This course has officially drawn to a close.  I am the last one in the house, patiently waiting until it is time to leave for the airport.  Since it is the last day, Scott was able to bring the guns back to the house—they had to be removed from the premises due to liability reasons—so he invited me to shoot some skeet with him.  I thought I was remarkably good at it for only having done it once before, but then Scott admitted he was keeping it easy because he didn’t know how I would shoot.  I had shot the first three in a row, but after Scott started throwing harder, I missed three in a row. Well, c’est la vie.  Finally, as a last hurrah, I had to do a photoshoot as the awesomely stereotypical farmer image I can imagine.  So, I present to you this photo:

*Backstory: the second day I was at the farm, I sent a picture to all my friends with the image of the softly rolling farmland and windmills in our vicinity set against a pretty decent sunset.  I accompanied the photo with the caption, “#Farmlife.”  My actual-farmer friend replied back with his own photo of him and his brother posing with guns in their crop fields, also accompanied with, “#Farmlife.”  I naturally had to out do him.  That’s how the above picture was born.

The photo that started it all. The original #farmlife

P.S.  The tractor in the photo is Denny’s tractor-pull tractor.  If you don’t know what that is, it’s basically drag racing for tractors where the competitors pull a large hitch with a sliding weight as fast as possible. Here is Denny in action at the 2011 Wright (Iowa) County Fair.  (Notice how he runs into the fence at the end.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj4TgHb9RP0

This last post is supposed to be a final reflection on our experience, and what a great experience it has been.  As Dr. HN said multiple times, an entire course or even a degree can be crafted around the subjects we tackled over three weeks.  If this was offered as a semester course while at Furman, I definitely would have taken it.

My main goals for the trip were to learn more about the food system, gain a better grasp of the politics surrounding food and agriculture, and simply to learn what farmer life is like.  Growing up in suburbia, the only exposure to farming I had were stories that some of my farmer friends–of which I had two or three–decided to share and what I had seen in documentaries or Discovery/National Geographic shows.  If I saw anything in the media, it was usually related to the newest trend in agriculture or food, including organic gardening, non-GMO products, and sustainable agriculture.  I did not know much about conventional agriculture.  

If I had to take away one thing from the course, it would be how diverse everything really is.  I am referring to the different views and opinions, different tastes, different farms, different farming methods, et cetera–from the Annette Sweeney’s to the Mary Mascher’s, Tabletop Farms to Summit Farms, and from Seed Savers to Monsanto and Dupont Pioneer.  Everyone has a story. There are those in the middle who may or may not get too involved in the politics of food, such as our very own Denny and Scott Neubauer and their relatively modest conventional farm.  And I definitely cannot forget about Dalona, our wonderful cook with an equally wonderful family!

Hardly any policy affects only a few parts of the population.  Odds are that there are numerous indirect costs, benefits, and externalities.  Therefore, there are many members of the public who have a stake in any potential change.  (*Statistically speaking, the American public actually doesn’t hold complex views, much less know that a change in the status quo may be taking place or could affect them.  Let’s assume differently for the sake of this post.)  Hoping to go into politics when I establish myself in the job market, it would be my job to consider all the different actors who hold a stake in a particular policy decision.  They will find their allies on a particular issue, form coalitions, present their ideas to the public and the government, and hopefully craft good policy.  I would then do my part to help effect a change that I believe would better those affected, and especially in the case of Farm, leave the environment in better condition than before.  

Farm covered many topics, most of which required a good deal of technical knowledge to fully comprehend.  It showed me how vital it is for agriculture and food politics students to know the latest science being published academia as well as the circumstances on the ground.   Some political battles, such as gay marriage or abortion, are arguably more ethically and morally based, whereas agriculture and food battles can be more scientific in manner—or at least, I think it should be.  You have to be familiar with the geography and geology of the areas in question, what farmers are currently doing, the ability or willingness of farmers to change the system, and have to know the answers to numerous other questions.  Then again, such topics as government regulations and jurisdiction are very ideological and prone to personal beliefs.  Without any of this knowledge, you won’t know what you are likely to confront.  

Finally, agriculture and food deal with some of the biggest questions that could affect the course of world history.  Can we really feed the world?  Can we do so and keep the environment healthy?  Should we master nature or work within its most natural state? At this point in history, there are still many tradeoffs between efficiency and sustainability when it comes to feeding the world’s burgeoning population.  Conventional farmers may not be willing to sacrifice more capital for the newest method that may not work, especially if it decreases the yield in the short term without presenting a clear long-term benefit.  Many organic farmers, especially CSAs, sacrifice size, yield, and/or efficiency for organic certification or other demands of a specific market.  Nonetheless, as has been stated by almost every farmer we’ve met, there is a place for everyone.  They just have to work for it.  Although we have heard some doomsday prophecies about how we are ruined by the system, may run out of food, and destroy the Earth in the process, I hold a more optimistic view.  From what I’ve seen, I know there are many people out there that are working to find the answers to these questions.  I would love to see what the Farm group ten years from now will learn about.  I bet that even the group five years from will have a very different experience the one we had.  Food and agriculture is an exciting and constantly changing field, and I hope I can keep up with it.  No matter who you are, you are affected by what happens in the fields of Iowa and the rest of the Midwest and in as faraway places as Brazil, India, and China.

I want to thank Dr. HN, Denny and Scott Neubauer, Dalona Fiscus, Denny and Brent Friest, the other students—Kris, Adam, Cecily, Hedley, Rachel—and all the other characters I met on the trip for making it such a wonderful experience.  

Bye, Iowa! As all the t-shirts say, “Wave next time you fly over.”

