Iowa Soybean Review, Summer 2015 by Iowa Soybean Association

Iowa Soybean Association, 1255 SW Prairie Trail Parkway, Ankeny, Iowa 50023

NON-PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID DES MOINES, IA PERMIT NO. 1333

AGRICULTURE THROUGH BIOTECHNOLOGY

EXTRAORDINARY ADVANCEMENTS: Summer 2015

SOYBEANreview

IOWA

Iowa Soybean Association

Summer 2015 | Vol. 27, No. 7

12 Biorevolution A newspaper story hangs on the

24 Pods of Progress Farmers talk about biotech benefits.

wall of Ed Anderson’s office at the Iowa Soybean Association.

28 Ground Breaking

20 China Trade

Mission Iowa ag reporter, Ken Anderson recounts his experience in a country he hadn't seen in 32 years.

Approach to Farmland Investment If getting top dollar

for rent is the only goal of farmland owners, Peoples Company probably isn’t the best choice for a management company.

About the Cover: This issue of the Iowa Soybean Review® tells the story of the 30-plus-year journey of agricultural biotechnology: how it has helped farmers and the world, past and current challenges and what the future holds.

S AV E T H E D AT E New Dates and Location!

2016 ISA RESEARCH CONFERENCE Partnership for Progress

F E B R U A R Y 1 6 - 1 7, 2 0 1 6 I O WA E V E N T S C E N T E R Community Choice Credit Union Convention Center // Des Moines, IA

Iowa Soybean Association

EXECUTIVE review Kirk Leeds Chief Executive Officer Iowa Soybean Association kleeds@iasoybeans.com Twitter@kirkleeds

Harvest of Controversy: Continued As many of you can relate, one of the advantages of advancing years is that you have been around long enough to bring a sense of history and perspective that is gained by watching challenges evolve over time. But you also experience the sometimes uncomfortable occasion to look back at things you have shared or predicted in the past to see how accurate or off target you might have been. In the October 1999 issue of the Iowa Soybean Review, I penned an editorial related to the headline on the cover of the magazine which read, “Harvest of Controversy: The Future of GMOs.” The entire publication was devoted to updating producers on the challenges our industry was facing as more of the corn and soybeans produced in the United States (and around the globe) were produced from seeds improved through the use of biotechnology. After stating the case for why the ISA was such a strong supporter of the technology, I listed six specific tasks that were in front of us: • Help coordinate public and private efforts in developing these new traits. • Create an infrastructure to produce and deliver the modified crops to the marketplace. • Ensure that trade restrictions based on fear are not impediments. • Broadly educate consumers and win their acceptance of these new products.

• Ultimately, improve the quality of the world’s food system while increasing total production. • And, we need to do all of this while trying to improve the profitability of Iowa’s farmers.

So, how have we as an industry done on these six tasks in the last 16 years? And how accurate were my predictions and projections? I believe the answers are mixed. On one hand, I believe that ISA had a good handle on the current and future challenges our industry was facing as the number of acres planted to biotech crops increased. I also think the list of tasks has proven to be on target. However, it is also clear that all six are still very relevant and much work remains. In fact, we have probably lost ground on consumer acceptance and in concerns that these unfounded fears would be used as trade impediments. As we prepare for the fall of 2015, we are still facing a harvest of controversy. Yes, the issues have evolved and changed, but the core challenge remains. How do we make sure that Iowa farmers have the ability to use the best technologies available to assist in their efforts to remain profitable while producing food that is safe, abundant and desired by the world’s growing population? YOUTUBE LOGO SPECS

American Soybean Association Directors Ray Gaesser, Corning Dennis Bogaards, Pella Wayne Fredericks, Osage John Heisdorffer, Keota Mark Jackson, Rose Hill United Soybean Board Directors Laura Foell, Schaller Delbert Christensen, Audubon Larry Marek, Riverside Tom Oswald, Cleghorn

For advertising information in the Iowa Soybean Review, please contact Larson Enterprises, (515)440-2810 or larson6@mchsi.com. Comments and statewide news articles should be sent to the above address. Advertising space reservations must be made by the first day of the month preceding publication. In consideration of the acceptance of the advertisement, the agency and the advertiser must, in respect of the contents of the advertisement, indemnify and save the publisher harmless against any expense arising from claims or actions against the publisher because of the publication of the content of the advertisement.

PAGE 18

Farmers adopt technology

4 | S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S O Y B E A N R E V I E W. C O M

Staff Credits Editor | Ann Clinton lightPutze, backgrounds Communications Director | on Aaron APR Creative Manager | Ashton Jacobson standard Photographer | Joe Murphy main red bottom Staff Writer | gradient Carrie Laughlin PMS 1815C PMS 1795C Staff Writer | Matthew Wilde Staff Writer | Dorothy Tate Staff Writer | Allison Arp Staff Writer | black Michelle Jones white no gradients Staff Writer | BLACK Easton Kuboushek WHITE Sales Director | David Larson The Iowa Soybean Review is published eight times a year by: C0 M96 Y90 K2

C13 M96 Y81 K54

C0 M0 Y0 K0

C100 M100 Y100 K100

Iowa Soybean Association 1255 SW Prairie Trail Parkway, watermark Ankeny, Iowa 50023 Phone: (515) 251-8640 Web address: www.soybeanreview.com E-mail: aclinton@iasoybeans.com stacked logoalso (for sharing only) Iowa Soybean Association can be found on these sites:

WHEN YOU’RE DEDICATED TO GROWING FOOD, IT PAYS TO KNOW A LENDER THAT WORKS TO GROW YOU.

FCSA Ad

NO OTHER LENDER IS MORE COMMITTED TO YOUR SUCCESS. Farm Credit Services of America dedicates every resource to financing agriculture. We deliver services that save you money, products that manage risk and people who work for your success. Agriculture is like no other business. Discover what makes us like no other lender. Call 800-884-FARM.

Andrew & Dawn Hock Hock Farms Grain & Swine Producers Manson, IA fcsamerica.com/hock

ISA Policy Director Carol Balvanz

Will Activists Squelch Ag Research? By Carol Balvanz, Policy Director

An article with the headline, “Animal scientist targeted by anti-GMO intimidation campaign” in a recent Agri-Pulse newsletter caught my eye. It reported a study showing that “29 years of feeding biotech crops to over 100 billion food animals produced absolutely no adverse health effects on animals or nutritional differences in food products.” This looked like great news to me. . . biotech feed is safe and nutritious. Alison Van Eenennaam from the University of California — Davis has been targeted by an antibiotech activist group, U.S. Right to Know, demanding all emails and correspondence relating to her biotechnology work, including correspondence with biotech companies. The request forced her to review over 75,000 emails trying to defend herself. She’s not the only one. The group has also targeted scientists who question climate change with the same public records request. Van Eenennaam, winner of the 2014 Borlaug CAST Communication Award, questions whether these expensive and intimidating requests might have “a chilling effect on the scientific process.” She asks, “Are we going to be able to access new technologies? Or will some of the most promising agricultural technologies be taken off the table because the public’s emotions, fanned by social media, label genetic modifications unsafe because they are politically incorrect.” A Pew Research Center study states that 88 percent of scientists believe GMO containing foods are safe to eat, but only 37 percent of the public believes it.

