“it looks just like this,” fresno rueda said, displaying the spinach smoothie at her workbench.  

the belly of the beast: studying bison gut bacteria

on the ranch, home to the turner institute for ecoagriculture, fresno rueda is studying the nutrient-processing genetics of bacteria in bison rumen. the rumen is the largest compartment of the bison’s gut. it contains bacterial colonies in its fluid, which break down the animal’s natural diet of prairie grasses and vegetation. 

a symbol of america’s past, the bison is gaining interest from livestock researchers as they look toward a future of declining grassland. 

since the turn of the century, extreme heat and lacking rainfall have ravaged the great plains. as of late september, 50% to 80% of pasture and rangeland in the plains is rated poor- to very poor-quality as a result of drought. two-thirds of regional cattle ranchers have reported selling parts of their herd due to inadequate feed, according to an american farm bureau survey. 

bison, meanwhile, demonstrate a unique resilience to climate change’s effects on their diet. 

the animal belongs to a family of herbivorous mammals with multi-part stomachs, known as ruminants. cows, sheep, goats, and yaks are also in the ruminant family. species in this family lack the gut enzymes necessary to break down grass and instead rely on internal colonies of bacteria to aid in the process.

bison are supported by the work of more than 116,000 kinds of bacteria, many of which are not found in other ruminants. researchers believe genes in these microbes allow bison to digest starchy, low-nutrient plants better, and maintain weight in drought conditions for longer periods of time.  

“they seem to not lose condition as quickly as other domesticated ruminants will when they’re on poor-quality forage,” said carter kruse, director of science and conservation with the turner institute for ecoagriculture. “we think there’s some key in the bison rumen that allows them to process this forage, which could have huge implications for how we manage the animals out on the range.” 

finding helpful bacteria in this rumen would mean a higher-margin future for bison ranchers, as they spend less on supplemental feed. it may also help livestock ranchers across the industry. 

fresno rueda said transplanting rumen bacteria between ruminants has been done in prior study. so finding a key colony in bison could help other livestock survive on nutrient-poor grasses for longer periods of time, as well. 

“if we identify beneficial bacteria, some of the things we can do with them are create products, or prebiotics, or probiotics,” the research assistant said. “it’s not just going to be for the bison. these will be for goats, and sheep, and cattle.”

a dirty job

according to fresno rueda, bison rumen bacteria have less than 90% genetic resemblance to bacteria from other ruminants.  

“we don’t really know what they are,” she said.

finding out is somewhat of a messy process. and it all happens in a white bison shed, the research team’s lab at mcginley ranch. 

inside is a maze of blue-painted gates and pens, with cut-up tire flooring and wooden platforms placed above them. on this mid-september sampling day, three bison had been wrangled into a holding chamber. they snorted and rattled barrier rails with their flanks. the shed smelled of manure, sulphuric bile, and wood chips.

a ranch technician led one bison through a corridor of pens with a flagpole until it arrived in the bison chute, a shipping container-like chamber. with the press of a button, the researchers applied gentle hydraulic pressure to hold the bison in place. 

at one end, kruse inserted a hand into the bison’s rectum for a fecal sample before bagging it and bringing it to fresno rueda. at the other, turner institute of ecoagriculture veterinarian tom bragg maneuvered a metal pipe into the bison’s mouth, before inserting a length of plastic tubing. 

“this tube is curved at the end,” bragg said. “so once we get it into their mouth, they swallow it, and it makes collection easy.”

on cue, the bison shook its head and olive-green rumen fluid flowed through the tube into a plastic bucket. fresno rueda paced the room with purpose, occasionally draining samples into test tubes and documenting them.

when work was complete, fresno rueda and kruse loaded their materials for a return trip to their lab in sdsu’s animal science department. they planned to break open the bacteria and extract the dna with a soap solution and high-speed test tube shaker. then, the research team would analyze bacterial dna chunks for their function. 

“right now, we’re just in the process of finding out what is there,” fresno rueda said.

while fresno rueda has two years left to complete her research, the promise of a viable probiotic is at least three years down the road. 

still, initial findings have the researchers hopeful for a more robust grass-fed meat market.