What a better way to start the morning that smelling pig poop!  We ended the trip, just like we started it by going to the Friest farm.  Except this time, it was to see his pigs.  Brent Friest is a farrow-to-finish pig farmer, meaning he breeds his own pigs, raises them to adulthood, then sells them on the market.  Most pig farmers, such as Scott and his pigs on our farm, are contracted to only raise pigs up to a certain weight and age before they are sent to a different barn for finishing or to market.  Because Brent does it all, we got to see the whole process, from artificial insemination to adults-for-sale or adults-for-breeding. Overall, I learned that taking care of piggies is a lot of work, but Brent seemed to have a patter.  I think it is best suited for people who are very methodical.  I could probably do it, granted I’ll have to borrow a few hundred thousands of dollars and find some acres of land. Brent also had a very modern, conventional style of raising pigs–otherwise known as a CAFO or concentrated animal feeding operation–and is very supportive of using gestation and farrowing crates.  Although I recognize that conventional methods are advantageous towards organization, efficiency, low cost, and maximizing gain, I am still not entirely convinced that they are best in terms of animal welfare. (Sorry, Denny.)  As Brent said, they are given a very balanced diet; their waste is properly disposed of and responsibly reintroduced into the life cycle as fertilizer; they are kept at a very comfortable temperature throughout the year; and they keep the animals safe.  Nonetheless, even many academic and third-party studies that have studied the welfare effects of CAFOs say that the results are mixed.  If we were to go on a happiness or “freedom” scale, I would say the highest degree for animals would be dogs and (most) horses, who are given much more room to move around freely, as well as (hopefully) being exposed to new environments by walking or riding.

One of the biggest and worst offenders of misinformation of CAFOs, according to Brent, is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treat of Animals (PETA).  Although I have my gripes about the Humane Society and especially PETA, the political scientist part of me did have to give them some props for effective policy work.  These and other animal welfare groups have fought against CAFOs for decades, but occasionally their efforts have stalled.  According to policy studies, there are two main ways to effect policy change on a large scale: change the image and/or change the arena.  The first refers to the frame that a group can use to influence the public opinion.  People respond to different things.  For example, PETA can try to throw science into the mix.  However, to an uneducated or uninterested public, it may be better to humanize the issue by asking such questions as, “Would you want to be trapped in your closet for years on end?”  The second refers to where you fight your battles.  For example, if you can’t win in a court, take the issue to public opinion, or if you can’t win a the federal level, take it to the states.  This has also been a tactic of animal rights groups.  Most do not win in court because there is no definite, all-answering report that states that CAFOs are harmful to animals.  Therefore, the groups get policy ideas on the ballots, asking voters if they “want animals to be kept in cages in which they can’t turn around.”  Most people would immediately say, “No, of course not!” On the other hand, farmers and those close to farmers or knowledgeable of the practice would probably give a little more thought to the question, whether they agree or disagree.  However, these farmers are concentrated in such states as Iowa, North Carolina, and Minnesota.  Therefore, animal rights groups put these questions on the ballots in states that contain the smallest numbers of knowledgeable or sympathetic people.  Pretty sneaky, sis.

We also visited Practical Farmers of Iowa, a network of farmers who want to participate in and share research and methods relating to sustainable agriculture.  One of the biggest problems in conventional agriculture and especially for horticulture and organic farmers is pesticide drift.  As we’ve heard from conventional and organic farmers, alike, “there is space for every kind of farm on this Earth.”  However, there is still some difficulty in making sure these farms do not harmfully interact with each other.  Pesticide drift occurs when pesticide or herbicide is blown from one farm to another, such as when spraying on a windy day.  This may not be as big a deal on some conventional farms where they likely use similar seed, but organic farmers risk losing an entire crop or their organic certification if certain levels of pesticides are found on their land.  The most cited culprit is glyphosate, or RoundUp.  Many conventional row crop farmers plant RoundUp-Ready plants, meaning they have a natural resistance to RoundUp, so the RoundUp can kill any plant except for the crop.  Therefore, when this herbicide drifts, it will kill the plants of the organic farmer or even those of the conventional farmer that doesn’t use RoundUp-Ready seed.  On a small scale, it has the potential to poison some relationships between farming neighbors or get parties caught up in very complex lawsuits.  On a large scale, drift can pose a public health problem and some activists claim that the chance of constant drift onto a farmer’s land places pressure on that farmer to go ahead and order RoundUp-Ready seeds from biotech companies like Monsanto. Boo, corporate! Oh the joys of law and politics…

We also picked up some chick for Dalona!  They were SO precious!  They looked and sounded so perfectly chick-ish, that I thought they were fake.  It was rather simple to get them from the feed store and putting them in their little crates.  However, we had to dip their beaks in water before we let them run around.  This is to show them that that was how you get water and stay hydrated.  Apparently, they don’t know otherwise.  Poor things.

D’aaaawww!

EXTRA D’AAAWWW!!!!

As mentioned in my post from two days ago, we will be meeting Frederick Kirschenmenn, the star of My Father’s Garden and distinguished fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University.  And so, we did just that today, joined by Dr. Matt Liebman, Professor of agronomy, and Mark Rasmussen, Director of the Leopold Center.  The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture–named after the conservationist and ecologist, Aldo Leopold–was founded as a result of the 1987 Groundwater Protection Act, which came about after there was public outcry over pollutants in the soil and water that was affecting the health of Iowa residents.  It uses a multi-disciplinary approach to analyze and recommend solutions to water pollution and soil health through four main initiatives: ecology and agricultural systems, marketing and food systems, public policy, and a cross-cutting initiative that connects and coordinates the previous three.

