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.

Today was nothing if not a summation of our entire trip. A whirlwind of exhibits, tours, meetings, and 15–minute meals, we stayed true to our style. We began our day at the World Food Prize Foundation, a converted library building dedicated to Norman Borlaug and his accomplishments in battling world hunger. The World Food Prize is annually given to a person who the organization sees as being greatly influential in improving food security just as Borlaug had done in leading the Green Revolution during the 1960s.

From there, we were off to the Biocentury Farm in Boone, Iowa. They are a research and demonstration facility focused on biomass production and processing. They partner with Iowa State in growing their own crops, and using them to conduct their research. One of their main focuses is ethanol production from cellulosic matter. We had learned a bit about cellulosic matter at Lincolnway, but had not seen how exactly they process it. At Biocentury, we saw how it is broken down into its simpler forms. One of the main issues I previously had with this method was that removing the corn stover from the field would deplete the soil of the organic matter left from the stalks. But as we were informed today, by removing only a part of the stalks, the vital part of the stalks for fertilization is left, and the other is converted to ethanol.

Straight out of the lab and into the board room, we headed to the hallowed, or some would argue villainous, halls of Monsanto. We met with Dave Tierney, a lobbyist for the company. I had been hoping to pay a visit to Monsanto, seeing as just about every documentary that we watched or farmer that we had spoken to had chosen a side on their seed patents and GMOs. Going into this trip, I was fairly mistrusting of GMOs in general, but I knew I didn’t have much knowledge or understanding of them. So, I kept an open mind, and listened to everything that was said and argued. Whether it was “feed the world” or “eat what is good for you,” I listened intently and tried to see from both sides. And on this last day I’ve come to the conclusion that my mistrust of GMO’s hasn’t yet changed. Do I like the fact that Tierney told us today that the majority of their staff is made up of biologists and chemists? No, I certainly do not, because in my head, altering the chemical makeup from how it was originally created can’t be a safe thing. So many tests and experiments have been previously rejected as not having sufficient evidence that GMOs are harmful, but where are the tests and experiments that prove they have zero chance of harm? I understand the FDA and the USDA  regulate these products to a great extent, but I remain skeptical. Measuring the morality of engineering GMO’s is a tough concept. Somehow I don’t think that genetically altering life and God’s creation is the way to solve global problems.

Today our travels took us to Table Top Farms in Nevada, Iowa. Not a far cry from the farmstead, we arrived at Table Top’s 30-acre vegetable farm. Table Top is a small scale farm devoted to local agriculture while focused on community involvement and sustainability. We met with the Grans and the Corbins, the two families that own and manage Table Top, and we spent a few hours with them talking about how they are managing their business. We actually spent a great deal of time speaking with them about their 5-year business plan, and their expectations for growth and expansion. Our past excursions have touched on the business side of things, but never focused on it so extensively. Hearing their expected setbacks and methods of recovery in their finances fleshed out the reality of the life of a farmer. Our group has discussed farmer subsidies and direct payments at length, so I had felt we had a firm grip on the financial aspect to farming. Yet, to hear their financial plan for now and for the near future truly cemented my understanding of the instability and insecurity of farming. The survival rate of any small business is low, but putting together a successful business plan for a small-scale sustainable, organic farm strikes me as particularly precarious.  As a non-farming consumer, especially one who is in college, I don’t always keep in mind that these small, organic, and sustainable farms are businesses, and have to make a profit to sustain themselves. There are so many moving parts for which these organic farmers must contend, and a small, but competitive, market in which they operate. Because their crops are so diverse and small-scale, some simply don’t have the finances or staff to expand and improve efficiency.

Their CSA is growing exponentially, they report, which is undoubtedly a sign they’re doing something right. Additionally, they participate in the Des Moines Farmers’ Market. Hearing about these things surely led to a local foods discussion, and Chris, one of the co-owners, explained his theory of regional foods, which was new to me. He claimed that “regional” foods, not “local,” were the most feasible way to provide people with food that also had a low carbon footprint, while still providing farms with an acceptable profit margin. These small-scale farms would send their food to regional “food hubs” that would hold the food until ready to be transported to consumers. This, he says, would allow the farmers to focus more on growing financially and productively. These hubs benefit both the producer and consumer in a symbiotic way. The small scale producer that would not ordinarily have access to traditional food wholesalers now could have a central outlet for their goods along with the infrastructure to get it there. The consumer would now have access to products typically not found in those traditional food wholesalers. Seeing as I had never heard of this method previous to our visit, despite all my research and interest in the local food movement, tells me that this concept has not been widely spread. Perhaps with more time, the concept will grow and more steps will be taken to enact it.

