Use your words: GMO

I know that this post will cause controversy. And I encourage you to post comments in response to this post. It's ok to have differing views, and I encourage respectful discussion on the matter.

When talking about GMO crops, this is what some people think.

We hear this acronym thrown around all the time. GMO, which stands for Genetically Modified Organism, brings haunting images of frankenstein-like vegetables designed in a lab with a mad scientist concocting new creatures for the fields of America. But let's take a closer look at what GMO crops are all about.

What is GMO?

GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organisms. This normally refers to an organism that has been modified using a non-breeding technique. So, there's normally a gene (or set of genes) that's been inserted using biotechnology. These are interchangeably known as biotech crops.

How are GMO crops different from conventional crops?

GMO crops differ from conventional crops in the way that genetic traits make their way to the final product. Conventional breeding of a crop can take up to 10 years to integrate all the traits needed for a successful crop. GMO crops use a few techniques where those genes can be directly inserted into the genome. The result is a crop that is ready for market in 5 years or less. Typically, there's a gene that normally exists in the gene pool anyway, such as disease resistance or increased yield. However, recent breakthroughs have made it possible to use genes in a different species, such as a salmon for cold resistance.

What kind of techniques are these scientists using?

The first technique was developed at Cornell University in 1987, and is known as a gene gun. The prototype of this was actually a modified bb rifle. The gene gun, or "biolistic particle delivery system" uses a heavy metal (most often gold or tungsten). This gold is coated with DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (DNA), but not just any DNA, the DNA that when decoded will produce the desired trait. So, let's say you want to make super sweet corn, you'd take known "super sweet" genes, multiply them, and then apply them to the gold dust (we're talking small, measured in micrometers). This mixture is shot at the plant you intend to modify, and tada! GMO plant! However, this doesn't always work. As one professor described it to me, it's like dropping a boulder into your house and hoping that you include the piece of DNA in the restoration.

Another technique is the use bacteria. Agrobacterium tumifaciens is a plant pathogen that hacks the plant. Unfortunately, all the bacterium can do in nature is give the plant a tumor. However, researchers over in Belgium realized that the tumor would not go away after the bacteria was removed. After further examination, they realized that the bacteria actually transferred genes to the plant. This bacteria had been genetically modifying plants well before we could. Fast forward a few more years, and researchers have found a way to insert genes into this circular piece of DNA (called a plasmid) into plants with the traits they want. It's similar to putting a CD into your computer.

There are several other ways to genetically modify a crop. But these are the two most common forms. Viruses can also be used along with double haploids.

What kind of traits can you put into my food?

Depending on the crop, there are many traits that are desirable. For example, people around my area LOVE sweet corn, the sweeter the better. So, isolating and inserting genes into a variety of corn to make it sweeter is something we all want. Another trait that is always sought is resistance to disease, so once researchers isolate the gene (or genes) wanted, they can proceed with developing a better crop for the future. One of the most famous crops that was saved from a virus is the papaya. Read about it here.

Is it safe?

YES! This is something that most people don't realize about GMO crops. All GMO crops that are grown commercially are Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS), an FDA label. Check out this information sheet on how the FDA tests GMO crops here. When genes are first inserted into plants, it's normally 4-5 generations before large scale production, so if you're afraid of a gold allergy, you have nothing to worry about. Also, the genes being inserted are very specific, and well documented. It is considered extremely irresponsible for scientists to use the gene gun filled with an unknown gene mixture just to "see what grows".

So once they have a "prototype" of a potential crop; something that has been transformed and a small scale. The prototype is sent off to third party agencies to be examined (USDA, FDA, and the EPA to start). This is a heavily regulated sector of agriculture, and for good reason. If something were to go wrong, this is the time to catch it. The regulatory agency goes through each prototype with a fine tooth comb, proving that the gene (or genes) have been inserted, and that any proteins that gene makes are safe and familiar to the human body.

To conclude, I think that many people who don't understand this technology are quick to dismiss the potential benefits of GMO crops. Rather they base opinions on emotions of fear of the unknown. However, we aren't producing any new farms (at just 2% of the workforce in farming) and people need to be fed. The population is expected to double by 2050, and we're going to need feed those people somehow. Better crops, along with better management of our resources, we will be better prepared to feed these people.

This isn't your father's farm

This is what comes to mind when most people hear words like "Agriculture, farming, rural"
(American Gothic by Grant Wood 1930)

Many people I talk to about agriculture reply with something with, "That's so cool, I'd love the simple life of growing your own food". And while small growers have the opportunity to live the simple life, if you're supporting the average 155 people, you can't really do that anymore. Today's agriculture operations are more carefully managed, more regulated, and high tech than they were 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago. This isn't your grandfather's or even your father's farm.