The Leopold Center wants farmers and the public to question the status quo and help shift to agricultural practices that are more sustainable.  According to Kirschenmann, we first saw issues with the socio-economic infrastructure in the Farm Crisis of the early 1980s. As I wrote in yesterday’s post, Lance said that one of the three aspects of sustainability is social.  The powers-that-be of the 1980s were the bankers that had encouraged farmers to buy land and increase the size of their operations.  But when prices dropped and land values fell, the bankers (some of whom were now working for much larger banking operations) reassess the worth of a farmers’ holdings.  Eventually, many farmers went into bankruptcy, but they were doing exactly what the banks told them.  Those that escaped bankruptcy did so by farming commodity crops and tried to expand, lovingly deemed “get big or get out.”  Therefore, the circumstances created a perverse incentive to invest in monocultures and large-scale farming with the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides.  Because this infrastructure is so ingrained in the politics of many state capitals, the Leopold Center wants to coordinate academic research with public campaigns to pressure politicians and farmers into moving towards more sustainable practices.  Overall, Kirschenmann believes that we should farm like nature and restore the natural health of our soil.  Luckily, we have farmers who are actually aware of the trends and are willing to be educated on the newest practices.

One of these research-driven initiatives is led by Dr., Mark Liebman. While Kirschenmann prescribed a somewhat glum future, Liebman says Iowans have the technological ability and historical precedent to rapidly change their practices.  The real question is: Will we? According to Liebman, there are two main threats to environmental quality: resource depletion and the saturation of the environment with pollutants (soil, nitrates, chemicals, et cetera).  Accordingly, he sees three main strategies in combatting environmental depletion.  The first is to reintegrate crop and livestock agriculture, meaning a move towards the more natural cycle of harvest and feed.  The second to set aside land for conservation, either for habitat protection or soil health.  We should veer away from thinking we need to get a yield out of every square foot of land; some land is just bad for farming.  Finally, use the perennials and other vegetation from the second strategy as animal feed or even energy.  Just because the land is set aside for conservation doesn’t mean all of its use is gone.

Liebman caught a big break when popular New York Times food commentator, Mark Bittman, hailed Liebman’s research on restoring soil health through the use of three- and four-crop rotation, which also increased the crop yield and reduced fertilizer use.  Having read this article before the meeting, we discussed the intersection of media and scientific research.  Liebman believes–and with which I agree–that scientists need media if they want to truly change the world that they live in.  Writing academic articles is simply not enough.  The media is a powerful conduit that can drive the public to also put pressure on their politicians who can then change policy.  The only drawback is that more time must be spent in talking to journalists and the public and making sure that the facts are presented correctly.

Here is a TedX talk that describes Kirschenmann’s beliefs on soil and food.  He also talks some about Liebman’s research.

After lunch, we met with lobbyists from Monsanto at their regional office in Ankeny. Monsanto is a large multinational chemical and biotech company, particularly known for its seeds, biotech traits, and chemicals (especially glyphosate), otherwise known as Round-Up.  We met with Rachel Hurley and Dave Tierney to discuss Monsanto’s place in the agricultural and food sectors and to provide a counterweight to our exposure to many small organic farms.  There are several issues with which Monstanto currently deals.   One issue is, of course, its role in creating GMO products.  I’m in a pretty o.k. place with GMOs.  A vast number of studies endorsed by an equally vast number of organizations (including academic) have shown that GMOs in food are just as safe as non-GMO food.  It often takes over a decade, if not two, for a product to be cleared by the appropriate authorities then released to the world.  However, I believe that a level of constant scrutiny should still be had should some problems crop up in the future.  Another related issue in current politics is mandatory labeling.  Non-GMO activists want mandatory labeling on foods with GMO ingredients so customers can choose their desired food.  However, given the studies that GMOs provide no health risks, Monsanto and other food manufacturers and distributors believe that labeling foods as non-GMO will imply that foods without that label are inferior or harmful.  Nonetheless, the representatives have said that they are supportive of companies that voluntarily want to put a label on their products.

Being a large company, Monsanto suffers from the similar legal and business controversies as other large companies, such as Apple, Comcast, et cetera.  Here, things get a little murky.  The most common accusation against the company is the heavily publicized Monsanto Canada Inc., vs. Schmeiser court case in 2007, in which the farmer claimed that seeds blew over from a Monsanto farm onto his farm.  Therefore, Monsanto sued.  Usually, Monsanto let’s slide “trace amounts present…as a result of inadvertent means” found in a non-Monsanto contracted farm.  Briefly speaking, Schmeiser had over 60% of his crop “infected” with RoundUp-ready plants then saved the seeds from that harvest and planted them (knowing their condition) again on 98% of his land.  The courts believed these sums are far higher than what would be expected form seeds blowing over a road, and I am prone to agree.  Nonetheless, there are many other instances of very aggressive patent enforcement, that all in all does not leave me with a good taste in my mouth.

Today was a rather easy-going day.  Due to the fact that our only obligation for the day was at 3:30 p.m., the group got a few hours to ransack Iowa City, otherwise known as the home of the University of Iowa.  It was pretty much your standard college town, featuring a good amount of different cuisine varities, more than enough alternative clothing stores, and several trendy bookstores.  One such bookstore was called the Haunted Bookshop, Iowa City’s oldest secondhand bookstore.  It was a quant little used bookstore, but my personal favorite aspect of the store was the cat.  It had long, soft gray and white fur and quite literally demanded attention by constantly meowing and lying right in the middle of the stairs.

But enough about the bookstore.  It wasn’t the point of today.  The real objective was to meet with Mary Mascher, a Democratic representative in the Iowa House of Representatives from Iowa City.  Facilitated by another one of Dr. HN’s high school buddies, Rep. Mascher invited us to her house to discuss Iowa politics and whatever topics we decide to bring up.  She also had over another state representative, Sally Stutsman, along with Jim Walters, a local environmentalist and tree enthusiast; David, owner of Friendly Farm; and Lance, a friend of David’s, worker at Friendly Farm, and also a Ph.D. candidate in water sustainability and climate change.  They each told their story and what stake they have in Iowa politics and culture.  Having already conversed with people with more Republican inclinations, we now got a Democratic and relatively more urban position on Iowa’s most important issues.  Because we are working on Farm politics and policies, Mascher gave her opinion on sustainability and the nutrient standards that seek to regulate the amount of nutrients flowing into waterways.  In true Iowan form, she expressed strong opposition to EPA involvement in the matter—that is, if the water gets so bad that the EPA comes in and forces a plan on the entire state—and even went on to say that she doesn’t believe government is always the answer.  Mascher would like to see voluntary compliance with the nutrient standards, but she doesn’t believe it will happen if there aren’t enough funds to give famers that boost in modifying their land.  Republicans have been opposing such funds, only dragging out the time it will take to reach the minimum contamination goal.

