Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Education, education, education

Ryan Kregger
Touchet, Wash.

It’s been a busy winter for WAWG. We just returned from Florida after attending the Commodity Classic and a National Association of Wheat Growers’ meeting. Days before that, we were in Olympia, working on your behalf to save our agricultural tax exemptions and other wheat industry priorities. After each trip to urban America, I’ve come to realize the vital need for agriculture to unite on public relations and educating the masses. Those who support labeling genetically engineered grocery store foods, for example, are getting their information from somewhere. They are definitely not getting it from us. Some are claiming that passing I-522 will save our wheat export markets. That claim is flat out wrong. I-522 has nothing to do with export markets. And by the way, Japan imports and eats genetically engineered papayas.

Another example of misinformation is the public’s perception of family farms. In 2011, WAWG conducted a statewide survey of the Washington public. The survey showed that an overwhelming majority of people like farmers, but they aren’t sure why. They also don’t understand that family farmers are more than those they meet at a farmers market. I’m a family farm, and so are my neighbors. In fact, more than 90 percent of all farms in America are family owned and operated. Many here in Washington are multigenerational farms with more than 100 years on the land.

My friend and fellow farmer, Brad Issak of Coulee City, said we seem to have a disconnect with the under-40 crowd. People over 40 seem to understand, in some way, that agriculture is food. People under 40 have less of a connection. Many in this category also don’t understand what farming is other than organic and small production farming. There are many basic messages that Washington farming and ranching groups can stand behind, such as redefining the term “family farm.” I am pleased to tell you that your grain industry leadership has taken the first step in funding a major education campaign in conjunction with our friends from the Washington Potato Commission. Together, a subcommittee and staff from both groups have designed an efficient and effective campaign targeting the public. The goal is simple: educate the public about the food grown in Washington.

Food is the bridge between our farms and the consumer. As they learn about our farms, hopefully they will understand better the reasons why we use certain tools and practices. They will also understand better the economic impact the food and farm industry has on our state.

This united approach will be different than what we are used to. It will require a different look and feel. It will speak a different language and will require us to listen to consumers. Even though most of our wheat is exported, the decisions made by our state consumers through elections and ballot initiatives will affect every inch of our farms. Some call it “preserving our social license to farm.” I would add that it is also a new step in preserving trust within our marketplace. In this case, it is a marketplace that ensures our freedom to farm using practices that provide safe, healthy and affordable food while being good stewards of the land.

This spring you will begin seeing the fruits of collaboration and hard work between WAWG, the Washington Potato Commission and our PR partners. The campaign, Washington Grown, will be introduced under the coalition named Washington Farmers & Ranchers. We encourage other agricultural groups to join us in this necessary education front. As this multiyear project grows, we look forward to meeting consumers, listening to their perspectives and explaining more about how their food is grown.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Transgenic challenges will be overcome

By Dana Herron
Connell, Wash.

When I tell farmers an acre of irrigated corn seed costs about 300
percent more than an acre of irrigated wheat seed, their first reaction is
usually disbelief. But that probably would have been my reaction too if
I’d never left dryland wheat farming.

Now, after 32 years selling seed and six years as part-owner of my
own business, I look at the price differential not in terms of cost, but in terms of value. Through this prism an entirely different calculation is revealed.

The majority of wheat production in Washington is under dryland conditions (2 million
acres vs. 250,000 acres). In Connell, where I am based, I have the advantage of a foot
in both camps. Because the easier comparisons are made with corn, however, the following
numbers are based on irrigated production.

The average price of corn seed purchased by Columbia Basin farmers today is about
$265 a bag. Each bag of corn seed has 80,000 kernels in it, and farmers usually plant between 36,000 to 38,000 seeds per acre. So a farmer can plant about 2.1 acres with one bag. That equates to a cost of $125 per acre. Irrigated wheat seed, meanwhile, costs an average of $30 to $35 per acre depending on whether it is fall planted or spring planted.
Corn prices are very good right now. With a cash corn bid of $250 per ton and an average
yield of six tons per acre, a farmer can figure a gross return of $1,250 per acre. Wheat,
meanwhile, can average 140 bushels an acre under irrigation in the basin. At $8.50 a
bushel, the gross return is close to corn’s at $1,190 an acre, but the corn rotation does take
a little more water and fertilizer. My point is that the gross returns are roughly the same.
So what justifies the cost of seed?

Last year, DeKalb Corn had what is called pyramided traits in their top hybrids. The
company’s SmartStax Complete is the culmination of years of research and breeding.
It provides crop protection from eight yield-robbing insects using a total of 17 different
modes of action within the plant as well as resistance to two different chemistries,
Round Up and Liberty Link. This does not include the drought tolerance trait the company
promises to bring to the market within the next year.

