he examines the contents of a series of glass jars. one is full of little brown pellets. the other contains a dark brown liquid and is labeled “raw digestate – non-hazardous.”

“we’re trying to produce sustainable fertilizers,”  explains edalati, a graduate student in the university of california, davis, department of biological and agricultural engineering.

edalati said that each kind of fertilizer has its benefits and its drawbacks. the liquid form can be applied through drip irrigation, a farming method in which the plant roots are slowly watered via small tubes; however, it contains very little nitrogen – in many cases, not even 1 percent. the pellets, on the other hand, contain up to 5 percent nitrogen but cannot be applied through the ease of drip. 

plants need nitrogen to thrive. they use it to make chlorophyll, a compound that aids them in photosynthesis.

“soils need organic matter returned to them to support the soil microbiology that helps in crop cultivation,” edalati says. the fertilizer he is creating helps provide that.

these fertilizers are the byproduct of the renewable energy anaerobic biodigester (read), which make up the four giant silos that tower in the sun behind edalati. the vision behind read is to break down organic waste and produce a recycled product that can be used in farming and agriculture. it can hold up to 50 tons of organic waste like food and manure.

the concept for read was invented by ruihong zhang, ph.d., of the uc davis department of biological and agricultural engineering. she is also the chief technology advisor to cleanworld, a private company with which uc davis partnered to produce the machine.

“the digester is basically a vertical hammer mill,” zhang says, referring to a machine that crushes and shreds material through the repeated blows of little hammers.

read is composed of four tanks. three of them are for breaking up and pulverizing waste. the digester first separates any plastic that does not belong. it then grinds the food waste and organic material into a paste, which is pumped into the first tank.

“the first tank has bacteria that break food waste down into organic acid,” zhang says. “then (it) goes into the second tank, which has high density microbes that convert organic matter into gas.”

the fourth tank is where the digestate, or leftover organic matter, is stored.

“the leftovers have all the nutrients,” zhang says.

zhang developed this technology 10 years ago at uc davis and was able to turn the plans into action with the help of cleanworld, which specializes in biodigesters.  the university took over full operation of the digester in early 2018, with zhang as a liaison between cleanworld and uc davis, and is now investing more into the operation.

it’s also an easy way for local restaurants, farms and communities to dispose of waste for between $35 and $52 per ton.

uc davis is a non-profit, but zhang says her operation “is a full business model.”

“economically, we’re not getting any money back,” she says. “we got funding from [the] state to create these. it’s not about money, it’s about the show and tell, and making it work.”

even though zhang and her team are not making money, that’s not to say others couldn’t.

“this is a great example of taking the technology forward and making a commercial business,” she says.

zhang and her team give the fertilizer they make to area farms who then report the results back to them. a 2-year-long study on digestate fertilized tomatoes yielded results comparable to tomatoes fertilized with uan-32, a popular synthetic fertilizer, which is 32% nitrogen.

“yields for the digestate fertilizers were equal to the uan-32 and even higher in the case of the digestate concentrate,” edalati says. “the digestate fertilized tomatoes had higher soluble sugar content than the uan-32 tomatoes.

“uan-32 is good for providing nitrogen, but does not give you anything else. plants also need more than just nitrogen. digestate can provide that.”

zhang and her team want to ship the digestate farther than they are currently able to.

“the digestate is valuable, but transporting it is not necessarily economically viable,” edalati says of the liquid fertilizer. “the pellets would be one way to be able to transport nutrients far away at a cheaper cost.”

the difficulty lies in nitrogen content. the liquid digestate is 5% to 6% nitrogen – an essential component to fertilizer – whereas the pellet form is only 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent nitrogen. “you’d have to transfer a lot more of this to get the same amount of nitrogen,” edalati says.

neither, though, compare to uan-32, the popular synthetic commercial fertilizer.

“you can literally apply a couple hundred milliliters of uan-32 versus hundreds of gallons of (digestate),” edalati says. “that’s the challenge.”

thankfully, though, they have a virtually endless supply of test material while they work out how to make their fertilizer more nitrogen-rich.