6 | S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S O Y B E A N R E V I E W. C O M

The public doesn’t seem to need scientific evidence to fear GMO foods, with too many following activists and social media as their expert sources. We face similar challenges in controlling pests and diseases in animals and plants. The scientific community and regulatory agencies evaluate the effectiveness of all products, including any risk to the public, approving those strategies that meet their standards. But a wellplaced Twitter rumor can create a public backlash against modern technology and production methods. Perhaps we also need credibility standards for information sources. Even when faced with the fact that over a billion animals had been fed GMO containing feeds without negative health or nutritional effects, the anti-GMO groups waved it away and demanded, “How can you be sure?” And then they intimidated the scientist who authored the paper with a time consuming email request and challenges to her credibility. It’s difficult to persuade people that GMO food is safe by using facts and reason to argue against the emotional positions they’ve adopted from social and mass media. Will we let emotion limit real scientific advances in agriculture in order to give a vocal minority of consumers what they think they want? Van Eenennaam believes agriculture must speak up for science — especially since in the GMO debate, she “feels like the meter is moving in the wrong direction at a rapid pace.” What will it take to change that direction? We need to find out.

FDA Announcement Shifts Focus to New Technologies Trans fats have been an active part of the soy industry’s vernacular for decades. And, for the past decade, the industry — including the farmers who grow soybeans — have been working on solutions to meet food-customer needs for a stable oil without partial hydrogenation, which causes trans fats. The FDA’s recent announcement to phase out partially hydrogenated vegetable oils did not come as a shock to soybean farmers. The United Soybean Board (USB) has been working with industry on two replacement options for partially hydrogenated soybean oil for more than 10 years. And now, those solutions are coming to the forefront. “The soy industry estimates that 2 billion pounds of partially hydrogenated soybean oil are used in food today,” says Jimmy Sneed, a soybean farmer from Hernando, Mississippi and USB farmerleader. “We’re excited to bring solutions like high oleic and interesterified soybean oil to the market and ready to shift the discussion to innovation.” High oleic soybeans produce an oil that food companies can use for stability without the need for partial hydrogenation. Farmers currently grow high oleic soybeans in nine states, with more acreage being added each year. “The U.S. food industry continues to be an important customer to soybean farmers and the entire soybean industry,” adds Sneed. “ High oleic soybeans and interesterified soybean oil are solutions brought online to help food companies maintain the taste consumers prefer, while using a domestically sourced, sustainable oil.” The FDA has been considering removing the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) status of partially hydrogenated oils since late 2013. After an open comment period in 2014, it announced in June intentions to phase out partially hydrogenated oils over the next three years. Farmers interested in helping bring the solutions to the market sooner through high oleic soybeans should talk to their local seed or processing representative, or visit soyinnovation.com.

S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S OY B E A N R E V I E W. C O M | 7

ISA Acts Decisively on Behalf of Farmers and Improved Environmental Performance By Aaron Putze

Earlier this year, Des Moines Water Works filed a lawsuit in federal court against the trustees of drainage districts in three northwest Iowa counties. The suit alleges that the districts violated the federal Clean Water Act and Iowa law by discharging nitrate into waters of the U.S. without proper permits. The Iowa Soybean Association (ISA), committed to enhancing the competitiveness of Iowa’s soybean farmers, immediately voiced concerns about the lawsuit. The association and its members attended and spoke against the lawsuit at public forums and provided in-depth and extensive coverage to farmers, industry partners, media and the general public. ISA also communicated the shortcomings of regulatory schemes in achieving water quality improvements and networked with many state farm and commodity groups, agribusinesses and elected leaders to advocate for the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. And the ISA was the only commodity organization during the past legislative session to publicly support raising the state sales tax 3/8th’s cents to provide more than $100 million annually to Iowa’s natural resources trust fund. The ISA continues to engage and align rural and urban stakeholders for the purpose of increasing the adoption of conservation practices. This includes its strong support of the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance. Created and funded

by ISA, Iowa Corn Growers Association and Iowa Pork Producers Association, the Alliance is working to increase farmer awareness of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy and their adoption of science-based practices proven to have environmental benefits. “The status quo is not acceptable when it comes to managing our soil and water,” says ISA CEO Kirk Leeds. “We must act boldly. We must improve natural resources management practices and environmental quality while also improving the competitiveness of soybean farmers. We can do these simultaneously but it will take commitment, resolve and resources from all Iowans.” The ISA, Leeds adds, will continue to be a leader on environmental issues while also seeking to actively support a legal defense fund established to support the three rural counties named in DMWW’s lawsuit. In June, the ISA board of directors approved a significant investment in a legal defense fund created by the Agribusiness Association of Iowa. The commitment of non-checkoff resources is contingent upon ISA being provided some level of accountability of the funds. “We’re hopeful we can finalize the commitment in support of the legal defense fund once that accountability is confirmed,” Leeds adds.

Biodiesel is getting us where we need to go. 17 years ago, Medford School District Director of Operations Joe Biluck had a challenge: “We saw alternative fuel legislation in New Jersey that would trickle its way down to the local level.” Joe decided to get out ahead of it and test his existing school buses on clean-burning biodiesel. The results really surprised him. “I knew it would reduce emissions and my buses ran like they always did, but biodiesel also reduced our operating expenses!” Diversifying the energy supply also led to diversifying the students’ education. “We’re using our fleet and facilities as learning labs—the kids’ environment is better and they’re being exposed to whole new career paths.” And for Joe, that’s just as important as what the kids are not being exposed to!

AmericasAdvancedBiofuel.com Sponsored by the United Soybean Board, the National Biodiesel Board, State Soybean Checkoff Boards, the U.S. Canola Association, and the Northern Canola Growers Association.

8 | S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S O Y B E A N R E V I E W. C O M

Bring it

with

LATHAM

SOYBEANS THAT WIN F.I.R.S.T. TRIALS…

Again and Again. Latham® Hi-Tech Soybeans won 18 different 2014 F.I.R.S.T. Trials including five different region summaries in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, South Dakota and Illinois. Family-owned Latham Hi-Tech Seeds selects products bred to perform best in your local conditions. Our team approach to product selection, combined with our hands-on production process, leads to high quality seed in the bag and higher yields in the field.

IF YOU HAVE A NEED, WE HAVE THE SEED. As much as we enjoy winning yield trials, it means more to us to win on your farm! We’ve been bringing home unmatched protection and unparalleled yield for nearly 70 years. To find out which products are best suited for your conditions, contact us at:

lathamseeds.com 1.877.GO.LATHAM

1-877-465-2842

®Registered marks of Latham Hi-Tech Seeds

Iowa Soybean Association Celebrates Policy Wins, Identifies Continued Priorities

Providing additional funds for soil and water conservation as well as transportation infrastructure were recognized by the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) as major accomplishments of the 2015 legislative session. “We’re pleased that the Integrated Farm and Livestock Management program was once again fully funded by the legislature, providing $400,000 for research through ISA’s OnFarm Network®,” says Tom Oswald, ISA president and farmer from Cleghorn. “The On-Farm Network is a trusted source for helping farmers continuously improve their practices, which ultimately benefits all Iowans. ISA members and staff served as a resource and voice of reason on this and many other issues important to farmers during the legislative session.” After six years of work, the legislature finally passed a 10-cent fuel tax increase. A portion of which will go toward increased funding for rural roads and bridges. The bill also provides a 3 cent deduction in the tax for biodiesel blends above B10, also a long-term ISA priority. “Iowa soybean farmers cannot continue to be competitive on a global scale without investment and updates to our transportation system,” says Wayne Fredericks, Osage farmer and ISA board policy committee chair. “We commend the legislature for their action on this matter and appreciate the reduction for biodiesel. As an alternative fuel, biodiesel drives demand for the Iowa soybeans as well as lowers the cost of soybean meal used by Iowa livestock farmers.” 1 0 | S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S O Y B E A N R E V I E W. C O M

