Illinois Farm Families Blog

I've eagerly joined the ranks of Field Mom's touring the Illinois Farm scene and our first visit was to the Ward Family Hog Farm in Sycamore Illinois. As I flip through my notes I can still smell the odor of my little piggy friends wafting off the pages, this visit was not for those with sensitive snouts and bellies...no babies allowed.

I joined this group of Moms so that I could better understand how crops and livestock are farmed and sent to market. I was hoping to dispel a few rumors that are currently pervading our society regarding food safety precisely because its these rumors that send me running to anything labeled organic...and walking away penniless. And while I can't say that my visit to the hog farm rendered me an expert on the processes of how 270 pounds of "little" piggy gets to market, I can say that it clarified a few things for me.

Contrary to what we might remember from childhood movies and videos, pigs no longer wallow around outside in mud devouring buckets of slop tossed into their pens from well meaning farmers with big yellow boots. Instead they are kept inside covered facilities with slats on the floors to collect waste matter. There is intricate piping in place to funnel food and water into their pens. The piglets are kept separate from their older counterparts and then shuffled along to other housed facilities as they grow older and larger. When they are newly born they receive vaccines similar to how human newborns are vaccinated and they receive antibiotics and other medicines similar to humans when they get sick. At a glance, everything seems in order. The pigs looked well taken care of and were happy to see Steve (the farmer and our host) and curious about his guests. The food that they eat is a mix of soybean meal, corn, dried distillers grain and bakery products (i.e. Triscuits,bread, chips). The facility was well maintained, the farmers were gracious hosts and very open to answering a barrage of well intended questions, but despite this, there are two core concerns that make it hard for me to reconcile some of the rudimentary practices of pig farming; pigs are artificially inseminated and they are fed genetically modified grains.

Artificial Insemination

I suppose until now I hadn't considered that artificial insemination is what allows pig farmers to keep up with the demands of human consumption. Piggy sex as we know it, or rather imagined it (if ever), is not financially savvy. Instead, there are 10-15 companies that are known for providing boar sperm to a multitude of farms. A quick Google search lead me to this website where one could peruse their online boar store and choose from which boar they would like to purchase sperm and the tools required for successful insemination. While this process is said to increase bio security (because the farmer is not bringing a mystery boar with the "potential of spreading disease" on the farm), and makes economical sense (because it reduces the time between pregnancy), eliminates the guesswork of stock numbers from week to week (a farmer could have upwards of 1000 newborn pigs per week), and eliminates the need to have feed and care for a boar (which can be a very aggressive animal at times); I'm curious as to how this might affect future hog farming to literally have the seed of the industry in the hands of just a chosen few (consider today's recession due to the merging and acquisition of a few large financial banks) or even genetic modification (i.e. enviropig study). Still, this same process of artificial insemination is also practiced by organic hog farmers leaving the biggest difference between the two practices being pig feed, GMO vs. non GMO

GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms)

Now that artificial insemination seems to be the standard in today's farming practices, one of the major things that differentiate organic farms from non-organic farms tends to be the feed. Organic farms supply animals with non-GMO products. GMO’s are in about 80% of the conventional processed food in the U.S. compared to nearly 50 countries including well developed countries like Japan, Australia and all of the European Countries,many of whom don't consider GMO's to be safe and have actually banned them, and at the minimum required that the products be labeled accordingly. Eeeek! Thus given that so much of U.S. produce is GMO, farmers are really hard pressed to find organic feed for their pigs at a reasonable cost. According to some farmers, going "organic" is not very sustainable given the volume of product that farmers must produce to even break even.

Furthermore, most pig farmers find that they aren't breaking even and are hedging their bets on the futures market through the Board of Trade! I would have never thought that my time providing tours at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange would come full circle!

So where does this leave me? It leaves me with a ton more questions…

1. What are the safety measures in place to ensure that boar sperm is really just boar sperm and not modified boar sperm?
2. What happens when the boar sperm bank decides they want to increase their prices?
3. Are we devolving the pig and boar relationship by suppressing their natural urge to pro-create? (Side note – newly born boars are castrated and then housed alongside their female counterparts)
4. Why is GMO the only way to go for so many farmers? If so,why are there so many organic farmers that are digging their boots in and prepared to take the financial loss for a product?

I know I've opened up about a dozen cans of worms...or whether cans of Spam (hee hee), but what an opportunity to begin to put the pieces together! I’ve been exploring food safety for so many years via books, articles, Netflix documentaries and a doting mother, that so much information is swirling around in my head. I’m so grateful for the Illinois Farm Family Organization for even offering such an opportunity to us Momma Bears. In the end, we’re all looking to do what’s best for our families and our friends. We all want to live long, healthy and happy lives and we know that it starts with what we put in our own little pot bellies.

A few more photos... 

 Do you know how your little piggy in the freezer made it to market?

Amina Nevels, Chicago

This all began because I wanted to learn more about agriculture, and since I never pursued the field in college, I thought this could be a way to learn more and teach my children as well. The month before the tour I started researching, asking questions, and learning what I could, specifically about GMOs, pesticides, and organic foods. By the day the tour, I was mad at the way the US farmers grew food, disturbed about the lack of GMO labeling on US packaging, and confused about organic foods. I read so much about "dirty" foods last week I was hesitant to eat anything in my refrigerator! Then, the day of the tour came, and I wasn’t quite sure what I was getting myself into, but I knew I would walk away with some sort of adventure and knowledge to share with my family and friends.

It began on the bus. We found a seat on a comfortable bus bound for Paul and Donna Jeschke's corn and soybean farm in Mazon, IL. Three farmer’s wives and women in the Ag industry led a discussion and were answering our countless questions in a handheld microphone for the entire drive. They were very knowledgeable and open to any question we fired at them. They would simply smile and repeat the question and then take turns answering them thoroughly as our pencils flew over notepaper. 

After what seemed like a fraction of the time, we arrived near the Jeschkes farm. We passed by the type of barge that carried Phosphate and Potash mined in Florida, then saw newly planted fields that were first showing their rows, and finally the Field Mom’s corn and soybean acre. Our farm education continued from here off the bus. After an expensive tractor and planter was explained we took a short walk to the fields and learned from Dr. Brown, Agronomy Manager from Growmark, about the corn and bean plants, pests, pesticides and crop nutrients.

I learned that the same people who I thought a few hours before were out to get our family, and myself, are really people like you and I who are trying to make the best use of our country’s land using science and technology. Although, I still don’t believe that GMOs are completely safe for us, I now do understand why farmers choose GMO seed over non-GMO seed. I also understand more about pesticides, crop nutrients, and organic foods. Lastly, you still need to wash your organic fruits and vegetables before you eat them. Organic foods can be dirty!

Thank you Illinois Farm Families for creating this wonderful and program and to the Jeschkes for opening up your home and offering your time to educate us. I feel fortunate to be a part of this, and I am looking forward to what this Program has in store for us on the next tour!