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?

Remembering all the way back to the Field Day that we attended in McGregor, Iowa last Wednesday, we were able to witness something powerful. These farmers truly did care about their land. Despite the bad rap that much of the American public has given them, their concern for the soil and crops go beyond making a worthy profit. The men that attended the Field Day all had something to learn and something to contribute. Each brought different knowledge and answers for one another. I found it beautiful having a 90- year old man sharing what he knew about farming to a group of twenty-somethings. Cover cropping was the theme and preventing runoff was the issue. We learned all about wheat rye and the dangers of over-tilling the soil. All very instructive, we got to see another side of the cover cropping story today with Mr. Glen Hodnefield. He actively participates in CRP, and sets aside portions of his land to other conservation uses. He utilizes buffer zones, wetlands protection, and cover crops as a part of his conservation efforts. The buffer zones are a method of strategically placing native grasses next to waterways to catch nutrient runoff from the fields before they leak into the water. Wetlands are, in a sense, a return to the prairie land that once dominated this part of the country. Between the 1990s and the 2008 Farm Bills, many incentives existed to motivate farmers to actively participate in CRP, but since have declined greatly. The safety net features of the recent Farm Bill like crop insurance and disaster assistance in addition with the flourishing biofuels industry has detrimentally affected these land stewardship programs. All of these factors lead to more farmers planting fence row to fence row, rather than participating in programs that would convince farmers to participate in the conservation stewardship programs.  We also were able to compare and contrast till and no-till fields. By not tilling, the corn plants stay in the ground after harvest, allowing the roots to hold the soil intact. The corn prevents erosion and goes back into the soil and acts as a fertilizer. While each method has its own disadvantages, it is an undeniable fact that his yield from the no-till field were significant and in some cases exponentially higher than his regular till field. I don’t pretend to be a field or soil expert, but numbers don’t lie.

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.

I believe that God made this land to be fruitful and productive, and with the knowledge of how to manage it, humans can manage and profit from it. I also think that to a point, micromanaging and manipulating God’s provisions can lead to bad results. I think there is something to be said about the mere fact that American health has seen a steady decline since our obsession with altering the genes of our food. While I don’t think that living a fully all-natural lifestyle is realistic, I’d like to think that I’ve made steps to make be more cognizant of the food I’m eating and what has been done to it. After visiting the Cory Family Farm, it would seem though that I have a lot left to learn.

Tom and Mary Cory are proponents of Joel Salatin’s farming methods. The Cory’s employ paddock grazing and and mobile chicken coops, methods popularized by Joel Salatin in Food, Inc.  Salatin’s presence was everywhere on the Cory farm. They utilized everything the land had to offer, but replenished it back in another way. The farm’s mobile chicken coops benefit the land greatly, and we were able to help move them ourselves. In moving the coops, the grasses under them are not destroyed, but rather improved. As the chickens scratch the ground, cow manure patties are torn apart and dispersed to fertilize the soil. Also, by migrating, the grasses have time to recover from the concentration of chickens on that particular spot of land.

Like Salatin, Mr. Cory says he has no interest in exponentially expanding. Though it seems to me that their family business is highly profitable at its present scale. They have a sizable goat industry from which they market both meat and milk products. In fact, we even had the opportunity to milk a few goats. The Cory’s sell their meat, which also includes sheep and beef, and dairy at local farmers’ markets and directly to customers. With great ingenuity, they seem to cater to every need of a customer. They sell everything from a sirloin steak to pig ears for dogs. Their business is a fine-tuned machine, with each of the children participating in a share of the company. It is businesses such as there that are so important in the food economy. With the food system being manipulated by huge commodity industries, we need smaller, higher-quality producers like the Cory’s. I think that it is important to that balance in supporting local producers while at the same time recognizing that many can’t afford these higher-quality products. Furthermore, as all the commodity producers and associations keep telling us, these smaller farms simply can’t produce the volume needed to feed everyone. We need the diversity to thrive.