In late December, ISA board members and voting delegates established and updated policy priorities in anticipation of the 2015 session. At that time, emphasis was placed on continued support for the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. ISA commends the legislature for providing $9.6 million to support the Iowa Water Quality Initiative and $6.75 million for conservation cost share. These funds will be utilized throughout the next fiscal year to support conservation practices and projects across the state. At the end of the legislative session, ISA supported another effort to increase funding for conservation — raising the state sales tax by three-eighths of a cent. This effort would have provided an estimated $165 million for the state’s natural resources trust fund. Nearly twothirds of these resources would fund practices to benefit soil conservation and water quality improvements. State legislators did act not this year but ISA members will continue to engage with them to build support for this popular measure. “Farmers are committed to water quality and conservation efforts and appreciate the increased financial support of these efforts,” says Carol Balvanz, ISA policy director. “While we are pleased with the positive movement around the issue, we believe there is still more to be done and will continue to focus on this conversation outside of the legislative session to help build and support the future.”

stineseed.com

with stine, i have options. Offering elite genetics and a wide range of technologies that can boost performance, STINE haS whaT I waNT aNd whaT my farm NEEdS. ®

I choose dedIcatIon. I choose servIce. I choose what I can count on. I choose Stine because… Stine haS yield.

S T IN E S E E D C O MPA N Y

A D E L, IO WA

Investing Checkoff Dollars

Biorevolution By Matthew Wilde

1 2 | S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S O Y B E A N R E V I E W. C O M

Investing Checkoff Dollars

newspaper story hangs on the wall of Ed Anderson’s office at the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) among pictures of family and St. Louis Cardinals memorabilia. Everything he loves is on display. His wife and five children, the Red Birds and biotechnology. The July 19, 1987 story from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch stands out. Encased in glass and a black frame, the article explains how a team of researchers from Monsanto and Washington University, both based in St. Louis, were testing tomato plants genetically engineered to resist insects, disease and herbicides. Anderson, then a 25-year-old scientist at Washington University, was part of the team planting tomatoes led by biotech pioneer Robert Fraley of Monsanto. Now ISA’s senior director

of supply and production systems, Anderson still gets excited thinking about how he helped biotechnology literally take root. “It means a lot to me,” says Anderson, Ph.D., as he glances at the story. “It was a very exciting time in my life. I was just a young scientist working in a field that we thought would revolutionize agriculture, and it did.” The story is a constant reminder of the 30-plus-year journey of agricultural biotechnology: how it has helped farmers and the world, past and current challenges and what the future holds. It’s a testament to the importance of basic and applied research. Working in biotech, and now directly with farmers, has been an exhilarating ride, Anderson says.

One that he doesn’t plan to get off of anytime soon. “The story of biotechnology … it’s amazing to me,” he says.

Tomatoes to soybeans

Humans have always manipulated and bred plants and animals for the good of mankind. Modern biotechnology, based on recombinant DNA technology, is no different. Research on introducing genes of interest into organisms to form new variants to improve food production, human health and solve environmental problems started to pick up steam in the 1970s and early '80s. Early work in understanding how Agrobacterium infected and transformed plants helped the process, Anderson says. That led to the first approval to field test modified food plants — resistant tomatoes, according to government historical data. Anderson remembers the day well. “It was tremendously exciting,” Anderson says. “We felt like this was a truly revolutionary beginning to agriculture. All the things that have been accomplished in plant and animal breeding for thousands of years can now be done in an enhanced way.” Plants could be genetically altered to resist specific herbicides, pests and diseases. Anderson says researchers envisioned farmers using less chemicals, reducing tillage and saving money and fuel, all while protecting and possibly enhancing yields. (Continued on Page 14.)

“

WE FELT LIKE THIS

WAS A TRULY REVOLUTIONARY

BEGINNING TO AGRICULTURE. — E D A N D E R S O N , IOWA SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION

” S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S OY B E A N R E V I E W. C O M | 1 3

Investing Checkoff Dollars (Continued from Page 13.)

But scientists had to prove it. They needed to show the technology was safe. The tomato was the logical choice. “It was among the most easily transformed by Agrobacterium at that time,” Anderson says. “The tomato was a good model for insects, herbicides, viruses and other things we wanted to evaluate.” According to Anderson, the team gathered at Monsanto’s then new Chesterfield, Mo. facility one June morning in 1987 with test tomatoes in pots and trays and waited for the goahead from regulators in Washington, D.C. Opposition to biotechnology, particularly activist Jeremy Rifkin, was growing. The fax came to proceed. Anderson, under the watchful eye of Fraley, who then headed Monsanto’s plant biotechnology program at age 34, helped plant the tomatoes near Jerseyville, Ill. “The test area was guarded with paid security, guarding the field 24-7. That spoke to everything … then and now, there was a lot of concern and angst about biotechnology,” Anderson says. In the Post-Dispatch article, Fraley said the “financially orientated people were promising pork chops on trees. They are disappointed that none of that has happened yet, but from a scientist’s perspective what we have accomplished since then has been phenomenal.”

The tests were successful and eventually led to bigger and better things. Ten years later, Roundup Ready soybeans were launched, leading to other biotech traits for row crops widely used by farmers today. Fraley, now executive vice president and chief technology officer at Monsanto, is proud the company, previously known for industrial chemicals, invested early in biotech and is now 100 percent focused on agriculture. The respected scientist is often referred to as the father of agricultural biotechnology. Fraley received the World Food Prize in 2013 for his contributions to helping feed the world through science. “It was 20 years of development before the first biotech products were launched,” Fraley says. “Today, biotech crops are grown in nearly 30 countries around the world on over 400 million acres and they continue to increase productivity on the farm, preserve our soils, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve lives.”

Successes and challenges

Since biotech crops were first introduced, use has steadily increased. In 2000, herbicide-resistant soybeans accounted for 57 percent of Iowa’s crop and 54 percent nationwide. Last year, the total was 97 percent and 94 percent, respectively.

“

For corn, genetically engineered varieties to tolerate herbicides or combat insect pests accounted for 30 percent of Iowa’s crop and 25 percent nationwide in 2000. Last year, the numbers jumped to 95 percent and 93 percent, respectively. ISA Board member Bill Shipley of Nodaway says biotech arrived on the scene with much fanfare among farmers and rightfully so. The technology, even though some weed and insect resistance have occurred, has unequivocally been a success. Farmers have become more efficient, sustainable and profitable, he says. Biotechnology reduced the need to till. “It helps our bottom line. We’re more efficient, and that’s what it’s all about,” Shipley says. “But you have to use common sense. If you over-use it, you can lose it.” Shipley adds he always plants the recommended refuge, if not more, for corn acres to help preserve Bt and other traits. Though he plants all Roundup Ready soybeans, Shipley also uses multiple types of herbicides with multiple modes of action to mitigate herbicide resistance, which is prevalent in the state. Anderson says nature will find a way to overcome, so farmers have to do what they can to preserve biotech traits. Overuse of glyphosate, while still an effective herbicide, has occurred.

