Yesterday Dr. Kelvin Rodolfo, Abay Lesaca, and I attended the launching of "Halamanan sa Bakuran" (Backyard Gardening) a project of Mr. Herbert Bautista, the Vice Mayor of the city I live in - Quezon City. This project intends to turn idle lots in the City's communities into food gardens and has the support of such national agencies like the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Village Local Government Units, the different Homeowners' Associations in the City, and a host of Non-Governmental Organizations.

Sitting in the audience, we were pleasantly surprised to hear our Vice Mayor talk about Global Warming and drafting a Green Building Code, among others. We will be getting more involved in such projects of our Local Government in the coming days, for sure.

The Problems with So-called “Clean Coal”
Kelvin S. Rodolfo

It is necessary to make six main points regarding “clean coal”.

A. The term “clean coal” is an oxymoron – like a square circle or a benevolent dictator.
Clean burning of coal simply cannot happen.

Table 1 presents the pollution from combusting a million tons of coal in a typical 500-
megawatt electricity plant1. Note that CO2 is by far our greatest pollutant, a point that we
will expand upon later.

Table1. Pollutants generated by a typical 500 megawatt coal-burning electricity plant1

3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon
dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.

10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings,
and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.

500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and
premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.

10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars.
NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue
making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.

720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with
heart disease.

220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

170 pounds [77 kg] of mercury where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre [10-hectare]
lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.

225 pounds of arsenic [102 kg], which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water
containing 50 parts per billion.

114 pounds [52 kg] of lead, 4 pounds [1.8 kg] of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace
amounts of uranium.

B. Several techniques are either in use, or being tested experimentally, on “cleaning”
coal2. But they do not make the coal really clean.

To reduce emissions, coal washing can chemically remove impurities from the surfaces of
lumps and particles of raw coal. This cleans the coal somewhat and increases its efficiency
as fuel, but lets the noxious substances inside the coal proceed into the furnace. After
combustion, electrostatic precipitators pass the hot flue gasses through an electric field,
removing 99% of the fine particles, which stick to collecting plates. Flue gas desulfurization
removes sulfur emissions after combustion, most commonly by using “wet scrubbers” that
spray water and limestone on the flue gasses streaming out of the furnace. The sulfur fumes
in the hot gas react with the water and limestone. This can produce gypsum used in cement
making and the construction industry, but it is also simply discarded as “fly ash” and stored
in land fills. Desulfurization is claimed to be 99% effective, but adds greatly to the cost.

C. Coal has already been made into liquid fuels like diesel, using “coal-to-liquid” (CTL)
technology2,3,4,5. But this is expensive and ultimately results in making almost twice as
much atmospheric CO2 as does burning diesel distilled from petroleum.

Hitler’s industrialists used the Fischer–Tropsch chemical process to make fuels for his
Panzers, Messerschmitt aircraft and other war machines, replacing every 3 barrels of crude
oil with one ton of good quality coal. The Fischer–Tropsch technology heats the coal up to
350°C and mixes it with water to make a hot gas that can be burned directly to make energy,
or condensed into liquid fuel for automobiles and airplanes. The process is very energy-intensive,
expensive, and uses much water. Naturally, the rising scarcity of oil has made the
Fischer–Tropsch synthesis sound attractive to the automobile-driving public. Some fuels
made that way offer the advantage of burning more cleanly than diesel. To distill diesel from
petroleum is much cheaper, however, so of course synthetic fuel would seriously impact
pocketbooks. The Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle technique converts coal to an
efficiently burnable gas and reduces emissions. IGCC is only experimental.

D. All cleaning methods can remove many of the pollutants, but greatly increase the
costs of the plant and its operation and maintenance. It also cannot change a rigid,
inescapable chemical fact that remarkably few people know: CO2 is humanity’s most
copiously contributed greenhouse gas, and coal is the worst offender. Simple “molar”
chemistry means that burning 12 tonnes of carbon in coal unavoidably produces 44
tonnes of CO2.

Stated more simply, burning any single weight (gram, pound, kilo, ton) of coal makes 3.67
equivalent weights (grams, pounds, kilos, tonnes) of CO2. The following illustration
illustrates what that arithmetic means. - See attached file,

Every carbon atom weighs 12 “atomic mass units” or “amu”; every oxygen atom weighs 16
amu. When a carbon atom is burned, it combines with two oxygen atoms to form a molecule
of CO2 weighing 44 amu.

By the same token, burning any 12 weights of carbon will make 44 of the same weights of
CO2. For example, burning 12 kilos of coal carbon would make 44 kilos of CO2.
More generally, burning any weight of coal carbon would make CO2 weighing 3.7 times
more than that weight.

Twelve kilos of typical bituminous coal with a specific gravity of 1.35 would make 8,900
cubic centimeters, equivalent to a cube 20.7 centimeters on the side. The 44 kilos of CO2
formed by burning it, if frozen into “dry ice” with a specific gravity of 1.56, would have a
volume of 28,200 cubic centimeters, or a cube 30.4 centimeters on the side.

Of course, when we burn coal, we do not make it into solid “dry ice”. We return the CO2
into the air from which Nature took it millions of years ago, thus enhancing greenhouse
global warming. What this figure shows is the fundamental absurdity of the idea behind
carbon dioxide capture and storage.

E. Not only is coal the world’s biggest source of man-made CO2; of all our fossil fuels, it
also yields less electricity for the costs in pollution it inflicts on us and our global
environment. . “…coal generates the most CO2 per unit energy of any fossil fuel …6 It
emits at least 6% more CO2 per unit of power generated than petroleum or natural gas
(Table 2).

Table 2. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and electric power generation by fuel type.7,8
CO2 emissions, Power generation, Pounds C02 emitted
Fuel type x 1000 cu. meters million KWH per KWH
Coal 17,876,910 1,881,571 2.095
Petroleum 106,294 119,025 1.969
Natural gas 337,004 462,433 1.321

For coal to be truly “clean coal” ultimately means CCS: CO2 capture and
sequestration forever, deep underground or in the ocean. The state of Illinois has huge
reserves of coal, and much of the rhetoric about clean coal is forever repeated in my
Chicago-based ears. But no one in the world has yet demonstrated commercially viable
sequestration.

As it turns out, the first CO2-sequestering plant being built in the U.S., the 275-megawatt
FutureGen plant scheduled to open in 2012 in Matoon, Illinois, was cancelled early this year
by the U.S. Department of Energy, because its construction was far too expensive, costs
skyrocketing to U.S.$ 1.8 billion9.

But let’s say CCS is indeed implemented successfully. According to the IPCC10, 99% of
geo-sequestered CO2 would remain after 1,000 years; and much would stay sequestered for
millions of years. If CO2 is stored in the ocean, 30-85% would remain after 500 years. “Out
of sight, out of mind” may be psychologically comforting, but we cannot foresee what
geological accident such as asteroid impacts in the coming eons might release it. Keep in
mind that a cloud of escaped CO2 replacing the air you breath will kill you quickly and
certainly by denying your body the oxygen it must have. Entire African villages have been
wiped out by CO2 released from volcanic lakes…

Storing CO2 by chemically making it into solid minerals would prevent leakage, but this
would require 60-180% more energy input10. We need to forget about “clean coal”. Burn it,
if you must, and the environment and global warming be damned, but don’t fool yourself
with propaganda and cleansing rhetoric.

Notes

1. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2005, Environmental impacts of coal power: air pollution.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.htm. Formatted as Table 4 in
Rodolfo, 2008.

2. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4468076.stm

3. Washington Post, Page A16, June 18, 2007; Coal-to-Liquid Boondoggle: A risky solution to
America's energy woes. washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902302.html?referrer=email

4. Ledford, Heidi, 7 December 2006, Liquid fuel synthesis: Making it up as you go along.
Nature 444, 677-678.

5. Hargreaves, Steve, 23 April 2007, Crunch time for Hitler's fuel. CNNMoney.com
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/20/news/economy/coal_liquid/index.htm?postv...
704230. Accessed 25 April 2007.

6. Semeniuk, Ivan, 17 March 2007, Cheap Coal Threat to Global Climate. The New Scientist
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19325954.700-cheap-c...
global-climate.html

7. Rodolfo. Kelvin S., “Peak Oil”: The global crisis of diminishing petroleum supply,
and its implications for the Philippines. Version of a forthcoming manuscript in the
Journal of Asian Studies.

9. Data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 2000, “Carbon Dioxide Emissions
from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States”.

9. Nature, 7 February 2008, “Carbon burial buried.” V 451, p 612-613.

10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group III, 22-24 September 2005,
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary for Policymakers.

Kelvin S. Rodolfo
Professor Emeritus
University of Illinois at Chicago
and
Adjunct Professor
National Institute of Geological Sciences
University of the Philippines
20 March 2008
Viroqua, Wisconsin

Biographical note

Kelvin Rodolfo is concurrently Professor Emeritus with the Department of Earth &
Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, and Adjunct Professor with the
National Institute of Geological Sciences, University of the Philippines – Diliman. In
January and February 2008 he was a DOST Balik Scientist.

After graduating from UP Diliman in 1958, he worked for two years as a petroleum
exploration geologist in Luzon, Cebu and Mindanao, and has been an interested observer of
the petroleum industry ever since.

He earned his Master of Science and PhD degrees at the University of Southern California
from 1960 to 1967, and rose from Instructor to Professor at the University of Illinois at
Chicago.

At UIC he won 6 Awards for Excellence in Teaching. His research, funded by 13 U.S.
National Science Foundation grants, has been published as 60 articles in international
journals and conference proceedings.

He was involved in plate tectonic theory and deep-sea scientific drilling in the 1970’s. Also
in the 1970’s, an article by Wallace Broecker alerted him to the problem of global warming
caused by the burning of fossil fuels. He has followed that topic closely and taught about it
ever since.

In 1984 he began to study the lahars (volcanic debris flows) of Mayon Volcano in the
Philippines, and introduced the term “lahar” to the Philippines.

After surviving the climactic eruption of Pinatubo Volcano in 1991, he led a multi-agency
effort to study its lahars through the 1990’s, taking early retirement in 1994 to spend more
time on hazard-mitigation research in the Philippines.

His book, “Pinatubo and the Politics of Lahar” won a Philippine National Book Award in
1995.

