May 30

When we visited the BioCentury Farms I was nearly convinced we were at Poet or DuPont ethanol plants rather than a research facility with Iowa State. One of the first questions that research manager Andy Suby asked was rhetorical: whether or not we would run out of fossil fuels. Several of us answered immediately, “Yes!” But his response was “not anytime soon.” Suby explained that the goal of the research farm was to find ways to use renewable materials to drive the energy market when prices of fossil fuels are high. Throughout his tour he repeated that the research and development is useless unless it makes money.

            Although I can’t argue against the important role of economic efficiency to our global society, this emphasis was very different from the traditional goals voiced by academic researchers. Even during our visit with Ben and his cooworkers at Iowa state after our tour at BioCentury, the research team joked about the low-pay, public service that characterized their careers. Suby isn’t necessarily profiting directly from the use of biomass to produce energy, but it was shocking how much his lecture focused on the monetary value of their products rather than the environmental value of reducing fossil fuel use and replacing them with renewables. He spoke not about the emissions of fossil fuels vs. switchgrass or corn stover, but of the variety of products the renewable material can be converted into, like butanol, hemoglobin, milk enhanced with omega-3s, and DDGs for cattle feed. His limited attention to the ecological implications of renewables was reasserted with his stated inability to accept climate change as human-exacerbated.

            It does seem the only way to keep academic research funded is through appealing to the market, but researchers have to look beyond answers to present problems and look for sustainable solutions over a much longer timeline. Producing energy from the byproducts of crops that aren’t used up sounds like a great solution for the moment, but what do we do when corn is no longer a viable crop for the state of Iowa? Won’t the demand for stover continue to increase corn production (much like corn syrup) and speed up soil depletion and water nitrification? Before we look for ways to close the gaps in the system (e.g. turning stover to energy), we need to look further into the causes of the gaps (e.g. overproduction of corn) and treat them.

The King Corn documentary gave a light-hearted image of the causes, processes and results involved with the increase in corn production in Iowa. Mechanization, hybridization, farm size and production began to rise as need and desire for meat-rich diets climbed. A surplus in corn production encouraged the search for new corn processing mechanisms and uses, such as corn syrup and ethanol. Morris Stole told me about how the farmscapes in Radcliffe have changed since he was a kid, from several farms per acre to several acres per farm. This fact was reiterated in the documentary by a Greene, Iowa native, that farms have grown in size and smaller plantations have become obsolete. As corn became cheaper due to mechanization and increased availability in the market, farmers had to have larger tracts of land and government support in order to make money from their operations.

The farmers we’ve visited so far in Iowa have expressed few opinions regarding the quality of corn they produce, but in the documentary a few of the interviewed farmers admitted that the quality of their product was sub-par. I saw the documentary several years ago, and maintained a bias against this low-quality No. 2 corn due to the overproduction portrayed in the documentary and its “misuse” as cow feed and an unhealthy food additive. The second viewing of the film allowed me to consider the corn debate with a much more comprehensive understanding of the entire system. One of the interviewees in the documentary mentioned that Happy Meals are subsidized but healthy ones are not, an argument I’ve stood by for years. On the contrary, Lusk argues that the subsidization of foods often drives prices higher due to associated import restrictions. I might have told you a few years ago that we should only feed cows grass because of the negative impacts corn has on their health. But after being in Iowa I would retort that the cows fed corn aren’t meant to live long lives and that we couldn’t support the current demand for meat on US grasslands alone.

Revisiting the suggestions made against the corn industry in King Corn allowed me to understand the corn debate as more than just pro-corn vs. anti-corn, but as research-based fact vs. hearsay, producers vs. elitist consumers, and all of the oppositions in between. I’ve learned that instead of quickly siding with the views of one sector or production mechanism, we must acquire a more holistic view of the system in which agriculture is nested. There is no neatly wrapped package with the solution inside, no clear winners or losers. But system transparency and efficient information flows can allow us to inch closer to production with economic, social and environmental benefits.