Lance brought up an interesting point about sustainability: it is not just about the environment.  You actually need a good balance between financial, environmental, and social sustainability.  Without one or the other, the gains will only be short-term and blowback may even force the movement backwards.  Jim, the tree enthusiast, expressed his opinion that the best way to achieve this balance is to start small.  Find problems in your own life and your own local area and solve them before you try any bigger endeavors.  Mascher and the others agreed.  I’ll admit that I never truly thought of sustainability in that way.  Perhaps it provides some of the motivation to many state legislators, and why they don’t always attempt huge endeavors or run for national office.  If they can make things right in Iowa, they can set an example for the rest of the states.

One interesting dynamic to the group is Sally Stutsman’s non-legislator occupation.  Like most Iowans, she works in conventional agriculture but also wants to be as sustainable as possible.  However, she has a stake in her husband’s fertilizer and chemical company, an aspect of conventional farming that perhaps attracts the most condemnation from environmentalists.  All agreed that we will never see all the changes that environmentalists want until these changes become economically viable and/or beneficial.

Today had a good mix of topics and even a little learning on-the-go.  We first met with Renae Zoske, an independent crop insurance agent who also happened to be the agent of Scott and Denny, who told how farmers and agents work through the complex world of insurance plans and regulations.  To start, crop insurance, as with any insurance, is all about managing risk and preventing a farmer from losing all his income due to a natural disaster.  Although getting crop insurance almost seems a given, it hasn’t always been that way.  Congress first authorized an insurance program in the 1930s to recover from the Great Depression, but the program never caught on, receiving low participation even when subsidies were authorized in the 1980s for paying some of the premiums.  Therefore, after every natural disaster that significantly affects farmers in a certain area, Congress would have to come up with an emergency relief plan.  After drought in 1988 and floods in 1993, Congress decided that it had had enough and drafted the Agriculture Risk Protection Act that greatly boosted the subsidies given to farmers to reduce the amount they paid on premiums.  According to Zoske, as of 2013, $4.5 billion is spent on crop insurance, and 90% of farmland is insured.  However, the Obama administration is looking at cutting these subsidies.  Insurance providers widely oppose the plan because it is assumed that farmers will drop plans if they decide the new premiums are too high.  As with any insurance plan, providers need a wide participant base to spread out the cost of the risk, i.e. having the capital needed to provide compensation to those that lost crops due to natural disasters.  Additionally, agents are afraid that the larger corporate farms, such as Summit, will pool their resources and begin their own insurance plan.

Although this topic was very technical and business heavy, it was much easier to understand than learning about bank plans earlier in the course.  There are five main steps in getting crop insurance. 1) Know your cost.  Your agent has to know the input costs and the potential yields to know who much to insure.  2) Pay attention to deadlines.  There are several deadlines that farmers must follow when trying to insure their crops.  This is unique from other insured materials because analyzing risk and responsibility depends on the planting season.  For example, if you try to plant before the official start of the growing season (which is different by crop) you cannot qualify for replant coverage, which exists in case seeds do not germinate.  Additionally, because farmers often change their crops and planting habits year to year, they need a new plan every year. 3) Know your APH.  The Actual Production History is basically the life story of your farmland, and each farmer has his own number.  It tells how good or bad the land’s yield have been and therefore used to calculate the guarantee and premium.   New farmers do not have their own APH, so they must go by the county average.  Luckily, in an effort to boost the number of the nation’s farmers, the new Farm Bill boosted the subsidies to these new farmers, or “new producers.” 4) Choose products.  These are different plans that can be applied to different farms and across different counties.  There are two main products: yield protection and revenue protection.  The first pays according to the expected yield by number of bushels per acre.  The second product has a higher premium, but the farmer collects if the spring price falls (set before the growing season by the Chicago Commodities Board and announced March 1) or if the fall price is higher after a loss. 5) Choose private products.  Federally subsidized crop insurance only pays up to 85% of the crop.  Therefore, you insure the other 15% by buying different disaster products, such as for hail, wind, drought, or rain.  The most common threats in Iowa to the corn and soybean crops are wind and hail followed by rain and drought.

We then traveled for two hours to Decorah, IA to visit the Seed Savers Exchange, a non-profit that collects and preserves heritage seed varieties of vegetables, fruits, herbs, and flowers.  It’s basically a smaller version of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway (link).  People from across the U.S. will send their seeds to Seed Savers either just to increase the library or if they do not have any remaining family to whom they can pass down the seeds.  I think it is a very neat idea and a good representation of the variety of foods that I didn’t even know existed.  Toby, our guide, told us that we may only really see four to five different varieties of apples at the grocery store and maybe a few more at a farmer’s market.  However, at Seed Savers, they grow, harvest, and collect 950 varieties of apples.  I was also taken aback by the size of the farm.  Since its beginning almost 40 years ago, the farm has grown from around 80 acres to 890, featuring over 30 gardens, an orchard, and fields for raising chickens and Ancient White Park cattle, one of only five herds in the world.  To put it in perspective, Furman’s campus is 750 acres, including the woods and golf course.