TODAY, BIOTECH CROPS ARE GROWN IN NEARLY

30 COUNTRIES AROUND

THE WORLD ON OVER 400 MILLION ACRES — D R . R O B E R T F R A L E Y, MONSANTO

1 4 | S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S O Y B E A N R E V I E W. C O M

”

Investing Checkoff Dollars

BILL SHIPLEY ISA BOARD MEMEBER

ROBERT FRALEY MONSANTO

The Council for Biotechnology Information says biotech crops are responsible for lowering carbon emissions by the equivalent of taking almost 8 million cars off the road for one year. According to a soybean checkofffunded Field to Market study, significant improvements have been made from 1980-2012. These include: • Soil erosion per bushel of soybeans has decreased 66 percent. • Energy use per bushel is down 42 percent. • Greenhouse gas emissions per bushel have dropped 41 percent. • Land use per bushel decreased 35 percent. • Irrigation water applied per bushel decreased 42 percent. Despite these successes, no documented cases of human or animal health issues related to biotech crops and overwhelming support from the scientific community, there’s still plenty of opposition here and abroad. “I’ve said many times, if you asked me 25-30 years ago if we would still have all the resistance and questions around biotech, I would have said no way,” Anderson says. He adds scientists, like himself, were a little naive thinking acceptance would come as the public saw the good. Researchers could have done a better job bringing along the public, he says. Fraley adds there’s still time. He uses Twitter, LinkedIn and writes

articles for the Huffington Post to get the word out. Anderson and Shipley encourage farmers to talk about biotech use with the public. “There’s an opportunity to provide accurate information to consumers in a way they like — through social media,” Fraley says.

Future of biotech

Industry officials say there’s plenty of exciting developments on the horizon when it comes to biotech products for soybeans and corn. Anderson calls them next generation input traits. Several companies have launched or have products in the pipeline that are tolerant to Dicamba, 2,4-D or other herbicides. Same goes for new Bt and stacked traits for corn. “Companies are ramping up development to bring old technologies to the market and make them new again,” Anderson says. Output traits are also being and have been developed. High oleic soybeans are of particular interest for industrial and food applications. “If the industry can demonstrate success of high oleic in the market place, that may reinvigorate other output trait programs that have been put on the shelf,” Anderson adds. Improving and protecting yield have been a priority of soybean farmers for decades, Anderson says. Millions of soybean checkoff dollars have funded projects at land grant universities and

other institutions to do so. The ISA, North Central Soybean Research Program, United Soybean Board and other state soybean organizations continue to support biotech research. Public-private partnerships are encouraged. Thomas Baum, chair of the Iowa State University (ISU) Plant Pathology and Microbiology Department, says soybean checkoff funding and biotechnology is helping him and other researchers find a way to control soybean cyst nematode (SCN). It’s the top soybean yield-robbing pest that costs farmers dearly. “We’re using biotechnology to explore the disease … identify, isolate and modify genes to change the genetic makeup of plants. I can use this work to formulate hypothesis and test them,” says Baum, Ph.D. A trait isn’t available yet that will control or make SCN irrelevant, but Baum says tremendous strides toward that goal have been made. “I can’t give you a year when that will be available, but I’m confident if we continue what we are doing, we will have that,” Baum adds. Anderson says he’s as energized now about biotechnology as he was nearly 30 years ago planting genetically modified tomatoes. The future, he says, is limitless. But it won’t happen without funding basic research. “We won’t have new traits without it,” he says.

S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S OY B E A N R E V I E W. C O M | 1 5

A FEW WITH FRALEY Few people have dedicated their life to the improvement of food and crop production with more conviction than Robert T. Fraley. Following the completion of his Ph.D. in biochemistry and microbiology from the University of Illinois and postdoc at University of California San Francisco, Fraley began his career with Monsanto Company in 1981 as a research specialist. Leading a team of three, Fraley was on a mission to bring biotechnology into the ag sector. Over the next 30 years, Fraley’s passion for helping farmers led to extraordinary advancements in agriculture through biotechnology. With his team of researchers, he developed better crops through genetic engineering — crops that allowed farmers across the globe to manage critical problems like pests, weeds, drought and excessive heat. Iowa farmers might recognize his work in the form of Roundup Ready soybeans. As Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer, Fraley continues to drive the future of biotech today. Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) recently visited with Fraley to gain an inside perspective.

In an unpredictable world, how does a company like Monsanto predict the future?

“Monsanto emphasizes partnerships and collaborating with others. We have hundreds of relationships with an external focus; this includes ISA, American Soybean Association, United Soybean Board, among many other organizations and universities across the globe. We extend this to farmers because talking with our customers helps us understand what is top of mind for them and what their needs are. “We also utilize data science to help make predictions — We use robotics, integrate seed genetics, utilize data to look at fields meter by meter and leverage advances in computational science. There isn’t a more exciting time to be in agriculture and there isn’t a more important time to be in agriculture.”

Are you surprised there’s still apprehension about biotech crops? “Looking back, I would not have thought we would still be facing these communication and acceptance

1 6 | S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S O Y B E A N R E V I E W. C O M

By Easton Kuboushek

challenges. If you look across the spectrum of people, there are those that either strongly support or strongly oppose the technology. But there is this moveable middle that comprises the majority. There’s an opportunity to provide accurate information to these consumers in the way they like to receive information — through social media. This is why I am active on social media, and writing articles on Huffington Post and LinkedIn. We all care about food and where our food comes from, and that’s where we can find common ground.”

How do you feel about being referred to as the father of agriculture biotechnology?

“It is very humbling to be recognized by my peers in this way and seeing the impact of this technology in the lives of farmers is really exciting. In 2013, I received the World Food Prize and that was particularly meaningful because Norman Borlaug started that program. He was a long-time friend and mentor for me and always taught me to think globally and take a deeper look at the impact that innovations have on food security.”

Investing Checkoff Dollars

PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

CHINESE CONSUMERS’ YEARN FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT BIOTECHNOLOGY By Jane Li

INSIDE CHINA

While biotechnology has played an important role in China’s agricultural production for more than a decade, consumers were mostly unaware of the technology until recently. Since 2013, public awareness has been increasing, but not always based on accurate information. Much of the negative information has been driven by a series of celebrity campaigns against genetically modified (GM) foods, suggesting that GM soy oil causes cancer and infertility. The campaigns triggered fierce public debate. Unfounded opinions replaced science-based discussions and scientists shied away from speaking out as the tenor of the discussion became more strident. In July 2014, China’s Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) cited lack of public acceptance for biotechnology as the basis for suspending the import approval process for a GM soybean variety, the first time MOA cited non-scientific concerns in refusing to approve an import application. MOA also chose to delay the renewal of biosafety certificates for China’s own GM rice and corn for the same reason.

E H IN S

1 8 | S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S O Y B E A N R E V I E W. C O M

Current challenges in consumer attitudes towards GM foods include:

Unfamiliarity

• Most Chinese consumers have relatively low awareness of, and knowledge about GM foods. A recent GM food acceptance study conducted in eastern China by Zhejiang Medical University found that more than 80 percent of respondents admitted not having adequate knowledge about biotechnology. More than two-thirds of respondents indicated their assessment of the safety of GM soy oil was not based on their understanding of GM soy oil production process and techniques but a result of celebrity opinions and media sensationalism. Many consumers have unfounded fears regarding the safety of GM foods. General misconceptions include consuming GM soy oil increases susceptibility to cancer and causes sterility. Consumers also wrongly believed that people in developed countries only buy organic products.