Since the 1920s, there has been extensive research on land management. Before the dust bowl, growers would completely plow up the prairie grasses and replace it with their crops. At the end of the season, the ground was left barren. This misuse of land led to wind and water erosion and the subsequent loss of the topsoil (the good stuff). This conservation movement has been the single largest change in how we grow our crops. Today's land tends to be plowed less and has something growing on it more often than when your grandfather was growing up.

In addition to better management, we have technology that our fathers and our grandfathers could only dream of. Technology has been one of the sole reasons why growers can grow more food using fewer resources with less labor. While no one likes pesticides, they allow growers to produce more with less waste. And today's pesticides are more effective and (when used properly of course) are safer to both man and beast. According to Iowa State University, growers can grow 4 times as much corn and soy using modern pesticides. Additionally, the use of herbicides saves 550 million gallons of fuel across the nation annually. If the weeds are dead, there's less need to plow. This is only one facet of technology, but there are countless other innovations that have made farming more efficient.

In addition to technological advances, growers are also held to a much higher standard than their parents and their grandparents. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) focus on environmental regulations such as nutrient management, soil and water conservation, and sound pesticide use. Then there are agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institute of Health (NIH), and the Center of Disease Control (CDC) that monitor and regulate the safety of food. And that's just the national agencies, many states have additional regulatory agencies with additional regulations. There are more people that growers must keep happy than the generations before us.

So what's the result of more technology, better land management, and more people regulating the operation? The result is more productive fields, a safer work area, and  a more efficient system for getting stuff done. If these practices weren't implemented, growers would need about twice the land to produce the same amount of food. That translates into more land conserved. So while it may not be as simple as your father's or grandfather's farm, it's better.

Growers have always worn many hats. In order to keep costs low, growers have an extensive knowledge of ag mechanics, horticulture, and in many cases, business management. Today's farmers are true professionals, that are in the ag business not to feed their families, but to make a living. That's not to say that the efforts of our ancestors is insignificant. Rather, it's through their efforts that we have a higher standard of living.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulder of giants" -Isaac Newton

Life in Rural America

This is me with my mother helping her harvest some squash.
I was 11 months old in this photo. 

Recently, I saw a quote from Don Dillman, a professor at Washington State University. He was quoted in saying, "Ironically, rural America, has become viewed by a growing number of Americans as a higher quality of life...not because of what is has, but rather because of what it does not have.". Growing up, I would agree that there is a lot that rural life doesn't have. No street lights, no malls, no sidewalks, no reliable high speed internet,  the list goes on and on. Perhaps I was too young to yet appreciate that "lack" of city amenities.

 Fast forward to 2008. Moving out to Ithaca was a bit of an adjustment. I remember how much artificial light there was. Of course, it didn't help that my room mate the first year was a night owl and would stay up until 2am. If anyone has ever tried to drive around downtown Ithaca, you know how bad the traffic can be (especially if you're on the way to Moe's).

Living in the middle of nowhere offers many benefits that simply aren't possible in an urban environment. We  live on a major road (but not a highway) and rush-hour traffic is by no means a gridlock. Every morning, I watch the Philadelphia morning news and needless to say, the traffic is horrible. Congested traffic is non-existent in rural areas (unless it's behind a tractor).

Pollution is another consideration. Air pollution tends to be lower in rural areas (due to less traffic/congestion) although this can be argued when farmers are out spreading chicken manure. Light pollution is also less prevalent due to fewer streetlights. If you want to see a clear night sky, you gotta get away from the streetlights of the city. Finally, the only form of noise pollution I remember from my childhood was that obnoxious rooster that crowed all hours of the night.

Growing up, we ate a lot of vegetables and steak. This was because we grew most of what was on our dinner table. So not only did I get a sound work ethic from the garden and the farm, but I also got a balanced, nutritious diet through the crops we grew. I actually got tired of having steak once a week growing up. I say this not to be a snob but when you grow an 1800 lb Steer (a bull without his manhood), there's a lot of steak to eat.

One of the steers we raised. We would raise 4 at a time and would harvest 2 per year. 

Rural life also tends to be a slower way of life. This was an adjustment moving back home after college. Going from the fast-paced lifestyle of college to the slower lifestyle of a 40 hour work week in the country can be a bit boring. I'm convinced that this is because I've never had this much free time in 5 or so years. But more importantly, a slower lifestyle translates to a lower level of stress. Higher stress is clinically proven to decrease lifespan, although it is true that some stress is necessary (most people I meet are well past this threshold).

To conclude, I think many people yearn for a simpler life. I think we all would like to eat steak weekly, have a smooth commute to work, and live in a cleaner environment. Unfortunately, it's not so easy in an urban environment. So while I couldn't stand living in the country growing up, I am glad to have the experience and wouldn't want it any other way.