“if we show producers that grass-fed animals are healthier, higher-profit, and better for the environment, they will market it better as an alternative,” fresno rueda said. “it’s a win-win.” 

the men behind the biotech startup colossal biosciences don’t want to bring back the species to stock a prehistoric theme park. instead, they claim their “functional mammoths” will be a powerful tool in the fight against climate change. this venture not only raises the question of how science can resurrect a long-dead species… but should it?

the tools to build a new breed of mammoth

colossal biosciences, which was co-founded by harvard geneticist george church and tech entrepreneur ben lamm, claimed to have received $15 million in investment as of september 2021. according to the founders, their team can develop “functional mammoths” within six to seven years.

lamm stressed that these new mammoths would not be genetically identical to those that lived during the pleistocene epoch 11 thousand years ago or even the remnant populations that died out 4 thousand years ago. they would be hybrids of mammoths and their closest living relatives, asian elephants. the genomes of these hybrids would be created by combining genetic material from frozen mammoth carcasses with elephant dna. 

“they’re not 100% and so think of it almost like a dog breed,” lamm said. “you got your purebreds and you got –– like what i have –– rescues.” 

asian elephants and wooly mammoths share about 95.8% of their mitochondrial dna. the genetic similarities allow colossal to use genetic material from asian elephants to build the functional mammoth genome using what church calls “genome engineering tools.” he compared the approach to those currently being tested to grow organs in pigs that are more compatible to be transplanted into humans. in this case, scientists would work to incorporate mammoth cold tolerance traits, including cold-tolerant hemoglobin and shaggy coats, from mammoth dna into asian elephant embryos.

in terms of mammoths, church described the potential process like this: elephant cells would be edited, in petri dishes away from live animals, to carry mammoth genetic material in each cell’s nucleus. the cells’ nucleuses would later be extracted and implanted into an elephant embryo. the embryo would then be fertilized through in vitro fertilization and grown in artificial wombs.

colossal has determined that elephants would not host these embryos for both practical and moral reasons, as asian elephants are an endangered species with a 18-22 month gestation period. while there are limited numbers of potential elephant surrogates, the artificial wombs would allow the program to scale over time as more wombs are created. church said they also intend to produce embryos and sperm from stem cells. 

the arctic elephant in the room: should we bring back mammoths?

talking about the science behind colossal’s mission avoids the arctic elephant in the room: should we be bringing back mammoths? dj schubert, a wildlife biologist and conservationist with the animal welfare institute, is skeptical.

“the question is not whether it can be done –– but whether it should be done,” schubert said. “and, from my perspective, i think we have enough species that are currently in dire conditions that we should be focusing our conservation efforts and our conservation dollars on saving those species.”

schubert expressed frustration that $15 million was invested to bring back the mammoth and argued resources should be spent protecting modern megafauna. he was also concerned that scientists may not have considered the morality of species resurrection, worrying about the fairness of reviving an animal to cage it. 

“let those species rest in peace and instead let’s focus our efforts on preserving what still remains,” he said. 

colossal pushes back against these criticisms. according to church and lamm, colossal’s goal is not to develop functional mammoths out of pure curiosity, but to fight climate change and develop technologies with applications including conservation.  

stomping out greenhouse gases

church hopes the first arctic elephants will not live in captivity but in a preserve such as pleistocene park, an experimental nature preserve in the russian arctic that is recreating the mammoth-steppe ecosystem. according to the park’s current director nikita zimov, the project seeks to restore this ecosystem through the reintroduction of animals in the hopes of fighting climate change through grassland creation and permafrost preservation. 

zimov said his father came up with the idea during the soviet era and his family has been working on the project since 1996. the pleistocene park concept predates the blockbuster that inspired its would-be name. but unlike jurassic park, pleistocene park is not meant to be a theme park. 

according to zimov, it’s intended to be a self-expanding ecosystem large enough to impact the climate and provide habitat to millions of animals. currently the preserve is only 144 square kilometers, but numerous native and exotic species have been introduced including reindeer, yakutian horses, moose, bison, musk ox, yaks and kalmykian cows. according to zimov, the mammoths would transform the park and fight climate change by toppling trees and trampling snow.

while this may seem counterintuitive, zimov explained the apparent paradox. 

“if you come to the arctic, the effect of planting trees (to store carbon) is not that great,” zimov said. “trees are sparse, small, and they grow extremely poor(ly).” 

the deep root systems of fast growing arctic grasses are more effective at storing carbon in the arctic environment than the trunks of slow growing trees. the mammoth’s propensity for toppling trees would expand the grassland ecosystem more quickly than would otherwise be possible, and allow for more carbon to be stored.

the mammoths would also preserve permafrost, the layer of subsurface arctic soil that has remained frozen for many millennia. as rising global temperatures melt permafrost, it releases hundreds of thousands of years of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 25 times as potent as co2. scientists worry this will start a positive feedback loop and hasten global warming. 

the permafrost in the soils of the arctic contain 1,460-1,600 billion metric tons of carbon, about twice as much as currently contained in earth’s atmosphere. the release of all this carbon by melting permafrost would be disastrous for global ecosystems and human civilization. 

cooling permafrost will prevent methane emissions. this is where pleistocene park’s animals come into the picture. zimov said permafrost is heated during the summer but cannot cool during winter because the ground is buried beneath snowfall, which has increased due to climate change. 