After Seed Savers, we traveled to Iowa City to meet with state representatives the next day.  Having been graced with a built-in DVD player, we were able to watch My Father’s Garden while on the road.  This documentary tells the stories of two different farmers.  One is the director’s own father, an orange grower, who jumped on the new developments in agricultural technology, specifically chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.  He died at 40 years old of an undiagnosed illness that affected most of his organs.  It is implied that his heavy and arguably enthusiastic exposure to these chemicals contributed to his death.  The second farmer is Fred Kirschenmann, a farmer in North Dakota.  His story traces his efforts at turning his dying conventional farm into a large-scale organic one.  The film tries to set a positive example for a turn towards large-scale organic farming and away from conventional, chemically driven conventional farms, whose input costs and tolls on the land are driving away small farmers from the lifestyle.  One quote that struck a chord was by Fred, who said, “Every farmer must treat his farm as a garden.”  This approach stresses a devotion to sustainable practices, including utilizing natural ecological process and maintaining soil health.  I would say more, but we will actually meet Fred two days from now, so I will have to more to say then.

Today, we got to experience some of the true marks of being a farmer: rising before the sun and witnessing the death of a farm animal.  We began the morning by leaving the house at 6:00 in the morning to travel to milk goats at the Cory Family Farm, run by Tom and Mary Cory.  Devotees of the Joel Salatin approach to farming, the Corys seek to have a more holistic and sustainable approach to farming and raise grass-fed, pasture-raised, no added antibiotic and hormone poultry, sheep, goats, and cows.

Our first activity was to milk goats, and I will admit that I think I don’t have fingers fit for milking.  I never achieved a strong stream, so the son had to move things along and take over, so the goat didn’t get impatient.  Tom then took us to see how they raise their chickens.  The chickens that were to become meat, called broilers, were kept in a coop that could be moved to any spot in the pasture.  This was to keep the chickens from completely obliterating the area underneath their feet by both overfeeding and pooping everywhere.  The layers, however, were also kept in “chicken mobiles” that were raised higher off the ground.  The final activity was moving the sheep and cows from one pasture to another and setting an electric fence.  Apparently, sheep get very used to moving from field to field and only need a loud cry of “Sheep!” to get moving.  The stampede of lambs and mothers was overwhelmingly cute and almost awe-inspiring. However, we had a moment of sadness when Dr. HN and Cecily found a sick lamb. Tom told us that he had respiratory problems that may have developed into pneumonia, so we decided to bring him home to see if Tom could nurse it back to health.  We placed him in the back part of the van for the way home.  After a few minutes of thrashing and labored breathing, we arrived back at the farm to discover that it must have died only minutes ago.  As Dr. HN, Tom, and Delona told us, “That’s part of farm life.  You get sad and maybe even cry a little, but you move on.”

Another reason why we visited the Corys was because of their unique lifestyle and diet. Their goal is to have the most “natural” life possible, avoiding the overuse of antibiotics and processed foods.  They largely orient their diet around three main rules, loosely based on biblical values: 1) it must have been created as a food in nature, 2) it must be consumed in the most natural, un-modified form possible, and 3) you cannot hold the food higher than God.  The said it was a very “common sense” approach towards nutrition, and they, therefore, stay away from processed and non-natural foods as much as possible.  Although I can’t lend much to the third rule because I’m not very religious, I can see the merits in the first two.  Throughout the course, we’ve sometimes discussed how some diets are more anthropologically founded, rather than stressing specific scientific qualities.  By this, I am referring to diets that seek a return to human diets as based in history before the advent of modern Western innovations in food, especially relating to processed foods.  One aspect that the Corys were particularly enthusiastic about is fermented foods.  Fermented foods have proven to be very high in probiotics, which are beneficial to intestinal and digestive help by incorporating new and healthier gut bacteria in the small intestine.  I had never had much of a taste for pickled foods.  However, after reading up on some of their highlighted dishes, including kombucha, kimchi, kefir, and other pickled vegetables, I think I may be open to trying a few more dishes.  It may take a while to get used to because after consuming a heavy dose a fermented veggies, my stomach was not too happy.

We also visited Lincolnway Energy, an ethanol plant in Nevada, IA.  Ethanol is another important and relevant corn-based product, as it is a renewable resource that can be used to offset some of our reliance on foreign oil.  Ethanol is created by a fermentation and distillation process not unlike making whiskey.  As compared to the biodiesel plant, I was a little more familiar with the process after touring many whiskey distilleries in Scotland.  Because of Iowa’s dependence on corn and current controversies on mass corn production and sustainable agriculture, ethanol producers are yet another important actor in agricultural politics.  The biggest issue that faces the ethanol industry is the proposed reduction in the Renewable Fuel Standard–the EPA-set minimum volume of renewable fuel that must be mixed in transportation fuel.  Naturally, the oil lobby is the biggest proponent for the reduction and therefore the opponent of the ethanol.  As Jesse, our guide, said, “When another industry takes away 10% of your market share, you would want to ensure that you get it back or at least stop them from gaining any more of your market.”  However, in addition to lobbying for reductions in the RFS, some oil companies are actually buying ethanol plants, gaining back control of some of their market.  Jesse left us by asking us to look at the “real” cost of oil and gas, or how much subsidies play into the oil industry’s hands and making us less willing to explore other fuel sources.

Sorry for the temporary absence.  For the past two days, we’ve gotten back relatively late, and Dr. HN let us move back our blog posts.  How nice of him!

After a long day learning about cattle operations, we traveled to Des Moines to catch the one-night showing of Farmland, a documentary about the challenges of young farmers.  I went into the theater knowing that it was sponsored by Big Ag companies, but I think the film did alright about not having an overt propaganda-style production.  However, I did notice a few things that made me question a little about the film’s intent.  Past the sappy score, I came to the conclusion that the film was very shallow in terms of its informational depth and kind of “Disney-fied.”  There were lovely images of rolling farmland and hardworking individuals, but they only briefly mentioned some controversial issues, such as animal abuse and GMOs.  The film didn’t delve into any of the more intricate criticisms of agriculture or the food system that other films, such as Food Inc, King Corn, and Fed Up, sought to advertise.  By only interviewing farmers, I recognized that the film sought to humanize “Big Ag” practices without actually mentioning any company or group associated with Big Ag (although I did notice a lot of John Deere).  Here is a film review that goes into further detail about the film and that I fully agree with.