“ice cream, muscle milk, tomato paste and cut tomatoes from campbell’s,” he says with a laugh, listing some of the more frequent items from which he’s made fertilizer. “all of those used to go to a landfill. now they come here.”

“coffee, too,” zhang adds. “we put a lot of coffee in here. maybe those bacteria love it and get energized.”

this animated video tells the story of food waste from the producer to the consumer, and reveals how you, me, and everyday people could help solve the food waste issue. 

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.

there seems to be a lot of confusion around the topic of gmos among the public. and with the plethora of information and fear surrounding the topic, it’s easy to get overwhelmed in deciphering the truth.

but as a consumer and an environmental science and nutrition student, i was determined to broaden my perspective, and set out to speak with a farmer and a plant scientist to learn more about what role gmos may have in our world.

after reading the book “tomorrow’s table,” i spoke with authors raoul w. adamchak, an organic farmer and educator at university of california davis, as well as his wife, pamela c. ronald, a professor from the department of plant pathology and genome center, also at university of california davis.

as i read, researched, and spoke with different people about gmos, i discovered an under-appreciated perspective, worthy of being more widely shared.

what is a gmo anyway?

surprisingly, there is no true precise or universal scientific definition of the phrase “gmo,” nor is there any regulation around its use for labeling in the united states, which may contribute to the large amount of public confusion surrounding the topic.

says ronald: “many people use it to mean ‘genetically modified organism,’ but the fda doesn’t use that term because everything we eat is genetically modified in some manner, and we generally don’t eat whole organisms, so it doesn’t really have a scientific meaning.

“i try not to use that term because i think it really confuses people,” she added.

and confuse people it does. many misinterpret long-used gene-altering techniques to be the same thing as genetic modification, when the two are in fact distinct (albeit similar) entities. and while media hype may lead you to believe all things non-organic and local are full of gmos, large cost and regulatory barriers actually keep the number of genuine gmos on the market quite low.

are gmos safe?

the safety of gmos is frequently brought into question. but when it comes to gmos and human health, the science overwhelmingly agrees that genetically modified foods are indeed safe for consumption. the american association for the advancement of science, who, national academy of sciences, and fda, all say that gmos are safe for consumption based on the plethora of available data.

so why are people so afraid of gmos?

according to ronald, part of the broad misconception about gmos may be due to lack of ample communication on the topic from scientists, farmers, and the agriculture industry.  

the rampant and increasing mistrust of scientific entities in combination with the plethora of false science, nutrition, and agriculture information flooding our news feeds makes it increasingly difficult for legitimate information to reach people’s ears in what ronald calls a “fear-based market and economy.”

and although the notion of food that has been tinkered with in a lab is understandably unsettling to some, it’s interesting to reflect on our otherwise general trust of medications that have been created in similar settings.

gmos, it seems, are often villainized, despite the fact that they have no proven long-term negative health or environmental impacts, have offered enormous benefits to others and are addressing real-world issues related to sustainability and malnutrition.

can gmos be useful?

gmos and gene-altering techniques on agricultural crops can, in fact, be useful.

how exactly? “geneticists are using modern gene modification to enhance sustainability,” ronald says.

gmos already have been shown to reduce pesticide use, increase crop yields, and boost farmer income in both developing and developed nations, which may help move the planet toward a more sustainable food system.

furthermore, the genetic addition of certain micronutrients to staple crops, as with the addition of beta-carotene to “golden” rice, has helped address some issues of malnutrition.

and with climate change creating more severe storms and unpredictable weather patterns, gene modification may offer an added layer of heartiness to plants to manage extreme weather.

for example: ronald’s lab and their collaborators have used marker-assisted breeding, to “develop gene markers that can survive floods as the climate changes.”

sometimes, gmos can even save a crop. the papaya once was threatened by extinction by the papaya ringspot virus. fortunately, a plant geneticist from cornell university was able to insert a gene modification that made the crop resistant to the devastating disease, thereby essentially saving the papaya industry and allowing consumers worldwide to enjoy this popular vitamin c-rich fruit.

and although not currently allowed in organic farming, some believe gmo seeds could offer a benefit to the organic industry, as well.

could gmos have a place in organic farming?

as with conventional crops, using gmos in organic farming could improve yields of organic (and conventional for that matter) crops, and deliver fewer heavily pesticide-raised foods to the market.