He continues to study the lahars of Mayon and Pinatubo, but his research now focuses on
land subsidence around Manila Bay caused by overuse of groundwater, and the relative sealevel
rise, worsening rain floods and tidal incursions it causes; and the phenomena of Peak
Oil and Global Warming. He continues to teach courses on hazard mitigation, Peak Oil, and
climate change for the Honors College at UIC, and at the graduate level at The National
Institute of Geological Sciences of the University of the Philippines.

JATROPHA CURCAS: WHAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW
by Ted Mendoza , Oscar Zamora, Joven Lales
Faculty of Crop Science, College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines at Los Banos
tcm_uplb77@yahoo.com

In the Philippines, agriculture is experiencing renewed popularity because of crops that are being considered as sources of renewable energy in response to the spiraling prices of non-renewable fossil fuels. In one recent press release, and we quote “The Government has launched a novel approach in reducing the nation's dependence on imported fossil fuels, like crude oil, by tapping vast tracts of heretofore unproductive idle public and private lands (mostly denuded mountains and forests) for large-scale bio-fuel crop cultivation. The initiative mandates the propagation and the commercial cultivation of the bio-fuel crop Jatropha curcas L. or Tuba-Tuba, a drought resistant small tree that yields seeds, which contains a high concentration of oil that can substitute for petrol-based diesel.”

Current thinking in government says that in addition to reducing the nation's dependence on imported petroleum and other fossil fuels, massive planting of Jatropha will have a huge employment generation and job creation impact in the rural areas where poverty or unemployment is high, since crop establishment/care (first to second year) and harvesting of fruits of Jatropha is labor-intensive. Furthermore, it will have vast economic multiplier effects in the rural areas as it will mean high resource inflows. As an agribusiness venture, planting Jatropha will require mills to be constructed where the oil will be processed. Transporting the harvested fruits from the farms to the mills will need roads and bridges to be constructed and hauling trucks to be procured. It may signal the start of economic upliftment of the people in areas where it will be planted. Hence, the claim, “a novel approach in reducing the nation's dependence on imported fossil fuels, like crude oil,” for its economic contribution and possible impacts on rural development.

Let us examine these government claims. As agriculturists, with all these pronouncements being made, we cannot remain silent when misleading information is being peddled as facts. We are compelled to present our views regarding this issue so that the public will not be misled and investors misguided. Keeping silent is a form of indirect participation, and a disservice to the public who deserve to know the simple truths about it.

Will planting Jatropha provide the financial benefits it is said to promise, particularly to the farmers who will be growing it? With this question in mind, we studied Jatropha. In our paper, published in the Philippine Journal of Crop Science Vol. 32 No 1, entitled, "Towards Making Jatropha curcas (Tubang bakod) a Viable Source of Biodiesel in the Philippines", we found out that…….

1 ) Jatropha becomes a viable source of biodiesel at PhP40 per liter price of crude oil with a high fruit yield of 36,000 kg /ha, high rates of oil extraction (34% and 38%) and if by-products are included and they provide 50% additional income from the oil revenue. The built-in assumption is that the price of Jatropha seeds corresponds to the diesel oil price. But the question is “Could this yield of 36,000 kg/ha and high oil content (34% and 38%) of Jatropha be achieved under Philippine conditions?” This question can only be definitively answered at some future time since we do not have any plantations which are at the optimum fruiting age (5 years after planting) and no Jatropha cultivar is grown in the Philippines that yields 34 % oil. The current laboratory oil extraction is in the range of 28-32 %.

2) At low yield levels of 12,000 kg per hectare, it will become profitable for farmers growing it if the current diesel oil prices increases to about PhP140 per liter of crude oil at 30% rate of oil extraction with revenues from the oil alone. This implies that the buying price of Jatropha seeds at the farm level is PhP4 per kg. The substrate costs shall be P42/.30 = P141/L of biodiesel. The estimates exclude processing and marketing costs. Current estimates put processing costs at PhP12 per liter. At this level, the price of biodiesel from Jatropha becomes PhP153 per liter. Will the oil price increase to more than PhP153 per liter? Definitely, some time in the future it will, but at this time it might be best to be prepared to use animal drawn vehicles, bicycles, or to simply walk! Jatropha seed yields are inherently low (as explained below) which partly explains the low revenues. This low yield trait of the crop suggests that more research must be done to further increase its seed yield and to be able to find ways on how to maximize total farm yield and by-products.

However, will the results of these experiments be realized anytime soon? For a perennial crop that gives optimum fruiting after 5 years, this means that hybridization and selection for the best yields would require a minimum 35 years (a 7-year cycle of selection x 5 years = 35 years). Genetic improvements of the crop to improve its overall trait as an energy crop should have been done long ago! But this all is water under the bridge for now. We can not hurry up nature!

There is more information that the public should know and understand, and they are as follows:

1) The long waiting period as the crop reaches optimum fruiting (5 years after planting ) plus the low seed yield of Jatropha requires multiple cropping schemes or diverse cropping involving short maturing crops and high value fruit and timber trees to increase the total farm yield and as a risk-minimizing farm strategy.

Are the public and private agencies promoting the massive planting of Jatropha putting equal emphasis on promoting multiple cropping? We support diverse cropping but we should point out that Jatropha is a sun-loving crop. While it grows under shade, photosynthesis (growth and yield) will be affected proportionally to the degree of shading. It should be expected that Jatropha yield per tree will also decrease under multiple cropping conditions due to the reduction in available space and sunlight. But it is logical for the farmers to adopt multiple cropping. If something happens to the Jatropha crop and if the price does not improve over time, the farmers will have some crops to fall back on. But even with this age-old practice of multiple cropping, we do not know that much about it with regards to Jatropha. Jatropha produces a toxic substance called curcin. Will this substance not have allelopathic effects on its companion crops? The planting of Jatropha was banned in Northern Australia due to this toxin. The Australians fear that their cattle will forage on Jatropha during the dry months and that it may become a weed later on.

2.) A massive campaign to encourage Jatropha planting is being waged in the Philippines. Many people are being enticed to plant Jatropha. 1 million hectares have been targeted for planting. But construction of processing plants has not started yet and it will take some time to set up the processing system.

It should be pointed out that 3 or 5 years after planting Jatropha is too short a time to start the construction of processing plants. Will the processing plants be ready by the time the Jatropha crop is harvestable? Furthermore it is necessary that the technologies to optimize the trans-esterification of raw oil into biodiesel, and the processing of by-products (press cake and/or glycerol) into high-priced products be acquired as soon as possible. Will these technologies be ready in 3 or 5 years’ time? This is one of the concerns aired by those who were earlier enticed to plant Jatropha and we quote, “Planting Jatropha without knowing all the facts can be a very painful and costly experience. Knowing the pitfalls can help make planting more worthwhile and successful. While big, well-funded corporations can plant Jatropha on a massive scale, small farm owners like the great majority of Filipino farmers must be careful. Wealthy companies generally know what they are doing. They plant on huge tracts of idle land that are leased to them at a minimal cost by the government or other entities and individuals. And if their yields do not perform according to expectations, their executives and shareholders will not starve. Ordinary farmers have to buy planting materials from suppliers who promise to by their produce -- assuming there will be a harvest. These companies are speculating on a potentially valuable product, biofuel, in the future -- but they are doing so using other people's money, time, and effort. Speculating is good but only if you know the odds.” For those who are planning to plant Jatropha, clearly there are still many unsettled questions.

3 )Tuba-Tuba planting is primarily aimed at making all idle public and private lands productive, particularly denuded mountains and forests which are unfit for food crop cultivation; and produce in commercial volume, a renewable and environment-friendly biofuel, thus alleviating poverty in the countryside and addressing current ecological concerns .

This is a very inviting statement coming from Jatropha proponents. We should point out the following points:

First point, Jatropha can grow in marginal soils but growth and yield will also be slow and marginal or low. There is a saying “you can not get something from nothing” and this applies to agriculture too.

Second point, for agriculturists, there is no land that is unfit for food crop cultivation. Where Jatropha grows, mangoes, cashew, siniguelas, duhat, jackfruit, bignay and many other tropical fruits will grow. Moreover, cassava, sweet potato, and many legumes will also grow.

Third point, while it can survive dry weather by shedding off leaves as an adaptive measure to avoid dying due to excessive loss of water; when this happens, there is no growth and no fruit set. It will resume growth once the soil is moist again.

Fourth point, Jatropha grows well under a favorable growing environment - high soil fertility, adequate moisture and weed management during its early years of growth. But using such land will compete with land currently planted to food security crops - a subject Jatropha proponents try to avoid. What are the latest observations? If Jatropha plants are well-fertilized and irrigated, they grow well but they merely become vegetative. This means that they do not yield the quantity of fruits that we are led to expect!

4) There is currently a big push to grow Jatropha using imported seeds as they are said to be high yielding.

Importing the high yielding traits may also mean the importation of "unknown" bad traits of the plant like pest susceptibility. Using imported seeds should be done with utmost care. A frightening scenario would be to plant them on large tracts of land, only to find out subsequently that the crop is susceptible to a viral or fungal disease. Moreover, Jatropha might just simply serve as source of inoculum, thus infecting even the indigenized cultivars in the country.

5) The main prospects being claimed about Jatropha curcas is that it could yield as much as 5-7 tonnes seeds per ha per year.

As pointed out earlier, there are no standing crops to validate this claim. We have tried to validate this using known scientific procedures. We have done so by transforming the sugar equivalence of oil as illustrated below:

@ 30% oil x 5 tonnes x 3.03 gram glucose equivalence of oil in seed (3.03. x 1.5) = 4.54 tonnes
@ 2.42 gram glucose equivalence of seed coat and the press cake = 8.48 tonnes (2.8 x 3.5)
TOTAL = 13.02 tonnes/ha (4.54 + 8.48)

It appears that there is a remote possibility that a Jatropha crop would give such a seed yield as the sugar equivalence is so high, being estimated at 13.02 MT/Ha. Sugarcane, the highest yielding energy crop which produces sugar via the C4 pathway of photosynthesis only gives a maximum of 10 tonnes of sugar/ha in the Philippines.

Jathropha fixes carbon dioxide via the C3 path way. And if it is planted in marginal soils to avoid the concerns that it will compete with food crops production, simple logic indicates that: marginal soils will produce marginal yields as pointed out earlier.

5) A private company is buying Jatropha seeds at PhP4 per kilo. Is this the right buying price? One Jatropha planter-enthusiast inquires.