Although most farmers have friends and relatives who question the genetic manipulation
of plants for the benefit of man, as a group, farmers are more open to science-based
technology having experienced its benefits firsthand. I think it’s safe to say most Eastern
Washington wheat farmers view scientists’ ability to manipulate individual genes
within a plant’s genome as a more precise extension of traditional plant breeding that
has been going on for more than 100 years.

That’s not to say we’re all one big happy family. A small group of farmers around
Waterville believes the introduction of transgenic wheat is a dangerous game we will
regret playing. I very firmly believe otherwise, and if I’m right, in a few short years my
company and others will be selling genetically engineered varieties of wheat seed for
dryland and irrigated production. And that’s when things get complicated.

One of the more difficult tasks of managing a seed business in a diverse agricultural
region like the Columbia Basin is predicting the adoption rate of new technology. The questions seedsmen ask are the same as any businessman.

How much better is the new variety? What will it replace? What is the net financial impact to the grower? Does it save him money somewhere in his operational structure? Who else is committing financial resources to this project? What is the primary area of adaptation? And how fast can we recover our investment?

Of course, we can never lose sight of our markets. In the movie, “Field of Dreams,” the Kevin Costner character keeps hearing a voice say, “If you build it, they will come.” There is nobody in the wheat industry, or the agricultural community for that matter, who believes all we need to do is grow a crop and customers will buy it. We must continually be aware of our customers’ values and desires.

That’s why, in the heart of the corn growing region of the Columbia Basin, there exists a viable conventional corn production and marketing program for customers willing to pay a premium. The market is well policed, the corn is meticulously tested for the presence of transgenic grain, and there is a small tolerance for “adventious presence” caused by errant pollen.

What enables farmers to produce conventional corn is isolation. Planting far enough away from transgenic corn to avoid the pollen drift gets the job done. As a matter of fact, there are two companies actively producing seed corn from inbred parental stock that requires even
stricter isolation.

If corn growers can take advantage of this dual marketing opportunity, it should be a cinch for wheat farmers as wheat pollen doesn’t travel near the distance of corn pollen. In the final analysis, however, establishing parallel production systems for wheat will be a function
of the marketplace, just as it has been for corn.

In the Tom Cruise movie, “Jerry McGuire,” the line, “show me the money!” became part of the speech of the day. In the case of the adoption of transgenic wheat, I believe the rallying cry of farmers (as well as nonfarmers) should be, “show me the science!” That’s because when it
comes to the adoption of transgenic wheat, science must be the ultimate authority.

U.S. citizens have been eating GMO-derived foods since 1996 without a single case of a health-related illness, which is a far better record than some organic foods have. That kind of track record shouldn’t be a surprise. Nowadays, it costs around $30 million for companies to register a single transgenic event with the EPA, money spent ensuring that human health and environmental risks are negligible (because there is no such thing as zero risk in anything human beings do).

Meanwhile, the advantages credited to transgenics are obvious. In the last 10 years, the average production of an acre of corn in the U.S. has grown by 16.1 bushels per acre. While some of this gain can be attributed to conventional genetic advancement, most is trait driven.

In the last 10 years, the average production of an acre of wheat in the U.S. has grown by just 0.2 bushels per acre. If you want to see how that yield-boost discrepancy has played out on the ground, you need go no further than Kansas. Ten years ago, the state produced approximately 500 million bushels of the nation’s 2.2 billion bushels of wheat grown each year. Today, more corn is grown in Kansas than wheat. Why? Value.

Thinking of value in the context of wheat, ask yourself what is the value of a trait that controls wireworms? How about an aphid control mechanism inserted in the genetic makeup of the plant? Or what about a plant that uses half the nitrogen of a conventional plant and produces
the same yield. Herbicide resistance is a no brainer nowadays, and drought tolerance is coming!

How soon will the cereal industry adopt the trait-driven technology on the horizon? If experience with corn growers in my sales area is any indication, it will be very quick. Many of them are consistently producing 250 to 300 bushels of corn per acre in a more sustainable manner. But that bag of expensive seed corn is about more than yield. Value is a function of how much a farmer nets after the bills are paid. This is where the technology shines.

As for those nonfarmers who ask what transgenic wheat has in it for them, how about millions of tons less pesticide used to control weeds and insects, and millions of tons less soil erosion, not to mention millions of tons less hydrocarbon emissions from fewer passes by tractors over fields.

But perhaps the most important advantage accruing to transgenic wheat is the ability to feed the additional two billion people that demographers tell us will live on the planet just 37 years from now. For those who turn their faces away from the scientific leap transgenic crops represent, I ask you to consider the 870 million people on the planet who are starving each year, of whom 60 percent are women and five million are children.

Yes, there will be challenges as transgenic wheat comes to the market, but as I found in my early years dryland wheat farming and now, in my later years as an independent seedsman, challenges are what makes us stronger.