“i think that if genetically engineered traits were allowed in organic farming, there could be could be a lot of benefits, because there are pests that are difficult to control (by organic methods),” adamchak says.

pests are an issue for all farmers, but a particular challenge for organic farmers, who are unable to use many pest-resistant pesticides on their crops. with climate change increasing the burden of invasive species and pathogens, a gene modification that could improve pest-resistance could lead to higher yields of organic crops, a win-win for consumers and farmers alike (as long as those extra crops don’t go to waste, of course).

but will the organic farming industry accept gmos?

adamchak didn’t seem overly optimistic at the prospect, which could potentially be a missed opportunity for sustainable food systems going forward.

“the bigger issue as an organic grower is how does the attitudes of organic growers affect agriculture as a whole? because organic agriculture uses only 1% land in the u.s., and 99% is conventionally grown,” adamchak says.

“so if you want to change that system, if you want to make that system more sustainable, using genetically modified traits that reduce pesticide use, that reduce soil erosion depending on how it’s used, this could make that 99% of agriculture more sustainable — less of an impact on the environment, more profit for growers,” he says. “and clearly the attitudes of the organic community have impacted the spread of genetically modified traits and also how they’re perceived by consumers. and i think that’s a problem.”

the farmer-consumer dynamic is challenging: consumers rely on farmers for food, but farmers must produce things consumers will buy. the difficulty lies in creating a sustainable and trusting system that pleases both sides.

moving forward

after gathering these nuances about gmos, i reckoned with what i could do to improve the food system myself. i think the first step, as a scientist and consumer, is to educate oneself about the topic and help spread factual information, which may lessen the fear of gmos in general.

furthermore, supporting sustainable food technologies — gmo, gene altering, or otherwise — may help us address the monumental challenge of creating a more sustainable food system for our future.

20 miles west of sacramento, a woman walks her dog down a dirt road in the twilight. they walk past a 22-acre organic farm on uc davis campus. the dog doesn’t sniff out the jackrabbit nibbling grass in the vineyard, but the rabbit hops away when a volkswagen pulls up. jorge berny, a postdoctoral scholar, hops out and starts to prune a row of tomato plants on the student-run farm, hoping to finish while there’s still light in the sky.

not far north, there is a very different scene on the schreiner farms, which is well over 100 times the size of the student farm at 15,000 acres. a combine scrapes a field of dead sunflowers from the earth. with a growl, the towering green tank collects the seeds and hurls most of the plant out the back; fertilizer for next year’s crop. a few miles away, a tomato harvester picks up a stream of the red fruit, leaving behind a wake of pancaked green plants.

schreiner farms is a conventional operation. they use varieties of crops genetically modified with modern breeding techniques. researchers at places like bayer’s r&d farm carefully breed varieties for specific purposes such as disease resistance, size and taste. conventional farms are also free to use synthetic fertilizer and ten varieties of genetically engineered crops.

the vast majority of food americans eat daily comes from conventional farms. organic farms only cultivate 1% of u.s. agricultural land, and the rest is considered conventional. organic farmers play by a different set of rules. they cannot plant genetically engineered plants, and they must use natural fertilizer. the result is a product that some view as more pure, and that in most cases was produced in a more sustainable way.

raoul adamchak, the uc davis professor in charge of the student farm, says that organic farmers could benefit from being allowed to use some genetically modified organisms. he says most of all that conventional farmers could learn a sustainability lesson from organic growers. organic and and genetic engineering may not need to be enemies the way they have often been made out to be.

in these diptychs, i compare six scenes from the organic student farm with scenes from schreiner farms and the bayer’s r&d farm, both of which i associate with conventional farming.

when i visited woodland, california, i saw first-hand how producers are working with consumers through different avenues to attempt a more sustainable future. click on the story below to learn more!