We had a pleasantly late start this morning, meeting for a breakfast of egg and ham sandwiches at about 10:20 am. HN held seminar at the table, discussing our visit with Kelvin Leibold at the NRCS office. He reminded us to look past the rough edges and recognize the importance of Kelvin’s discussion to understanding the economic goals and incentives of farmers and farm operations. In preparation for our visit with Monsanto we talked about our concerns and questions surrounding GMOs, relating them back to the section on Paarlberg on the limited international trade of GMOs as well as the idea that the staple GM crops (especially corn) contribute largely to processed foods filled with salt, fat and sugar that increase obesity and compromise human health. We wrapped up discussion with ideas on whether or not GM crops can feed with world (especially with new technology like golden rice with added beta carotene) and left for Monsanto in Ankeny just after twelve noon.

Director and lobbyist Dave Tierney welcomed us at Monsanto and introduced the goals and political activities of the corporation. He said that one of their biggest endeavors has been in working to pass preemption, or the regulation of farm inputs by state and federal government rather than control by local municipalities. His rationale for this was that regulatory decisions take years to pass by the USDA and EPA and that localities shouldn’t have the ability to uproot these decisions in a fraction of that timeframe. We also discussed the future of GMO labeling and Dave confirmed that legislation will require it in the coming years although it won’t have to be displayed directly on the package. Monsanto employees then took us on tours of the labs, from the chipping machines to the gene extraction robots to sequencing. Downstairs we were shown labs that tested for soy oil stability, corn fermentability and soil quality.

After visiting Monsanto we met with Matt Russell, Resilient Agriculture Coordinator, and Neil Hamilton, Director of the Agricultural Law Center at Drake University. Hamilton spoke with some of the prospective law school students in the group about law school and careers in environmental and agricultural law. Both Russell and Hamilton discussed with us the prospect of cap and trade schemes and carbon markets in agriculture and how difficult these markets are to kickstart. He also discussed market trends (including the increasing demand for cage free eggs and California’s boycott against Iowan caged eggs) and the future of the Farm Bill, which he was convinced wouldn’t be passed by its 2018 timeline.

Dinner at the Wallace house followed our conversations with Russell and Hamilton, and included farm-fresh vegetables from the Wallace Center of Iowa farm, lamb and vegetable meatballs, and rhubarb strawberry crisp with rhubarb ice cream for dessert. Iowa’s finest, just as Diane Weiland promised.

May 22

Food Politics, the book we’ve been reading by Robert Paarlberg, along with our first-hand experiences so far on FARM, have confirmed that the arguments surrounding agricultural practices and policies are highly contentious. Paarlberg tells us that the current dispute between commercial and small farming operations is rooted in the pull between demand for quantity and variety of food versus the demand for cultural foods. While he says it’s mostly the responsibility of a democratic governance system to find ways to appease both sides, for now the system has decided “not to use [its] tax and regulatory powers to force farming back toward a smaller, more local, more diverse, or less science-based model” (Paarlberg 2013). And the representatives from Natural Resources and Conservation Services (NRCS) and the Iowa State Extension modelled this idea. Although they are both from organizations that regard scientific research highly, the goals of agriculture as expressed by these two individuals was seemingly contradictory: conserving soil for sustainable agriculture in Iowa versus making the most money in your operation.

Nickie from NRCS told us that while NRCS is a governmental organization, the agency was created not for regulatory purposes, but to promote soil conservation and scientific research in US agriculture. She told us that the prospects of grain productivity in the state within the next century was grim if farm management continued as it is now. She also said that farmers are highly motivated by tradition and what their neighbors are doing and less motivated by the science that supports soil health, such as cover crops, no-till farming, and other practices. Her husband, for example, listens to his farmer buddies about farm practices more religiously than he listens to her, despite the surplus of hard data she has to support her case for soil-sparing behaviors.

Although NRCS and other government and non-governmental conservation programs offer excellent opportunities for achieving more sustainable farming, the behaviors that support commercial agriculture still seem to be winning. The primary advice that Kelvin from Iowa State Extension offered was to “follow the money,” apparently even if it means risking health and safety via exposure to hazardous agricultural chemicals. He reminded us that old, rich farmers receive the biggest subsidies, a testament to the government’s rewards for large and highly productive operations. This problem with this model is that agriculture becomes less of a tactic to ensure food security and more of a by-product of capitalism. Instead of rewarding this method and accepting the over nitrification, soil damage, and pollution that are often outputs in agriculture, supporting a healthy mix of food quantity, variety and culture should be our primary goal. This means reallocating funds to pro-environmental farm behaviors and pushing the envelope of “the political equilibrium of the moment” more toward common ground.