Accept no fillers! Well...not so fast

Recently, a disgruntled microbiologist at the USDA blew the lid open on the "pink slime" controversy. If you haven't heard about the process, beef trimmings are separated using a centrifuge and is then sterilized using ammonia gas. This is used as a filler in ground beef. This has caused an upset in people that eat anything with this pink slime. However, I think this has been a sensationalized issue that has been blown out of proportion. This post is dedicated to why fillers are used not only in the meat industry, but in coffee, beer, and many other foods (Hot dogs are especially notorious). Additionally, the use of fillers is found in many household items, such as cleaning solutions, detergents, and just about anything, as we'll see.

The biggest reason that fillers are used in foods today is to maintain low prices. In the US, we spend less than 10% of our income on food. I truly believe that is because our food is cheap rather than us being rich. The price of this food is controlled through subsidies and the use of fillers. Both of these features allow the US to feed so many people, regardless of their level of income.

Another reason to use fillers is to take an existing product, and stretch it out to reach more people. A great example of this is during the civil war. During the civil war, confederate troops would add root chicory and even acorns to their coffee to make their rations stretch out. Sometimes when supplies are tight, it just makes sense to make the most of a limited product.

Now that we have established the needs for fillers, we will look at some common fillers used in common foods or drinks. The most common filler used in the world is water. That's right, water. Water is used to dilute detergents, cleaning solutions, and even in pesticides. Why? water as a filler makes substances like those mentioned safer. It also makes for a more convenient product as it is often ready to use.

Another common filler is corn-based products. Corn is used in everything as a filler it seems. Corn is used as a filler in malted barley to make cheaper beer (which is probably why it doesn't taste as good). Corn starch is used as a thickener with literally hundreds of uses. Then there's public enemy #1, corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup literally is in thousands of products. Why? it all goes back to price. To use a sweetener produced in the US is much cheaper than importing cane sugar from the Caribbean or Central America. The US is addicted to sugar, and a cheap alternative equals lower prices. While I don't necessarily agree with the US sugar addiction, it's there and people would be outraged to pay $2 for a soda.

While writing this, I got to thinking about all the fillers that may be in products, and I'll leave you with a few products I found while browsing the house. And while no one prefers fillers, they make our American lifestyle possible with low prices. And as I leave you today, I want you to ponder on the cost of ground beef, versus prime cut steaks. Many people simply cannot afford to eat prime rib, New York strip steak, and filet mignon every week. Sometimes, you gotta have a burger and hotdog night.

Left: some "original syrup" from Giant. On the reverse, we see the ingredients. Apparently, the original syrup wasn't a maple syrup.

This is the back of a coke can. The first ingredient is water, followed by high fructose corn syrup. This 12 oz portion has 39 grams of sugar from the syrup.

While this is non-dairy creamer, the first ingredient, again is corn. This is a common filler used. 

Make sure the rows are straight!

This GPS monitor attaches to a large tractor.
I wouldn't be surprised  if we try this out for straighter rows.

In a few weeks, our garden will be plowed, rototilled and laid out for the season. One serious point of our garden is that my mother insists that the rows be straight. I wouldn't say that she was obsessive about this, but she wanted her garden to be neat and organized. For her, part of the quality of the garden is translated into the straightness of the rows.

We originally eyeballed the rows and she trusted all of us to make the rows straight. After a few years, she decided that the precision was inadequate. I distinctly remember my father making a contraption that had a notch on a standard board that you could lay out and that solved the problem of unequal spacing. However, if the first row was crooked, all of your rows were crooked. We needed a better system

So we used the old stakes and string. These were two stakes that were connected with a taut piece of string. We would sometimes use these, but the string would move if you made a furrow too close with the hoe (or if it was windy). And when asked about why our rows weren't straight, it became a running joke that "it wasn't our fault, it was windy that day!". My mother wanted an even better system in her quest for straight rows.

The last few years, we entered the 21st century with our straight row technology. My father took his laser level, and set up the laser at one end and pointed it at the other end at the second stake. This created a straight line that wouldn't be affected by wind, and was always straight. I chuckled when I noticed my dad doing this, because it looked more like a surveyor site rather than a grower preparing for the season. Our rows were laid out with laser precision. This was maybe a bit ridiculous, but we have the nicest rows in our garden around.

While we may laugh about my mother's quest for straight rows in her garden, it's been a quest for people in the ag field for thousands of years. Precision agriculture has been a growing trend in the past 30 years. Growers now have options of using GPS and robotics to ensure that their rows are pinpoint accurate. Whether or not you see a significant yield is negligible, but there's something to be said about driving down a road and being able to see down the rows of corn to the end of the field. Perhaps there's something within the human brain that yearns for organized rows.

We are the 2%

This past year, we got to see the 99% rise up against the greedy 1%.  I never quite understood what they were protesting, but I'm sure they were justified in some form.  I'm here to talk about a different imbalance within the US. The 2% of American farmers, ranchers, and growers feeding the rest of the US.