this august, i traveled to woodland, california, with planet forward to learn about the large-scale farming operations that are currently feeding the united states. my goal for this trip was to see the other side of agriculture — the genetically modified and industrial side — and decide for myself what sustainable farming looks like.

at the kenyon farm, we are in a temperate deciduous biome. we get plenty of rain, grow crops that make sense in our cold hardiness zone, and let the outskirts of our land rest as natural forests. the central valley of california, on the other hand, is naturally a desert, but now water is diverted for irrigation and farmers can control the exact amount going to their fields. this provides the perfect conditions for growing a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables that feed the u.s.

for most of the summer, there isn’t a single cloud in the sky. here, plants get all the sun they can handle, and farmers will often shade crops to prevent them from getting sunburnt. this valley, with irrigation, provides the ideal conditions for farmers to control what their plants receive, meaning they get high yields and have the potential for precise data collection and experimentation. yet there is a tension here, between diverting water from natural ecosystems and providing fresh, nutritious food to people across the country.

many people see small- and large-scale agriculture at two opposite ends of a spectrum, as well as conventional and organic farms in the u.s. many environmentalists presume that small farmers are responsible stewards of the land and that they follow organic practices. in a similar vein, many people presume that large, conventional operations produce waste without regard for the environment.

as a farmer myself, i was curious to see what the “other side” is doing to have such a negative reputation with environmental groups. at the same time, i cannot ignore the reality that we produce a lot of our food today using industrialized agriculture. and, as our climate continues to change, farmers must adapt to new conditions while still providing nutrient rich, full diets for our exploding global population. these contradictions lead me to think that the ecological industrialization of agriculture will be necessary and inevitable.

with these various priorities and concerns in farming, i think that a new definition of sustainability will have to be adopted to balance seemingly competing interests, the large-scale with the ecologically sound methods of farming. in national geographic’s “a five-step plan to feeding the world” by jonathan foley, the idea of blending organic and conventional methods is discussed:

“those who favor conventional agriculture talk about how modern mechanization, irrigation, fertilizers, and improved genetics can increase yields to help meet demand. and they’re right. meanwhile proponents of local and organic farms counter that the world’s small farmers could increase yields plenty—and help themselves out of poverty—by adopting techniques that improve fertility without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. they’re right too.”

foley proposes a discussion of diverse farming methods that isn’t framed as an argument, because both movements are recognizing important needs of humanity and the earth. if we hope to reconcile people with the natural world around us, we must also recognize that we will always have some impact on our environment if we keep producing food. now it’s up to us to decide what that impact will be.

the morning star tomato processing plant, our first stop in woodland, is the largest tomato processing plant in the world. with that reputation, i expected to have some misgivings about how they process their tomatoes. i realized, however, that i had this bias as an environmentalist simply because morning star is such a large plant.

in reality, morning star makes informed decisions about its waste management strategies and this often saves the company time and money, therefore finding greater efficiencies. reducing environmental impacts can be profitable. all of morning star’s tomatoes come from local growers, most within an hour’s drive from the time of harvest. water used at the plant is recycled and flows by gravity. when this water eventually becomes waste, it is used as fertilizer on the adjacent acres of grassland, which the company bails as hay sells to local livestock operations.

morning star boasts that its operation is virtually zero waste, with pomace (the leftover skin, seeds, and stems from tomatoes) leaving the plant as a byproduct that is sold to cat and dog food companies, cattle ranches, or is used for compost.

while these waste-reducing practices are to be applauded, the scale of morning star’s operation does have some waste built in to it. as we drove up to the plant, the roads were littered with bright red tomatoes that had fallen off the trucks on their way from being harvested.

when our group of students asked about this food waste, renee, who works at morning star, said that it’s not worth their time to tarp the trucks and prevent this loss. tarping would add 5 minutes in the field and 5 more at the plant: time that the company does not have when running 24/7 for 3 short months of the year during the tomato harvest season. morning star would rather keep the system moving and leave those tomatoes behind, a loss that may have to be accepted when the corporation processes “over 25% of the california processing tomato production, supplying 40% of the u.s. ingredient tomato paste and diced tomato markets.” 