Valerie Johnson, Elgin

Fourat Janabi

 Greetings and salutations my fellow readers. It’s been a bit of a roller coaster ride publishing the last two posts on GMOs, so I thought to myself, where should I go next? Dive further into the rabbit hole (making myself ever more unpopular), or switch topics? I have an interview with a scientist, check! With a farmer, check! Biotech firm? Bingo! An opportunity thus presented itself, so down I went further down the rabbit hole.

So, to round out—and conclude—my trifecta (or triumvirate—a much cooler word that makes me sound smarter than I am) of posts about GMO, I have just finished up an email Q&A with the CEO and founder of Okanagan Specialty Fruits (OSF), Neal Carter, whose company makes Arctic Apples (apples that don’t brown). In my two previous Q&As— with a scientist here and with a family farmer here—I had commentary and concluding thoughts; this time, I prefer to let their positions stand on its own two feet, as it is more than capable of.

Do note, however. I am not trying to convince anyone to not eat organic food, or to eat GMO food, so don’t get your knickers in a twist.

 

1) What prompted your company to create a GM nonbrowning apple? Why not, for example, try to do the same with hybridization?

Our motivation for developing biotech apples, and all our other projects under development, is to introduce value-added traits that will benefit the tree-fruit industry. We have chosen to focus specifically on nonbrowning Arctic® apples as our flagship project for a number of reasons. One of the chief ones is that apple consumption has been flat-to-declining for the past two decades and we are confident the nonbrowning apple trait can create a consumption trigger while also reducing food waste throughout the supply chain.

Another key motivation is ever-increasing demand for convenience. Arctic apples are ideally suited for the freshcut market, which is expensive to enter because of the browning issue. We often refer to the consumption trigger that convenient “baby” carrots created – they now make up 2/3rds of all U.S. carrot sales!

As for why we use biotechnology to achieve this, it’s because we knew we could make a comparatively minor change safely, relatively quickly, and precisely. We silence only four genes, specifically, the ones that produce polyphenol oxidase, which is the enzyme that drives the browning process. We do so primarily through the use of other apple genes, and no new proteins are created. If we were to attempt to breed this trait conventionally, we could easily spend decades trying with no guarantee of success.

2) What benefits will the Arctic apple bring to the food market? Are there quantitative studies that can predict how effective it could be?

In addition to addressing stagnant apple consumption and tapping into the underutilized freshcut and foodservice markets, Arctic apples offer plenty of other benefits throughout the supply chain.

For growers and packers, nonbrowning apples can help significantly reduce the huge number of apples that never make it to market because of minor superficial marks such as finger bruising and bin rubs. So much of the food produced today is wasted purely for cosmetic reasons. This extends to retail where the nonbrowning trait can have a big impact on shrinkage and making displays more attractive while also offering exciting new value-added apple products.

Consumers will also benefit from throwing away far less fruit at home – how many apples get bruised up on the way back from the grocery store or in kids’ lunchboxes? Our goal is helping consumers, especially kids, eat healthier and waste less food. Last year, one grade 2 teacher wrote about how excited she is for nonbrowning apples, explaining she sees countless perfectly good apples and apple slices thrown out by her students due to minor browning and bruising. Consumers will also enjoy other tangible benefits like new opportunities for cut apples in many cooking applications.

As for quantifiable evidence showing the value of these benefits, food waste has been a major issue over the past year with recent estimates from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization suggesting around one-third of food produced is wasted. The numbers are even worse for fruit, where around half of what’s produced never ends up getting eaten.

As far as the potential to create a consumption trigger, the produce industry is full of examples of how making fruit more convenient, especially for the foodservice industry, results in huge consumption boosts. We mentioned how baby carrots now make up two-thirds of carrot sales and reports tracking major fruit and vegetable consumption trends frequently emphasize convenience. One example explains one of the most prominent, ongoing trends “is a consumer demand for foods of high and predictable quality that offer convenience and variety.” Arctic apples satisfy all these requirements.

For apples, specifically, there’s lots of attention given to how various chemical treatments can slow browning and plenty of attempts to conventionally breed low browning varieties (though this is quite different from being truly nonbrowning). For instance, a notable 2009 publication from the Journal of Food Engineering discusses how “the market for fresh-cut apples is projected to continue to grow as consumers demand fresh, convenient and nutritious snacks”. Yet it also explains that the “industry is still hampered by-product quality deterioration” because when “the cut surface turns brown; it reduces not only the visual quality but also results in undesirable changes in flavour and loss of nutrients, due to enzymatic browning.” Again, Arctic apples address these issues.

Finally, some of the most convincing evidence that the nonbrowning traits will provide substantial value – both apple producers and consumers have told us so! In 2006/07 we surveyed a number of apple industry executives, 76% of whom told us they were interested in Arctic apples. In focus groups, we have found that over 80% are positively interested in Arctic apples and 100% of participants wanted to try them. Even more encouraging, when we surveyed 1,000 self identified apple eaters in 2011, we found that their likelihood to buy Arctic apples continued to increase the more they learned about the science behind them!

3) How many, and how intensive, were the studies performed to show Arctic apples are as safe as other apples? Were the studies peer-reviewed? If so, by whom? (You may wish to discuss what was and/or wasn’t changed.)

Before getting into the specifics, it’s important to put things in perspective to show how rigorous the review truly is; particularly arduous for a small, resource-tight company like ours: (See timeline)

So Arctic apples, our very first project, still haven’t been commercialized 17 years after we were founded and over a decade after we proved the technology and planted them! That means we now have over ten years of real-world evidence that Arctic trees grow, respond to pest and disease pressure, flower, and fruit just as conventional trees do.

Over this time, our apples have likely become one of the most tested fruits in existence. This makes detailing all of the specific tests impossible here, but we encourage anyone interested to view our extensive, 163-page petition on the USDA’s website, which provides full details.

Quickly highlighting some of the key ones: 

• Trees were closely monitored by a third-party horticultural consultant for any difference in their response to pests
• Agronomic data including how fast trees grow, how much fruit they produce, etc. was recorded by a third-party
• Experiments were completed to monitor pollen spread and potential for cross-pollination, resulting in two peer-reviewed papers
• Nutrition and composition of mature fruit was tested and deemed equivalent to controls
• Possible presence of novel proteins tested and confirmed none present

These tests were performed by a variety of reputable groups and individuals, some third-party, some in-house. Our field trials were monitored and data was collected by independent horticultural consultants and an Integrated Pest Management specialist.

Of particular importance is the fact that there are no proteins in Arctic fruit that aren’t in all apples. This shows there’s nothing “new” in our apples that will affect consumers. This is expected as we silence the genes that cause browning, rather than introduce new attributes. To give an idea of how sophisticated the tests used to prove this are, they would be able to detect a single penny amongst 100-250 ton coal-sized rail cars! We are confident Arctic apples are safe, and soon, we anticipate FDA’s confirmation of this.