Investing Checkoff Dollars

Enflamed Anxiety

• Social media has enflamed Chinese consumers’ anxiety about GM foods. China’s traditional media are largely supportive of genetically modified organisms (GMO). Traditional media outlets have covered the introduction of legal frameworks for GMOs in China and the biosafety management systems for agricultural GMOs. It has portrayed the Chinese government as actively pursuing national GMO research and development. Discussions on science-backed risks and concerns related to GMO have been limited. In contrast to the U.S., media outlets in China are registered with and licensed by the government and reflect the government’s agenda. In other words, reporters and editors are conditioned to keep the news aligned with the interests of the Communist Party.

Traditional media’s alignment with government public policy makes a public acceptance campaign difficult. Socially active consumers are skeptical about pre-filtered information. These consumers look to the internet and social media for alternative news sources. China currently has the world’s largest internet user base of 513 million people, more than double the 245 million users in the U.S. and the world’s most active social media environment. More than 300 million people use a multitude of outlets, including blogs, social-networking sites, microblogs, and other online communities. The explosive growth of social media has created an alternative to state sponsored media. This provides a platform, and some celebrities have used it to publish anti-GMO propaganda over the past couple of years. The result is increased anxiety about biotechnology, but mostly based on misinformation.

Lack of Trust

• Consumers do not trust industries to comply with regulatory mandates and lack of regulatory transparency has exacerbated distrust among Chinese consumers. Recent incidents with biotechnology have fueled consumers’ concerns. In April 2014, southern China’s Hainan province delayed the announcement of the discovery that illegal GM corn and cotton had been planted. This triggered public concerns about how information relating to GM foods in China is disclosed. A few months later, sales of unapproved GM rice was identified in supermarkets in central China’s Hubei province. Frequent reports of illegal planting and distribution of GM crops has deepened consumer concerns.

Making Progress

Lack of public acceptance has not only prolonged the approval process for imported GM grains and oilseeds, it

also delayed the approval of GM rice cultivation developed by Chinese researchers. Despite these setbacks, China’s policy makers understand the need for China to embrace biotechnology. At a national conference last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping stated that biotechnology was critical for development but also emphasized the need for safety protocols. The 2015 No. 1 Central document, the first policy document of the year jointly released by the Central Committee of the Communist party and the State Council, delivered a clear signal that the country will strengthen technical development, safety management, and public awareness of biotechnology. To support this effort, MOA launched a media campaign in late 2014 to inform the public about the science behind biotechnology. The Chinese government’s efforts toward public acceptance of biotechnology provide excellent opportunities for the Iowa soybean industry to work with the government, scientists and media to educate Chinese consumers about the science of biotechnology and help consumers overcome unfounded fear and hostility towards GM foods. Some approaches could include: • The Iowa soybean industry could intermediate between Chinese and U.S. scientists, allowing U.S. researchers to share with their Chinese counterparts the U.S. approach to biotechnology risk assessment, risk management, and communicating risk to the public. It will be critical for more Chinese scientists to speak out about the benefits of biotechnology and Chinese scientists would benefit from the U. S. experience. The Chinese government’s recent call for public education about biotechnology is an opening for Chinese scientists and the Iowa soybean industry to engage the public. • The Iowa soybean industry can provide technical assistance to the Chinese government, scientists and the media on topics that address the concerns of Chinese consumers. These topics could include: ”What is biotechnology?” “How is it developed?” “How is it regulated in the U.S.?” “How is biotechnology relevant to daily life?” and “What are the benefits and risks of biotechnology?” This support would assist the Chinese government, scientists and media in delivering accurate and balanced science-based communication. Both traditional and new media continue to be key sources of health and science information for the public. By engaging scientists and the government directly, the Iowa soybean industry can be involved in shaping and packaging messages to media sources. The Iowa soybean industry’s experience will be valuable in helping scientists and the government frame their messages to the public.

Xueqing (Jane) Li |

Li is a Principal at Ag Food Consulting (AFC), located in Washington D.C. and has nearly 15 years experience in agriculture including extensive knowledge of industry, association and government network in China.

S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S OY B E A N R E V I E W. C O M | 1 9

Investing Checkoff Dollars

CHINA TRADE MISSION ‘AN EYE-OPENING EXPERIENCE ’ By Ken Anderson

t had been 32 years since my first visit to China. When I was there in 1983, the main mode of transportation was the bicycle, the majority of adults still wore Mao suits, and meat was a onceor twice-a-week treat in the Chinese diet. Today, Chinese cities are full of late model automobiles, scooters and traffic jams. Clothing styles, especially with the younger crowd, are every bit as modern as you see in the U.S. And, as their incomes have increased and more Chinese citizens have attained “middle class” status, meat consumption per capita — mainly pork and chicken — has skyrocketed. That dramatic rise in meat consumption has been a

boon to U.S. soybean sales to China. So can the impressive growth in China’s meat consumption and its demand for soybeans continue at this torrid pace? That was the big question on the minds of those participating in the 2015 Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) China trade mission. And while the responses to that question were still fairly positive, China mission veterans agreed the answers were not as clear-cut as they have been in the past. Officials of Chinese feed companies we visited told us they see Chinese pork production going into a period of decline, with the main reason being that Chinese pork producers are losing money

2 0 | S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S O Y B E A N R E V I E W. C O M

and reducing their herds. But they also talked about the slowdown in China’s economy, warning that the rapid rise in the personal incomes of Chinese citizens may start to flatten out. Chinese officials also discussed China’s aging population and how it is likely to mean reduced per capita meat consumption in the long-term. The younger generation, they said, is wanting to eat healthier with less meat and more fish and vegetables in their diets. Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, a frequent visitor to China in recent years and a participant in this trade mission, said it was the first time he’s heard of a possible slowdown in Chinese demand.

Investing Checkoff Dollars

“It’s really the first time I have been here that I heard this many people say ‘we’re flattening out,’” Northey says. “We still heard most of them say they’re going to increase their soybean imports in the future, but it’s going to be smaller amounts rather than large increases.” Wayne Fredericks of Osage, ISA president-elect, says the discussion about China’s future feed demand was very enlightening. “We had agreement from two of the feed companies that they’ve peaked here for a time in the feed business, especially concerning swine. They’re just not so sure what the immediate direction for swine feeds are,” Fredericks says. However, another veteran of Chinese trade missions, ISA Market Development Director Grant Kimberley, still isn’t convinced that China’s demand for meat has peaked. “You still have 1.3 billion people here and 500 million non-urban people. A sizeable share of those are still going to be moving to the cities and when they do that, I still think you’re going to see incomes rise.” Renault Quach, executive vice general manager of DONLINKS Grain and Oil Company, one of China’s major soybean crushers, agreed with Kimberley’s assessment. “More urbanization means more consumption of meat. That means we will need more soybean meal,” Quach says. “So I believe in the years ahead we still have room for feed production to be increased, even though not at a rate as what we have noticed the last 10 years."

While China’s pork outlook may be a bit cloudy, that is certainly not the case with fish production. China’s aquaculture industry is booming, according to Kumning Zhu, chairman of Heyuan Heshun Agricultural Co., one of the largest producers of farm-raised fish in China. “Last year aquaculture production was 60 million tons,” Zhu said through a translator. “Seventy-two percent of fish comes from farms and the rest is wild catch. It is moving more and more toward aqua-farming rather than wild catch.” A good indicator of that trend is the growth in aqua-feed production which, according to Zhu, increased from 50 million tons in 2010 to 70 million tons in 2014. Zhu says the percentage of soymeal in aqua-feed runs from 10-30 percent, depending on the type of fish being fed and their stage of growth.