“this snow is acting as a heat insulator and that’s why permafrost is five degrees warmer than (the) temperature of air,” zimov said. “if you would now remove the snow entirely very quickly, within several years, the temperature of permafrost would be going down.” 

zimov said grazing animals protect permafrost by removing the thick layer of snow to access the food underneath. the snow is compacted during the foraging process making it a much less effective insulator than thick, undisturbed snow. once the thick snow has been cleared, the temperature of the permafrost beneath the ground drops.

mammoths could trample snow especially effectively because of their size and the amount of food they would eat.

when asked about the project’s climate benefits schubert of the animal welfare institute said that the project should continue using extant animals for the project, not extinct species.

“i have nothing against anyone thinking outside the box because i think that’s what is going to be necessary to frankly save this planet,” he said. “i just think that if they’re seeing success using these proxy animals, i think they should use these proxy animals… (instead of) trying to bring back animals that have long since been dead.” 

a future of technologically-enabled conservation

lamm said he hopes the genetic tools and artificial wombs being developed for mammoths will help preserve other species. he compared the development of arctic elephants to the apollo missions in terms of its potential for spinoff technology. he even expressed the hope that there may soon be the technology for 50 rhino calves to be brought to term in a lab at a time before release into the wild. 

“we hope that (this) will be relevant to many other endangered species as well,” church said. “the focus is on endangered species and environmental impact that would be helpful to humans; it’s not about de-extinction.”

even schubert expressed optimism about using colossal’s technology to help contemporary species, especially those that are currently endangered. still, schubert said the best way for humans to protect species is to address why they became endangered; only then should genetic solutions be considered.

in “jurassic park,” scientist ian malcolm chastises billionaire john hammond for creating dinosaurs, saying, “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” now, we are having that debate in real life about mammoths. if nothing else, the fact that we are having this debate is a step forward. 

the american chestnut was once a keystone species for much of the eastern united states. it was a food and economic resource that was wiped out by a fungal blight. the efforts to save the chestnut initially failed and the species became more rare. the importance of this species led to extensive genetic research and efforts to find resistance to the blight. through years of diligent work researchers at suny esf are now able to successfully genetically alter the trees to be blight resistant.

the farming industry has already begun finding more sustainable farming techniques to combat the high food demand. the morning star company is an agribusiness and food processing company that embodies sustainable farming. this california-based company specializes in tomato products, primarily paste, and has developed numerous techniques in the processing of their crops that not only benefit the company itself, but has a positive impact on other agriculture around them.

morning star harvests as close to 100% of their tomatoes as possible. since the company primarily makes paste, they are able to use the green tomatoes that were not quite ripe when it was time to harvest, according to morning star employee marc haywood.

once in the processing plant, the company has a recycling water system to empty the field trucks and transport the crop around the facility. morning star also makes great use of their byproducts; plant waste is used to fertilize their fields or transported to local farms for no profit to be used as animal feed. these types of sustainable practices are crucial, and will need to spread throughout the industry moving forward.

while traditional farming progressions are a necessity in creating a sustainable food supply for the world, these advances alone won’t be enough. genetically engineered and modified crops will need to become more commonplace in order to feed the planet.

the terms “genetically engineered” and “genetically modified” are now commonly used in supermarkets and coffee house conversations, it is possible that the terms are not clearly defined by their users.

according to keith edmisten, ph.d., a professor of crop science at nc state university, as reported in a 2016 study, “genetic modification refers to a range of methods (such as selection, hybridization, and induced mutation) used to alter the genetic composition of domesticated plants and animals to achieve a desired result.