So what has all of this extensive testing taught us? Exactly what we thought it would – Arctic trees and fruits are just the same as their conventional counterparts until you bite, slice or bruise the fruit!

4) Can you name a few of the misconceptions — if any — that people associate your company with, or accuse your company of, when they find out you’re a biotech company? If there are misconceptions, why are they wrong or miss the big picture?

Absolutely – just as there are countless misconceptions about biotech foods in general, there are also plenty of myths about our company and Arctic apples. In fact, one of our most popular blog posts ever is titled “Addressing common misconceptions of Arctic orchards and fruit”.

We invite readers to visit that post and explore our site in general for more details, but the two most common misconceptions about Arctic apples are:

1. Arctic apples will cross-pollinate with other orchards, causing organic orchards to lose organic certification: No organic crop has ever been decertified from inadvertent pollen gene flow. Even if pollen from an Arctic flower did pollinate an organic or conventional fruit, the resulting fruit is the same as the mother flower….not that of the pollen donor. Additionally, we are implementing numerous stewardship standards to ensure cross-pollination won’t occur, including buffer rows, bee-hive placement, and restricting distance from other orchards.
2. Because Arctic apples don’t brown, they will disguise old/damaged fruit: The opposite is true! Arctic apples won’t experience enzymatic browning (which occurs when even slightly damaged cells are exposed to air), but the decomposition that comes from fungi, bacteria and/or rotting will be just the same as conventional apples. This means that you will not see superficial damage, but you will see a change in appearance when the true quality is impacted.

Other accusations we hear somewhat frequently from a vocal minority who oppose all biotech foods are “we don’t know what the effects will be down the road” or that we’re “messing with God/Mother Nature”. Regarding the first claim, the science tools we now have are truly amazing and we have an unprecedented level of precision, control and analysis when developing biotech crops. They must be meticulously reviewed before approval and around three trillion meals with biotech ingredients have now been consumed without incident. As to the messing with God/nature charges, biotech-enhanced crops are really just one more advancement in a long history of human-driven food improvements – and even the Amish and the Vatican support these advances!

5) As an insider, you are privy to the goings-on and workings of the biotech industry, what do you envision the future of biotech to be? What new seeds are coming down the line and what potential advantages or disadvantages might they bring?

We foresee biotech continuing to be the most rapidly adopted crop technology ever, as it has been for the past 17 years. We also anticipate already realized benefits from biotech crops to continue, such as those highlighted by a fifteen year study including increased net earnings of $78.4 billion for farmers (mostly from developing nations), a reduction of 438 million kg of pesticide spraying and the equivalent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as removing 8.6 million cars from the road for a year. Two major categories in particular where we’ll see further advancements are in environmental sustainability (reduced pesticide use, carbon emissions, food waste) and higher crop yields under adverse conditions (from pest resistance, drought-tolerance, etc.).

Another major trend you’ll see is the increased presence of biotech foods with direct consumer benefits, particularly nutrition. We will see many new projects following in the footsteps of crops like Golden Rice, which is fortified with beta-carotene; a precursor to Vitamin A. The World Health Organization has identified that around 250 million children under the age of 5 are affected by Vitamin A deficiency, which can cause blindness and death. Biotech crops like Golden rice can potentially save millions of lives by helping address this, and efforts are already underway to produce other Vitamin A enhanced crops including bananas and cassava.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, though, as there are many other exciting developments on the way including many other nutrient-enhancements for cassava, numerous drought-resistant crops, blight-resistant potatoes and many more. I actually highlighted some of these crops in a TEDx talk I gave in October 2012 on the value of agricultural biotechnology, which is available to watch online.

6) As a biotech company, do you bear the brunt of the anti-GMO backlash nominally directed at Monsanto and DuPont? If so, how has this affected you? Please be specific.

All companies who develop biotech crops have to deal with a certain level of backlash from the vocal, emotional minority who oppose biotechnology.

We are quite unique because when consumers discuss biotech companies, names like Monsanto and DuPont, as you mention, are the first ones that come to mind, rarely small companies like ours. Using Monsanto as an example, they have approximately 22,000 employees – we have 7. Because most organizations in this industry are pretty massive, they do get the lion’s share of attention. That being said, if we were to create a ratio of media attention to company size; ours would be through the roof!

One key reason we likely get more than our fair share of attention is that we’re dealing with apples. When we’re talking about something as popular and iconic as the apple (e.g., “an apple a day”, “American as apple pie”), it’s going to get people emotionally charged. Genetically, our enhancement is relatively minor compared to the majority of crops out there; yet even so, when our petition was available for public comment along with 9 other biotech crops in the U.S., we received around three times as many comments as all 9 of the other petitions combined!

In terms of how all this attention affects us, we can dictate that to some extent. On one hand, we could simply choose to ignore it. The review process is evidence-based (and rightfully so!), meaning we could keep our heads down and let the science speak for itself and not worry about what people are saying. That’s not how we operate, however, as we believe in the benefits and safety far too much to keep quiet. We want to do our best to make sure accurate, evidence-based information is out there to counter-balance all the myths and misinformation. This may mean that we spend more time and resources on education than others might, but it’s too important of an issue not to.

We’ve made a concerted effort so transparency is the core of our identity. We know we have a safe, beneficial product and we’re happy to explain the truth around previously mentioned misconceptions. We make it a priority, no matter how busy things get, to keep active on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, maintain a weekly blog, make timely site updates, respond to every single sincere email we get and invest in delivering presentation such as last year’s TEDx talk. 

We believe everyone in the science and agricultural industries have a responsibility to help educate the public on the facts of biotechnology. Sometimes that results in more backlash, but it’s worth it.

7) Some scientists state that the anti-GMO backlash has cemented Monsanto’s grip upon the market because only they can afford the regulatory burden, do you find this to be true in your experience? And how does this affect the greater biotechnology field?

Well, we’ve touched on how rigorous the review process is and how much smaller we are than the big industry players, so yes, it is tough for smaller companies to bring a biotech crop to market. It’s challenging to raise funds, produce needed data, spend the resources providing education, and it’s just a much bigger overall risk.

While the regulatory burden is heavier for small biotech companies, I think we’re an example that it’s still possible for the little guys to make it through, but it’s not easy. Not only do you have to successfully develop a fantastic product, but you must be focused, persistent and very patient. There is no rushing the review process, but here we are a decade after first planting Arctic trees and we expect to achieve deregulation in the U.S. later this year.

Even though we’re helping demonstrate it’s possible for small companies to commercialize a biotech crop, the high regulatory burden certainly does affect the industry as a whole. With such an intimidating outlook in terms of high investment, both in time and resources, there will obviously be far less small, entrepreneurial companies than would be ideal. In a field in which innovation should be embraced as much as possible, we are missing out on many potential innovative companies and value-added products because the barriers are so high.