Before answering the question, it is important to note that the PhilForest pricing scheme (TUBA-TUBA FOR OIL, Ed Velasco, 09-October-2006 Philippine Graphic Magazine) of purchasing 1 kg of dried Jatropha seeds at 15% of the prevailing diesel pump prices or 0.15 * PhP34 per liter = P5.10 per kg with PhP34 being the current price per liter of diesel oil. Before buying the produce, the dried Jatropha seeds should contain less than 10% of the moisture level set by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST). If seeds containing more than 10% moisture will be processed, the diesel will be less effective and might cause engine problems.

Jatropha seed price of PhP4 per kg? What does this price mean? Consider the following simple estimates:

>>: 1kg seed = 5.1 kg dried fruit or 9.7 kg fresh (yellow fruit) = 7.41 /kg average weight of fruits.
>>On the average, 1 kg seed @ PhP4 per kg = PhP0.54 per kg of fruit.

What does this figure imply? Harvesting the fruits in the field, hauling, drying them, and then dehulling the fruits to get the seeds will only fetch a price of PhP0.54 /kg fruit. Will there be people in the rural areas who would be willing to harvest and extract the seeds and be paid a PhP0.54 per kg of fruit? This is adding insult to injury. It is shameful way of making the poor poorer in the guise of developing the country’s energy security.

6) To entice people into Jatropha planting, a PhP50,000 per hectare income is being promised. A promised financial bounty or simply deceit?

Our simple estimates revealed the following: If the crop would yield, say 1,500 kg-seeds per hectare per year, farm revenues would be @ PhP4-5 per kg = PhP6,000 per hectare to PhP7,500/hectare. Granting without accepting, the yield would be 5 tonnes per hectare, then the gross income would be PhP4 per kg x 5,000 kg per hectare = PhP20,000/ha or at PhP5 per kg x 5,000 = P25,000/ha.

Jatropha boosters have reported that it costs about PhP50,000 per hectare to establish and maintain the crop for 2 years. The figures they are citing do not simply match.

It was claimed that PhP50,000 per hectare is needed to establish and maintain the crop for the first 2 years. The seedling cost alone is already PhP37,500 at PhP15 per piece at a planting density of 2,500 plants per hectare. And seed yield claims are 5-7.5 tonnes per hectare. We have pointed out earlier that 5 tonnes per hectare is not a realizable yield. It therefore becomes somewhat difficult to imagine a PhP50,000 per hectare income.

We are reminded of the Ponzi scam! As of this date, there are groups who are thinking about multi-level marketing and we quote… Can we make use of Jatropha curcas as a product for Multi-Level marketing para bumilis ang pagtatanim at benta (to expedite planting and selling)? I am researching a company in the Philippines engaged in multi-level marketing of agricultural products and GOOD HARVEST in Bataan sells stocks for grafted mango tree for a PhP30,000 investment. All we need is a manufacturer of Jatropha Methyl Esther (JME) to sell the seeds to. So it is like a big Multi Level Marketing cooperative. If we find the right system for this, I think this will be successful. This is a crazy idea, but this will be good for the growers who already have planted Jatropha Curcas plants and are now fruiting. What does this thinking reveal?

7) Jatropha oil has high saponification value, making it as an excellent substrate for soap-making. Two products may then be obtained from Jatropha: soap and biodiesel.

This could be a positive attribute of Jatropha. Can we teach the farmers to produce soap from Jatropha in case its buying price at the farm gate will not be profitable for them?

These are but a few of the simple truths that we think the public should know about Jatropha. We hope this short article clarifies some of the burning issues about Jatropha.

Ted Mendoza , Oscar Zamora, Joven Lales
Faculty of Crop Science, College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines at Los Banos
tcm_uplb77@yahoo.com
_________________________________________________
Brief Information about Jatropha
Botanical description. Locally known as tuba-tuba, tubang bakod (Tagalog), galumbang (Pampanga), Jatropha curcas belongs to the family Euphorbiaceae, subfamily Crotonoideae and tribe Jatropheae. There are approximately 175 species under the genus Jatropha and, there are least 4 important species, namely: J. curcas, J. gosstifolia, J. podarica, and J. multifada. Jatropha is a succulent shrub. Plants do not grow very tall (only up to 20 ft). They have spreading branches and stubby twigs, with milky and yellowish exudates. Leaves are deciduous, alternate but apically crowded, ovate, acute to acuminate, basally cordate, 3-5 lobed in outline, 6-40 cm long and 6-35 cm broad. Mature trees bear male and female flowers. They bear several flowers which are greenish cymes, yellowish and bell shaped. Plants from this genus natively occur in Africa; Jatropha spread as a valuable ridge plant to Africa and Asia through the Portuguese traders. It is widely grown in Tamil Nadu India, growing as weeds in Brazil, Fiji, Honduras, Jamaica, Panama, Puerto Rico, El Salvador and is commonly planted in fence lines in the Philippines, hence the name tubang bakod (cane fence).

Jatropha curcas grows well under subtropical and tropical climates. The plant is known to tolerate a wide range of rainfall (48 cm to 238 cm, mean of 143 cm) annually, grows in wide range of temperature (18-28.5°C, mean of 25.2). It thrives in any soil type – sandy, gravelly, saline soils – if well-drained. It needs full sun. It is easily propagated either by seeds or stem cuttings, fast-growing, and adapted to marginal soils with low nutrient contents. Seedlings (3-4 month old) can be planted with the following distances: square planting: 2m x 2m (2,500 plants/ha) or 2m x 3m (1,666 plants/ha). Best time for planting coincides with the start of the rainy season. Care of plants is simple as it involves only ring weeding during the first year, under brushing in later years to control vines and other dominant/highly competitive weeds. Fertilizer application depends on the soil fertility and the farmers’ capacity to buy. When established, it needs minimal attention or management. No insect pests are known to attack the crop and it is not palatable to ruminants (cattle or sheep, goat), making it a desirable plant for the fence lines.

Plants start to bear fruits within two years after planting but reaches maximum productivity after 5 years. Fruits are harvested at yellow stage, each fruit containing 3-4 black seeds 2 cm long and 1 cm thick. Dry seed is about 15% of fresh weight of fruits. Dry seed is 32% meal, 30-38% crude oil, 30-38% seed coat (taken from various literatures).
___________________________________________________________________________________

THEY WILL NEVER HAVE CUBA

I hope that no-one say that I am gratuitously attacking Bush. Surely they will understand my reasons for strongly criticizing his policies.

Robert Woodward is an American journalist and writer who became famous for the series of articles published by The Washington Post, written by him and Carl Bernstein, and which eventually led to the investigation and resignation of Nixon. He is author and co-author of ten best-sellers. With his fearsome style he manages to wrench confessions from his interviewees. In his book, State of Denial, he says that on June 18, 2003, three months after the Iraq war had begun, as he was on the way out of his White House office following an important meeting, Bush slapped Jay Garner on the back and said to him:

“Hey, Jay, you want to do Iran?

“Sir, the boys and I talked about that and we want to hold out for Cuba. We think the rum and the cigars are a little better...The women are prettier."

Bush laughed. “You got it. You got Cuba.”

Bush was betrayed by his subconscious. It was in his mind when he declared what scores of dark corners should be expecting to happen and Cuba occupies a special place among those dark corners.

Garner, a recently retired three-star general who had been appointed Head of the Post-War Planning Office for Iraq, created by secret National Security Presidential Directive, was considered by Bush an exceptional man to carry out his war strategy. Appointed for the post on January 20, 2003, he was replaced on May 11 of that same year at the urging of Rumsfeld. He didn’t have the nerve to explain to Bush his strong disagreements on the matter of the strategy to be pursued in Iraq. He was thinking of another one with identical purpose. In the past few weeks, thousands of marines and a number of US aircraft carriers, with their naval supporting forces, have been maneuvering in the Persian Gulf, a few miles off the Iranian territory.

It will very soon be 50 years since our people started suffering a cruel blockade; thousands of our sons and daughters have died or have been mutilated as a result of the dirty war against Cuba, the only country in the world to which an Adjustment Act has been applied inciting illegal emigration, yet another cause of death for Cuban citizens, including women and children; more than 15 years ago Cuba lost her principal markets and sources of supply for foods, energy, machinery, raw materials and long-term low-interest financing.

First the socialist bloc collapsed followed almost immediately by the USSR, dismantled piece by piece. The empire tightened and internationalized the blockade; the proteins and calories which were quite well distributed despite our deficiencies were reduced approximately by 40 percent; diseases such as optical neuritis and others appeared; the shortage of medicines, also a result of the blockade, became an everyday reality. Medicines were allowed to enter only as a charitable act, to demoralize us; these, in their turn, became a source of illegal business and black-market dealings.

Inevitably, the “special period” struck. This was the sum total of all the consequences of the aggression and it forced us to take desperate measures whose harmful effects were bolstered by the colossal media machine of the empire. Everyone was awaiting, some with sadness and others with oligarchic glee, the crumbling of the Cuban Revolution.

The access to convertible currency greatly harmed our social consciousness, to a greater or a lesser degree, due to the inequalities and ideological weaknesses it created.

Throughout its lifetime, the Revolution has taught the people, training hundreds of thousands of teachers, doctors, scientists, intellectuals, artists, computer engineers and other professionals with university and post-graduate degrees in dozens of professions. This storehouse of wealth has allowed us to reduce infant mortality to low levels, unthinkable in any Third World country, and to raise life expectancy as well as the average educational level of the population up to the ninth grade.

By offering Cuba oil under favorable terms of payment at a time when oil prices were escalating dramatically, the Venezuelan Bolivarian Revolution brought a significant relief and opened up new possibilities, since our country was already beginning to produce her own energy in ever-growing amounts.

Concerned over its interests in that country, the empire had for years been planning to destroy that Revolution, and so it attempted to do it in April 2002, as it will attempt to do again as many times as it can. This is why the Bolivarian revolutionaries are preparing to resist.

Meanwhile, Bush has intensified his plans for an occupation of Cuba, to the point of proclaiming laws and an interventionist government in order to install a direct imperial administration.

Based on the privileges granted to the United States in Bretton Woods and Nixon’s swindle when he removed the gold standard which placed a limit on the issuing of paper money, the empire bought and paid with paper tens of trillions of dollars, more than twelve digit figures. This is how it preserved an unsustainable economy. A large part of the world currency reserves are in US Treasury bonds and bills. For this reason, many would rather not have a dollar crisis like the one in 1929 that would turn those paper bills into thin air. Today, the value of one dollar in gold is at least eighteen times less than what it was in the Nixon years. The same happens with the value of the reserves in that currency.