Dana Herron, who is part owner of Tri-State Seed, has been a Washington Grain Commissioner for six years.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

The integrity of wheat

By Tom Zwainz, Reardan area farmer 

Any wheat farmer knows that if you fail to jump on a problem in the field in a timely manner, you’re liable to get hammered. Miss the window to effectively treat stripe rust with fungicides or fail to spray weeds at their most vulnerable and you’ve wasted money and, more importantly, time.

Farming is all about being proactive, so it was discouraging to watch over the last year as accusations William Davis made about the crop we love were allowed to flourish without response. For those of you too busy farming to keep up with the cultural current Davis represents, let me update you.

In August 2011, Davis, a preventative cardiologist, released his book, “Wheat Belly—Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight.” There is not enough space here to list the accusations against wheat that Davis leveled in his book, but the Cliffs Notes version goes something like this: Wheat is a crop that has been so manipulated by breeders in the last 100 years that it looks nothing like the plant our ancestors ate. As a result, the gluten that is an essential part of wheat and makes it possible for bread to rise smoothly, not only makes you fat, it can potentially make you crazy too.

Everybody from Bill O’Reilly to Lady Gaga have embraced the gluten-free lifestyle, proclaiming from their media soapboxes that eliminating wheat from their lifestyles has solved everything from fuzzy thinking to allergies and, of course, weight gain. And what began with a snowball of detractors has rolled itself into an avalanche of criticism. And yet, when Davis’ book came out, representatives of the organizations responsible for defending wheat’s good name argued that any reaction would only add fuel to the fire. They counseled against engaging Davis directly. Best to wait out the hullabaloo, let it run its course and die on its own.

Since waiting doesn’t work with problems we confront on our farms, your WGC commissioners questioned whether it would work with “Wheat Belly’s” accusations, especially given the highly connected Internet society we live in. Early on, we engaged with the Wheat Foods Council, arguing for a more muscular response. And we hired Art Bettge, a retired cereal chemist from the Agricultural Research Service, to do a literature search of all the misinformation being conveyed over the Internet and elsewhere.

Although we tried our best to galvanize the industry, I believe our voices didn’t have near the impact as the data, which showed between 2010 and 2011, per capita wheat consumption dropped from 133 to 131 pounds. The loss of two pounds may not sound like a lot, but multiply it by the 330 million people who live in the U.S. and we’re talking about a lot of dough. Another way to measure the impact on wheat is by looking at the market penetration of bakery products made without wheat. This so-called gluten-free category was $1 billion in 2006. This year, it is expected to top $4 billion. Again, a lot of dough.

The drop in consumption got the attention of the wheat chain, including bakers, millers and manufacturers, and it is no surprise that in the last few months, several studies have emerged which refute Davis’ claims point by point. Glen Gaesser, an Arizona State University professor and researcher, and Julie Miller Jones, a professor emeriti at the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul Minn., have both released papers which convincingly argue that Davis frequently doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Not only is wheat not a chronic poison that makes you fat, Gaesser and Jones point to numerous studies which demonstrate wheat is good for lowering cholesterol levels, increasing bowel health, boosting brain functioning and, get this, losing weight.

The problem is that Davis’ misinformation campaign has more than a year’s head start. And as Mark Twain once said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.” We missed the boat on addressing “Wheat Belly” early, and the domestic milling and baking industry will be paying the price of that tardiness for years to come. If nothing else, the experience should remind us that it’s the rare problem that simply goes away. The good news for those of us who farm in Eastern Washington, where 85 to 90 percent of our wheat is exported, is that “Wheat Belly” is mostly— but not exclusively—a U.S. phenomenon. Thanks to the research from Gaesser and Jones, however, we now have the ammunition to refute Davis’ half truths in our important overseas markets.

Farming is not a static operation, and neither are the issues that arise around our commodity and the end-use products it creates. No doubt, there will be the equivalent of other “Wheat Belly’s” in our future. I just hope when the next assault on our crop arises, we can join together to protect the integrity of wheat with the same alacrity farmers bring to their cropping operations.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Biggest changes on the farm in the last decade

What do you think were the largest changes our farming community faced between 2000 and 2010?

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Stewards of our image...

This issue of WL focuses on why farmers must be stewards of their image, as well as stewards of their land.  Do you agree?  Share your thoughts on how farmers can improve their public image...

Murray vs. Rossi - Who's best for farmers?

WL recently published the answers from both Sen. Murray and Mr. Rossi regarding seven questions important to Washington farmers.  After reading their responses what do you think?  Who will best serve Washington's farmers?

Friday, August 27, 2010

What is Sustainability?

Sustainability is a word that has been around forever, but has grown in value (and changed in philosophy) over the years.  America doesn't seem to think the current agricultural world is sustainable.  What does this term mean to you?  Is your farm sustainable?  Share your thoughts with us...