fixing plants,
° improving cropping systems and landscapes,
° avoiding synthetic pesticides,
° integrating crops and animals into a single farm production sector and including grass clover leys (nitrogen fixing plants that act as alternatives to chemical fertilisers) for fodder production, while avoiding purchase of feed concentrates.
The FAO concludes (see graphs for minimum and maximum scenario on how organic farming could reduce global agricultural emissions by between 57-82%):

‘Sustainable and organic agriculture offer multiple opportunities to reduce GHGs and counteract global warming. For example, organic agriculture reduces energy requirements for production systems by 25 to 50 percent compared to conventional chemical-based agriculture. Reducing GHGs through their sequestration in soil has even greater potential to mitigate climate change. Carbon is sequestered through an increase of soil organic matter content.

Improving soil sequestration of carbon is desirable in both low- and high-yield crop and animal systems. However, soil improvement is particularly important for agriculture in developing countries where crop inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides are not readily available, their costs are prohibitive, they require special equipment, and the knowledge needed for their proper application is not widespread.

In order to reduce trade-offs among food security, climate change and ecosystem degradation, productive and ecologically sustainable agriculture is crucial. In that context, organic agriculture represents a multi-targeted and multifunctional strategy. It offers a proven alternative concept that is being implemented quite successfully by a growing number of farms and food chains. Currently, 1.2 million farmers practise organic agriculture on 32.2 million ha of land.’

One issue this and other studies raise is that sequestration of carbon in soils is currently excluded from funding via the Clean Development Mechanism  , thus reducing the potential contribution of sustainable/organic agriculture.

So please put away those hair shirts and let’s concentrate on showing that organics are a promising way to confront climate change.

May 20th, 2011 | Category: Agriculture Technology | Comments (55)

Selecting the ‘greatest’

“This ‘Greatest’ list certainly does not end with the 32 tractors featured here. Not by a long shot. At last count, I have winnowed my master list down to no less than 64 greatest tractors. Maybe more will join that fold in time as you take me to task for not including a particular tractor model that you feel qualified to be added to this honor roll,” says Successful Farming Machinery Director and Ageless Iron Editor Dave Mowitz. “Enjoyable? Absolutely! I absolutely adore tractor history! The tractor has a very rich, very entertaining history. Plus, I’m of the conviction that the development of the tractor and related agricultural machinery is among the ‘greatest,’ if not the most monumental, of all technological advances that have occurred to mankind.”

May 20th, 2011 | Category: Agriculture Machine | Comments (102)

If you’re pacing a trough in your shop or office floor waiting for things to warm up and dry out, all the while worrying about how much corn yield potential you’re losing by not getting your crop planted in the timeframe you had hoped, don’t let it get you too far down. 

You may have missed the “ideal window” for planting, but that doesn’t mean you’re any worse off than if your seed was sitting in the soil and not in the bag right now, according to Purdue University Extension agronomist Bob Nielsen. 

The best estimates show you lose about 1 bushel/acre/day in yield after about May 1, and that number doubles once you reach the end of the month. “Yield potential goes down with delayed planting because of a number of factors, including a shorter growing season, insect & disease pressure, and moisture stress during pollination,” Nielsen says.

That’s the bad news. The good news is you’re not playing yourself out of a good crop just because you’re late getting the seed in the ground. Planting date is just one of many “yield influencing factors” (YIF) that determine what kind of yields you’ll pull in from the field this fall. So, even if you plant later than what’s considered ideal for your area, you could still net good yields.

“What is important to understand is that yield loss to delayed planting is relative to the maximum yield possible in a given year. In other words, if all the other YIFs work together to determine that the maximum possible yield this year is 200 bushels/acre, then the consequence of a 10-day planting delay beyond May 1 (at 1 bushel/acre/day) would be a yield potential of 190 bushels/acre (i.e., 200 bushels/acre potential minus 10 bushels/acre due to delayed planting),” Nielsen says. “However, if all the other YIFs work together to determine that the maximum possible yield this year is only 160 bushels/acre, then the consequence of a 10-day planting delay beyond May 1 (at 1 bushel/acre/day) would be a yield potential of 150 bushels/acre.”

Nielsen points to yield data for Indiana in 1997 and 2009. The vast majority of the 1997 crop was planted by May 15, yet in general, yields were more than 8% below trend. In 2009, only about a fifth of the crop was in the ground by mid-May, but it ended up 8% above trend yield. “Why? Important differences in YIFs between the years other than simply planting date,” he says.

Even though you may be feeling compelled to get your crop planted at all costs right now as soon as you can, you’re in the long run doing more damage to yield potential by pushing it now than you are if you wait until conditions improve.