Those paper bills have kept their low current value because fabulous amounts of increasingly expensive and modern weapons can be purchased with them; weapons that produce nothing. The United States exports more weapons than anyone else in the world. With those same paper bills, the empire has developed a most sophisticated and deadly system of weapons of mass destruction with which it sustains its world tyranny.

Such power allows it to impose the idea of transforming foods into fuels and to shatter any initiative and commitment to avoid global warming, which is visibly accelerating.

Hunger and thirst, more violent hurricanes and the surge of the sea is what Tyranians and Trojans stand to suffer as a result of imperial policies. It is only through drastic energy savings that humanity will have a respite and hopes of survival for the species; but the consumer societies of the wealthy nations are absolutely heedless of that.

Cuba will continue to develop and improve the combative capacities of her people, including our modest but active and efficient defensive weapons industry which multiplies our capacity to face the invaders no matter where they may be, and the weapons they possess. We shall continue acquiring the necessary materials and the pertinent fire power, even though the notorious Gross Domestic Product as measured by capitalism may not be growing, for their GDP includes such things as the value of privatizations, drugs, sexual services and advertising, while it excludes many others like free educational and health services for all citizens.

From one year to the next the standard of living can be improved by raising knowledge, self-esteem and the dignity of people. It will be enough to reduce wastage and the economy will grow. In spite of everything, we will keep on growing as necessary and as possible.

“Freedom costs dearly, and it is necessary to either resign ourselves to live without it or to decide to buy it for its price”, said Martí.

“Whoever attempts to conquer Cuba will only gather the dust of her soil soaked in blood, if he does not perish in the fight”, exclaimed Maceo.

We are not the first revolutionaries to think that way! And we shall not be the last!

One man may be bought, but never a people.

Fate decreed that I could survive the empire’s murderous machine. Shortly, it will be a year since I became ill and, while I hovered between life and death, I stated in the Proclamation of July 31, 2006: “I do not harbor the slightest doubt that our people and our Revolution will fight until the last drop of blood."

Mr. Bush, don’t you doubt that either!

I assure you that you will never have Cuba!

Fidel Castro Ruz

June 17, 2007

NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE THE BULL BY THE HORNS

On March 28, less than two months ago, when Bush proclaimed his diabolical idea of producing fuel from food, after a meeting with the most important U.S. automobile manufacturers, I wrote my first reflection.

The head of the empire was bragging that the United States was now the first world producer of ethanol, using corn as raw material. Hundreds of factories were being built or enlarged in the United States just for that purpose.

During those days, the industrialized and rich nations were already toying with the same idea of using all kinds of cereals and oil seeds, including sunflower and soy which are excellent sources of proteins and oils. That’s why I chose to title that reflection: “More than 3 billion people in the world are being condemned to a premature death from hunger and thirst.”

The dangers for the environment and for the human species were a topic that I had been meditating on for years. What I never imagined was the imminence of the danger. We as yet were not aware of the new scientific information about the celerity of climatic changes and their immediate consequences.

On April 3, after Bush’s visit to Brazil, I wrote my reflections about “The internationalization of genocide.”

At the same time, I warned that the deadly and sophisticated weapons that were being produced in the United States and in other countries could annihilate the life of the human species in a matter of days.

To give humanity a respite and an opportunity to science and to the dubious good sense of the decision-makers, it is not necessary to take food away from two-thirds of the inhabitants of the planet.

We have supplied information about the savings that could be made simply by replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent ones, using approximate calculations. They are numbers followed by 11 and 12 zeros. The first corresponds to hundreds of billions of dollars saved in fuel each year, and the second to trillions of dollars in necessary investments to produce that electricity by merely changing light bulbs, meaning less than 10 percent of the total expenses and a considerable saving of time.

With complete clarity, we have expressed that CO2 emissions, besides other pollutant gases, have been leading us quickly towards a rapid and inexorable climatic change.

It was not easy to deal with these topics because of their dramatic and almost fatal content.

The fourth reflection was titled: “It is imperative to immediately have an energy revolution.” Proof of the waste of energy in the United States and of the inequality of its distribution in the world is that in the year 2005, there were less than 15 automobiles for each thousand people in China; there were 514 in Europe and 940 in the United States.

The last of these countries, one of the richest territories in hydrocarbons, today suffers from a large deficit of oil and gas. According to Bush, these fuels must be extracted from foods, which are needed for the more and more hungry bellies of the poor of this Earth.

On May Day 2006, I ended my speech to the people with the following words:

“If the efforts being made by Cuba today were imitated by all the other countries in the world, the following would happen:

“1st The proved and potential hydrocarbon reserves would last twice as long.

“2nd The pollution unleashed on the environment by these hydrocarbons would be halved.

“3rd The world economy would have a break, since the enormous volume of transportation means and electrical appliances should be recycled.

“4th A fifteen-year moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants could be declared.”

Changing light bulbs was the first thing we did in Cuba, and we have cooperated with various Caribbean nations to do the same. In Venezuela, the government has replaced 53 million incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent in more than 95% of the homes receiving electrical power. All the other measures to save energy are being resolutely carried out.

Everything I am saying has been proven.

Why is it that we just hear rumors without the leadership of industrialized countries openly committing to an energy revolution, which implies changes in concepts and hopes about growth and consumerism that have contaminated quite a few poor nations?

Could it be that there is some other way of confronting the extremely serious dangers threatening us all?

Nobody wants to take the bull by the horns.

Fidel Castro Ruz
May 22, 2007
5: 10 pm

Note: I am posting this because it strikes me as a ridiculous expense for the British taxpayer. The money spent on this could be used to deliver better social services to their citizens.

THE ENGLISH SUBMARINE

The press dispatches bring the news; it belongs to the Astute Class, the first of its kind to be constructed in Great Britain in more than two decades.

“A nuclear reactor will allow it to navigate without refuelling during its 25 year of service. Since it makes its own oxygen and drinking water, it can circumnavigate the globe without needing to surface,” was the statement to the BBC by Nigel Ward, head of the shipyards.

“It’s a mean looking beast”, says another.

“Looming above us is a construction shed 12 storeys high. Within it are 3 nuclear-powered submarines at different stages of construction,” assures yet another.

Someone says that “it can observe the movements of cruisers in New York Harbor right from the English Channel, drawing close to the coast without being detected and listen to conversations on cell phones”. “In addition, it can transport special troops in mini-subs that, at the same time, will be able to fire lethal Tomahawk missiles for distances of 1,400 miles", a fourth person declares.

El Mercurio, the Chilean newspaper, emphatically spreads the news.

The UK Royal Navy declares that it will be one of the most advanced in the world. The first of them will be launched on June 8 and will go into service in January of 2009.

It can transport up to 38 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes, capable of destroying a large warship. It will possess a permanent crew of 98 sailors who will even be able to watch movies on giant plasma screens.

The new Astute will carry the latest generation of Block 4 Tomahawk torpedoes which can be reprogrammed in flight. It will be the first one not having a system of conventional periscopes and, instead, will be using fibre optics, infrared waves and thermal imaging.

“BAE Systems, the armaments manufacturer, will build two other submarines of the same class,” AP reported. The total cost of the three submarines, according to calculations that will certainly be below the mark, is 7.5 billion dollars.

What a feat for the British! The intelligent and tenacious people of that nation will surely not feel any sense of pride. What is most amazing is that with such an amount of money, 75 thousand doctors could be trained to care for 150 million people, assuming that the cost of training a doctor would be one-third of what it costs in the United States. You could build 3 thousand polyclinics, outfitted with sophisticated equipment, ten times what our country possesses.

Cuba is currently training thousands of young people from other countries as medical doctors.

In any remote African village, a Cuban doctor can impart medical knowledge to any youth from the village or from the surrounding municipality who has the equivalent of a grade twelve education, using videos and computers energized by a small solar panel; the youth does not even have to leave his hometown, nor does he need to be contaminated with the consumer habits of a large city.

The important thing is the patients who are suffering from malaria or any other of the typical and unmistakable diseases that the student will be seeing together the doctor.

The method has been tested with surprising results. The knowledge and practical experience accumulated for years have no possible comparison.

The non-lucrative practice of medicine is capable of winning over all noble hearts.

Since the beginning of the Revolution, Cuba has been engaged in training doctors, teachers and other professionals; with a population of less than 12 million inhabitants, today we have more Comprehensive General Medicine specialists than all the doctors in sub-Saharan Africa where the population exceeds 700 million people.

We must bow our heads in awe after reading the news about the English submarine. It teaches us, among other things, about the sophisticated weapons that are needed to maintain the untenable order developed by the United States imperial system.

We cannot forget that for centuries, and until recently, England was called the Queen of the Seas. Today, what remains of that privileged position is merely a fraction of the hegemonic power of her ally and leader, the United States.

Churchill said: Sink the Bismarck! Today Blair says: Sink whatever remains of Great Britain’s prestige!

For that purpose, or for the holocaust of the species, is what his “marvellous submarine” will be good for.

Fidel Castro Ruz
May 21, 2007
5:00 p.m.

The Demand - Led Promotion of Organic Farming

By Teodoro C. Mendoza

For the more than two decades that ecological agriculture, particularly organic farming, has been promoted in the country, the focus has been on the farmers and producers. The existing rationale is that farmers are the ones who are mainly involved in deciding what crop species to grow, when to plant, what inputs to apply - the over-all cultural management practices to use from land preparation and planting to harvesting. Because of this, it becomes logical to approach them and convince them to change or shift their production systems from their dependence and heavy use of agrochemicals to minimal or even zero use of agrochemicals - chemical fertilizers and pesticides - and to adopt farm practices that rebuild the soil and lead to balanced agroecosystems. At first glance, there appears be nothing fundamentally wrong with this approach. But a closer and deeper look into this rationale shows that it might not be fair, just, realistic, or practical.

It is not fair or just because in the first place, it was not the farmers per se who started the process of shifting what was previously agrochemical-free agriculture to an agrochemical-intensive agriculture system. It was the techno-economic-political system of the past that transformed the agricultural system.

Recalling the scenario pictured by Malthus in late 18th century when population was growing exponentially and food production increasing arithmetically, clearly foresaw a grim food deficit situation in the foreseeable future at that time. The technological advances brought about by the Industrial Revolution produced goods, such as war paraphernalia and chemicals, which could not readily be unloaded after the 2nd World War which resulted in the need for new markets.