the question remains whether less wasteful practices would have a significant impact on the amount of tomatoes that the plant can process, because producing food is their primary concern.

during the tour of the morning star facility, it was apparent that the ideas of organic agriculture, conventional agriculture, conventional breeding, and genetic modification were getting confused in our everyday discourse about these issues.

grace warner, a sales representative for bayer seeds, clarified that organic and conventional agriculture refer to how the plant is grown, and that this has nothing to do with where the seeds come from. on the other hand, both conventional breeding and genetic engineering are ways of breeding plants (i.e., producing desired seed), and both are forms of genetic modification.

while genetic engineering is a purposeful addition of select genes in a lab, in conventional breeding, humans select for desirable traits and modify the gene pool simply by planting what we like. this has been happening for thousands of years; sticky rice, sweet potatoes, sweet corn, and granny smith apples are all examples of plants whose gene pools have been modified, reflecting what humans desire and prefer. michael pollan’s “the botany of desire,” details how humans have shaped the environments, plants, and animals around us since the advent of agriculture.

the morning star employees told us that they do not purchase organically grown tomatoes. in their eyes, the two main setbacks of organic agriculture are that organic farmers cannot plant genetically engineered seed, and they cannot use pesticides like glyphosate on those crops.

raoul adamchak, who manages the certified organic farm at uc davis, feels that organic and conventional growers could actually learn from each other’s practices. he says that only 1% of the agricultural land in the u.s. is farmed organically, while the other 99% is farmed using conventional methods. he believes that conventional growers can learn about ecological land management from organic growers, such as planting cover crops, using low-till practices, and implementing integrated pest management systems (ipm).

on the other hand, if organic farmers could plant seed that is genetically engineered to be resistant to certain pests, organic operations would not have to spend as much money or labor spraying certified organic herbicides and pesticides on their crops. one of the most important potential impacts of organic farmers accepting genetically engineered (ge) seed would be that consumers may start to change their views on ge and realize how this technology can benefit organic farmers (in terms of reducing resource, land, energy, and pesticide use).

this move could make ecological farming more common across the u.s. by breaking down the existing duality between organic and conventional growers.

raoul cites an important interdependence between organic and conventional farmers. organic producers prefer to use composted manure on their fields, and when their own operations do not involve compost or livestock, they will often purchase manure from local, conventional livestock operations. yet these conventionally grown animals are often fed ge corn or soybean, providing vital nutrients to organic farmers and allowing them to avoid using synthetic fertilizers. without the livestock that is fed ge crops, it’s possible that organic farmers would not have enough organic fertilizer to run their operations. raoul’s point here is that the two methods of farming are more interdependent than most people realize, and working together can often benefit both sides.

i asked raoul if he thought allowing genetically engineered seeds into organic practices would open up the door for organic farmers to plant crops engineered to withstand pesticides, and then spray their fields with those pesticides. he laughed at the thought of engineering a crop to be resistant to citrus juice, a common herbicide in organic farming. his point was that even if organic farmers would accept genetically engineered seed, they would still avoid spraying when they could, and if necessary, only spray what is certified organic. this is because most organic farmers want to reduce damaging pesticide use, not increase it.

planting genetically engineered seed would allow organic farmers to plant crops that are resistant to the pests that current organic pesticides are ineffective in attacking. it would also open up the door for organic farmers to plant crops that have been engineered for higher yields; a common criticism of organic operations is that they produce lower yields, and this is one reason that more farms are not organic. ge crops would open many avenues for organic farmers, because they could plant crops engineered to have higher nutritional content, for example, if such a crop was desired by consumers in the u.s. in the future.

technology plays a large role in agriculture today, with an increasing number of innovations being used on america’s farms and across the globe. some examples are gps systems that allow farmers to track what amount of water and fertilizer goes into each plot of their land, genetic engineering to enhance flood tolerance in rice, and the newest, most precise tractors for harvesting.

many farmers are passionate about these new technologies because they make their lives easier, for example by limiting the hours farmers work and the physical labor they exert. yet the sustainable agriculture movement does not always embrace industrial technologies because these machines often release carbon from the soil and burn fossil fuels, while there still remains an ecological way to farm without creating so much waste and pollution.