The next day, we got to visit Summit Farms, a very large scale conventional farm.  They prepared a presentation on their business and practices, most of which I didn’t completely understand. I really should have taken a business or another economics class at Furman, but that didn’t happen.  They largely manage row crops, beef and pork in several states, and definitely subscribe to a “feed the world” mentality, but I’m sure the lucrative business aspects factor greatly in its expansion.  While large agribusiness corporations like Summit do and should have the rights to function in society, they are largely attacked by many small and family farms and local food groups for their practices.  The presentation included a table of how many lands they have found for sale (gathered by ads on craigslist, farmers newspapers, estates sale announcements, et cetera), how many were evaluated, how many were given an offer, and finally how many were actually bought.  Farmer Denny and his friend, Caleb Knuttson (who is 90 years old and whose aunt died a few months ago at 110) were not too fond of Summit Farms.  Their overall criticism described as, “When does it end?” Denny said that Summit has specialists in laws and practices or real estate and inheritance, and as soon as a farmer dies, they will be right on the doorsteps of the heirs.  Denny doubts that the employees of Summit can answer that question as well.  Unfortunately, we didn’t have enough time to actually tour the farm facilities.  I would have liked to observe the operations of the large farms as compared to the small(-er) family-run farms that we’ve visited so far.  After all, Summit operates 20,000 acres over three states.

The reason why we had to leave so quickly is that Dr. HN got an email from a farmer that he has been trying to contact for days.  They were only available for today, but there was the small problem of their farm being two and a half hours away.  Because that day was actually going to be a slow day, we decided to go for it.  Blue Gate Farm is a small CSA and certified naturally grown farm that has vegetables, chickens, and…alpacas!  I thought they did a wonderful job at describing the issues with being a small farm trying to make it in the world.  They were only a few years old and only recently started making a profit.  They claimed that their key to success was nonstop marketing and self-reliance, recognizing a need to build a strong, reliable customer base.  However, I am growing more convinced that even despite the call for more people to join in on the farming industry, it is practically impossible to start a farm unless you were born into a farming family or have a tremendous amount of capital to offset the initial inputs.  Every person that we’ve visited either went straight into farming on their own family farm or came back to farming on land that was given to them by family members.  Blue Gate’s Jill and Sean were no exception.  Even though they were theater majors and worked for most of their lives managing plays and other productions (including Wrestlemania of all things), they moved from Texas to Iowa to start farming on Jill’s grandfather and uncle’s acreage.

Today, we stopped by the FSA (Farm Services Agency) office to talk to representatives of the FSA, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the USDA Rural Development Office, and the Iowa State Extension Office.  First, we met with Rich Wragle from Iowa State Extension.  As I learned today, each state has a land-grant school that has an “extension service” that focuses on four main areas: 4-H youth development, economic and community development, agriculture and natural resources, and human sciences.  Basically, they have the answers to life, the universe, and everything.  If they can’t help you, they at least point you to someone who can.  Rich especially stressed that the extension office works to serve the community by forming partnerships with other entities, including municipalities, the university, and non-profits.  Here is Clemson’s Extension.  The representatives of the other offices, all parts of the USDA, gave us a rundown of the main programs that applied to farmers, including how to receive farm subsidies and loans, sustainable energy programs, and value-added product grants (value-added means irreversible modifications to a base product that adds value to the end product).

We also met with a representative of Niman Ranch,  a pork purchaser that focuses on humane and traditional livestock raising.  Their approach to raising pigs is no antibiotics, no added hormones, all vegetarian diet, outside access with shade, and large, padded huts.  Pigs raised in this manner apparently have very high quality and tasty meat.  Niman contracts with farmers across the U.S., and requires them to raise pigs in this manner to then sell them to their buyers.  Their biggest buyers are Whole Foods, Chipotle, and high-end or naturally-raised oriented restaurants.  However, Chipotle has expanded so quickly and demands so much meat that Niman can’t contract enough farmers to keep up!  Although they were all about natural products, it seemed to be more about filling a niche market that demands humane treatment, rather than concern about the environment. They use GMO corn in their feed (which most producers out of cost savings, anyway) and they only require that their farmers follow the local and national environmental regulations.  It was kind of an interesting turn because all of the other “alternative” farms that we’ve visited had some kind of pro-environment and/or local foods enthusiasm ingrained in their daily operations.

Today was chock full of politics, and this will be a long entry.  If you need to, take a break, go to the bathroom, walk your children–do what you need to do to get through my thoughts.

We continued the debate over food policy and public health by reading the next chapter in the Paarlberg book about the politics of obesity, specifically the role of food.  The biggest reason that obesity is a policy issue is that it will add $48-66 billion in medical costs treating obesity-related diseases by 2030 to the already $147 billion spent between 1998 and 2008, and this problem carries over to other sectors, such as defense, because many potential recruits are too fat to join the military.  Essentially, the most simplified explanation is that we are consuming more and exercising less.  The government definitely cannot force diets or exercise regimens on people, so what can it do?  Who should be held responsible for this problem?

There are many subtopics on this issue that are each worthy of a fully essay.  For example, food stamps are associated with poverty, as they are part of the welfare system.  We also associate poverty with malnutrition.  However, there exists a paradox of people on food stamps actually being overweight, if not obese.  A second subtopic is childhood obesity.  Perhaps the most direct method of combatting childhood obesity is modifying the food given in public school lunches.  However, according to Paarlberg, only 25 percent of calories consumed by children are in school, so how effective would a lunch-centered solution be?

