Has it already been 21 days? I know everyone says this, but seriously where did the time go? After being woken up at 3:15am to catch my morning flight – you can imagine how happy I was – I hopped into the van for one last ride. This van covered nearly 3,000 miles since my arrival, and helped me form a more accurate representation of what farming in Iowa was like.

When I first arrived the thought of a gestation crate would have infuriated me. However, after visiting a hog barn that used gestation crates I do not understand why these crates provoked hostile feelings in me towards farmers. The assumptions I had made about this “twisted contraption” were wrong, but I only found out after viewing the crates for myself. While I do believe a person should listen to what an “expert” has to say on a subject, a person should only form an opinion after doing the research – or viewing in my case – for himself.

The uninformed citizen was often a theme in my blogs. The reason why was because that was me before May. Many people will laugh at me because I did not even know that Monsanto existed before May. Okay, I will give you a second to have a good chuckle. You done? Good. It actually took one of my friends from St. Louis – where Monsanto’s headquarters is located – to ask me if I would be visiting them. At the time I did not know the company to which she was referring and made up an answer to hide my naivete. However, people should not be embarrassed for being unaware of certain controversies; rather, they should become motivated to ask questions to learn more. As all 1^st grade teachers would say: There are no dumb questions. Thanks to visiting farms from organic to GMO-based, I was able to grasp the positives and negatives of each type of farming. I also learned that there is no one-size-fits-all for farming, as diversity is not only needed, but essential, for farming to continue to grow and develop. While I hope everyone has enjoyed my blog posts, remember these are my opinions. Go out and develop your own view.   The best way to do so is through interactive experiences like mine.

Growing up I was often found sitting in front of the television listening to my parents remark how the television was turning my brain to mush. One of my favorite shows was “Heroes,” whose premise was based around the line “Save the cheerleader, save the world.” In light of one of our themes being based around feeding the world, I have devised a new motto: Feed the cheerleader, feed the world. This phrase has been repeated so frequently to the point where a game should have been put in place for every time it was uttered. While I do wish for every person to have food to eat, will the world become unfixable because of the farming practices done today?

At the Iowa Soybean Association we were able to meet with Carol Balvanz and her to team to discuss the predicament that our world could face. Carol Balvanz was a very intelligent woman who voiced her views on high-input farming in an optimistic light. However I believed she glanced over the dangers that this concept could entail for the future.

While high-input farming does yield a higher amount of crops, it also yields a larger carbon footprint. A farm model based on agroecology would reduce the size of fiber footprints and increase the number of different crops planted at a farm. While this style of farming would help the soil gain much-needed nutrients, agroecology does not produce as high of yields as the “feed the world” conventional monoculture farm. In our increasingly monocropped agriculture, soil erosion has become a bigger threat than ever before. Our society has become solely focused on feeding the world that we are possibly destroying the land we farm on in the process. Fields could become infertile over time. While this short term fix to feed the world today may work, long term there will be no land on which to farm. I am glad I do not have to make the decision on whether we adopt a policy that is more sustainable and admit we are unable to feed the world or we feed and destroy the world simultaneously. Now go back and count the number of times I said “feed the world” in this post. This phrase carries the power to determine the direction of future Farm Bills. Will this phrase help us achieve a goal that many feel is out of reach or leave us and our world in ruins?

Remember when the bad guy in a cowboy movie walked into the saloon and the only sound breaking the utter silence was the jaw dropping of every customer? That image is the one portrayed every time Monsanto has been brought up during this trip, with everyone on the edge of their seat waiting to hear what will be said next about this controversial company. Today we were able to hear from what some people would refer to worse than the spawn of Satan, a *gasp* Monsanto employee. For such an “evil” guy, he seemed well………..nice.

Monsanto is one of the largest biotechnology corporations in the world, and it is often displayed in a negative light – if you could not tell by my introduction – by the media. One of the current controversies is whether Monsanto, among other companies, should be forced to label foods and crops that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). I mean any crop that has been altered from the original, natural form must be bad for you right?