john purcell, the vegetable r&d lead at bayer, views technology as a positive in agriculture. “that’s how food production is done,” he says. “it can’t be a romantic ideal.” while the romantic vision of sustainable agriculture would include practices like no tillage, crop rotation and integration, and not using genetically engineered or modified crops, few large farmers implement these methods.

many of today’s career farmers are financially tied to their farming practices, investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into tractors and machinery. they also are tied to their business relations because of these investments. the question remains whether ecological farming methods, like those used on organic farms, could produce as much as industrial methods do. i don’t blame a farmer that isn’t willing to bet their livelihood on being more ecological. on the other hand, i personally wouldn’t choose to invest my livelihood in expensive industrial technologies as a young farmer getting into the field today. i hope to be open to innovation and new methods, and want the opportunity to change my practices when the world around me is doing the same.

john believes that the younger generation of farmers will be more apt to use new technologies, because tech comes more naturally to us. as a young farmer, i have to admit that some of these technologies appeal to me, but others don’t. i would love to collect data on the nutrients added to my fields and have gps maps of my land. yet i’m not interested in investing in huge tractor equipment that cuts through land, releasing carbon from the soil and burning carbon in the process. i hope that there’s a way to respect the integrity of the land and retain the natural ecology of a place, while producing enough food for our global population through innovation. if this solution is only possible with the use of ge crops that are more resilient, more nutritious, and more resource efficient to grow, then i would support the use of genetic engineering in organic agriculture.

john says that “waste, energy, water, and soil all should be in confluence,” and that a farmer who implements this “fits any definition of sustainability.” i think that in order to be sustainable, farmers will have to be willing to learn about the more efficient and nutritious ways to feed the world, even if that means integrating new technologies and practices into their current systems. mitigating the effects of global climate change and our exploding global population will require that we adapt to the circumstances and tools at our disposal.

as both a farmer and an environmentalist myself, i used to see organic farming, as it exists today, as the solution that would allow humanity to grow fresh food and protect our planet. what i realized, however, was that a large-scale industry like morning star can take steps to mitigate waste and compost nutrients, and so can an organic farm like the one at uc davis. and we must recognize that the large-scale operations keep food on our tables. there are markets for the tomato paste processed at morning star, and for uc davis figs grown locally and organically.

these two types of farming systems actually complement one another because they provide people in the u.s. with the food they want to buy, and they give us options. whether i’m at home on the kenyon farm in ohio or touring a bayer plant research facility, i can come across a perfectly ripe tomato on the vine, pluck it off and taste the same juicy sweetness. i think as long as people have enough to eat, we should work to make our farming is as ecologically sound as possible, so that we can ensure food security into the future.

the morning of my arrival, as we entered the highway on the way to our first destination, i saw the familiar green exit signs with white lettering, the billboards that displayed a plethora of advertisements for local companies, and miles and miles of concrete road ahead of us. as we exited the highway, i began to realize it wasn’t quite as familiar as i had initially thought.

we passed colorful, expansive orchards, ones like i had never seen before; although, it is hard to tell what is growing on the trees when you pass thousands of them at 50 miles per hour. i asked one of the drivers what kind of trees were on the left, expecting to hear some kind of fruit — turns out, they were almond trees.

i was dumbfounded to say the least. not only did i suddenly realize how little i knew about food, but also how little i actually thought about it. i had no idea that almonds even grew on trees, and never had the impulse to wonder where they came from either. it’s funny because i love almonds; salted, covered in rich, milk chocolate, plain, or even as a milk substitute for my cereal or coffee.

this realization made me question everything. had i ever seen an almond tree before and just not realized? why am i so quick to judge a place? my eyes were opened and i understood that woodland, california, located smack dab in the middle of — yes — yolo county, is like no place i had ever seen before this trip.

i welcomed this perfect wake up call and was thankful that it happened at the beginning of the trip. it helped me understand that things can be equally similar and different, and that nothing can be understood from just a surface view.