“genetic engineering is one type of genetic modification that involves the intentional introduction of a targeted change in a plant, animal, or microbial gene sequence to achieve a specific result.”

accepting genetically engineered and modified foods by the public would be a huge step toward a sustainable food supply. the daunting task of feeding the planet is highlighted by pamela ronald and raoul adamchak in their book “tomorrow’s table” (2018): “the world faces an enormous challenge. food production needs to rise by 50% by 2050 in order to feed the growing population, which will expand from the current 7.6 billion to an estimated 10 billion by mid-century—the equivalent of adding the population of two chinas.”

this harsh reality will need to be combated with serious scientific advances, both when manufacturing seeds and the actual farming of crops.

while a common argument against gmos include the fact that the seeds are more expensive, leaving corporate farms to run family-owned operations out of business, farms on any level of production can, and are, benefiting from growing modified crops. farmers are able to grow crops that are drought-resistant so they don’t lose their fields during a dry spell, or insect-resistant crops so they don’t have to spray harmful pesticides. seed companies are constantly developing modifications to help farmers maximize their yields.

john purcell, head of vegetables r&d for bayer (the largest seed producer in the world), says they focus on three aspects when modifying an organism: protection in the field to prevent loss, ship-ability of the crop, and the product’s shelf life. pursuing these characteristics through advanced breeding technology will be crucial for the planet moving forward, in terms of the growing population as well as climate change. the agriculture industry, “will have to continue to find solutions as agriculture will be monumentally impacted by climate change,” purcell said.

not only can genetically modified crops maximize and enhance farms efficiency and yield, it has already proven to save an industry. the papaya crop, a staple in hawaiian culture, would have been wiped out of the islands due to disease had it not been for genetically engineered seeds. according to “tomorrow’s table,” ringspot virus had devastated the hawaiian papaya fields in the 1990s when there was not currently a method to control the virus.

dennis gonsalves and his team are credited with developing a virus-resistant papaya seed which was distributed to local growers at no cost. the genetically engineered papaya produced a yield that was 20 times higher than the traditional papaya crop. the hawaiian industry recovered and flourished after the introduction of the new seeds, and production grew from 26 million pounds to 40 million pounds of papaya from 1998 to 2001, according to gonsalves.

health is another frequent argument against genetically modified crops. there is a public misconception that gmo’s and genetically engineered crops are dangerous to eat- this is a widely believed notion that is largely due scare propaganda from both food companies and organic activists. apart from being approved by the fda, there have been zero reports of health hazards related to genetically engineered or modified crops.

“just to be clear, there has never been a single reputable, peer-reviewed study that has found any link between the consumption of genetically modified foods and adverse health effects,” wrote aaron larsen, a postdoctoral fellow at harvard’s department of chemistry and chemical biology. “perhaps more importantly, there is no proposed mechanism that can explain why such a link could exist.”

it seems that the idea that gmos are harmful has been inflated and pushed by propaganda and unnecessary food labeling. while it is impossible to prove a food is safe, gmos on the market have been fda approved and have a clean record when it comes to public health.

not only are gmo and genetically engineered crops safe to eat, there are situations around the world where these crops are needed to nurture and benefit populations. a prime example of this is golden rice. this rice was engineered to contain higher levels of carotenoids, which are precursors to vitamin a in order to help populations that are vitamin-a deficient — particularly bangladesh, indonesia, and the philippines, according to “tomorrow’s table.” introducing rice that is high in vitamin a is crucial, and potentially life-changing in these regions. one in five preschool aged children are vitamin a-deficient in bangladesh, according to the world health organization’s vitamin a-deficiency database, as reported by the daily star.

feeding a growing humanity is a reality that the planet needs to face. genetically modified and engineered crops will be necessary to provide a food supply for our population in the coming years. not only are these crops safe to eat, but they can benefit everyone involved in the process.

over the years new breeds of the popular fowl have been created to suit consumer tastes, which has resulted in the average turkey americans eat today.

this thanksgiving, you most likely will be feasting on broad breasted white turkey, like the one president obama was pictured with below in 2015 at the white house’s annual turkey pardon. this is the most commonly used breed of domestic turkey today.

the breed’s white feathers can be owed to selective breeding. according to julie long, a researcher at the u.s. department of agriculture, dark spots can sometimes be found on turkey meat due to pigmentation of colored feathers. most consumers would likely consider turkey meat covered in dark spots to appear unsightly. so, it has become common practice to breed turkeys in order to achieve colorless plumage, which results in meat void of these spots.

the broad breasted white dominates today’s turkey market. however, this genetic selection comes at a cost. traditional turkey breeds are slowly disappearing as the broad breasted white continues to be the most popular choice for thanksgiving dinner.

frank reece raises turkeys on his farm in lindsborg, kansas. he is a member of a declining population of farmers that raise heritage turkeys. these are the breeds that date back to the 1800’s. according to reece, the standard bronze is what was eaten at the first thanksgiving and was the bird that fed america from 1850 until 1950, when genetically engineered breeds began to grow in popularity.

this year, the standard bronze will make up less than 1% of the turkeys served on thanksgiving.

it makes sense for the broad breasted white to be america’s no. 1 choice. this breed grows much faster than a heritage turkey, offers more meat, and comes at a lower price than heritage breeds.