Improving Infrastructure

Another highlight of the trade mission was the opportunity to spend a couple of days on the Yangtze River and visit the massive Three Gorges Dam. Three Gorges Dam is the world’s largest hydroelectric dam based on generating capacity. It is 1.3 miles wide, over 600 feet in height, and has a reservoir that stretches 405 square miles. The reservoir helps control flooding on the Yangtze River basin and allows 10,000-ton ocean freighters to sail into the interior of China six months out of the year. The dam cost $59 billion and took 15 years to construct. It is the largest project in China’s history since the Great Wall.

ISA CEO Kirk Leeds was impressed with what he saw. “It is really hard to express in words the ability and focus China has on investing in improved infrastructure," says Leeds. "This huge dam and all of the related building and logistical projects is a stunning demonstration of the ability of the Chinese to complete work once the government makes the decision to go. I sometimes wish our government could move at this speed —for instance, Mississippi River locks and dams — but the displacement of the poor and the impact on the environment make this trade off impossible for us to envision or accept.”

Gaining Perspective

I want to thank ISA for the letting me participate in this China trade mission. It was an incredible, eyeopening experience, providing an entirely different perspective on China. I like the way ISA president Tom Oswald of Cleghorn framed it. This was Oswald’s third trade mission to China and he told me each time he visits, he gains a better understanding of the challenges faced by the top foreign customer for his soybeans. “It’s about perspective,” Oswald says. “A city here that has a million people is considered small. Where we’re at and where I live, there’s six people per square mile.” That’s a big part of what foreign trade missions are all about, Oswald said — gaining first-hand knowledge of how best to meet your customer’s needs “The only way you can really do that is by being here and looking at it.” Well said, Tom.

Ken Anderson, a news reporter and anchor for the Brownfield Radio Network, accompanied Iowa Soybean Association leaders on their trade mission to China in late March. Anderson provided this wrap-up report to Iowa Soybean Review. S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S OY B E A N R E V I E W. C O M | 2 1

Investing Checkoff Dollars

DISPELLING TH E FLAT LAND E RS

By Joe Murphy

ow do you overcome flat landers? Those people that shrug science and embrace misinformation. The people that thought you would sail off the edge of the world until explorers armed with science proved the earth was round. That was a question Wade Cowan asked a group of farmers and industry leaders at the end of a three day International Soy Growers Alliance (ISGA) meeting in China. It was one of many questions asked during the three day visit in China as leaders from Brazil, Argentina, United States and Paraguay talked with high level Chinese government and business agencies in hopes of them accepting new biotechnology seeds and farming practices. Finding an answer to that questions and others seemed simple. Use communications from a unified group of countries to promote the understanding of biotech crops and food safety. But as many representatives of ISGA found, China is setting the pace and in some cases making the rules on approving biotech events. That pace and the undefined 2 2 | S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S O Y B E A N R E V I E W. C O M

rules for biotech approvals are causing financial and social shockwaves around the globe according to a White Paper that was released in conjunction with the ISGA visit. “It matters to all of us that we have freedom to operate and that we have the ability to use the tools in the toolbox,” Cowan says. “When they say it could take seven years to get a trait that we can use in our fields they have effectively taken away 25 percent of your productive life as a farmer. You couldn’t tell a wage worker in town that you would take away seven years of their productivity and knock them down. Science is science and once it is approved it needs to be approved everywhere.” Through meetings with high ranking industry, education and government leaders in China members of ISGA presented information in a unified front to try and streamline the approval process. But to do that they found they have to overcome the fears of genetically modified crops when it comes to the Chinese people.

Investing Checkoff Dollars

Photos by Joe Murphy

“I understand that the conflict lies in the fast pace of research and development of GM events and the delay in approvals in consumer countries like China,” Chen Xuecong, the vice general manager of Sino Grain, says through an english translator. “From the perspective of the importers they have their own process and their consideration is more focused on food safety and the safety of biology. I believe that communications to the public is very important and it is also important for you to provide massive proof to show that biotechnology is safe and that it will provide safe food for a consuming country.” That answer, in one form or another, was repeated to each group of ISGA international farmers as they met with the Chinese organizations. Organizations like the Department of American and Oceanian Affairs Ministry of Commerce, the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the Department of Supervision on Animal and Plant Quarantine. “It would be a significant improvement if all the ISGA

countries together with Chinese industry could work together to create a pilot program for soybeans,” Jim Sutter, Chief executive officer, U.S. Soybean Export Council, told Chen Xuecong and others gathered at a meeting. The ISGA, formed 10 years ago from countries representing 95 percent of the world’s soybean production, has been working together in a united front to prod European and Asian countries to approve biotechnology events in an efficient manner. The ISGA representatives that participated in the mission to China know their message is being received but the actions of the Chinese government are still undefined. “This week everyone was talking the same language and for me it was impressive,” Sonia Tomassone, a trade consultant for the Paraguayan Grains and Oilseed Exporters Association says. “We need to present a single paper to everyone we met with to show that we have one voice on this issue.” S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S OY B E A N R E V I E W. C O M | 2 3

Investing Checkoff Dollars

PROGRESS FAR M ER S TAL K BIOTECH BEN EF IT S By Dorothy Tate

CON SE RVAT I ON /SUSTA I N A BI LI T Y: 1. When did you first implement biotechnology on your farm? Bt corn was my first experience with biotechnology in the early 1990s. I was able to realize efficiencies that improved my economics while providing environmental benefits, which were driving forces for me to implement biotechnology. When the Roundup gene came onto the market I was able to control weeds safely and economically without multiple tillage passes, while saving time, fuel and expensive machinery costs.

2. How did biotechnology allow you to become more sustainable as a farmer?

MARK JACKSON ROSE HILL

When I started farming in 1974 the Environmental Protection Agency was recently established and the farming community was shifting its focus to cleaner air and water. It was critical that we realize how our daily farming practices could affect the environment and the importance of understanding our responsibility to protect it. We did realize that we could make a difference if we allowed our farming practices to evolve. Weeds and bugs were what my father spent a lot of time dealing with in crop production, but we knew that excessive tillage and pest spray usage could affect the water and everything around us. Biotechnology has helped change that. Having farmed using the same practices my father and grandfather used prior to the biotechnology era, it is amazing how much we have progressed forward in the quality of our air, water and soils in todays’ modern agriculture production.

3. What has biotechnology enabled you to do? Technology allowed me to thrive as a farmer,

as I was able to purchase and improve sadly neglected farms. With the use of biotechnology, I have been able to transition these farms into highly productive and efficient lands, without the use of the plow. Ultimately, we were able to move to no-till on the majority of our acres. A continuous improvement mentality on our farm, has opened the door for more conservation practices including terraces, grass buffers, prairie strips, wetlands and cover crops. We now have enhanced knowledge for the use of all these tools, that my grandfather never did — an alignment that has led to the era of modern agriculture. 2 4 | S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S O Y B E A N R E V I E W. C O M

Investing Checkoff Dollars

CON SUM E R S: 1. How has biotechnology changed farming for your generation? One of the largest ways biotechnology has changed

farming is that we can make fewer passes across a field. Biotechnology created herbicides that provide tremendous flexibility for practices, timing and production that we otherwise wouldn’t have. The use of biotechnology has allowed our operation to grow without as much strain on the product application side.