Really, what it comes down to is the regulatory process is (and should be) extremely rigorous, but it is indeed possible for companies that aren’t multinationals to accomplish commercialization. Ideally, once biotech crops add further to their exemplary track record of safety and benefits and the scientific tools continue to improve; these barriers will gradually be lessened.

8) Lastly, what is your relationship to the government and governmental agencies. It has been alleged that agencies like the FDA are in the pocket of big biotech organizations and are willing to look the other way. Do you find any truth in those statements? If not, why not?

If we had to select one word to describe the multiple regulatory bodies we’ve dealt with over the past few years (USDA, APHIS, FDA, CFIA) it would be “thorough”. There’s certainly no looking the other way and nothing casual about the review process. If these government agencies were in the pocket of biotech companies, we wouldn’t still be awaiting deregulation more than ten years after we first developed Arctic apples!

Some people will see that some of the agencies have former members of biotech companies and immediately distrust the whole system; this misses the point. Of course they will have some former industry employees. These companies have thousands and thousands of employees and plenty of them are well-credentialed with first-hand experience in multiple facets of agriculture. In most fields, movement between private and public spheres is common, and most working aged citizens will have at least 10 different jobs before they turn 50. Some overlap is inevitable.

The truth is, you will hear a very wide range of arguments from those who don’t like biotech crops and this is just another one on that list. Luckily, there is more than enough evidence to show that biotech crops are indeed safe and beneficial, including over 600 peer-reviewed studies, around one-third of which are independently funded. The best advice we can give to consumers is to do their own research, but always with a close eye on the credentials and reputability of the sources!

For more information on OSF or Arctic apples, please visit www.arcticapples.com

Neal Carter is the CEO and founder of OSF. Thank you for your time Neal. I am, well, me; a curious fellow trying to make sense of the world (and I just released the 2nd edition of Random Rationality: A Rational Guide to an Irrational World for Kindle). It’s working out so far, and quite fun too.

So, would you eat an Arctic Apple?

 

Fourat Janabi is a writer, entrepreneur, photographer, explorer, and idiot. So, he likes to think he's important. He has worked in Baghdad while a war was raging, in Bahrain while the Arab Spring was in full sw?ing, and in Saudi Arabia where women don't exist. He wrote a book called Random Rationality, which you can buy for Kindle. You can follow his thoughts on his blog of the same name. Originally published on April 3, 2013 in at www.randomrationality.com. Reprinted with permission from the author.

I consider myself a relatively reasonable human being. I am modeling this behavior after my mom and grandma, who have strong morals and convictions, but tend to question and be skeptical, in an educated, calm manner.

Thus, my thoughts on the GMO (genetically modified organism) debate tend to err on the side of science, but I try to do a little research while I'm at it.

There's a craze going on. A food craze. An "eat nuts and berries and twigs" and "processed foods are the devil" craze, and while I agree, I would rather my kids eat fruit than fruit snacks, does that make corn bred to withstand drought that we planted evil? Does that genetic modification make us as farmers evil?

Answer from a majority of the crowd: No.

However, how does this corn that we inevitably harvest for fuel and food products and not to be confused with sweet corn that you can pick and eat, fit into the GMO debate?

Well, good question. Because to me, it's a simple answer: It shouldn't, because scientists have done their research.

I am not a scientist, but my understanding of GMOs is that it's just breeding. It's crossing these traits with those. It's making the outcome of the crop fit the need of our growing population. It's like Joe buying a "good bull" to breed with a "good cow." It's just genetics. There's no evil.

Scientists are in the lab, researching, and they're not evil scientists. They are just regular dudes who are wearing white coats and looking at CELLS. They're not figuring out a way to make the American public fatter. They have extensively studied this particular crop and have found a way for farmers like us to continue to survive during the driest of years and now the wettest of springs, and still harvest a corn crop so you folks can fuel up your SUVs with gas to get to Trader Joe's to purchase organic, non-GMO (supposedly) food and then make a stand on not eating conventionally grown food (sorry for the sarcasm, I'm grouchy today).

There's plenty of information out there that is both pro and con GMO. However, writers and skeptics like Fourat Janabi who have written books with anti-GMO sentiments, have back pedaled. Janabi has since written a second edition to his book, Random Rationality, realizing there's not much footing on the GMO debate. Thanks to conversations with scientists like Kevin Folta (read the conversation here if you're interested in the science behind GMOs, plus it's an entertaining piece), Janabi has written pieces of information so that people like me can see the GMO debate a little more clearly.

GMOs are not making us sick or fat. CHOICES are making us sick and fat. Regardless of whether you eat organic or conventional, there is no debate when you're eating too much of the wrong stuff. However, with all this GMO debate, and all the press it's getting, scaring the pants off of many Americans, it's filtering down to farmers like us, and that stinks, because we're just trying to keep up with the needs of a bigger and bigger population. GMOs are helpful in this respect, and if you don't believe it, try growing your organic garden without water this summer, and see how it turns out.

So before you post another shared "eat this not that" article on Facebook, check your sources, and think of my face, my husband's face, and know that we're not in cohoots with some big agricultural company, or trying to give you cancer or get you fatter or whatever. We're just trying to make a living in this crazy occupation that doesn't get a regular pay check, is dependent upon the weather, and has the responsibility to fuel and feed a growing global need.

Lucky us.

Emily Webel raises corn, cattle and four kids along with her husband, Joe, in Northwest Illinois.

This article originally appeared in the blog, Confessions of a Farm Wife, and is reprinted with permission from the author.

 

Fourat Janabi

In reading about GMOs in the last several years, I also read lots of reports about how farmers are disadvantaged, slaves to Monsanto, and for the most part, I blindly accepted them. But I had never heard from a farmer before. It was time to change that. It occurred to me recently that we live in the (mostly) free-market. The Big Ag BioTech companies can’t force people to buy their products, they have to convince them; with results, with cost-savings, or whatever else that a farmer needs that I know nothing about. The 95% of GM acreage in America isn’t a Monsanto empire, the farms bought into it not because they were forced to, but because they saw a benefit in it, and they keep buying the seeds not because they are obligated to, but because they still see benefits. On my last post when I interviewed a molecular biologist, Brian Scott, a fourth generation family farmer, was kind enough to let me ask questions about how he farms and why he uses biotech seeds, and what specifically was his relationship to Monsanto from whom he buys some of his seed types. I wanted to know what really happens between a farmer and the evil company everybody talks about, and not hear about it from activists who’ve probably never set foot on a farm. While this is only one story from one farmer, it is enlightening. Also, do check out his blog, The Farmers Life, where he blogs about running his farm.

Fourat (Me) - Why do you use GMOs?

Brian -  I like to call GMO a tool in my toolbox. Biotech isn’t a silver bullet for every problem, but it’s still a powerful tool. We use traits like Bt and Roundup Ready (RR) on many of our acres, but not all of them.  All our soybeans are generally RR, while only some of our corn carries that trait. Popcorn and wheat, our other crops, are not available in GMO varieties. Some of our corn acres are dedicated to waxy corn production, and we generally don’t buy them as RR.  Built in insect resistance in Bt corn along with seed treatments mean it’s a very rare event that we have to treat a crop in season for pests.  That means we prevent soil compaction by keeping another piece of equipment out of the field. It also means a sprayer doesn’t need to filled with water, fuel, and pesticide which is good for the earth and the wallet.