however, this efficiency comes at a price. the broad breasted white has been bred to be quite large and, as a result, it is unable to fly on its own. this weight is also responsible for a number of health issues. many of these turkeys suffer from heart disease, respiratory failure, and have shorter life expectancies than other breeds.

according to us news, the turkeys pardoned by president obama in 2010 died the same year due to health issues that came as a result of selective breeding.

this thanksgiving, consider a variety of options when choosing a turkey. the higher price tag of a heritage breed not only helps a struggling industry, but is by far the most authentic route to take.

every friday, i casually stroll down university avenue and am met by a line of burrito-crazed enthusiasts. after waiting what seems like an eternity, i finally order my all time favorite: a scrumptious steak burrito wrap with salsa and pinto beans. talk about a fiesta in your mouth! naturally, i have the tendency to scoop out and eat the best part of the burrito: the cilantro-lime rice.

little did i know that my favorite ingredient was the basis for ingenious, mind-blowing research happening right on my campus. an international team of scientists led by the university of arizona has sequenced the complete genomes of african and asian rice. those rice genome maps, and the new rice strains that come from them, may be a key reason that much of the world has enough food to eat in 35 years.

rod wing, director of the arizona genomics institute and member of the ua’s bio5 institute, and his group specialize in developing “genome maps” – tools that provide scientists and agriculturalists information that helps them understand the structure of the genome. the genetic information they produce allows scientists to better understand the growing patterns of rice species, and provides a starting point for creating new rice varieties that can withstand environmental stressors and ultimately help eliminate global hunger challenges.

the complete mapping of african and asian rice genomes allows scientists to cross the two rice strains and create new varieties that mix the high yield traits of asian rice with the hardiness of the african rice. to date, african rice has been crossed with asian rice to create a group of new varieties known as nerica, or new rice for africa.

the demand for rice is growing more rapidly in africa than in any other region of the world, but african rice can be low-yield, while drought and nitrogen-poor soil severely restrict the growing of the more popular and productive asian rice. the nerica mix allows farmers to cultivate rice in new regions, expanding africa’s ability to sustain its own rice production.

according to wing, rice will play a key role in helping solve the “9 billion people question.”

“rice feeds half of the world, and it’s half of the world that is going to double in 20 or 30 years,” wing said.

“the 9 billion people question” refers to the fact that the world’s population will increase to more than 9 billion by 2050. it also suggests that much of the population will live in areas of food scarcity. according to dave kudrna, bac/est resource center group leader at the arizona genomics institute, hunger is one of major negative consequences of the “9 billion people dilemma.”

“unfortunately, food may become a point of contention — if we cannot produce enough food to sufficiently feed society, there could be global wars for food and ultimately, survival,” kudrna said.

the research into heartier rice is still ongoing. this past year, one of ua’s partners, the international rice research institute, released 3000 sequences of the world’s most informative and influential rice genomes and lines. making the data on these lines public could help for researchers identify key problems that need solving to make rice grow in new places more efficiently, and help target rice breeding programs.

as i finished my mouth-watering burrito, i was aware that most (if not all) of our burning questions about how to feed 9 billion people do not have answers — yet. however, because of projects like the genome map, there is hope that future curious college students in food-scarce regions will be able to indulge in delicious rice-filled burritos.

emilee marie hoopes is a sophomore in the honors college at the university of arizona.

^{top photo courtesy of the slari rokupr agricultural research centre.}

that number is the amount of corn the united states is on track to produce this year in tons.  so that means for every man, woman and child in the united states, they can have 2600 pounds of corn to themselves this year.  it’s used for an incredible amount of things in this country: food for people, livestock, fuel for cars, hundreds of plant-based products, etc.

the only thing more incredible than the sheer number is the percentage of that seed which is genetically modified.  while the europe union has effectively banned gmo seed and crops, the united states has wholly embraced it.  88 percent of our crops are now genetically modified, with corn taking the lead as our principle crop.  this is up from less than 10 percent only 20 years ago.  is it a coincidence that we’ve seen an increase in food production by 120 percent in that same time frame?

now yes, there are a lot of controversies around gmo crops and seed these days.  everything from regulation to pricing concerns and health issues has kept people hesitant to embrace these engineered foods.  but with the global population skyrocketing, the increased yields of these seeds might be hard to ignore. 

is it fair to debate our concerns about gmos while people in the developing world need food desperately? is this a health discussion worth having regardless of the immediate crisis? weigh in on the debate in the comments.

gabe salkin and mel mcintire are seniors at the george washington university majoring in journalism.