At the highest levels of the food regulation fight, opponents to regulation, such as restaurant, business, and consumer groups, oppose any regulation that they say takes away from the amount of choices Americans should be allowed when choosing their food. I read this as, “If you want to get fat, then you should be allowed to get fat.”  However, we have been affected by both our own desires and natural reactions to stimuli.  Although Paarlberg is skeptical of claims that produce prices have risen, while un-nutritious foods have fallen  (he says they have both fallen and at the same rate) and the lack of access to nutritious foods, he is supportive of other causal claims that the prevalence of and easy access unhealthy foods is one of the top factors of the rise in obesity.  Additionally, hi-tech food processors are capable of chemically altering the levels of salt, sugar, fats, et cetera to make the food more pleasurable and addicting, all the while keeping the calorie counts the same.  Given the restraints of the Constitution and our aptitude for liberty, the most realistic solution is for the government to try to change the eating behavior of Americans and their approach to food and nutrition.

We then moved on to a very hot topic in agricultural politics: environmental health.  As mentioned in previous blog posts about our previous exposure to environmental problems, the most common agricultural issues are soil health, water health, and sustaining wildlife populations.  We watched two documentaries, Symphony of the Soil and Ocean Frontiers, the latter of which featured Brent Friest’s father, Denny Friest.  Symphony of the Soil centered on soil health.  The makers of this documentary definitely took the agroecological, cultural approach to farming, expressing a desire for the inclusion of more organic matter in all farms.  The latter documentary told four different vignettes about how stakeholders in different sectors came together to solve environmental problems that they contribute to and are affected by.  One such vignette was of Iowa farmers and their efforts to lower chemical and nutrient pollutants that contribute to the growing dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.  Some highlighted conservation measures included installing wetlands and prairie strips that naturally filter the water flowing through of any pollutants before heading to larger waterways.

In the end, Denny Friest brought up the fact that most farmers, especially conventional farmers, take a feed the world approach.  Therefore, he said there needs to be a compromise and moderation between achieving the highest yield while also looking out for the environment.  He admitted that there is still a long ways to go, and farmers are doing their best to stay environmentally friendly.  I did notice a subtle and passive anti-government tendency in the last documentary, implying that the best solutions may not and sometimes should not involve government regulation.  All of the vignettes seemed to have minimum mention of a role of government regulators, and each problem was solved by stakeholders getting together and solving the issue.  Nonetheless, despite being largely anti-government, farmers will gladly take any government help they can get.  In the Iowa conservation story, installing the conservation practices in the fields are extremely expensive, so much that they require taxpayer money.  At the time of the filming, so many farmers had jumped on getting state help that there was a two year waiting list for one particular conservation program.

The “filler events” for the day included going to the town of Radcliffe’s Memorial Day service and gardening out back with Dalona.  We went to the memorial service because it would be a good way to observe a part of small town society.  Held in the Radcliffe cemetery, the ceremony consisted of two songs, a short “sermon,” the reading of all deceased military members in the cemetery and those connected to the town of Radcliffe, a 21-gun salute, and processions in and out.  All in all, I didn’t think there was too much to observe because of a lack of dialogue.  However, I think the ceremony was a good indicator of the use of the flag as a symbol.

We also did a little bit of gardening in our own personal plot in the backyard.  Due to the fact that today was the first we’ve even seen the garden, it was of course overrun by weeds.  I wouldn’t haven even known the garden was there had the little orange flags not been visible.  Dalona said that is what happens when you don’t weed, but I think there was a slight smug undertone of, “Welp…that’s what you get.”  Despite this gardening faux pas, we still were able to uncover all of the lettuce, radishes, and peas and give them the appropriate room to prosper.  It did make a nice contrast between how effective the herbicide was on the corn that was growing not even ten feet from the garden.

Unfortunately, the only pictures I took today were of Shadow, the farm puppy, playing with her new toy, but other people have posted photos!  So, here ya go.

In true farm fashion, our activities were determined by the weather, and our plans changed literally at the last minute. Since today was Sunday, everyone got to sleep in and/or go to church with Dr. HN.  We had planned to go to see a guy named Mark Tintjer, a master beekeeper, a few miles down the road.  Bees only come out when there is enough sunlight, so today’s dark overcast skies did not bode well.   However, just as Dr. HN gave up hope on seeing the bees, Mark called and said, “So are you coming?”

I learned so much that I don’t even know where to begin! Well, I guess I should start off by saying beekeeping is a lot more complicated than I ever thought, granted I never actually thought too much about bee keeping.  Keeping the colony healthy is all about understanding bee behavior, including keeping a balance between populations (or else, they’ll swarm away from your farm and create a new colony).  Mark was amazing, and I was in awe of how much he knew.  He said that he started by just reading a book, but a lot of it comes from on-the-job trial and error, like normal farming.  His biggest problems come from neighboring farms spraying their pesticides or planting genetically-modified crops.  The pesticides that are sprayed onto or are produced naturally by these plants ultimately poison the colonies.  Bees will travel up to two miles to find good pollen, but when surrounded by pesticide-laden cornfields, there are very few alternatives.

Did you know that there basically is a “Big Bee” industry, just as there is Big Corn, Big Pork, etc.  It makes a lot of sense because all of that supermarket honey has to come from somewhere, but, like I said, I never really thought about it.  Especially in California, there are farms that have thousands of colonies to produce honey and even queen bees that keepers across the nation can purchase.  To keep the bees healthy, the big farmers sprinkle antibiotics on the slats in the bee boxes for them to eat.  However, just like everywhere else, the bacteria is evolving, and keepers are trying to find new antibiotics to keep them at bay.  We also do not see quite the same regulatory battles as other parts of the food industry because, unlike other foods, honey cannot spoil. The only way honey can become a public health hazard is if the keeper puts something in the honey.  By the way, bees produce a lot of honey, if you didn’t already know.  Out of Mark’s less-than-twenty colonies, he produced two and a half tons in one year.  The past two years have been especially good because of the dry summer weather, which Mark noted produces more pollen and less water for the bees.

I know I am  leaving out a bunch of information, but I think it would be a good thing for you, readers, to do some homework about bees.  They do wonders for your gardens and are fascinating creatures.  You can order them online; queens typically cost between $20 and $30.