My question this week is how did such a big industry like agriculture get so small on the grower's end? The answer is technology and a few important events.

In 1790, with a population of just over 3 million, 90% of the labor force was in farming (much of which included slaves). At this time, there was very little in mechanization. Harvest and planting was all done by hand, and plowing could be done with a mule, ox, or even a horse.

In 1840, with a population of just over 17 million, the labor force was 69% farming. In 1850, this percentage dipped to 64%, with 203 acres being the average farm. In 1860, this figure dipped again, to 58% of the labor force, but the average acres dropped slightly, to 199. This, I believe was the start of a more efficient land management system. We'll see a reversal of farm size as the demand for food/fuel/fiber increases with population.

1870, the labor force was 53%; Slavery had been abolished by this point in history. In 1880, the scales were tipped, as 49% of the labor force was involved in farming. Farmers were supporting more than 1 additional person and with a national population of nearly 50 million, this was no small task.

By 1910, less than a third of the labor force was committed to farming. This trend continues in the 1920s and 1930s, and many people got out of farming during the advent of the dust bowl. This exodus of farmers, coupled with the mechanized harvester led to an increase in average acreage per farm. By 1940, the statistic was less than one fifth. 1960 saw the US labor force dip below 10% committed to farming. By this time, not only did farmers have tractors, but the advent of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and more efficient land management made this possible to produce more food for more people.

In 1995, we bottomed out at the 1.8%. And this number is probably even lower now. The average farm size is about 470 acres, which would have been unbelievably difficult to manage back in colonial times. We have come a long way technologically.

Today, there are (approximately) 3 million farmers/ranchers/growers that provide all the food, fiber, and farm products to not only themselves, but to an extra 297 million people. But, what's more impressive, is the actual carrying capacity of each farmer. According to Americasfarmers.com the average farmer can feed up to 155 people. Here's the biggest shocker, we actually maintain a surplus in production. That's right, we produce more than we consume. We have maintained a net export since the 1970s, one of the few industries that has maintained such a high rate of export.  I went ahead and crunched the numbers, and if this 2% were all working towards just feeding the world, our 2% would be able to feed our great nation and maintain a surplus of 35%! Currently, one third of all arable land grows crops that are destined to be exported.

So the next time you go shopping, and you're standing in the line, look at everyone around you in the store. It's amazing to think that all those people may have theoretically been supported by one grower. So while the 99% were demanding equality from the 1%, I want to thank the 2% and their hard work to feed the US and the rest of the world!

For more information, I found this website to be very helpful:

Busy beekeepers

A few weeks ago we looked at beekeeping in ancient times and how a colony works and is governed. This week we are looking at modern beekeeping. There are 2 major reasons for keeping bees, one is for honey, the other is for pollination services.

Honey

Here on our farm we keep bees for the honey. Honey is one of those substances that really can't be imitated. The most common form of honey is clover honey which gives a mellow, sweet flavor. Floral honey consists of the bees feeding heavily from wildflowers. Our bees tend to feed heavily on our herb garden, which gives it a subtle herbal flavor. 

Our honey is sold by weight. A gallon of honey weighs about 11lbs.

With honeybees, honey is a product that the bees work for all season. In order to sustain a colony, a beekeeper shouldn't take any more honey than is necessary.  Otherwise, the hive will starve over the winter. With our nine hives, we are able to take off 35 to 40 gallons of honey each season (with no starvation losses). So even if growers can't harvest 100%, there's still plenty to sell.

This is our 3-frame honey extractor. Larger extractors can hold up to 16 frames, and are motorized

Extracting the honey is an age-old challenge. Before the framed hive the entire colony was destroyed. Nowadays, the framed hive allows beekeepers to take out specific frames, leaving the hive intact. Once the frames are taken out of the hive, the cells are normally capped with a way top. A hot knife is used to remove the cap, and then a specialized extractor is used to spin off the honey.

This is the interior of our extractor, the frames sit on the wire rack

Pollination services
Most beekeepers are not considered commercial until they manage about 300 hives. At that point, honey production is secondary. Having to extract 4 gallons of honey from each hive would yield about 1200 gallons (slightly more than 6.5 tons). When beekeepers reach the commercial scale, the main market is pollination services. Regional farmers will rent out 12 to 20 hives for the season to increase pollination. This practice was first implemented by the ancient Egyptians, which they found increased yields. The average price is $75 to $85 per hive (and it's recommended that one hive is used per acre).

Honeybees are responsible for more crops that you might realize. Hives are rented for watermelon, apples, pickling cucumbers, strawberries, pears, almost all tree nuts, and many more. According to the USDA, honeybees are responsible for nearly 1/3 of all the crops grown. Commercial beekeeping is valued at $15 to $20 Billion annually.