Me - What incentives are there for using GMOs?

Brian - There can be incentives such as buying traited crops and certain chemistry (herbicide, etc) as a bundle to receive price discounts. Some crop insurance plans also offer a biotechnology discount. I think that says a lot about the effectiveness of GMO. If an insurance company is willing to give you a discount, they must believe those crops lead to less crop insurance claims.

Me - As many activists allege, are you a slave to Monsanto once you sign their contract? 

Brian - I’m certainly not beholden to any seed company. I can plant what I want and manage it how I see fit. Do I sign an agreement that stipulates certain things when I buy patented seeds? Yes. Do patents only apply to biotechnology? No. These agreements are not nearly as binding as people would lead you to believe. The most viewed post I’ve put online is an outline of my 2011 Monsanto Technology Use Agreement. In the post I break down the line items in my own words, but I also provide the reader with a scanned copy of the agreement pulled straight from my filing cabinet. This allows anyone to read the agreement for themselves. In short, if I buy seed from Monsanto, Pioneer, etc nothing binds me into buying seed from them the following season. Nothing says I have to use their brand of herbicides or insecticides. Believe what you will about farmers being slaves to seed companies, but you’ve got to talk to a farmer before your mind is set in stone. My post can be found here. (Fourat: Definitely a worthwhile read.)

Me - Do you think you should be able to reuse the seeds you purchase from Monsanto? If not, why not?

Brian - That’s a tough question. For my purposes, if I wanted to save seed it would be soybean seed. All of our corn is hybrid corn. Hybrids don’t necessarily produce seed identical to the parent plant. Therefore, planting that seed the next season would give you an unknown result.  Soybeans self-pollinate so they remain true to themselves genetically. If I saved seed I would need to take a little extra care and expense to clean and possibly apply seed treatments to protect young seedlings. Right now my view is that of a division of labor. Farmers are great at producing high quality and high quantities of crops. The seed companies have the know how and resources to breed great plants. I think that’s a great combination for success. I’m not saying farmers couldn’t develop their own seed. Successful farmers are some of the smartest people I know, and can do anything if they choose to. [Fourat: I'd never thought about it this way. Farmers can save time and money by not having to clean and protect the next crops seeds. Funny how simple things evade the mind to those of us not actually involved in the industry.]

I also believe since it takes several years and millions if not billions of dollars to bring an innovative new variety to market, that any breeder large or small should be entitled to benefit financially from said variety for some period of time via a patent system.

Me - What is the most glaring factual error, if any, made by activists when discussing GMO seeds?

Brian - I often ask people what they think about crops that produce their own chemical defenses naturally, and I find a good number of people aren’t aware that some crops do this.  For example cereal rye has an ability to suppress weeds. This quality is called allelopathy. Many plants are naturally resistant to herbicides. Think about your lawn. Spraying 2,4D on your grass to kill dandelions and other weeds won’t harm your lawn. Grasses, which include corn and wheat, have a natural tolerance to that chemistry. Biotech may be allowing plants to do new things, but we are really just mimicking something nature has already shown us is possible.

I see many people say that seeds are soaked in glyphosate which is the active ingredient in Roundup. I’m not really sure where that idea comes from, but seeds are not somehow filled with herbicide. I think it’s possible people are confusing herbicides and insecticides thinking Bt and Roundup are the same thing. Bt traits protect crops like corn and cotton from pests like European corn borer.

Another fallacy is that GMO crops failed in the drought of 2012.  As if somehow during the worst drought since 1988 or maybe even the Dust Bowl era nature was supposed to give us a normal yield because our crops are able to protect themselves from pests and be resistant to certain herbicides. Drought tolerant varieties of corn were not widely available to growers in 2012. I’ve grown Pioneer’s version of drought tolerant corn in a test plot. It beat everything else in the plot hands down. Wide availability of drought tolerant corn varieties will spread in the next year or two. Drought tolerance and water use efficiency could be game changers for water use in the highly irrigated areas of the Great Plains. It should also be noted that all the corn being marketed as drought tolerant was brought to fruition by conventional breeding techniques except for Monsanto’s. Theirs will be the one genetically modified version. Farmers make plans on how to plant and manage their crops several months before actual fieldwork begins.  In the end we all understand that weather will be the ultimate factor in determining the success of those plans. In agriculture there are countless variables in play when managing a crop, and the one thing you have no control over is the weather. It can rain too much or not enough. Temperatures may be great for crop growth, or they may be too hot or too cold. Farmers must do all they can to realize the potential of a seed, but nature will always dictate a large portion of yield. [END]

So, do you still think Monsanto is an evil empire out for world domination? Why don’t we just leave it at a company like any other, trying to make money. Some people call this greedy, but the rest of us also spend most of our lives making money. So if you dislike (or hate) Monsanto, then maybe it’s time to encourage other bio-tech innovations to make seeds better, cheaper, or both, to offer to Brian and other farmers like him a better deal. (As Dr. Kevin Folta told me in my interview with a scientist, there are many seeds paid for with tax dollars sitting on shelves around the country that are better in several respects than what Monsanto has provided us. As long as they are shielded from competing against these seeds, farmers do have limited choices. You can read my interview with him here.) Competition and a dynamic marketplace is what gives consumers the most choice and power, and now, Monsanto pretty much stands alone having cornered a majority of the market. Much of their practices are rooted in this power and laws (not in the science and seeds), so let’s go about encouraging innovation and competition.

And if you are against the consumption of GMO foods, there is no need for it. There is already a label that tells you the exact same thing, ‘Certified Organic’ is another way to say “GMO free”. GMO food is in 80% of your supermarket, so it’s a safe bet that anything you see in the supermarket has a GM ingredient in it. There is no need to create ever more regulatory hoops to label GMO food, when the opposite label means the same thing. As for me, though I live for the moment in Europe where I can’t get GMO food, even if I wanted to, I’ll not shy away from it in my travels, it is my opinion that they are the future of food. (Note: I am not saying I think organic production is going away, or that everyone should eat GMO food because I said so; as long as there is a market, there will be self-interested people looking to make money by providing that product.)

Biotech seeds have been the fastest adopted agricultural technology in history. Pandora’s box has been opened, there is no closing it, only managing it, so let us manage it better, and that will only occur if farmers are convinced. So if you have issues, have them not with the science or technology, but the handful of controlling companies who are only responding to the incentives the market has provided them. Competition is needed, not an outright ban, which is probably impossible anyway. But, it is heartening to me, that family farmers are not disadvantaged by using what is available now. (I know that Monsanto has disadvantaged other family farmers, or just farmers, but this is not a bias against GM seeds, it is against the company, and it doesn’t mean they are out to screw everybody else as well. They act in their own interest as does any other company.) And as for the subject of chemicals that always comes up, let us put them in the proper context:

“Every compound you can name, no matter how scary, has a safe level; and every compound, no matter how natural, has a toxic level.” ~ Brian Dunning (Author)

Thanks Brian, for making food for the rest of us. We, or at the very least I, are grateful, and I trust that you know what you’re doing.