There has yet to be a report with credible or significant data to suggest that GMOs are bad for a person’s health. The U.S. regulatory system has been strict in granting approval for GMO products, keeping public health as its number one priority. This strict system should assure the public that any GMO-based product that received a  “thumbs up” should not be deemed automatically unhealthy. Is it fair to force companies to stick a label, which might as well be a skull and crossbones, on GMO products, potentially scaring away the uninformed buyer?

GMO-based corporations would be getting the shaft in this deal, as they lose business from a scare tactic employed by (Who actually is behind this push? Organic farmers?). I have always been a strong believer that perception is reality, and the perception by the American public is that GMOs are simply bad for their health. Consumers will start comparing this label as if it were a warning posted on a cigarette box and avoid buying such products. Is there a fair way to inform the public that a product has been genetically modified without hindering the company in the process?

The solution to this predicament is a bit indirect; however, it would solve the problem. If organic farmers want to warn their consumers that a product has GMO’s then the organic farmers should label their products with an “Organic” label. If a consumer notices there is no “Organic” label on the product, it is safe to say that the product was then genetically modified. However, this label will not make the consumer assume that GMOs are bad for them, and consumers can make their own rational decision. While I think the difference between GMO and organic products is like comparing a sneetch with a star to one without, if this label makes the organic farmer feel better, than I am all for it.

With the average age of a farmer creeping towards 60 you would expect that young farmers would be in high demand. This “high demand” should theoretically pave a way for young farmers to become incorporated in the farming industry. However I have found the exact opposite, as young farmers struggle to get their “foot in the door.” This is not because of laziness or lack of effort, rather is the product of a faulty system.

The impression that I have had since arriving in Iowa is the price of farm land is extremely high, which is true. Originally I thought the high price of land was the biggest deterrent to a young farmer wishing to get started in the business.  However it appears my original assumption was wrong. After talking to Luke Grans- one of the partners at The Table Top Farm – I realized that landowners are renting out, rather than selling, their land to young farmers. Luke is a young man – probably in his mid to late 20s – starting a farming operation with his wife and their best friends. He is currently renting his own land, which he believes to be the most logical move for a person his age. Young farmers should rent land in the beginning to grasp whether the life of a farmer is the right choice for them. However Luke stated that the inability of buying land in the near future will prevent farmers from securing their spot in the farming industry.

Can I blame landowners for only renting out their land? Yes. Do I understand why landowners are doing so? Absolutely. Landowners are able to make a “quick buck” from the rent charged to farmers while the farmers do all of the hard work. However, if the farmer never has a chance to buy the land and the landowner dies, the farmer could risk losing a piece of land that is vital to his operation. The next landowner – most likely a relative of the deceased landowner – might not be as inclined to sell or even rent to the young farmer. Instead the relative would allow the highest bidder – most likely a large corporation – a chance to rent. A large corporation can be seen as both big companies – such as Monsanto or Pioneer – and family farms that own or rent a large number of acres. These large family farms have a higher disposable income than the new farmer and are likely to raise the price in a bidding war, preventing the new farmer from owning or renting land.

While owning land is preferable, renting land is necessary. When a large corporation outbids a new farmer, the new farmer will be drastically affected economically and this could lead to the new farmer being squeezed out of the agribusiness. The large corporation would not have suffered at all if it had lost the bidding war on the other hand. New farmers need land to survive, let alone grow as an operation. However finding land has proved to be difficult for young farmers.

Is there a way to successfully transition to a new wave of young farmer? Yes. If landowners adopt a “rent now, buy later” option in the contracts, young farmers will avoid the predicament of losing land to a higher bidder. This option is also favorable because it gives the farmer a chance to understand the farming profession and eventually become an integral part of the farming industry. This will prevent farmers, such as Luke, from losing land they practically own after the landowner passes away. Young farmers will no longer be pushed out of the business by large corporations However this is under the assumption that landowners will eventually sell their land, instead of leaving it in their will for a relative to rent out. Unfortunately I do not see this occurring, as landowners would rather make extra money than help a young farmer get his foot in the door. For this sole reason I believe big corporations will become more prevalent in our farming industry, as the young farmer struggles to become a factor in the equation. I hope I am wrong.