“Let’s not succumb quite yet to fearmongering triggered by the prospects of a delayed start to corn planting in 2011. ‘Mudding in’ a crop early to avoid planting late will almost always end up being an unwise decision. While important, planting date is only one of many yield-influencing factors for corn,” Nielsen says. “Another reason that it is probably too early to fearmonger about the anticipated late start to planting is that growers have the machinery capacity to ‘catch up’ quickly once the weather and soil conditions become favorable for planting.”

May 20th, 2011 | Category: Agricultural Science, Agriculture Tips, Crop | Comments (96)

Our Friend Toto Barcelona of Harbest Agribusiness has a bright idea. He said that if Philippine cities have sister-cities in other countries, why not sisterhood between farmer groups, from the Philippines and other countries? He has particularly in mind a sisterhood (or brotherhood?) of groups interested in agriculture from the Philippines and Taiwan.

The idea all started recently when Toto guided a group of experts from the Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute (TARI) in going around to observe local developments in agriculture. Toto has close affinity with Taiwanese matters so it is but natural that he always thinks of things that will further enhance beneficial relationships between citizens of the two countries. First, he stayed for many years in Taiwan doing business. He is now distributing in the Philippines hybrid seeds from Taiwan’s leading seed company. And most of all, he is married to a beautiful Taiwanese.

Fostering a closer relationship between farming groups will benefit both the Filipinos and Taiwanese. Toto rightly observes that Filipino farmers are still mainly into rice, corn, vegetables and mango production. Larger farms are into sugarcane, coffee, citrus and coconut while big corporate farnis are producing bananas, pineapple and oil palm. He notes that although efforts by the government and private initiatives are helping to improve farmers’ income, we are still far from the productivity of our Taiwanese counterparts.

Toto said that there are still lots of agricultural technologies that Filipinos can learn from Taiwan that could increase their fuming incomes. On the other hand, potential investors from Taiwan can discover excellent opportunities in agricultural production here in the Philippines as exemplified by pioneering Taiwanese investors in watermelon production and aquaculture. A number of them pioneered in these fields as early as 20 years ago and are still here.

He cited the example of Wu Yu Lien who started growing seedless watermelon in Ilocos and then ended in large-scale production in Pampanga to this day. Another is Peter Lin who is a large-scale producer of melons and wateimelon in Magalang, Pampanga and Concepcion, Tarlac. Another Taiwanese investor is Gregory Lee, one of the biggest poultry producers in the country today based in Cavite.

Toto explained that agribusinessmen from Taiwan will find the Philippines as an excellent base for expanding the production of various agricultural products, and developing new markets with their Filipino partners. Because of rapid industrialization of Taiwan in the past 20 years or so, cost of agricultural production in that country has skyrocketed. This has been due to decreasing number of available labor. Most of the younger Taiwanese would rather work in business offices rather than in the farms.

The sisterhood relationship could be achieved by forming a club with a core group of volunteers that will start the ball rolling. Toto has mentioned a number of Taiwanese now involved in agribusiness in the Philippines as well as some who are in Taiwan who could be the initial members or volunteers. Likewise, he has named a number of possible Filipinos involved in agriculture who could become charter members. The members could be individuals as well as agencies or organizations. And he has suggested Formosa Filipina as a possible name of the club. The Portuguese seafarers of long ago, he explained, called the island of Taiwan “Formosa” which means beautiful. And for a long time Taiwan was better known as Formosa.

Formosa Filipina, Toto believes, can be instrumental in pursuing a more organized and more aggressive exchange of agricultural technologies. It can foster a better understanding of government policies which could improve the investment climate. It could also help develop more opportunities for cultural, social, business and technical interaction among farmer groups from both countries.

There are many things that can be done to achieve the objectives of Formosa Filipina. The club can establish linkages with Taiwanese farmers’ associations or cooperatives and communities through the Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute (TART) Philippine Economic and Cultural Office on the one hand, and the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) and Manila Economic and Cultural Office (MECO) on the other.

March 28th, 2011 | Tags: Tai Wan agriculture | Category: Agriculture News | Comments (53)

The Center for Food and Agri Business (CFA) of the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P) will be having its 2010  YEAR-END FOOD AND AGRI BUSINESS CONFERENCE with the theme ” Philippine Food and Agriculture: What’s New and What’s Next?” This will be held on December 7, 2010, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the PLDT Hall, 4/F APEC Bldg, UA&P, Ortigas Center , Pasig City .

The conference seeks to present the: (a) performance of selected agri industries in 2010 to 2011; (b) challenges and implications on the said industries; (c) industries strategies and plans. These can help managers, investors, planners and policy-makers make informed judgments on strategies, decisions and policies for the sector.