Fourat Janabi is a writer, entrepreneur, photographer, explorer, and idiot. So, he likes to think he's important. He has worked in Baghdad while a war was raging, in Bahrain while the Arab Spring was in full swing, and in Saudi Arabia where women don't exist. He wrote a book called Random Rationality, which you can buy for Kindle. You can follow his thoughts on his blog of the same name.

Originally published on March 22, 2013 in at www.randomrationality.com. Reprinted with permission from the author.

Fourat Janabi

Last year (those who’ve read the first edition of my book will know) I was anti-GMO. Why? Well, I thought I had the evidence on my ‘side’. But I can now honestly say it was because I had no idea what I was talking about. (Need further proof I’m an idiot?) My knowledge of the subject was inadequate; much of that knowledge I got from biased sources; and I’m sure there was some social conformity bias somewhere in there. (I’m sure there were many more biases; but honestly, listing my own biases is depressing. I’d rather much do it to others. That’s where the fun is at!) I’ve just released a 2nd edition of my book, Random Rationality, and that stance has been rectified.

In the meantime, I’ve delved into some of the literature and involved myself in a debate with friends on the nature of GMO on the safety issue. In doing that, I also reached out to Dr. Kevin Folta last week (his profile and academic history here, and check out his highly informative blog here) to confirm what I had learned, and find out why GMO’s are so misunderstood. Dr. Folta is a plant geneticist who works at the University of Florida. He’s a scientist who specializes in plant molecular biology and he was kind enough to share his thoughts with me on his area of expertise. Our exchange is below, you’ll find it brief, but extremely informative. (I’ve bolded some of his statements, those that I consider important.)

Fourat (Me) - What is the main thing (or is it general) about GMO’s that the public routinely confuse, or get wrong, when discussing and debating their impact?

Kevin Folta - There are so many misconceptions. The first is a fundamental one, that being that there is a debate at all. There is no debate among scientists in the discipline of plant molecular biology and crop science. Sure you can find someone here and there that disagrees, but there is no active debate in the literature driven by data. There are no hard reproducible data that indicate that transgenics are dangerous or more potentially dangerous than traditionally bred plant products.

If I had to nail down the most annoying misconceptions they would include that all scientists are just dupes of big multinational ag companies. Anyone that presents the consensus of scientific interpretation of the literature is immediately discounted as some corporate pawn. There’s nothing further from the truth. Most of us are hanging on by a thread in the days of dwinding federal, state and local support for research. The attacks on the credibility of good scientists hurts our chances to stay in academic labs and consider the cushy salaries and job security with the big ag corporate monstrosities we chose not to work for when we took jobs working for the public good. That’s pretty sad.

There is this allegation that we hide data or don’t publish work that is inconsistent with corporate desires. They need to get one thing straight. We’re not in the public sector because we are excited about listening to some corporate mandates. No thanks. We’re here for scientific freedom and to discover the exceptions to the rules and define new paradigms.

If my lab had a slight hint that GMOs were dangerous, I’d do my best to repeat that study, get a collaborator to repeat it independently, and then publish the data on the covers of Science, Nature and every news outlet that would take it. It would rock the world. Showing that 70-some percent of our food was poisonous? That would be a HUGE story — we’re talking Nobel Prize and free Amy’s Organic Pot Pies for life! Finding the rule breakers is what we’re in it for, but to break rules takes massive, rigorous data. So far, we don’t even have a good thread of evidence to start with.

The other huge misconception is that you can “prove something is safe”. Nothing can be proven safe. We can only test a hypothesis and show no evidence of harm. You can’t test all variables — nobody could. We can ask if there is a plausible mechanism for harm. If there is, we can test it. If there isn’t, we can do broad survey studies. A scientist can search for evidence of harm — a scientist can never prove something is safe.

Me - In what ways might GMO’s be most beneficial to our biosphere, and why might organic’s not be as good as to get us there?

Kevin Folta - There is no doubt that transgenic plants can be designed to limit pest damage with lower pesticide applications. That is well documented by the National Academies of Science, the best unbiased brains in our nation. Most data is for cotton and maize, and show substantial reductions (like 60%). Transgenic potatoes were amazingly successful in Romania until they joined the EU and had to go back to insecticide-intensive agriculture. Even glyphosate resistance traits, for all of their drawbacks in creating new resistant weeds, replace toxic alternatives.

Conventional farming takes fuel, labor, fungicides, pesticides, nematicides and many other inputs. Water and fertilizer are in there too. There are genes out there in the literature that address most of these issues. Scientists in academic labs discover these genes and define their function in lab-based GMOs that never are used outside the lab. The regulatory hoops are too difficult and expensive. Only the big companies can play in that space. Even little companies like Okanagan Specialty Fruits have to deal with the nonsense from those that hate the technology. Opposition to the science keeps the big guys in business, because nobody else can compete.

Who loses? The farmer, the consumer, the environment, the academic scientist and most of all the people around the world that don’t get enough food and nutrition. Who gains? Big ag.

Me - What do you consider the most important aspect of differentiating the good from the bad when it comes to considering science? i.e., what is the first thing you look for after reading a study

Kevin Folta - In the short-term I consider the system studied. Was it an animal system or cells in a dish? Most of the anti-GMO work is done on cells, especially cell lines that sound scary (like ovary, testis or fetal cells) but have little relevance to the complexities of animal systems. If done in animals, was the experiment properly controlled? Do the researchers SHOW the controls (like they conveniently omitted from Seralini’s 2012 rat-cancer work in Figure 3). Many studies that look good compare a GMO to an unrelated plant type. It is just not a valid comparison. Plants produce toxins and allergens, so you need to test the same exact plant without the added gene. If they do the rest of this properly then they need to run sufficient numbers and use good, common statistics. If they do all of this the work is publishable after peer review and should go into a decent journal, not some low-impact journal that publishes incomplete work or work that over steps the data.

A lot of junk escapes peer review. Reviewers and editors are overstressed and overburdened these days. We do the work as service for the field. Occasionally a paper slips by in a lower-impact journal. You’ll find most of the anti-GMO papers there.

Another important attribute of good work is demonstrating a mechanism. For instance, just don’t tell me that you found some evidence of GMO harming cells. Tell me how. How does it happen? If the phenomenon is real the mechanism should be dissected out in a year’s time. Omics tools are incredibly sensitive and we can detect small differences in gene expression and metabolic profiles. If GMO harm was real, the authors would define that mechanism, then collect their Nobel Prize and Amy’s Pot Pies.