What could sustain industrial progress under a "peaceful" global environment? Supplying the food needs of the emerging mass markets of the exponentially rising world population met the challenges of the new paradigm. It should be pointed out that agrochemical intensive agricultural system was, and still is, pursued both by the capitalist and socialist north. This is pointed out to indicate that agrochemical-intensive agriculture is ideologically-neutral.

The success achieved by the industrial economies of the North in adopting highly agrochemical intensive agriculture required a vigorous "transfer of technology" scheme for the South. First, this supported the continuous expansion of the North’s markets for their industrial products like agrochemicals for crops, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed supply surpluses for livestock. Second, to eliminate any political or ideological underpinnings, there was really a need to increase agricultural productivity in the South due mainly to the rapidly increasing population after the 2nd World War which, incidentally, continues to increase unabated up to this time, particularly in the Philippines. The North stabilized their population early in the 20th century (France did it about 1900, US about the 1940s). Third, many countries in the South were former colonies of the industrial North. While these countries supposedly gained political independence from their previous colonial masters, political leaders of these newly-liberated countries still needed the North’s material and technical support to address the mounting pressure of food shortages caused by their burgeoning populations.

Dubbed "The Green Revolution", it was mainly focused in rice or food staples. Soon, this strategy was expanded to all crops and livestock including aquaculture. Agricultural crop/livestock yield increased, averting the Malthusian forecast of a food crisis.

This agrochemical dependent agriculture was also promoted as "Modern Agriculture". The promotion of this scheme had many implications. If a farmer was not using agrochemical inputs together with the seeds and the package of technologies associated with the Green Revolution, he or she was labeled traditional or conservative. As the yields were generally lower, it was associated with poverty. Very few farmers wanted to remain poor or be labeled as conservative. Being traditional or conservative was also associated with being poor.

In the Philippines, it must be remembered that The Green Revolution was heavily promoted during the early years of President Ferdinand Marcos’ Martial Law. In the much-heralded "Masagana 99" program, and in government training and credit programs as well, farmers were organized into "Samahang Nayon" or Village Associations which expediently supported and facilitated the spread of this “modern” agricultural technology. This was implemented mainly through loans provided by the World Bank and other international financing agencies which were then used by governments to construct irrigation systems, buy large farm machinery, and extend loans to the farmers to enable them to buy agrochemicals and small farm machinery. This was also the time of the "Debt for Development" program of Robert McNamara, the Director General of World Bank then. This was also the time when the Bank had lots of surplus funds due to the unprecedented amount of money in the hands of the oil industry, in addition to other excess funds coming from other sources in the industrial North.

Not only were farmers labeled as traditional or conservative, farmers also ran the risk of being portrayed as anti-government or subversive elements if the government-sponsored food production were not adopted. Hence, the easy way out of such a life-threatening condition was for farmers to simply adopt the Green Revolution practices together with the amenities of easy credit which, by the way, could undergo 3-4 renewals if farmers failed to pay in case of crop failures brought about by plant diseases or calamities such as floods and typhoons.

The rest is history. Today, many know the drawbacks of the so-called Modern Agricultural Model, which is mainly characterized by the use of high yielding varieties (open-pollinated or hybrids, transgenics or GMO's), and the heavy use of agrochemical inputs. It is also common knowledge that our soils are now degraded, acidic, eroded, saline in some areas, and with a low supply of nutrients for crop uptake, requiring fertilizer to be applied in larger and larger amounts in order to get high yields. Then there is also the imbalance between pest populations and their predators, making pesticide use by farmers necessary, which in turn, makes them mix pesticide cocktails to increase toxicity. Today, the presence of pesticide residues in food, in the food chain, and in the ecosystem is well-known. Hazardous effects of pesticides on human health, including their effects on the endocrine systems in the form of sex reversals are now well documented. Cancer, a rare disease during pre-modern agriculture, is now a dominant illness. The incidence of breast and prostate cancer has increased phenomenally.

The campaign now is to go back to farmers and convince them to adopt ecologically sound and organic-chemical-free methods of cultivation.
What should comprise the main campaign strategy?

• Inform and train farmers on the ill-effects (environment-health-financial) of modern agro-chemical intensive agriculture.

• Organize farmers and form cooperatives to produce "organics" and
assist farmers in marketing their organic produce. NGOs and private individuals may be able to provide soft loans to and other incentives to the farmers-converts.

Two decades after the “Green Revolution” how many Organic Agriculture (OA) converts does the Philippines have? The Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, Inc. (MASIPAG), a Philippine NGO composed of farmers, scientists, and peoples’ organizations, estimates that there are approximately 30,000 Filipino organic farmers (http://www.masipag.org/news_india.htm). The CIA Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rp.html#Econ) estimates that 36% of the approximately 35,790,000-strong Filipino labor force are in the agricultural sector for a total of 12,884,400. Numerically, 30,000 looks like a lot, but proportionally their numbers are a miniscule 0.23% or 23 out of 10,000 farmers. Their numbers are not increasing though. The theory being advanced is that the promotion of OA must be focused on the supply-side of the supply and demand curve. There may be nothing wrong with this approach. But upon closer scrutiny, we have to ask ourselves what the weaknesses of this approach are:

1) Very few farmers are philosophers, poets, or environmentalists. By and large, farmers farm for livelihood, to generate income for their families, and to produce food. They adopt systems and practices that will enable them to achieve their goals in farming, or those that will lighten the burdens of farming, such as:

- The use of machines to facilitate land preparation, threshing, and milling

- The use of herbicides to control weeds

- The use of pesticides to eliminate, if not minimize, the risk of crop failure and possible yield reduction

Because of these factors, only a few (23 out of 10,000) have shifted to organic farming.

2) The shift from modern to organic chemical free agriculture is not mechanical. It is much more complex than it appears to be.

First, farmers are not a simple biological entity. They are thinking people who have emotions or feelings. It is not uncommon to hear farmers tell a farm extension worker, "You were the ones who propagated modern agriculture through the use of fertilizer and pesticides. Why are you telling us now to stop using them?" This comment simply reveals a deep-seated feeling among these farmers.

Second, farmers were not the one who started these agricultural systems. Now, that the effects of the system has already been recognized, why should the burden of change and the attendant risks be on them?

This leads to real and practical aspects of farming. Farmers are not as stupid as they are portrayed to be if they do not shift to OA. Soil fertility ranges from bad to worse in different places. How would they farm organically without encountering yield declines? A 15% to 20% decline in yields for rice in the first two croppings after shifting to OA methods of planting has been observed (http://www.masipag.org/news_india.htm). For a country with a food deficit like the Philippines, it would be nothing short of a catastrophe if the majority of farmers were to decide to go cold turkey and shift to OA overnight.

Should farmers be left alone or should they shoulder the greater burden of shifting to OA? They have families to feed, shelter, and clothe, and most have children who need to go to school.

A demand-led approach to the promotion of Organic Agriculture

What constitutes a demand-led approach to the promotion of organic agriculture? The Law of Supply and Demand can influence the mechanics of the implementation of OA adoption by many, if not all, Filipino farmers. The consumers comprise the demand side of the production-to-postproduction linkage. Farmers follow the economic logic in production which is, that which is demanded by the consumers will be that produced by the farmers. Following this logic if consumers demand chemical-free agricultural products, then farmers shall simply follow that signal. Demand in this case can be interpreted in a number of ways.

1) Consumers must be willing to support farmers in the production of chemical-free products

2) Consumers must be willing to pay a premium. Consumers’ willingness to support the farmers in the production of chemical-free products can be expressed in several ways.

a) Consumers can visit and help motivate farmers to grow crops and animals the organic way. Since organic production systems are different from the agrochemical dependent systems, consumers must also be familiar with the organic production system. Basic in organic production system is soil building or natural soil fertility restoring activity. How can a consumer-supported soil building be done? Let us first trace how natural soil fertility is lost.

a) Products consumed (crops and animals) represent off-farm losses of nutrients.

b) The production of crops and animals has a corresponding loss of nutrients through soil erosion, especially in sloping lands.

c) The use of agrochemicals has soil degrading effects like soil acidity build-up as a result of using acid-forming fertilizers.

d) Specific farming practices like burning crop and weed residues contribute to soil organic matter loss.

Listing the four (4) major causes of natural soil fertility losses leads us to the more complex task of avoiding soil fertility losses and devising measures to mitigate them. Let us leave this complex discussion for a while as it requires another paper to discuss it.

The soil aspects of organic production are complex to deal with but the pest aspects are equally, if not more complex, to deal with at present. Although the soil and pest aspects are interrelated as viewed in organic production systems, pest ecosystems must be well understood. Farmers’ overuse of pesticides is not simply because they fear for yield or quality loss.

Producing and harvesting pest-free crops is equally important. Consider pechay or Bok Choy production. In summer, pechay is sprayed daily (early in the morning) to preempt insect bites so that leaves are unblemished with holes and leaves do not form irregular sizes and shapes.

A demand-led OA requires that consumers be willing to buy agricultural products with irregular sizes or shapes, including those that have insect bites.

More difficult factors to address that compound pest damage arise from the production of off-season fruits and vegetables. Nature designs crop seasonality, but due to agrochemical and pesticide use, crops can now be grown the whole year round. Tomatoes can be grown during the wet season in elevated/high altitude areas. Insect and fungal infestations are prevented by spraying insecticides or fungicides. A farmer growing tomatoes during the wet season claimed that it was useless to grow tomatoes during the rainy season if they were not sprayed with chemicals regularly.

Mangoes can now be produced off-season by using a flower inducer. Producing mangoes during the rainy season from September to November is conducive to insect and fungal pest population build-up due to high moisture. To hasten maturity of the leaves, farmers spray chemicals before applying flower inducer. July and August are rainy months which are also characterized by the population build-up of pests and fungi that attack the flowers. To protect the flowers and small fruits later, pesticide spraying is a must in order for flowers to develop into fruit and small fruit into bigger fruits. The farmers invest in the chemicals to make the mangoes flower, and they continue to spend until harvest time to make their venture financially successful. If there are typhoons or heavy rains prior to harvesting these investments are wasted. The farmers are in a bind.

As the leaves are forced to mature, their photosynthesis functions are impaired. Chemicals are sprayed again to enhance photosynthesis so that the increasing demand for photosynthates of the growing fruits may be met. Meanwhile, consumers are more than willing to buy mangoes in October or November. Before there was such a thing as off-season production, they had to wait until April or May to buy mangoes.

Consumers who are willing to support OA production should understand crop seasonality so they are prepared to forego for them during the off-season. This also means that they must be willing to buy preserved fruits and vegetables.