December 22nd, 2010 | Tags: Business Conference | Category: Agriculture News | Leave a comment

A multi-purpose processing machine that performs the functions of a crusher, juice extractor and a mill was awarded Most Outstanding—Invention (Tuklas Award) and the WIPM Gold Medal and Certificate Award during the 2009 National Invention Contest awarding ceremonies held last November 20 at the Philippine Trade Training Center in Pasay City.

The research team, which is based in the Polangui Campus of Bicol University in Albay, is composed of Engr. Arnulfo Malinis, Engr. Eleanor Balute, Engr. Estrella Calpe and Engr. Herminigildo Lizano. In addition to a plaque, medal and certificate, the team took home P150,000 cash prize.

Malinis explained that the development of such machine helps address the need for appropriate postharvest processing facility for agricultural products in the countryside to enable farmers to add value to their produce and make it possible to sell these products at higher prices.

Malinis said that the crop processing machine can process ginger rhizomes at a rate of 80 kilogram (kg) per hour, pandan leaves at 20 kg per hour, lemongrass leaves at 25 kg per hour, and arrowroot tubers at 80 kg per hour. It is powered by 1 hp motor and requires 1 person for an 8-hour operation.

The researchers recommended, however, that the crops are fresh upon processing to obtain the best results.

The utilization of crop processing machine can be further maximized when combined with other equipment to make up a processing system designed for the production of a specific commodity.

For instance, the crop processing machine can be integrated in the mechanical process of producing ginger brew and powder from ginger rhizomes in combination with other equipment such as washer, crystallizer, and micromill, which are also developed by Malinis’ team.

The crop processing machine also works well as a component of a processing system for the mechanical production of arrowroot starch and flour. This project, which Malinis conducted with Engr. Salvador Albia and Engr. Christopher Pacardo also of Bicol University Polangui Campus, won third prize in the Outstanding Utility Model category of the 2009 National Invention Contest.

Malinis said that the ginger brew, ginger powder, arrowroot starch and flour produced using their locally developed machines are of high quality but are half cheaper than the commercially available products of their kinds in the market. He said that a buyer from Metro Manila has recently expressed interest in marketing their ginger powder.

The crop processing machine costs ?95,000 per unit. This investment can be recovered in two years if the machine is used for a single product, or one year when used for processing various products.

Malinis said that there are now around 15 units of the crop processing machine sold in Bicol region and nearby provinces. Bicol University partners with Kolbi, a local fabricator, for the manufacture of the machine.

OTHER OUTSTANDING INVENTIONS
Other outstanding inventions named in the 2009 Invention Contest’s Tuklas Award category were the Rex Compost Tea Brewer invented by Capt. James Fos Reamon which got the second prize, and the Manufacturing Process for Hard Carrageenan Capsules developed by researchers from the Industrial Technology Development Institute of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) which got the third prize.

Another notable invention was the so-called Magichanic Oil by Johnny Sy of Bagiuo City, which bagged the first prize in the Outstanding Utility Model category. Magichanic oil is an engine oil additive mixed with plant oils and is claimed to maximize the performance, fuel efficiency and combustion of vehicle engine, thereby saving on fuel and extending its life. Users attest that Magichanic Oil is environment-friendly and helps increase their profit due to the protection and additional mileage that it gives to their vehicles.

Claro Santiago Jr. of the University of Perpetual Help in Las Pifias got the second prize under the Outstanding Utility Model category with his invention called medical bandage from mushroom mycelium.

On one hand, the team of Rubelyn Del-fin, Milagros Nillo and Flory Libunao got the second prize in the Outstanding Creative Research category or Likha Award, with their entry titled “Commercialization Potential of Suksuk for Handwoven Silk Fabric.”

Young scientists also had equally outstanding inventions. One of them is the team of high school students from Arturo Eustaquio Science High School in Zamboanga City who produced biodegradable plastics (BIOPLASTEM) from shells of brown shrimps through polymerization. Their research bagged the first prize in the Student Creative Research category or Sibol Award high school level, and WIPO Gold Medal and Certificate Award in the same category.

Special awards include the 2nd Chemrez Green Chemistry Awards which honored contestants who embody the ideals of green chemistry in their inventions and research projects. Green chemistry is the design of chemical products or processes that reduce the use or generation of harmful substances and enable efficient resource utilization.

Another was the Philippine Development Alternatives Foundation, Inc. Award for Agricultural Productivity which recognizes the need to mobilize, encourage and support strategies for technology development innovation and adaptation.

The 2009 National Invention Contest and Exhibits was organized by the DOST through the Technology Application and Promotion Institute.

December 22nd, 2010 | Tags: Crop Processing Machine | Category: Agriculture Machine | Leave a comment