Sustainability has become a hot topic, as the field has grown rapidly over the past decade. Farmers began adopting sustainable practices to ensure the survival of their farms for two reasons: honor and avoiding contact with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – a US Federal Government agency whose purpose is to protect the environment. We were able to meet with Iowa’s Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, who elaborated on why these two reasons are important to the average farmer.

Most farmers tend to group a visit from a federal agency with a bad day. Mr. Northey stated that by adhering to EPA regulations, farmers are able to stay out of one agency’s way. I mean if you know someone could make your life miserable, you should probably do everything in your power to avoid them.

The next notion caught my attention: The honor of farming. This phrase just has a certain ring to it, making you feel like a good samaritan every time you say it. Repeat it to yourself and notice how you probably sounded like a superhero fighting for justice. No farmer wants to be the reason his family farm fails.  As Secretary Northey noted, each year, he awards certificates to families who have kept the farm in their family for 100 and 150 years.  Northey thinks that Iowans are deeply motivated to do the right think to keep the farm in their family, and he believes that Iowa’s farmers will get behind the nutrient management strategy.   By being sustainable and participating in Iowa’s Nutrient Management program,  farmers can prevent their soil from eroding, reduce nitrogen and phosphorous leaching into the rivers, and keep the EPA from imposing top-down regulations on nitrogen run-off. And in so doing, they are protecting the family farm for another generation.  Most of these family farms have been around for years and important milestones are only a couple years or even a decade or two away. By adopting a sound environmental plan for their farms, farmers will be able to reach this milestone. Farmers will receive a small plaque commemorating them for their hard work, but why is this plaque so important?

While the plaque itself is not important, it represents a sense of unity among the family members. Take for instance my teacher HN. After his father passed in 2010, HN could have easily sold his shares of the farm and acted as if the farming side of his life had never occurred. Four years later he is running a program to show the significant strides farming has made since his “glory days” of farming as a kid. The part you don’t know is that HN was not an avid farmer growing up, telling us he wanted to escape the farm life as soon as possible. However by keeping the family farm running you can not help but notice that part of this decision was to honor their late parents. To me that is the honor of farming, showing that the notion of family is still on the forefront of people’s minds. Some people say the notion of family has been retreating over the past couple of decades, but here in the Midwest it is stronger than ever. For my classmates and me, we do not need to look far for an example of this. As HN, his brother Denny, sister Nancy, and nephew Scott continue the strong tradition of family farming, you can tell the strong family effort has kept this family farm running. Whether it is being sustainable, nothing will stop a family from honoring their late loved ones through their farming. I believe family is the motivator to the honor of farming.

Have you ever gone to the supermarket searching for a bottle of shampoo to find 30 different varieties displayed on the shelf? Unfortunately for you the overwhelmed feeling you experience does not stop with just shampoo–Dupont Pioneer develops a very large number of seed varieties. This is nothing negative towards Pioneer, as Pioneer engineers products specifically towards helping a crop survive in its own environment. By producing more products, are larger companies more susceptible to mistakes?

People insist that introducing genetic traits to commodity crops that can combat insects or weeds are not only endangering the crop itself but also the customer consuming the crop. While there is an obvious need for large-scale companies – such as Pioneer – to carefully analyze its products before selling them across the nation, I believe the use of genetic traits should not raise concerns. The reason for concern should rest with the size of an outbreak that could possibly occur. Are there enough regulations and checks in place to prevent these catastrophic outbreaks?

Most people can recall the incidence where all Peter Pan Peanut Butter was recalled because of trace amounts of salmonella contained in the product. After this incident people became weary of food protection agencies, believing that large companies did not have to follow the regulations implemented by the government. After meeting with Dupont Pioneer I can safely state that large companies can not easily circumvent regulations applied by the government.

Dupont Pioneer has three different agencies to test its products and assure their safety to the public. These three regulatory agencies – FDA, EPA, & USDA – all have different regulations that Pioneer must follow. Also these products are not the projects of college students that are hastily thrown together the night before. Dan Hansen – our tour guide at Dupont Pioneer – informed us that it took 10 to 12 years for a product to make it to the market. During this period many possible products are eliminated by one of the three different agencies.