2. What do consumers need to know about biotechnology? Without biotechnology farming becomes

significantly more difficult. Biotechnology provides low cost herbicides and has allowed us to move to reduced tillage or no-till, which improves soil health and subsequently water quality. We are also able to save labor and fuel which makes us sustainable. Ultimately, I don’t know if we could be globally competitive without biotechnology. There is nothing else that has influenced our agricultural practices in such a significant, positive way.

3. Why is it important for farmers to talk with consumers about the use biotechnology? As farmers,

COREY GOODHUE CARLISLE

we need every tool in our toolbox to feed the planet’s population and we need to let consumers know that if we didn’t have the technologies it would be detrimental for all of us. It’s been a huge challenge to communicate about technology with consumers that are one to two generations removed from farming. The conversation becomes tough because we approach it from a science background but they don’t understand or want to hear it. Any time we engage with consumers it is important to show that our motivations aren’t only monetarily based. As farmers we care about the safety of our food and environment too. We need to find a way to express that and talk about it.

F U T URE/RES EARCH: 1. What were your initial impressions when you heard about biotechnology 30 years ago? I’ve always been an

early adapter to technology. In 1995, I was one of the first people in my part of the state (eastern Iowa) to try Bt corn. It was very successful and I’ve been using it ever since. The product had been tested in public and private plots and had the research and data to back it up. Anything that is science-based is meaningful to me because I’m research oriented.

2. What do you think is the next big invention coming down the pipe in biotech? I’m not sure. I think we are seeing a need for better weed control because weed resistance is a big issue. Better weed control will give us better yields. With any new technology, it will be important that other countries are accepting of it. We should not allow politics to control issues regarding biotechnology. The data, science and research are available to prove the technologies are safe and effective and we need continued market access.

CLIFF MULDER PELLA

3. Why is it important to keep researching the next advance in biotechnology? The world population is growing

every day and we, as farmers, need to produce more food. Farmers have the ability to produce more if given additional biotechnology and the freedom to use it. That is one reason why ISA, because of its association with various research programs and projects, has gained recognition with farmers to show that we can produce more with research. S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S OY B E A N R E V I E W. C O M | 2 5

Investing Checkoff Dollars

ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY By Allison Arp

“

THE CENTER COULD BE ON THE FRONT END AND THE BACK END OF BIOTECHNOLOGY.

”

GREG TYLKA IOWA SOYBEAN RESEARCH CENTER

2 6 | S U M M E R 2 0 11 5 5 || SSO OY YB BE EA AN NR RE EV VIIEEW. W.C CO OM M

Investing Checkoff Dollars

he world of research is based on discovering unknowns and proving the improbable. This challenge to innovate may drive the Iowa Soybean Research Center at Iowa State University (ISU) to play a role in fostering some high-risk, highreward research. According to director Greg Tylka, the center could help foster early generation research that some may categorize as speculative or unproven. “I can imagine ISU scientists coming up with innovative ideas for proof of concept research on some aspects of soybean production or protection and if the research shows indications of working, a company might want to develop the technology for practical use,” Tylka says. “We could serve a need by supporting some speculative research a company may not want to do that could reveal new opportunities for biotech.” Although some may equate biotechnology with transgenic traits, it actually refers to all chemistries, biological products, traditional traits and breeding, plant growth regulators and many other parts of the biological system. This means new seed treatments and disease control practices are also part of the biotechnology movement. These options would allow farmers to choose between planting seeds with traditional resistance against yield-damaging pests such as soybean cyst nematode (SCN), and spending additional money to plant seeds genetically engineered to be SCN resistant. Developing new biotech ideas isn’t the only potential involvement Tylka sees for the center. Working with the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) On-Farm Network®, the center could help with widespread field testing and validation of new traits and products coming down the pipeline.

“We want companies to partner with us to test new traits and products,” Tylka says. “In that regard, the center could be on the front end and the back end of biotechnology.” Testing out new products is nothing new to the ISA-ISU partnership. The On-Farm Network has been testing products and practices with replicated strip trials for 15 years, and ISU has been conducting small plot analysis for decades. With the formation of the soybean research center, the two groups plan to work together to provide farmers with even more information. One of the latest products to be put to the test is the seed treatment ILeVO made by Bayer CropScience. This is the first year ILeVO has been available to the general public as a way to control sudden death syndrome and SCN. The On-Farm Network set up 15 trials this spring allowing farmers firsthand experience in seeing how the product works on their operation. Researchers at ISU are scouting the trials to collect SDS and SCN data. “The ILeVO project is a great example of industry, the university and ISA coming together, and that’s the ultimate goal of the soybean research center,” says Tristan Mueller, On-Farm Network operations manager of agronomic programs and research center liaison. “The reason the center was formed was so projects like this, resulting in unbiased data, could improve the profitability of Iowa soybean farmers.” The formation of the Iowa Soybean Research Center at Iowa State University was a huge step in the advancement of the soybean industry in Iowa, but it also has the chance to be a big step in the advancement of biotechnology for everyone. That’s a reward everyone can get behind.

“COMING TOGETHER

THE ILeVO PROJECT IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF INDUSTRY, THE UNIVERSITY AND ISA

AND THAT’S THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE SOYBEAN RESEARCH CENTER. — T R I S TA N M U E L L E R , IOWA SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION

”

S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S OY B E A N R E V I E W. C O M | 2 7

Investing Checkoff Dollars

FARMLAND INVESTMENT By Matthew Wilde

f getting top dollar for rent is the only goal of farmland owners, Peoples Company probably isn’t the best choice for a management company. The Clive-based business stresses a socially responsible approach to farmland investment and management: Increase annual income and appreciation while focusing on conservation, water quality, soil health and sustainability. And Peoples recently let the world know it. The company released a white paper titled, “Socially Responsible Farmland Investment” in May outlining its philosophy to land management. Peoples President Steve Bruere and Michael Duffy, professor emeritus of economics at Iowa State University, co-authored what’s being called a ground breaking document by agriculture officials that will stimulate conversation and has the potential to bolster environmental performance. “If people take the paper to heart, it will further the goals of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy,” says Bill Northey, Iowa Secretary of Agriculture. Bruere says societal demands for improvement in farming practices — conservation, sustainability, animal welfare, etc. —are here to stay. The public and

farmers want clean water and productive soil, and Peoples does too. The white paper, he says, explains how farmers and landowners can work together for mutual benefit and for the public good. “As we looked at societal issues, we saw a lack of response from the farm management industry,” Bruere says. “We viewed this as an opportunity to be on the forefront of it.” Instead of helping manage farm operations, Peoples helps landowners manage what usually is their most valuable asset. The 24-page document — which can be downloaded at the company’s website, www.PeoplesCompany.com — describes the “complex interdependencies” that exist for farmers who are tasked with feeding the world and protecting the land. Copies were sent to clients and a press release was issued.