Consumers must be willing to pay a premium price for organic products. This is a big issue for organic products. Consumers in the Third World countries already consider current food prices to be too high. Approximately 85% of the Philippine population lives on less than US$2.00 per day; and more than 51% of the rural population live below the subsistence threshold as defined by the World Bank (http://www.masipag.org/news_india.htm). The government’s average mandated minimum wage is PhP250 (US$6.00) per day. The current retail price of ordinary rice in the wet markets ranges from PhP18 to PhP24/kg (US$0.36 – US$0.48/kg). Supermarket retail prices of organic rice range from PhP35/kg (US$0.70/kg) for ordinary varieties to PhP45 (US$0.90/kg) for fancy varieties (red, black, glutinous or aromatic rice). The current high price of organic rice retards the growth in consumption and demand for organic rice.

Consumption of organic rice is thus limited to those who can really afford to pay – well-off cancer patients who are advised to eat organic products; those who have undergone heart surgery; and the few environmental and health conscious sectors of the society who can afford it.

The other issue is price. Why pay a high price? Or, is a higher price for organically grown products just and fair?

The premise is that consumers must be willing to pay a premium price as part of a demand-driven component of OA adoption by farmers.

There is a need to clarify what consumers are paying for. The consumers are simply paying for the market price of what they buy. The financial price that is paid does not truly reflect the true value of the product since all the costs of production are not included. The total costs should include (1) financial - the costs of purchased inputs - seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, fuel, machineries, cost of money, labor, storage, packaging, marketing, and distribution (2) ecological - soil quality deterioration due to the inputs and farming methods applied and all other environmental and ecological costs.

What is paid for is simply a small fraction of the total cost. It has been estimated that the true cost of a beef burger in the US can be about US$100 per piece if the ecological costs are counted (http://www.spirulinasource.com/earthfoodch7a.html). But it is sold only at US$2.00 – US$3.00 per piece by the food chains. What this means is that the current market price is so low because government subsidies and the ecological costs of raising beef are not included. It means that future generations will pay dearly for these unseen costs. Even now, we are already starting to pay the price as reflected in the rise of lifestyle-related illnesses and global warming.

The cost of growing crops and animals is grossly under-priced. But the financial costs of their mass production using industrial methods: specialized cropping or monocropping + mechanization reduce the unit financial cost of production considerably. It does appear that larger farmers/producers are earning as they obtain a higher financial profit margin due to industrialized farming. (A discussion on ecological tax should interest both environmentalists and OA advocates).

With pricing parity based on the true or total cost accounting (financial + ecological), marketing of organically grown products is an uphill climb. Conventionally grown products are under-priced or even incorrectly priced. Their price tags are way below actual costs if the true costs of production and a reasonable profit margin are included.

Because of this, the market price of OA products appear to be more expensive as they are generally priced 20-30% higher. Is this acceptable?

If the true price tags of conventionally grown crops and animals are to be considered, then OA products are sold at considerably lower price. But the general consuming public who are already financially hard-up will not understand this logic. What they would appreciate, considering their current shrinking purchasing power, is the financially low price of products that they buy in the market. (I might also be wrong in excessively underestimating the very same people who need to eat healthy food).

In effect, what is being presented is that the 20-30 % higher price of OA products is not really high or a premium price after all. Why?

OA grown vegetables have higher quality and higher nutritional value with more vitamins and lower water content. Thus, they keep longer (they do not wilt) even at ordinary room temperature; and they taste better, in fresh salads or in cooked form. OA-grown rice tastes better and stores longer. A common observation is that cooked OA rice does not spoil in 24 hours.

Eating OA-grown crops is consuming nutritional and medicinal food
OA-grown crops are medicinal food. More and more findings and testimonies indicate that organically grown crops heal cancer patients who have already received death sentences (6 months to 1 year) from the medical doctors treating them. The healing power or contribution to good health of OA food is still vaguely understood. What we do know about OA food is that they are rich in vitamins, minerals, and anti-oxidants which are useful as precursors in enzyme formation or activators of immune/repair systems inside the human body.
Patronizing OA-grown crops consumes nutritional and medicinal food at the same time. Everybody should put a premium (premium price is not correct here) on health because there is no price tag on one’s body. This explains why poor farmers sell their valuable land and possessions to send their sick family members to a hospital.

"Health Banking" is unusual. What is common is money banking. Consuming OA-grown healthy food is a sure and gradual way to health asset build-up and accumulation or health banking. Consider the health care bills - medicines, doctors’ fees, laboratory fees that accumulate once a person begins to suffer heart disease, hypertension, arthritis, gout, diabetes, or cancer, among others. These are known as "lifestyle diseases" which were mostly unheard of in the days of pre-modern agriculture. Consuming OA health foods offers the body built-in protection against impaired immune systems triggered by the bio-accumulation of pesticides and other agro-chemicals in the food chain that ultimately end up at the top of the food chain - in the human body.

An additional 20-30% in the market price of OA-grown crops is a drop in the bucket if the numerous interrelated benefits to human health and the cost to our planet’s ecosystem are considered. Imagine the lost productivity and income of an individual who is ill and the medical costs incurred in the prophylactic treatment of the illness. It is a rather lengthy process to audit the ecological costs - greenhouse gas emissions of manufacturing fertilizer, pesticides, and the machineries and fossil fuels involved in transport, hauling, processing/storage and repair costs - to the soil and our ecosystem brought about by the use of resource degrading inputs. But this must eventually be done if we want to arrive at the true value of the food we eat.

The point of this discussion is that the farmers will simply uphold economic dictum. Whatever consumers demand will be the products in a form and scale that farmers will produce. If the consumer is apathetic, indifferent, unaware, or unconcerned with they way food is grown and food is looked at as simply stuff to fill an empty stomach once the digestive enzymes signal hunger, the consumer will get what he or she wants – a full belly with minimal nutrition and health benefits.

Consumers must recognize the need for nutritional and medicinal foods and must be made conscious of the costs to our planet’s ecosystem brought about by Modern Agriculture. And this knowledge must then be translated into a demand that will lead to changes in the supply side thereby changing the agricultural production systems that 99.77% of our Filipino farmers currently adopt.

Teodoro C. Mendoza is a faculty member of The Crop Science Cluster, College of Agriculture, UP Los Banos. Email : tcm_uplb77@yahoo.com

Jatropha Anyone?

Rafaela T. Calendacion, Ph.D.
University Extension Specialist
University of the Philippines, Los Baños

As the era of cheap oil comes to an end, the search for alternative sources of energy becomes a race against time. There are a number of crops that may be tapped for renewable sources of bio-energy and Jatropha curcas is one of them. It could be the start of economic upliftment for the people in areas where it can be grown as an agro-industrial venture. Planting Jatropha will require mill construction in the areas where the oil will be processed. Transport of the harvested fruits from the farm to the mill will require that roads and bridges be constructed and an efficient transport system be provided.

With all these prospects, will planting Jatropha provide the financial benefits it promises, particularly to the farmers who will be growing it?

With this question a study was conducted and published in the Philippine Journal of Crop Science Vol. 32 No 1 titled "Towards Making Jatropha curcas (Tubang bakod) a Viable Source of Biodiesel in the Philippines ".

In this study, it was found that Jatropha becomes a viable source of biodiesel at a pump price of PhP40.00 (US$0.80) per liter of dinodiesel, assuming high fruit yields of 36,000 kg /ha, high rates of oil extraction (34% and 38%) and with by-products included as added farm income in addition to sales of oil.

At low yield levels (12,000 kg/ha), it will become profitable for farmers growing it if the current Philippine dinodiesel pump price increases to about PhP90.00 (US$1.80) per liter at a 30% rate of oil extraction (These estimates exclude processing and marketing costs). The inherently low Jatropha seed yield explains the low revenue.

Research must be done to further increase the seed yield of the Jatropha plant and to find ways to maximize total farm yield with the inclusion of by-products. The relatively long gestation period of 5 years before the crop reaches optimum fruiting and the low seed yield of Jatropha requires that optimal crop mixes (multiple cropping schemes) or compatible diverse cropping involving short maturing crops and high value fruit/wood trees to increase the total farm yield as a risk-minimizing farm strategy. Diverse cropping and multiple cropping models must be emphasized by both the public and private entities promoting the massive planting of Jatropha.

Recognizing that the technology for Jatropha processing is yet to be established in the country, to develop these options 3 to 4 years after planting is too short a time. It is necessary to accelerate research efforts on the optimization of processing raw oil into trans-esterified oil and the processing of by-products (press cake and/or glycerol) into high-priced products.

Jatropha oil has a high saponification value, making it an excellent substrate for soap-making. Two products may then be profitable from Jatropha: soap and biodiesel.

There are equally important issues that should be clarified with respect to the planting of Jatropha:

1) It can grow in marginal soil but growth and yield will be slow and marginal or low. This recalls the saying that you can not get something from nothing.

2) It can survive dry weather but it will shed leaves to avoid dying due to excessive loss of water. When it sheds leaves due to excessive water loss there is no growth and no fruit set. It resumes growth once the soil is moist again.

3) Parties interested in growing Jatropha should understand that Jatropha grows well and delivers a high yield under favorable growing conditions - high soil fertility, adequate moisture, and weed management - during its early years of growth.

4) Jatropha is a sun loving crop. While it grows under shade, photosynthesis (growth and yield) will be affected proportionally by the degree of shading.

5) The current big push to grow Jatropha, especially with the use of imported seeds, should be done with great care. Importing the high yielding varieties may also mean importing unknown bad traits of the plant with regards to pest susceptibility. It would be extremely frustrating to find out 5 years after planting them that the imported high-yielding variety is susceptible to local viral or fungal diseases. Moreover, it may even provide an inoculum source, thus infecting even the indigenized cultivars in the country.