While no industry is perfect, large companies do adhere to the regulations put forth by the government. The fear perceived by the public that large companies can evade regulations put forth by the government is completely wrong. These companies want to produce the most effective and least harmful products possible, and to do so they must follow the government’s regulations. If a company like Pioneer had a track record of manufacturing harmful products, consumers would not trust its products in the future. To profit more from their products in the long term, Pioneer and other companies will strictly follow regulations by the government. These regulations will minimize, but unfortunately not eliminate, any “human error” that might occur in the development and production phases of bio-tech crops.

Transparency is essential for farmers to gain the trust of the public. Unfortunately recent policies passed by the Iowa Supreme Court have made it very difficult for farmers to complete this task. We were able to meet Mr. Roger McEowen – an agricultural lawyer – who explained the limitations that farmers are now facing.

In Salle v. Stewart, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that farmers can be found liable over any injuries that occur to an individual during an educational tour. The impending fear farm owners will face is whether they can afford financially to let the public onto their farms to see the farmer’s operations. How are farmers going to be able to fortify a trust between the consumer and their farm if the public is kept out?

Since the numbers of educational tours will diminish in Iowa, citizens will become less informed about farming and agriculture. Iowa is known for its hog farms – an already controversial topic in agriculture – and misinformed citizens will chime in on an already overheated controversy. The only way to truly understand what occurs in these hog barns is by seeing them in person; then a person can form an opinion. With citizens being unable to gain the educational experiences I have had, advocacy groups will continue to gain momentum. People will only see a piece of the puzzle, rather than the whole puzzle.

Mr. McEowen was deeply displeased with the outcome in this recent case, and he believes this could cause for a deeper misunderstanding of a farmer’s work. With advocacy groups able to manipulate and cherry-pick the statistics they want, farmers will be unable to counter these attacks. Farmers would have no longer been able to offer a hay ride through their fields, fearing a person could turn around and sue the farmer for opening their farm out of the goodness of their heart. Luckily a last minute remedy provided by the Iowa Supreme Court appears to have fixed the potential problems arising from this case. The Iowa legislature passed a revision to “assure” farmers they should not fear the public.

I can not blame farmers for having a fear of being sued moving forward, as people are often looking for a quick buck. While I am sure Salle was happy with the outcome of this case, I have only one question. Could this situation have been resolved before going to court? That question could have been the difference between a consumer understanding agriculture or being unaware of what occurs on these farms.

Public image is on the forefront of meat industries and associations agenda. Realizing that the image portrayed by PETA and other advocacy groups is off-putting, farm associations are trying to find a way to tell their side of the story. Today at the Iowa Pork Producers we heard about one of the most controversial subjects in farming: whether the use of gestation crates in hog barns are humane.

By using humane and a type of animal in the same sentence one thought came to my mind, animals are not humans. I am against a society that is cruel towards animals but to treat an animal as if they were human is foolish. PETA will argue whether I would like it if I was stuck in a crate today. My response is no but I also do not enjoy rolling around in my own feces. Animals and humans are different and must be treated differently, something many people will disagree with me on.

While the pork industry would enjoy my stance on animal rights, this stance has just begun to develop. Animal activists are more effective in advocating their position to the public, causing the public to make assumptions about the “evil” food industries and their practices. Only “evil” industries would want to kill Wilbur – an adorable pig in Charlotte’s Web – and sell his remains to children to eat. By slanting the image of animal industries, animal activists are able to foster a relationship between a man and his meal. Food industries are unsuccessfully countering these attacks and can only watch as PETA begins to slowly shift the views of Americans in their favor.

Stirring the pot just enough, animal activists are having an effect on how farmers treat their livestock. By raising “awareness” of how “inhumane” industries are towards their livestock and linking animal abuse to food safety, animal activists have shifted the way farmers process food. In fear of losing business, slaughterhouses are compelled to treat their ANIMALS HUMANELY.