my thoughts were interrupted as we arrived at the morning star company — a tomato processing plant. they handed us goggles, hard hats, and asked for us to remove any jewelry. i entered this facility with no knowledge of what tomato processing was, and once again came to the realization that i have never thought about it much before — a product of growing up in pre-packaged, pre-processed america. this time, i tried not to make any assumptions.

one of the students pointed out that she loves the smell of tomatoes. i tried to imagine what i thought tomatoes smelled like, before taking a big breath in through my nose. to my surprise, tomatoes did have a very distinct smell, and it was pretty overwhelming at first. it is now also a smell i will never forget. gigantic trucks, each towing two industrial sized dumpster-like things, piled high with red, orange, and even green tomatoes, filed into the production plant.

even after a full tour of the plant, i could hardly picture just how huge and complex this operation was — from farmers, harvesters, and truck drivers, to quality check or teams who work in the offices keeping track of all the transportation, temperatures and each machine. the operations at the plant go nonstop, 24 hours a day, for about three months on end. i had never considered how much human energy, time, and money goes into the operation in order to supply the demand for things such as packaged tomato sauce that we use on spaghetti or pizza whenever we want it.

the tour guide informed us that the time it takes for the tomatoes to be harvested, inspected, and processed is approximately one hour. one hour from farm to finished: and ready to be sent to companies like campbell’s or heinz. i also was surprised at the company’s willingness to give students a complete tour of their operations and answer all of our questions. the operation is almost completely zero-waste; any parts of the tomato not suitable for processing are used for animal feed or composting. for certain products, they can use the yellow or green tomatoes depending on what the company is and the demand they are processing it for.

after the tomato processing plant, we continue to work backward through the journey our produce takes on the way to groceries and markets. next, we visited schreiner farms, which grows the tomatoes for morning star, along with other crops for other companies. the farmer, eric schreiner, seemed excited to talk about his work and answer our questions. with us was a seed sales representative, who had set up a meeting with the farmer. they started the meeting with a little small talk, and delved further into seeds, changing prices, competitors, and many other things that take part in making the production succeed.

schreiner is a third generation farmer, trying and seemingly succeeding at keeping up with the competitive and risky business of growing crops. he has to stay on top of the technological advances happening in the farming industry in order to make his work as efficient and effective as possible. he showed us his recent investments, which included a big harvester with sorting technology, and a scary looking machine that removes old drip tape. he explained that farming today is nothing like what the generations before him had done.

schreiner farms has seen three generations of extensive change and adaptation in the agricultural sector of this nation’s economy. before this trip, i had no idea how complex and overwhelming the agriculture industry had become. the technology farmers use today is more advanced than i could have ever imagined; including things such as gps navigation, drones, and radars that can detect disease-ridden plants in the densest fields, or even biologically/genetically engineered seeds that can withstand the toughest cycles of nature.

the use of engineering and technology in agriculture is needed in order to keep up with population growth, increasing hunger, and decreasing access to fresh fruits and vegetables. if this kind of technology was implemented within agriculture, it would be simply an adaption to the ever-changing world around us.

farmers like schreiner, who dedicate their life to the efficient and sustainable production of the nation’s food are undeniably necessary. farming is universal, but also communal. as consumers, we need to further educate ourselves on the complexity of the networks that provide simple things such as almonds or tomatoes. by understanding the time, effort, and labor it takes to produce a farm-to-table item, it allows us as consumers to reconnect with our food and therefore creating a level of appreciation and respect we never would have perceived before. to put it simply, wasting these products is a waste of this effort.

one of the largest food producing regions of the world, the central valley is home to massive industrial agriculture operation, small organic farmers, and plant breeders working to stay relevant in a quickly changing industry full of skeptical consumers. 

according to bayer’s holly butka, “it’s a multi-pronged force,” the necessary push to sustainable crops is being driven by consumer demand, the economics of farming and the development of technology helps farmers operate more efficiently.

ultimately though it is a consumer-driven market and farmers and seed companies like bayer want to produce products consumers will buy. when main concerns of consumers are taste, appearance, and sustainability, farmers and seed suppliers have their work cut out for them.

click through the slideshow above to learn more.