Towards Making Jatropha “Tubang Bakod” a Viable Source of Biodiesel in the Philippines(#)

Teodoro C. Mendoza* ,Eulogio Castillo** and Annalissa L. Aquino ***
*Professor, Crop Science Cluster, College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines at Los Baños, College, Laguna, Philippines
Mobile phone: +63920 954 8875, Email: tcm_uplb77@yahoo.com,

** Professor and Director, ACCI, CEM U.P. Los Baños, College, Laguna, Philippines

***University Research Associate, Crop Science Cluster, College of Agriculture, U.P Los Baños, College, Laguna, Philippines

Abstract
Jatropha becomes acceptable as alternative source of biodiesel at current prices of crude oil (P40 per liter) at high yields (36,000 kg/ha), high rates of oil extraction (34% and 38% ) and by-products included as added income aside from sales of oil. At low yield level (12,000 kg/ha), it will become profitable for farmers growing it if the current diesel oil price increase to about P90 per liter of crude oil at 30% rate of oil extraction (The estimates excludes processing and marketing costs ) . The inherently low Jatropha seed yield explains the low revenue but this presents R/D opportunities. Research must be done to increase further the seed yield of Jatropha plant to find ways that will maximize total farm yield and the use of by-products. The relatively long gestation period (5 years) before the crop reaches optimum fruiting and the low seed yield of Jatropha require that optimal crop mixes (multiple cropping schemes) or compatible diverse cropping involving short maturing crops and high value fruit/wood trees to increase the total farm income and as a risk minimizing farming strategy. Recognizing that the technology for Jatropha processing is yet to be established in the country, it is necessary to accelerate the knowledge build-up on processing raw oil into trans-esterified oil before it can be used as biodiesel oil and processing of by-products (press cake) into organic fertilizer or livestock feed and glycerol into high priced products. Likewise, Jatropha oil has high saponification value making it as an excellent substrate for soap making. But which product is most profitable, soap or biodiesel from Jatropha?

Despite the limitations of Jatropha, it presents enormous employment opportunities in the rural areas if comprehensive programs are designed to tap the positive aspects of the crop. In addition, the inflows of investments in the rural areas will propel economic activities and it can be the key to finding lasting peace in insurgency-dominated and poverty stricken rural areas. As industry and government leaders are gearing up for massive and large scale planting of Jatropha, it is imperative that an environmental, economic and social impact assessments be conducted considering that a) Jatropha is a non-food crop and b) it has known toxin- toxalbumin curcin.

At the start, mitigating measures must be put in place. The notion that it has no pests, to begin with is quite acceptable because it is planted simply in the fence line or hedges. Some pests should be anticipated to surface once planted in large scale monoculture.

(#)In Press. The Philippine Journal of Crop Science. Published by the Crop Science Society of the Philippines

Introduction
The Philippines being a net oil importing country is negatively affected in many ways by the current upswing in the price of fossil fuel. It is considered as a “real challenge to the country’s economic survival.” As the era of cheap oil is gone, the search for alternative source of energy is on the upbeat as well. There are a number of crops that are planned to be tapped as renewable bioenergy source. One of them is Jatropha curcas. At present, both the government and the private sector are interested in the culture of Jatropha. There are obvious reasons for this. One, Jatropha may mean considerable dollar savings if the bio-diesel yield of 700 – 1,500 li. oil per ha. is considered and two, it will have great employment generation/job creation impacts in the rural areas where poverty or unemployment is high since crop establishment/care (first to second year) and harvesting of fruits of Jatropha is labor intensive. Planted in marginal hilly areas where it is known to be growing well will mean income opportunities for farmers. It may signal the start of economic upliftment of the people in areas where it will be planted. As an agro-industrial venture, planting Jatropha will also require mill construction where the oil will be processed. Transporting the harvested fruits from the farm to the mill needs roads and bridges to be constructed and hauling trucks to be procured. It will have vast economic multiplier effects in the rural areas.

With all these prospects of the crop, it is no surprise why many people are asking about the real facts behind it. Will planting of Jatropha provide the financial benefits to the farmers who will be growing it? With these views in mind, this study was done with the following objectives: 1) to determine the yield and yield attributes of the crop under Philippine condition; and 2) to assess its financial viability, especially for small scale farmers or to those farmers who would like to grow the crop.

Brief Information about Jatropha

Botanical description. Locally known as tuba tuba, tubang bakod (Tagalog), galumbang (Pampanga), Jatropha belongs to the family Euphorbiaceae, subfamily Crotonoideae and tribe Jatropheae .There are approximately 175 species under the genus Jatropha and , there are least 4 important species, namely : J. curcas, J. gosstifolia, J. podarica, and J. multifada. Jatropha is a succulent shrub. Plants do not grow very tall (up to 20 ft. tall). They have spreading branches and stubby twigs, with milky and yellowish exudates, leaves are deciduous, alternate but apically crowded, ovate, acute to acuminate, basally cordate, 3-5 lobed in outline, 6-40 cm long and 6-35 cm broad. Mature trees bear male and female flowers. They bear several flowers which are greenish cymes, yellowish and bell shaped. Plants from this genus natively occur in Africa and Jatropha spread as a valuable ridge plant to Africa and Asia through the Portuguese traders. It is widely grown in Tamil Nadu, India, growing as weeds in Brazil, Fiji, Honduras, Jamaica, Panama, Puerto Rico, El Salvador and it is commonly planted in fence lines in the Philippines, hence the name tubang bakod.

Agronomy. Jatropha curcas grows well under subtropical and tropical climates. The plant is known to tolerate a wide range of rainfall [48 cm to 238 cm (mean = 143 cm)] annually, grows in a wide range of temperature [18-28.5°C (mean = 25.2)]. It thrives in any soil type – sandy, gravelly, saline soils but well drained. It needs full sun. They are easily propagated either by seeds or stem cuttings, are fast growing, and are adapted to marginal soils with low nutrient content. Seedlings (3-4 month old) can be planted with the following distances: square planting: 2m x 2m (2,500 plants/ha) or 2m x 3m (1,666 plants/ha). Best time of planting coincides with the start of the rainy season. Care of plants is simple as it involves only ring weeding during the first year, under brushing in later years to control vines and other dominant/highly competitive weeds. Fertilizer application depends on the soil fertility and the farmers’ capacity to buy. When established, it needs minimal attention or management. No insect pests are known to attack the crop and it is not palatable to ruminants (cattle or sheep, goat) making it a desirable plant for the fence lines.

Plants start to bear fruits within two years after planting but reach maximum productivity after 5 years. Fruits are harvested at yellow stage, each fruit containing 3-4 black color seeds 2 cm long and 1 cm thick. The yield per tree (fresh weight) ranges from 4-12 kg. Yields by year are as follows: 0.4 tonnes/ha during first 2-3 years, 2-3 tonnes/ha in 3-4 years , 5-6 tonnes/ha in 5 years to 50 years. Dry seed is about 15% of fresh weight of fruits. Dry seed is 32% meal, 30-38% crude oil, 30-38% seed coat.

Uses. Jatropha curcas, while it is non-edible, is known as an oil-yielding perennial shrub with multiple uses. Whole seeds are reported as being purgative and have insecticidal and fungicidal properties. The latex is used in healing wounds and in the treatment of various skin problems, decoction of the roots is known to cure indigestion and diarrhea, the bark as poultice for sprains and dislocations, fresh stems as toothbrushes and to strengthen gums and cure bleeding , spongy gums or gum boils. Jatropha has many other known medicinal uses: extracts have been shown to have anti-tumor activity, latex contains alkaloid jatrophine which shows anti cancer properties, seeds can be used as remedy for constipation, and leaves are boiled to cure malaria. J. podarica is used to tan leather while foliage and fruits of J. gossypifolia, called belly ache bush, are toxic to humans and animals. In the Philippines, Jatropha leaves are used to cover swelling portion of the body and the bark is known to cure dislocated bones. The seeds contain toxalbumin curcin that makes them totally toxic but roasting eliminates the toxin.

As an agro-industrial plant, various products can be derived from Jatropha. These include oil which can be edible after detoxification or it can be converted (trans-esterification) into biodiesel, press cake which can be processed into fertilizer or feed concentrate with protein content of 56-58% after detoxification, glycerol as raw material for the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry. Processing includes these steps: harvesting and depulping, seed drying, removal of the seed coat, pressing the seeds, filtration and detoxification --> edible oil, trans esterification of the oil --> fuel, and detoxification of the seed meal --> animal feed, or composting of the press case --> organic fertilizer.

Seed composition. At 6.2% moisture content, protein is 18%, fat 38%, carbohydrates 17%, fiber 15.5%, ash 5.3%. The oil content is 25-30% in seeds, 50-60% in kernel; Oil contains 21% saturated fat and 79% unsaturated fat. Oil has high saponification value (195.0). Thus, it is excellent for soap making. Jatropha press cake as organic fertilizer revealed the following analysis: N: 5.7 – 6.48 % , P2O5: 2.6 – 3.1, K2O 0.9 – 1.0, CaO:0.6 – 0.7
MgO: 1.26 – 1.37.

Extent of production and potential as biodiesel. In the Philippines, Jatropha is not planted as extensively as in other countries because, up until now, its sole function when planted at all is just to provide a living fence, hence, the name tubang bakod. It is only recently, when news that Jatropha can be a source of biodiesel, that people took notice of the tree and started planting more and in larger areas. Large scale planting has just started in India. Best yielding selection of Jatropha is now being mass produced by a biotech firm( D1 Oils’ ) in their plantations. The plants are projected to yield about 1,000 barrels of oil per year per square mile (730 li/ha) of cultivated area.

Bioking is to develop, together with Mr. Demba Diop (Senegal), a large scale plantation of oil seed in Senegal that will enable the company to become a major producer of biodiesel in the international scene. A first stage, 15,000 hectares extensible to 60,000 hectares is aimed at (WEB- BIOKING-BIODIEDEL EQUIPMENT) .

Methodology

Jatropha fruit yield and seed characterization
To obtain the fruit yield attribute of Jatropha, harvesting of fruits was done in Barangay Bangyas, Caluan, Laguna starting mid June to mid July 2006 .In various stages of maturity, fruits harvested were based from their color (yellow and black). The weather condition during harvesting was also noted. Mid-June was relatively sunny and dry while mid-July harvesting was relatively wet as there were more frequent rains. Fruits were characterized using the following parameters: fresh weight of black or yellow fruits, number of seeds per fruit and average seed weight.

Based from these characteristics, the following were derived:

weight of seeds
1. % seed recovery = ---------------------------- x 100
gross weight of the fruit

100
2. Kg-fruit/1-kg seeds = -------------------- x 100
% seed recovery

Note: See attached Jatropha Seed Information

Seeds extracted from the black colored-fruits were also tested for germination. According to literature, soaking seeds overnight before sowing improves germination and is completed in 10 days. But instead of soaking, slight cracking of the seed coat was tried to determine if it is as effective as soaking and if it would speed up germination. Seeds were slightly cracked so that water can easily penetrate through the seed coat initiating rapid germination. Seeds sown were observed everyday until all the seeds have germinated.