Food industries must become transparent to neutralize the attacks animal activists present, otherwise consumers will continue to misunderstand the activity that occurs in farm industries. While artificially inseminating pigs, I had the chance to view and form my own opinion regarding gestation crates. This opportunity is rare, but should not be if farming industries want to take the next step in neutralizing PETA’s attempts to derail them. There has been progress made by farming industries. Hotlines have been established for consumers to call in any suspected animal cruelty and hog farmers have to attend multiple seminars to be certified in hog farming. While these steps should be enough to warrant a “good job” from the public, the public is unable to recognize this because of the confidentiality that surrounds farming. Will the farming industry do enough to neutralize the effects that animal activists have on our society today? That question is one I do not have an answer to.

Today was the most shocking day thus far, due in part because we were building an electric fence. Instead of being surrounded by the rest of my group, I spent a few hours assisting Dave Sweeney – a local farmer – in putting up electrical wire around his cow pasture. Mr. Sweeney was a 6’4 “big ole Republican farmer,” an image most of America can easily visualize. That visualization you created is the problem in today’s society, that we can easily visualize this man without ever engaging in a conversation with him.

Looming large in presence but surprisingly soft in voice, Dave began asking why the American public and media can simply associate the words farmer and Republican with negative connotations attached. I have been given the opportunity to draw my own conclusions, rather than base them off of another person’s stance, and obtain a better insight to the average farmer than before. Unfortunately society appears to invest more on opinions instead of developing their own thoughts.

Misinformed citizens now believe that Republican farmers are either affluent citizens or dumb hicks that work for them, neither of which understand the society that we live in today. Because of this assumption, people are unable to understand what agribusiness entails. While it is true that agribusiness does include wealthy profit-driven corporations, there are still signs of family farmers that populated the spacious fields of Iowa.

Family farmers have been unfairly associated with the potentially “evil” corporations of America, and this cycle is not easily fixable. While Mr. Sweeney has his own views on “hot topics” such as gay marriage and immigration reform, he shows the ability to respect and understand the opposing side’s view. He and I agreed that the person you least agree with is also the person that you learn the most from. For these “negative connotations” to vanish, people must be open to the opposing side’s view. Unfortunately, people spend most of their days engaging in conversations with people with whom they already agree. These political conversations transform into  “eco chambers” that confirms a person’s opinion as the “right” one. Unwilling to let their opinions be challenged, people can not realize the potential flaws in their opinions. Mr. Sweeney is unlike the majority of our society, and presented a conversation where dispute was welcomed instead of rejected. Even though there was a fence between us, both literally and figuratively, we both walked away that day understanding a side of the story that we had never heard before.

Scott Neubauer, HN’s nephew and probable heir to the farm, has become the black sheep in his workforce. The average age of an United States farmer is 57, leading the 28-year-old Scott to be an outcast among his fellow farmers. While he may be young in age, he offers a different view on farming that is hard to obtain. I was able to question the young farmer on what his thoughts were for the future of the farming industry and the approaching departure of his aging coworkers.

After climbing into his tractor, Scott pointed to a GPS screen installed directly next to his driver’s seat. Thanks to advancements in the field of technology, GPS is responsible for steering tractors to ensure farmers that their crop fields are producing at the highest level of efficiency. By producing more crops, farmers will be able to generate a higher income level for their families.

There is a “drawback” for these advancements, as technology disallows farmers from advertising how “straight” their rows are. For this reason older farmers, which are the vast majority of farmers, believe technology has destroyed the art of farming. While a farmer could take pride in his hand-made rows back in the day, I do not believe that technology has destroyed the art of farming. A reason why these “straight” rows were desired among farmers was due to the inclination that they would be able to produce more crops on their land. Therefore farmers should embrace the technology that assures a better utilization of their land, not critique it for destroying an art that was largely based on making money.

While farming is definitely an old man’s game, Scott proves to me that the future is not as bleak as older farmers have painted it to be. Young farmers are willing to make advancements in technology regarding agriculture, allowing them to be more productive in their “art” than their predecessors. My only concern is if there will be enough young farmers to replenish the fields after the older generation is no longer a viable option.