May 19

Some of our conversations with Liz Kolbe at Practical Farmers of Iowa began to push my understanding of environmental justice and forced me to revaluate my mental picture of the faces that fall victim to environmental justice issues. At Furman I took a course on community and environmental health, which allowed me to imagine environmental justice as a fight between the wealthy and the poor. Rich corporations and the consumers of industrial production benefit from production and release harmful externalities at the health and economic expense of the poor. Toxic technological trash is dumped from developed nations to scrapyards in developing regions, and factories are built in low-income areas where people don’t have the power to fight the poisonous plumes that fill their neighborhoods. It wasn’t the fault of the course that inspired my boxed-in, rich vs. poor understanding of environmental justice issues, but exposure to farm related issues has begun to push my partial perception a bit further.

Liz shared a case with us in which a resident of Iowa reported heavy pesticide applications during high winds that had been sprayed near a residential community and school. In this situation, residents may have more or less wealth than the farmer who got away with spraying the public trail. In this case and others, the “winners” were not the individuals or groups that maintained the upper hand because of wealth but because of political power and insufficient policy infrastructure. Liz told us about the need for reform in the process of reporting drift. The Pesticide Bureau believed that making reports more accessible would increase reports and take extra time to sort through. This lack of adequate and effective governance makes food producers the winners in their ability to behave with little regulation and repercussions for their misdemeanors, and leaves residents and other farmers victim to pollution, contamination and injustice.

The case of Des Moines Water Works vs. three Iowan drainage districts was an even more interesting challenge to my previously established understanding winners and losers in environmental justice issues. When I first heard of the lawsuit, it was easy to assume that a large corporation like Des Moines Water Works would have more power in wealth to win the case than the counties it was suing. Environmental attorney Josh Mandelbaum assured us otherwise. The state’s political power falls largely in the hands of farmers and, in this case, made it a hard (and ultimately unachievable) win for Des Moines. The outcome of the case leaves nitrogen release into the Raccoon and Des Moines rivers unregulated and other measures for Iowa water protection (e.g. buffers) voluntary. If the negative environmental impacts of agriculture remain unregulated in the state, Des Moines Water Works will not only acquire an even larger denitrification bill, but Des Moines residents and other down-stream dwellers face threats to their health. Both of our experts today inadvertently suggested a need improvements in regulation to shorten the environmental justice gap between all political, social, and economic groups in the state of Iowa.

May 17

We woke for the usual slew of eggs, pancakes, sausage, and pineapple this morning at 7:45. HN herded us to the van just before 9:00 am for our trip to Frontier Cooperative in Norway.  On the way we learned that, like any co-op, Frontier’s costumers are share-holders in the company and hold the right to vote and benefit from company profits. They offer high transparency on their webpage, citing specific examples of community engagement in the areas from which they source their products, including installing wells in Madagascar where they source their vanilla, and establishing homes and schools in Vietnam where they acquire the cinnamon they sell, among several other projects. We were greeted at the Frontier headquarters by the animated, personable Patly Konvent. Jake, the purchasing manager, gave us a presentation on the sustainability initiatives of the company, including their long-term vision of economic and environmental benefits their products promote. We met Tony, the CEO, and Ravine, the Quality Assessment and Quality Control coordinator. Patly took us on a tour through the childcare center and the gym facilities, both of which are offered to their employees at a heavily discounted rate. Afterward Ravine took us back to the analytical lab where organoleptic testing was performed, evaluating product color, size, and aroma. He said that they use microscopy to detect adulteration in the products (i.e. the addition of materials other than the pure substance). Ravine also addressed the interesting fact that Frontier resisted the Non-GMO Project label for a while because GM technology has not been developed for the production of many spices and herbs. After a tour through the packaging plant we had lunch (or dinner, depending on where you’re reading this from) at the employee rate and departed for the Neil Smith Wildlife Refuge at around 1:00 pm.

