What (science for) adaptation to climate change in Colombian agriculture? A commentary on “A way forward on adaptation to climate change in Colombian agriculture: perspectives towards 2050” by J. Ramirez-Villegas, M. Salazar, A. Jarvis, C. E. Navarro-Valcines.

Climate change is putting Colombian agriculture under significant stress and, if no adaptation is made, the latter will be severely impacted during the next decades. Ramirez-Villegas et al. (2012) set out a government-led, top-down, techno-scientific proposal for a way forward by which Colombian agriculture could adapt to climate change. However, this proposal largely overlooks the root causes of vulnerability of Colombian agriculture, and of smallholders in particular. I discuss some of the hidden assumptions underpinning this proposal and of the arguments employed by Ramirez-Villegas et al., based on existing literature on Colombian agriculture and the wider scientific debate on adaptation to climate change. While technical measures may play an important role in the adaptation of Colombian agriculture to climate change, I question whether the actions listed in the proposal alone and specifically for smallholders, truly represent priority issues. I suggest that by i) looking at vulnerability before adaptation, ii) contextualising climate change as one of multiple exposures, and iii) truly putting smallholders at the centre of adaptation, i.e. to learn about and with them, different and perhaps more urgent priorities for action can be identified. Ultimately, I argue that what is at stake is not only a list of adaptation measures but, more importantly, the scientific approach from which priorities for action are identified. In this respect, I propose that transformative rather than technical fix adaptation represents a better approach for Colombian agriculture and smallholders in particular, in the face of climate change.

Design and techno-economic evaluation of microbial oil production as a renewable resource for biodiesel and oleochemical production

Experimental results from the open literature have been employed for the design and techno-economic evaluation of four process flowsheets for the production of microbial oil or biodiesel. The fermentation of glucose-based media using the yeast strain Rhodosporidium toruloides has been considered. Biodiesel production was based on the exploitation of either direct transesterification (without extraction of lipids from microbial biomass) or indirect transesterifaction of extracted microbial oil. When glucose-based renewable resources are used as carbon source for an annual production capacity of 10,000 t microbial oil and zero cost of glucose (assuming development of integrated biorefineries in existing industries utilising waste or by-product streams) the estimated unitary cost of purified microbial oil is $3.4/kg. Biodiesel production via indirect transesterification of extracted microbial oil proved more cost-competitive process compared to the direct conversion of dried yeast cells. For a price of glucose of $400/t oil production cost and biodiesel production cost are estimated to be $5.5/kg oil and $5.9/kg biodiesel, correspondingly. Industrial implementation of microbial oil production from oleaginous yeast is strongly dependent on the feedstock used and on the fermentation stage where significantly higher productivities and final microbial oil concentrations should be achieved.