(P.S. The larva aren’t too bad, either.  All of us ate live ones, and they pretty much tasted like mushrooms.)

We then went to visit Glen Hodnefield, one of Dr. HN’s high school friends, who is a devotée of no-till farming and other conservation practices.  He described his philosophy by saying, “Soil is your factory.  You can’t replace it, so you certainly don’t want to lose it.” Some of his farm ground includes highly-erodable land, or “HEL,” and is required to have a conservation plan before receiving subsidized crop insurance.  One part of the plan modifies the amount of tillage allowed on the field, including reduced and none.  No-till farming is when you leave the previous year’s leftover stalks and leaves (what he called “residue”) to slowly decompose, yet also holding the soil in place and retaining the nutrients.  There is no need to plow up the land.  However, he also participates in a variation of no-till, which is strip-till farming.  Here, you clear out rows where you will plant the seeds and apply the appropriate fertilizer and pesticides.  Corn plants need this more than soy beans because they need more room to grow.  Glen is also a fan of not allowing chemicals to get into waterways.  Therefore, he plants grass waterways that directs water away from roads and streams and buffer strips around waterways that help slowly filter out nutrients.

I believe Hedley asked a really good question when she said, “Why wouldn’t farmers want to voluntarily do these things?” Glen said it was largely because people like tradition.  This is the historical way, proven and true.  Farmers like the big machines because it makes them feel the most productive and possible.  Therefore, they must be shown that these practices can be just as profitable, without the risks to the environment and with smaller machines.

I believe that today could arguably have been our longest, leaving at 8:30 in the morning and not getting back until almost 9:00 at night.  We began the day by going to Table Top Farms, an organic-oriented CSA farm on a slightly larger scale than the Wallace Country Center.  Dr. HN wanted us to visit this farm not simply because of the organic practices, but more so for the business practices and the narrative behind it.  The farm is run by Luke and Sally Gran, a young couple in their mid to late 20s, and they only started it a few years ago.  Yet even despite working on rented family land, they still struggled to get their farm up and running.   Although I didn’t quite understand some of the technicalities of their venture, I did manage to pick up a few points.  If you want to start a farm:

1) Have a plan.  They showed us a five-year plan that they created along with another couple (who later left) outlining their goals and strategies for growth.

2) Get loans.  Starting a farm requires a tremendous upfront cost, which most beginning farmers do not have.  Therefore, you need to get a loan.  Obtaining a loan from a bank for an organic operation is often difficult, but there are options through the Department of Agriculture’s loan programs, particularly when you are a beginning or younger farmer. However, banks require some kind of confidence that your venture will succeed, so you need to show them a plan for growth (see number 1).

3) Know your government.  There are many grants programs for minority and beginning farmers, otherwise known as the “socially disadvantaged.”  Additionally, the new Farm Bill includes new benefits for beginning, small, and organic farmers.  Luke, the finance manager, said that most of their net profit came from government assistance.  As mentioned earlier in the blog, this kind of narrative is actually common for many farmers, conventional or not.

4) Know your community.  It is best to know your neighbors, community farmers, and your customers.  In general, it is best to get to know those around you, but, if you have a problem, there is a 99.9% chance that a farmer close by will know how to fix it.  Both Luke and Sally said that they’ve received a huge amount of help from other farmers, which was especially helpful since they didn’t have much experience in farming when they started Table Top.  They will teach you how to farm better, fix your machines, and get to know your land.

5) Be patient.  Trying to build up a successful farm, especially an organic one, is a painfully slow process, and it is all about trial and error.  Each growing season is different, and the circumstances for your farm can change overnight, for the better or worse.

We learned all of this in the process of touring the farm and weeding the kale.  We used some kind of specialized gardening hoes and thus had to be careful to not rip up the plants.  Although I accidentally ripped off a leaf or two, I did not do near as bad as Dr. HN who managed to rip up an entire plant.

Weeding.

Rows and rows of nature’s goodness.

The ultimate compost pile with added water heater.

Next, we went to Des Moines to attend March Against Monsanto.  Monsanto is one of the biggest agricultural seed and technology companies in the world and is very much supportive of GMOs and the use of chemicals, many of which it produces.  Unfortunately, we misled ourselves into thinking we were attending a large protest rally type deal, when we were actually attending this.  It was more of a community awareness get-together, or as Cecily said as we were looking for the protest, “I can’t tell if that’s a birthday party or the protest.”  The event largely centered around getting to know what is in your food.  There were a series of four speakers: one cautioning against the use of chemicals because of health risks, a beekeeper telling about neonicotinoids (an insecticide that has been linked to bee deaths), a man for the Polk County Conservation Board, and Sherrie Taha, a woman running for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture.  Overall, the closest we got to anarchy was building “seed bombs,” balls of papier mache with flower seeds rolled it that you through in an empty lot of your choosing.  I wanted pepper spray.

After listening to them speak, we were given a tour of an urban garden.  The premise behind this is that members of the community who lack garden space in their own homes can rent small plots in this garden to grow their own produce.  I thought it was a neat idea to branch out and build the community around something healthy and productive.

Finally, we had to scooch on over to what looked to be a small, independent cinema house, named Fleur Cinema, to watch Fed Up.  This is a new documentary narrated by Katie Couric about the obesity epidemic, what caused it, and how to fix it.  To keep it short, the main argument is that clever marketing of processed foods with hidden and unhidden sugars is tricking us into eating more foods with lower fat and calories, even while we still gain more weight.  Therefore, you need to eat as little processed foods as possible.  Much of the attacks attacked the food establishment and the politics surrounding it.  Although it practically dismissed the importance of exercise, I think the movie played towards my overall philosophy towards eating that it is not so much the amount you eat, than it is what you eat that causes problems.  Nonetheless, I greatly enjoyed the film, and it brought up a lot of great points.

This was made for the Furman dining hall.