Cash Flow Analysis
The financial worth of raising Jatropha from the point of view of farmers was evaluated using cash flow analysis. With the use of farm budget for a hectare of Jatropha farm (Appendix 1), the stream of net returns (for a 10-year planning period) was computed and discounted at 12% per annum. The financial worth was determined based on the size of the discounted present value of net returns (PVNR) at 3 levels of yield, 3 extraction rates, and price of Jatropha oil which was indexed at various prices of diesel oil. The decision rule is : the larger the size of the positive discounted net return , the higher the acceptability or worth of the alternative; nil or zero indicates indifference; and negative PVNR indicates rejection or inacceptability of the alternative.
The formula for finding the value of the discounted present value of net returns was:

n Ri - Ci
PVNR = Σ(1 + r)n
i = 1

Note: See attached Cash Flow Analysis Formula.

where:PVNR = present value of net returns for 10 years;
Ri = gross return for years 1 to 10;
Ci = cost of producing Jatropha for years 1 to 10;
r = discounting rate, 12% per annum;
n = planning period, 10 years.
b. The Gross Returns

The gross returns in raising Jatropha were derived from the sales of oil-equivalent and by-products at alternative yield levels and prices of diesel oil per liter.

(i) The oil production was estimated using farm yields at various stages of plant growth. The yield level was based on the data obtained from harvested Jatropha fruits from trees found in Bgy.Bangyas, Calauan, Laguna. To allow for wide latitude of analysis of the financial worth of Jatropha, three (3) yield levels were assumed for the study:

low - with yield of 12,000 kg. Jatropha fruits at year 5, the start of peak production years or 4.8 kg. fresh fruit per tree;

medium – with yield of 24,000 kg. Jatropha fruits at year 5 or 9.6 kg. fresh fruits per tree ; and

high – with yield of 36,000 kg. Jatropha fruits at year 5 or 14.4 kg. fresh fruits per hectare.

At these various yield levels, the harvest of fruits was assumed to commence at year 2 and to increase yearly until year 5 as follows:

Yield Levels Fruiting of Jatropha
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Low 3.3% (400 kg.) 33.3% (4,000 kg. 66.6% (8,000 kg.) 100% (12,000 kg.)
Medium 1.7% (400 kg.) 16.7% (4,000 kg.) 33.3% (8,000 kg.) 100% (24,000 kg.)
High 1.1% (400 kg.) 11.1% (4,000 kg.) 22.2% (8,000 kg.) 100% (36,000 kg.)

Note: Figures in % mean rates of fruiting of trees or harvesting of fruits;
Figures in kg means absolute harvest of fruits.

The precise utilities of by-products of processing Jatropha to oil is not yet fully established. The literature, however, points out that cakes produced in processing fruits can be a source of materials for organic fertilizer, among others. To capture the worth of by-products, a 50% added premium to the sales of oil was generously assumed to increase the value of gross revenue from oil and by-products.

(ii) Rate of Oil Extraction. Limited information is also known on the rate of extraction of oil from fresh fruits or seeds of Jatropha. This is due to the absence of reports on operating plants that process fresh fruits or seeds to oil. The scanty literature, however, points to an extraction rate of 30% to 38% oil from seeds at 6.5% moisture content. Using this information as a benchmark, alternative levels of oil extraction rates were used in the analysis, namely: 30%, 34%, and 38%. The alternative levels of extraction rate were expected to capture the most efficient process of extracting oil.
The conversion of fresh fruits to seeds was given at 7.41 kg. fresh fruit to one (1) kg. seed based on preliminary studies at University of the Philippines at Los Banos.

(iii) The Price of Jatropha Oil. Information on the price of Jatropha oil in the world market is also limited. There is no information yet on trading of Jatropha oil in the world market according to the literature. To proceed with the analysis, the price of Jatropha oil was indexed at the price of diesel oil, a logical move since Jatropha oil will be used as a substitute to diesel oil. In this study, several alternative prices of diesel oil per liter were used, namely: P40, P50, P60, P70, P80, P90 … up to P200. The basic price used was P40 per liter, the pump price of diesel oil in August 2006.

c. The Cost Streams
The study assumed that a farm of Jatropha is to be established given the best technologies available on farm establishment; crop culture, care and farm management; and processing and marketing of products. The farm budget which outlines the cost stream from years 1 to 10 of cropping Jatropha is shown in Appendix 1.

In this analysis, no processing cost was imputed due to the assumption that the raw seeds will be sold and valued at oil-equivalent using the price of diesel oil. It will be noticed that this assumption would tend to push upward the share of farmer in the sale value of Jatropha oil due to the implicit assumption that the cost of processing will be shouldered by the processor as in the case of coconut oil milling where nuts are bought as they are delivered to the mill. It may be worthwhile to mention, too, at this juncture that information on cost of processing Jatropha seeds is also limited as there is no known processing plant operating in the country yet.

Results
Jatropha fruit yield characteristics
Under Calauan, Laguna, Philippine conditions, tubang bakod (the local name of Jatropha curcas L) bears harvestable fruit from April to July. Hence, the harvesting practice for Jatropha fruit is priming (harvesting the fruit as they mature). Matured fruits are yellowish and turn blackish as they dry. As presented in Table 1, four samples represented the conditions when fruits were harvested. Samples 1 and 4 were harvested at the same time and on a sunny day, hence fruits were relatively dry. Samples 2 and 3 were harvested on a rainy week, therefore they are relatively wet. These are the weather conditions during the harvesting period of Jatropha fruits.

Black- and yellow-colored fruits differ in moisture condition, with the yellow-colored having higher moisture, thus, they are heavier than the black-colored fruits. Yellow fresh fruits at 12.34 g per fruit are 3 times heavier than black fruits at 4.52 g per fruit. Extracted seeds from yellow fresh fruits at 1.27 g per seed are also heavier than seeds extracted from black fruits which weigh 0.844 g per seed. Moisture content as indicated by the color of the fruit is important as it determines the percent seed recovery (% SR).

If the exocarp (the technical term for the fruit cover) has more moisture as in the yellow fruits, then % SR would be lower. Yellow-colored fruits have only 10.35 % SR while black-colored fruits have 20.97% SR. Fruit color or its moisture condition is also related to the number of seeds per unit weight. Using 1.0 kg as reference weight, the number of seeds per 1.0 kg seed lot was estimated:

1.0 kg (yellow-colored fruits) = 797 seeds
1.0 kg (black-colored fruits) = 1,227 seeds

The seed number as influenced by moisture content status is important as it determines the equivalent quantity of fruits to obtain 1.0 kg seeds. Based on estimates, the following data were obtained:

1.0 kg seed = 9.71 kg fresh yellow
1.0 kg seed = 5.11 kg black fruits

Average of all seeds: 1 kg seed = 7.41 kg of fresh fruit

These fruit yield characteristics are important data for the following reasons: a) Field conditions at harvesting time is related to the moisture condition of the fruit and seed. The fruit moisture in turn determines the number of seeds per kilogram, the % seed extraction and the weight (in kg) of fresh fruits that yields a kilogram of seed , b) The fruit yield data, especially the conversion from kg fruit to kg seed is important in buying Jatropha fruit at the farm level and c) Data/technical coefficients are needed in establishing Jatropha farms for production and constructing mills for processing seeds into various products (crop and mill planning)

Seed germination
Seeds of Jatropha become mature and can be harvested when the exocarp changes from green to yellow. The capsule is usually divided into 3 cells with one seed per cell. Mature seeds have a hard and thick seed coat that delays germination if pre-germination treatment is not done. The slight cracking method as pre-germination treatment resulted in radicle emergence after three days, with 75% of the seeds fully germinated after 5 days and after 8 days a total of 92% of the seeds germinated. Ordinary seed soaking had up to 70% germination only. Slightly cracking the seeds, although entailing additional labor, increased percent seed germination. This can be translated in terms of reduced amount of seeds required to plant a hectare. This is very important in view of the presently high prices of seeds ranging from P100-500/kg.

Indicative prices of Jatropha fruits/seeds
An important question farmers will raise if they are encouraged to plant Jatropha is related to the price of the products. To answer this question, two possibilities were considered, namely : (1) the price of seed and (2) the price of raw fruit.

Price of Jatropha fruits and seeds. The price of 1.0 kg seeds (at 30% extraction from the raw weight of the seed) as indexed to various prices of diesel oil (from Php 40.0 to Php 200.00/li) are shown in Table 2. .At Php 40.0/li price of diesel oil, the gross price of 1.0 kg Jatropha seeds is Php 12.00. As the price of diesel oil increases, the price of seed also increases. These prices of Jatropha seeds reflect the gross prices of oil since the cost of processing could not be ascertained at the moment.

A 50% increase in the price of Jatropha seeds was considered when the value of the byproducts (press cake converted into animal feed or organic fertilizers, glycerol) were included (Table 2). At Php 40/li price of diesel oil, the price of Jatropha seeds increased to Php 18/kg. The prices obviously increase as the index price of diesel oil also increases.

Financial Prospects of Jatropha as a Renewable Source of Bioenergy

Results of cash flow analysis are shown in Table 3. The financial worth of Jatropha as alternative source of biofuel is described by the values of discounted PVs of net returns estimated in 3 yield levels , namely: low,medium, high as discussed below :

Low yield level. The financial acceptability of Jatropha as alternative source of biofuel is not manifested at low yield level scenario at all levels of extraction rates and prices of crude oil from the current pump price (P40) up to P200 per liter crude oil when oil only is the source of revenue.

Acceptability is improved when the value of by-products was imputed as additional income. This was manifested starting at a) P90 per liter of crude oil at 30% rate of oil extraction; b) P80 per liter of crude oil at 34% rate of oil extraction; and c) P70 per liter of crude oil at 38% extraction rate.
Medium yield level. At this level of yield, using oil as the only source revenue of farmer, the acceptability of the Jatropha as alternative source of biofuel is manifested starting at price level of crude oil at a) P90 per liter at 30% rate of oil extraction; b) P80 per liter at 34% rate of oil extraction.

Again, the imputation of the value of by-products as additional income improved the acceptability of Jatropha although still at high price level of crude oil starting at a) P60 per liter at 30% rate of oil extraction; b) P50 per liter at 34% and 38% rates of oil extraction.

High yield level. At high yield level scenario, the acceptability of Jatropha was largely improved. At oil only as the source of income, acceptability started at a) P70 per liter of oil at 30% of oil extraction, and b) P60 per liter of oil at 34% and 38% extraction rates.

The above analysis indicates that Jatropha becomes acceptable as alternative source of biofuel at current prices of crude oil