Just outside of Norway we passed through Amana, a collection of utopian communities known for their woodworking and refrigeration plants. HN pointed out that it was a much older and hillier part of Iowa. We arrived at the nature center in Prairie City just before 3:00 pm and were welcomed by Dr. Schulte-Moore, the cofounder and co-leader of STRIPS, or Science-based Trials of Row-crops Integrated with Prairie Strips, an Iowa State faculty member in the Natural Resource Ecology and Management department. She took us to the reserve research plots on which they had planted prairie strips among no-till soybean-on-corn fields. In the first plot, a soil collecting channel was situated at the bottom of a cultivated slope in a watershed. She pointed out the abundance of erosion along the watershed and the large accumulation of soil in the channel and that which they had shoveled out. In the second plot, the channel was situated below a restored prairie and showed much less erosion. Dr. Schulte-Moore added that she has the privilege of working with a variety of experts on the project to understand the entire system, including ecosystem functions, potential economic returns, and biogeochemical flows.

At around 4:30 pm we headed back to Radcliffe in a thunderstorm, had lasagna for supper, then went to the barn to ruminate on the day’s events.

May 14

Farmers’ connections to their land in Iowa is striking. When land is passed down from generation to generation, and is nearly impossible to acquire without inheritance, the ground becomes so much more valuable than the economic returns it engenders. As the Seed Savers orchard manager and leading decision maker for orchard land use, Dan seemed to empathize with this connection and obligation to the land and its intrinsic values. He reminded us of the historical values of the apple varieties that the land produces and the survival of a surprising number of species through time. His anecdote about one species that his orchard barely salvaged paralleled stories of charismatic megafauna like the elephant and giant panda that are facing the same fates.

Beyond the historical and aesthetic values of these limited species is the importance of biodiversity to the resilience of earth’s flora and fauna and the ecosystems in which they thrive. Dan told us that the varieties planted in the orchard were naturally resistant to disease, perhaps a testament to the enhanced resilience of natural systems with higher genetic diversity. Educating the public on the existence of rare and delicious apples (as is the goal of the Seed Savers orchard) is a good first step in the process of improving the viability and longevity of the species and others around the globe.

The next step in this process is to get biodiversity into the market. As Dan told us, the majority of apples grown in the US are limited to only a few varieties, a result of public demand and knowledge of only those few varieties. Mechanization of agriculture limits our ability to maintain large orchards with mixed apple varieties. But perhaps we could use the natural tolerance of these ancient varieties to create large, diverse orchards without needing chemical inputs. While it would be a slow fade to transition to a system with diversity as the dominant characteristic of orchards, the orchard at Seed Savers serves as a promising educational tool for promoting the historical, cultural and environmental values of biodiversity.

May 11, 2017

Before, during, and after our visit with Kevin Butt, the main question that pervaded my thoughts regarded the primary goal of precision agriculture: economic growth or environmental protection? The technology that Mr. Butt introduced us to controlled for the application of seeds, water, pesticides, fertilizer, etc. to the fields. This allows limited inputs which reduces costs, resource use, environmental degradation, and labor. While the technology and mechanisms used for precision agriculture are likely developed with a mix of these goals in mind, it’s important that we understand and revisit the principal goals of this transition to achieve efficiency in agricultural productivity.

I questioned whether the technology involved in precision ag was financially accessible to family-owned farm operations, and Kevin explained that the ability to afford the updates depended largely on the productivity of your land, that is how many acres are farmed. He told us that many of the farmers he knows use precision ag for fertilizer application and that with their switch to the technology, he and his family were able to reduce their inputs (and thus their costs) significantly. While they benefit marginally from the introduction of precision planters and drones on their farm, larger industrial operations presumably save even more with larger tracts of land and the ability to use the latest and most efficient technology. This begs the question of which groups of farmers these technological advancements target and benefit most.

Farmers operating family businesses and corporations operating industrial farms may have divergent interests and goals for their operations. While we cannot assume that small farms are more environmentally sustainable, the decisions made on larger farms have bigger environmental impacts than smaller scale operations. Farmers who own their land may feel attachment that encourages stewardly behaviors, recognizing the role of their land as a piece of inheritance for their offspring, whereas corporate agriculture decisions are heavily driven by the goal of profit. Precision agriculture thus has the ability to support small scale farm operations and limit the potential environmental devastation by corporate ag, or could gradually increase the gap between the economic success of family farms and corporate farms, increasing small farm buy-in and dissolving family operations. If our goal is to preserve small-scale farms and encourage environmental stewardship in land holders, we should find ways to make precision technology more affordable for these groups.