The ultimate test is reproducibility. You’ll see that the best “evidence” for harm from GMOs comes from obscure journals, aging references that were published and heavily refuted by the scientific community (Puztasi, Seralini, etc), and work that was never repeated by outside labs. These are flash-in-the-pan works that never are expanded beyond the seminal study. The best sign of real science, good science, in an edgy area is that it grows. You see more scientists pile on, more research, more funding and bigger ideas. Models expand, mechanisms grow.

That just does not happen in the anti-GMO literature. The same authors publish a paper and then it goes on the anti-GMO websites and gains attention — while it dies in the scientific literature with no follow-up.

Me - Is there any split in the scientific community as to the safety of GMOs? If so, where does the split lay?

Kevin Folta - There are splits in the scientific community like there are splits for climate change and evolution. You have scientists like NIH Director Francis Collins that support creationist leanings. You have a small set of meteorologists and atmosphere scientists that claim that climate change is not real. There’s always room for a dissenting opinion out there, but they usually don’t have good evidence, just belief.

The same is true in biology and plant science. There are a few out there that let philosophy rule over evidence, but they are not at the edge of research. In the circles I work with there is consensus about the safety and efficacy of the technology. Even those that study organic and other low-input production systems support biotech as a way to do their jobs even better. That’s a strange relationship many don’t expect. You’ll not see anti-GMO writing from too many tenure-track scientists at leading universitites.

There is confusion on this. The Union of Concerned Scientists is frequently used as evidence that scientists are against this technology. When you read who they are and what they do, they are activists. They don’t do research or publish in the area of biotech. There are also others that claim to be experts or exploit some tenuous university affiliation to gain credibility. They should be looked at as deceitful, but they are accepted and believed with great credibility. People like Mercola, Smith and others sure sound like they know what they are talking about but they are not experts. Even Benbrook, a guy with a great career and a wonderful CV, goes off the deep end on the topic.

Readers need to apply all of the filters we discussed here today. What the data really say, who did the work, and if it was reproduced independently are the most important criteria in separating reality from fiction in the GMO topic. [END]

If you stand for scientific integrity, and going where the facts take you, then please share this Q&A so it may reach a wider audience. Almost every factoid from the Anti-GMO crowd has been thoroughly refuted, debunked, and repudiated by the scientific community. Millions of lives depend on the future of our food production, that means they depend on scientific experimentation and information untainted by ideology. The science is settled, and has been for some time. And as Dr. Folta above, and others, have elucidated, the intense opposition to the GMO technology has only intensified Monsanto’s grip upon the market. Facebook it, tweet it, re-blog it, or Google Plus it. Give my blog credit, don’t give it credit; I don’t really care. Good science matters more than pageviews (though pageviews are still nice), and more scientists like Dr. Folta should have their voices heard instead of the fear-based, fake-facts groups out there shouting from the rooftops who don’t know the first thing about genomics, evolution, or reality. (If you enjoyed this article, you may enjoy my last one on science in general, read it here.)

Ready. Set. Share!

Fourat Janabi is a writer, entrepreneur, photographer, explorer, and idiot. So, he likes to think he's important. He has worked in Baghdad while a war was raging, in Bahrain while the Arab Spring was in full swing, and in Saudi Arabia where women don't exist. He wrote a book called Random Rationality, which you can buy for Kindle. You can follow his thoughts on his blog of the same name.

Originally published on March 18, 2013 in at www.randomrationality.com. Reprinted with permission from the author.

I admit I did not know what to expect when visiting the Ward family farm, we have all seen the media coverage of the horrific scenes from pig farms. I ended up learning a lot and really enjoyed the experience.  The Wards were very open and willing to share all their knowledge about farming and how their farm is run. Though the Ward’s keep their pigs in climate controlled barns, for many reasons I still do not agree with keeping pigs indoors their entire lives. 

While speaking with the farmers, the representative from Illini Farms and the representative from the slaughter house the topic of GMOs and organics was discussed many times and the discussion often ended by them saying that there is no visible difference in GMO and non-GMO food and that they all feed it to their families and think it is safe. In these discussions the research showing that our bodies can detect the difference between GMO and non-GMO foods was never mentioned. 

Mike Woltmann from Illini Farms presented us with a slide show and in it he educated the group about breed to wean farms. From that discussion I learned that I am not in agreement with those practices. The sow’s lives at a breed to wean farm consist of artificial insemination, being put into a small pen to have her piglets, nurse them for 21 days and then repeating that process continually for a few years until she is sent to market but not the regular market because her meat is now not as good, her meat is now only used for sausage and the like. 

The Ward’s veterinarian and slaughter house representative explained how the withdraw times of antibiotics and random testing done at the slaughter house ensures that there are no antibiotics in the pigs system at time of slaughter. I do believe that to be true but have also read many scientific research studies that conclude the use of antibiotics in livestock creates antibiotic resistant bacteria, which is being passed to humans when they consume the meat.   

 While I may disagree with a lot of the practices used on the Ward’s farm their family farm is run with passion and the Wards care for the pigs using the methods that they believe to be the best. Seeing how the Wards farm is run gave me a brighter look at conventional farming in Illinois and if I were to buy conventional pig meat I would want it to be from the Ward’s farm.

5 Things I Learned or Experienced on the Ward Family hog farm:

1. The farmer himself walked us thru the entire farm and explained what happens from the time the piglet arrives to the time they are sent to slaughter.
2. Whether I agree with the practices of this farm or not, the farmers do think that they are doing what is best for the pigs.
3. I experienced the smell of waste produced from thousands of pigs, it is an awful smell and I can’t imagine it not being toxic to those inhaling it.
4. I learned about the breed to wean farms and that artificial insemination is the process they use for “mating” them.
5. A representative from a slaughter house explained how the pigs that come to his facility are processed.

Amy Buffardi, Darrien

Being a typical mom who wants to feed her family well, I was very excited when our Field Mom program officially started on February 23. I was determined to find out myself how our food is produced and by whom. It is not hard to panic in today’s environment when it comes to food production. Should I buy organic? Is the meat safe? Where did the meat come from? How do I buy locally produced food? And what does politics have to do with food production?

I joined the other field moms and a few farmers on February 23 when we started our year together, all full of questions. We had a lot of them answered on the bus on our way to Sycamore. Deb, Pam, and Jim were able to give us very concrete background information on farming in Illinois today.

While we were mostly talking about pork production, it was also obvious that all farmers have a lot in common: family farms are still the most common form of farming in Illinois where 94% of all farms are family-owned. Children join their parents from young age and learn to work on the farm. Some of them enjoy it and want to stay on the farm, some of them want to leave as soon as they are done with high school. But the common theme was the children’s attitude to work and their pride in growing up on a farm.