     It’s no surprise that today was my favorite excursion to date. The Ubben Farm didn’t disappoint with its tiny chickens, strutting turkeys, and strange-looking African birds. They, however, were not the objects my interest. My long-time obsession with sheep was only intensified after spending time with Ubben’s herd of sheep. Only born two months ago, the lambs were still quite small. Curious and trusting, they would come right up to us, some even letting us hold them. One in particular followed me around until we sadly had to leave. Despite wishing I could spend all day with the precious lambs, I did want to see the rest of their animal facilities. Their farm was so unlike any other animal production farm that we had seen up to this point. Every animal is free-range, with space to walk and roam as they please. After touring so many confinement facilities, it was incredibly refreshing to see conditions in which the animals were able to simply walk around, and even have the opportunity to move from inside a structure to outside. The Ubben’s version of a four-letter word is hog barns, and I definitely understood why after seeing their gestation field. That’s right, I said field…not stall…not crate…not room. After asking Mr. Ubben about the rate of piglet mortality due to being rolled on by their mothers, he replied with an answer that shocked me.  I asked this specific question because confinement farmers use this danger as a justification for placing sows in the gestation stalls…to protect the piglets. Yet, when I asked Mr. Ubben if there was any increased danger since their gestation “huts” that he provided didn’t have any rigging to keep the sows upright. He replied that yes he has lost some to rolling, but the numbers are actually quite low. They had only lost one piglet in the last farrowing rotation. Remembering the Friest’s farm, the numbers seemed to be much higher. By now, we have seen just about every form of pig farming available – from the Friests’ to hearing from the Pork Association all the way to the Ubben’s free-range style. On the one hand, the confinement had made perfect sense when Mr. Friest  explained the inner workings and disproved the misconceptions. His hogs showed no inkling of discontent or unhappiness. Regardless of the pigs’ happiness, I’m of the belief that they are animals, and should be treated as such. I certainly believe there is a respect animals deserve, but it isn’t quite to the level that many animal activists attribute them.

      But on the other hand, upon visiting the Ubben’s farm, we saw the sprawling fields for widespread grazing seemed to almost argue for itself. Surely living out in nature like they were created to do seems better for the animals. So, which method is better? The Friests are most certainly in it for the money. Their sheer efficiency and systematic operations prove their motivation. And the Ubbens? Well, according to them, they’re making money as well. Their hog market contract with Niman Ranch demands the free-range style, and they even shared with us that they’re barely keeping up with demand. More and more people these days, they said, are wanting free-range animal products. While I love this concept, is it feasible for large scale production? Everywhere we go, we constantly hear “Feed the World,” but could the Ubben’s, and farmers like them, feed the world?

I love to cook. And even more so I love knowing where my food comes from. I’ve been exploring community supported agriculture (CSA) farms and farmers’ markets around my home and Furman to learn more. So when we had the opportunity to visit the Wallace Center today, I was excited to compare it with other CSA farms. Working on the Furman Farm the past year has allowed me to see sustainable and organic practices first hand. For the first time, I was able to literally cut a piece of lettuce from the ground, take it to my kitchen, wash it in the sink, and eat it. The taste was so gratifying, and by far better than any salad I had eaten from a store or restaurant. That is, until we visited the Wallace Center and Gathering Table Restaurant. They prepare entirely local foods from local farmers and meat producers. Furthermore, almost everything on the menu was grown there right on the property. The produce was grown right out back, and most of the meat was provided from local farmers.

I think finding local foods is so vital because you are not only eating food provided with minimal processin,g but also supporting local businesses. I fully understand the ease of simply defaulting to Walmart for any and every need, but supporting local businesses is so vitally important to the community, not to mention healthier and more sustainable. Promoting a lower carbon footprint and using less-processed food products is a concept taking off in Greenville, and I truly hope the movement continues to flourish. While I do not think our food system can wholly rely on small farmers such as these, customers need the choice to decide for themselves. I think a healthy balance can be achieved in between those two extremes of large scale, mass production agriculture and smaller, organic practices. Neither is adequate on its own, and must be supplemented by the other.