Our visit to the Ward family’s pig farm could not have been more informative. The farmers, John and Steve, were willing to answer all of our questions about pigs’ lives from birth to the slaughterhouse. How the pigs are fed, whether they are given antibiotics (only for medical reasons), are they given hormones (no), etc. We also had a long discussion on GMOs, why a farm is or is not organic (requirements on available space to access to organic feed), corn and soybean crops, the needed equipment, and the availability of land in Illinois where subdivisions are creeping closer and closer to farmland.

On our tour of the pig sheds, Steve was once more willing to answer all of our questions about the pigs. Why are the pigs kept inside (controlled environment, health and nutrition of the pigs); what the pigs eat (corn, soybean meal, bakery products); and how you make sure all of the pigs are doing well (an experienced farmer sees signs immediately). Yes, there is a smell in the sheds, but the pigs were surprisingly clean and they are able to move around. There were absolutely no signs of animals that had been mistreated (I expected chewed ears and tails as signs of stress).

My first visit to an Illinois farm (or any farm in the U.S.) was eye-opening. The amount of work, investment and time needed to farm is enormous. My guess is that even though there are differences between farms, the basic work and commitment to a lifestyle is the same for all of them. One of my reasons for joining the Field Mom program was to be able to tell my children where our food comes from and we have now been able to have several discussions on pigs and meat production in general. I’m looking forward to our next visit and learning about other farms.

I had an extremely informative day at the Ward farm, thanks to both generations of the family!

Five things I learned on our trip to a pig farm (there would be many more, but here are the first five):

• The price of farmland whether you buy or lease in Illinois is very high. It is hard for farm families to be able to buy more land to support more than one family.
• The life cycle of a pig from birth to slaughterhouse. I had no idea about the time it takes for a pig to grow to market weight, etc.
• The tour of the buildings where the pigs are raised was important. Heating/air-conditioning, cleanliness, etc. were important pieces of information.
• Information on how the pigs are slaughtered was informative and useful.
• Information on the use of hormones and antibiotics was useful.

Tanja Saarinen, Oak Park
Field Mom

 

Last Saturday was a busy day at our farm. We hosted 16 Field Moms from the Chicago-area for a tour, showing them how we raise pigs. The moms asked a lot of great questions, one in particular I often get asked is: 

What’s the difference between organic and non-organic pork?

The term organic speaks to a particular method used to farm. Generally speaking, pork that is certified organic comes from pigs that never receive synthetic vaccinations or antibiotics, are provided access to the outdoors, and meet animal health and welfare standards. The animals eat feed that is organic as well, meaning it is grown without most commonly-used synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. (There are some fertilizers and pest control products organic farmers can use on their crops.)

How is that different from my pigs? On my farm, we meet or exceed health and animal welfare standards too. We also use farming practices that include options like GMO crops and giving medicines when needed. For example, the feed my pigs eat consists mostly of corn and soybeans which may or may not be the same feed used in organic farming. On my farm, some of the grain comes from GMO seeds. Using GMO seeds and biotechnology actually allows me to use fewer chemicals on the plant as it grows, making less of an impact on my land and making it safer for the consumer and the farmer as we handle fewer chemicals. (If you want to know more about GMOs, click here.)

While on our farm, we do our best to keep all our animals healthy throughout their lives. Just like we give our kids vaccines to prevent illness and disease, the pigs on my farm are vaccinated early in their lives to ward off common illnesses. I’m in my barns every day monitoring the health and eating habits of the pigs. Like with my kids, I can tell by looking at their eyes and noses if they aren’t feeling well. If that’s the case, I pull that pig aside and, with my veterinarian, decide how to get them healthy again. Sometimes that means giving them medicines, like an antibiotic. If I do give them an antibiotic, I follow strict label directions and make sure that the animal doesn’t go to market until all the medicine has cleared their system. The pigs from my farm are marketed under the Farmland® label. Once my pigs arrive at the Farmland plant, like all meat, they are inspected by the United States Department of Agriculture and the Food Safety Inspection Service. I feel good about the pork I raise; my family enjoys it regularly.

Consumers today can choose to pay more for organic meat, but I hope they know it’s not safer or more nutritious than the pork from my farm. I’m confident the pork I raise is safe and healthy and contains no antibiotics. By the way, the moms also asked me what our family’s favorite cut of pork was – it’s the tenderloin. Here’s a recipe you can try tonight.

I hope I’ve helped answer the question. Post your thoughts and comments below and we’ll continue the conversation.

Steve Ward
Old Elm Farms
Sycamore, IL

Did you have the day off of work Monday?

Since my "boss" lives in one of our upstairs bedrooms, there was no day off here in our little white house on the prairie.

But at least I don't have a morning commute...and I get to wear my sweatpants to work...and the boss takes a two-hour nap every day which allows for a little down time. (Just between you and me, when she's not around I drink iced coffee and plan my spring time assault on our garden and landscaping. When I'm feeling really crazy, I also watch Friends re-runs...Shhh.)

This spring-y-ish weather has really given me the gardening itch. My garden catalogs have started rolling in by the mailbox-fulls and they are starting to resemble my daughter's Toys R Us catalogs around Christmas time, dog-eared pages that are full of thick red magic marker circles. Truth be told, I already have an order prepared for everything from sunflowers to cilantro.

Matt and his cousins, Jack and Christopher, have been spending their winter "down time" helping local farmers do exactly the same thing. Only instead of sunflowers and cilantro, they are placing orders for corn and soybeans.

In modern agriculture, filling out your spring seed order isn't as easy as choosing between corn or soybeans. Genetically modified or non-gmo? Drought resistance? Food grade? Disease tolerance? How many acres of corn are you planning to plant? What about soybeans?

When farmers are paying an average of $260 PER BAG of corn and $50 PER BAG of soybeans, it's not a decision that one should take lightly.

Just as a point of reference, one bag of soybeans will plant just over one acre (1.1 to be exact) and one bag of corn will plant 2.3 acres. If a farmer plants just one 80-acre field of corn, his seed bill will be just a shade over $9,000.

Eeesh. That's like 45+ grocery trips.

I'm no math whiz, but I'm not sure that my $100 off any order of $200 or more coupon from Gurney's seed and nursery would get anyone very far. But for those farmers who really have their ducks in a row this winter, the earlier the seed order is submitted the larger the discount.

While my "boss" gives me my own daily dose of education on every subject from what's in Dora the Explorer's backpack to the finer points of proper princess tea party etiquette, Matt, Jack, and Christopher are spending their winter "down time" attending Pioneer seed meetings to learn about different varieties of seed corn and beans so they can better help farmers prepare for the fast-approaching spring planting season.

When the boys aren't attending meetings, they are visiting with local farmers, preparing seed information, organizing the seed shed, and training our seed shed watch cats to be fierce guardians.

I think they aren't spending as much time as they should on that last part.

Roganne Murray

Roganne is a farm wife, mother to a spunky two year-old and all-around farm girl. She and her husband Matt live in a white house on the Illinois prairie, and you can follow their adventures raising what they hope will be the sixth generation of Murrays to farm in Champaign county at White House on the Prairie.