STEVE BRUERE PEOPLES COMPANY PRESIDENT

2 8 | S U M M E R 2 0 11 5 5 || S SO OY YB BE EA AN NR RE EV VIIE EW. W.C CO OM M

Investing Checkoff Dollars

Squeezing every dollar out of the land at the expense of long-term sustainability isn’t right, Peoples officials say. Trust officers and farm managers recognize they have a fiduciary duty to conserve a farm’s soil, protect fertility and long-term productivity of the asset. “This is a completely different direction for us in our approach to management,” Bruere says. But that doesn’t mean economics are ignored, says Ron Beach, head of Land Investment Programs for Peoples. The public often interprets social responsibility as not paying attention to the bottom line, he says. The paper shows landowners can focus on premium rent and the environment. “You don’t have to give up one for the other,” he adds. Bruere proves it by providing an example in the paper of “managing for appreciation” on 70 acres (58.42 tillable before changes) he owns in Warren County. His parents farm the ground. Bruere spent $350 per acre to increase fertility from deficit to optimal. He completed tiling, dozing and clearing at $650 per acre to increase productivity by 10 percent. Three environmentally sensitive acres were taken out of production and enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) at $225 per acre. As a result, farm operators are willing to pay higher rent as productivity increases. Total farm value increased nearly $100,000 due to improvements with a return on investment of 53 percent. And, society wins because of less soil erosion and nutrient loss by placing vulnerable land in CRP. “This was our a-ha moment,” Bruere says. “You can take land out of production, focus on the most productive acres and have an environmentally friendly farm that’s producing more bushels that’s worth more.” But that’s only one part of the socially-responsible puzzle, he says. Landowners — especially those that don’t farm — have to embrace change, and have the most power to

do it. Fifty-five percent (more than 17 million acres) of Iowa farmland is leased, records show. Fixed cash rent is the most popular method at 34 percent or about 10.5 million acres. As a farm kid from Martensdale, Bruere says he was raised to love the land and preserve it. As a landowner and manager, he’s doing it. Peoples helps clients evaluate farms for soil and nutrient loss using outside experts and helps negotiate conservation-minded leases to solve problems. This could include the use of cover crops and who pays, mandating conservation tillage or notill and other conservation practices. And they make sure provisions are followed. But landowners have to be willing to do their fair share as well, Bruere says. Communication is key. “At the end of the day you can’t do anything that isn’t equitable for both parties,” he says. Peoples’ client Carole Reichardt of Clive, who owns several farms with family members who live in the Des Moines metro area, embraces the company’s approach. Her parents were in the rock quarry business, but started acquiring farmland in the 1950s as an investment. Row crop and livestock farms are located in Cerro Gordo (2), Polk, Warren, Clarke and Decatur counties and one in northern Missouri. Some used to be crop share or custom farmed, but now all are cash rented. All the land has or will be evaluated to improve environmental performance. Conservation practices to improve it, like cover crops, buffer strips, rotational grazing and conservation tillage, have or will be written in leases, Reichardt says. “I’m a strong proponent of water quality, long term soil health and ag viability. Our family embraces it 150 percent,” she says. What if current or future tenants don’t agree? “Then they won’t farm our ground,” Reichardt says. “It may deter some but there are many others that share our philosophy, and those are the tenants we want to work with.” One Cerro Gordo farm recently

went up for bid and the highest rent offer happened to include the most conservation work, she says. “That blew us away.” Peoples’ philosophy and the white paper aligns with Iowa Soybean Association beliefs, says Roger Wolf, director of Environmental Programs and Services. The ISA has invested millions of dollars to improve ag systems that focus on production, efficiency, environmental quality and natural resources. “It’s refreshing to see the authors of the paper articulate this message,” Wolf says. “The public needs to understand how the pieces fit together.”

“

IF PEOPL E TAKE TH E PAP ER TO H EART, I T WILL FURTHER TH E GOALS OF TH E IOWA NUTRIENT RED UCTION S TRATEGY.

”

— B I L L N O R T H E Y, IOWA SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S OY B E A N R E V I E W. C O M | 2 9

Farmer-led Efforts Continue to Improve Water Quality in Rock Creek Farmers in the Rock Creek Watershed are driving change and planning to install the largest concentration of bioreactors and saturated buffers in the nation. Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey joined the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) and water quality experts to kickoff project efforts recently in Mitchell County. “This project builds on the work that already has been done in the watershed and will create a tremendous demonstration of some of the new practices available to help improve water quality,” Northey says. “In this project and all across the state we are finding farmers that are extremely engaged and interested in what they can do to reduce nutrient loss and protect water quality.” The new three year project — targeting the southwest corner of Mitchell County and parts of Floyd and Worth counties — will focus on the installation of 25 bioreactors and saturated buffers. This project supports the ultimate goal of reducing nitrates by 41 percent and phosphorous by 29 percent outlined in the area’s comprehensive watershed plan. “Our goal is to engage local farmers to demonstrate, implement and evaluate these practices, as laid out in the Rock Creek watershed plan,” says Adam Kiel, ISA state water resources manager. “Implementing this number of edge-of-field practices will significantly increase the pace of achieving water quality goals in the watershed.” While the $387,190 committed by all project partners will advance implementation of the plan, the momentum in the Rock Creek watershed started in 2012. With the

3 0 | S U M M E R 2 0 1 5 | S O Y B E A N R E V I E W. C O M

help of ISA, farmers, communities and other stakeholders in the watershed came together to determine ways to improve water quality and mitigate flooding in the region. “This new WQI project stemmed from farmer-led efforts over the last two years,” Kiel says. “Farmers drove the progress in this watershed, led the development of a watershed plan and used that strategy to garner state funding that will allow for significant water quality practice implementation.” Farmers and project stakeholders gathered at the Mitchell County Conservation Board Nature Center to discuss project objectives and plans. In addition to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship and ISA, the project brings together rural and urban stakeholders including Trees Forever, Mitchell County Soil and Water Conservation District, Mitchell County Conservation Board, the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance and the City of Charles City. “I want clean water and it’s important for me to work with people outside of my own small area,” says Dana Norby, farmer from Mitchell County and Rock Creek project participant. “The project partners have the expertise and access to resources that we need. We are all in this together and no one person or organization can do this alone.” Farmers or partners interested in participating or finding out more about the project should contact Adam Kiel at akiel@iasoybeans.com or 515-334-1022.

WWW.ASGROW.COM

POWERFUL WEED CONTROL FOR YIELD PROTECTION Information provided by Steve Eichenberger, Asgrow and DEKALB Technical Agronomist ®

Tough-to-control weeds such as waterhemp, giant ragweed and marestail can cause many difficult challenges in soybean fields. Iowa farmers can look forward to an advanced tool that will help maintain clean fields while offering high yield potential. Following nearly a decade of development and testing, the Asgrow® brand’s innovative Roundup Ready 2 Xtend™ soybeans are expected to be available for the 2016 growing season. It is designed to give farmers powerful tools to help control tough-to-manage and glyphosate-resistant broadleaf weeds. Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans will feature the industry’s first biotech soybean product to provide glyphosate and dicamba tolerance, and it’s built on the Genuity® Roundup Ready 2 Yield® technology platform, which provides consistent performance of more beans per pod and higher yield potential. Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans are anticipated to be the Asgrow brand’s largest soybean trait launch ever. Pending regulatory approvals, Asgrow is expected to offer the largest number of Roundup Ready 2 Xtend products next season, with a total of 25 products spanning eight maturity groups.

Elite Genetics with High Yield Potential Dicamba* is proven to be effective at controlling 274 weeds, including many of the problem species that are resistant to glyphosate. Once dicamba is approved for over-the-top use, benefits of the Roundup Ready® Xtend Crop System will include more flexibility for herbicide application before, at, and after planting. Additionally, dicamba can provide up to 14 days of residual weed control on small-seeded broadleaf weeds. Traditional residual herbicides should still be used as part of the Roundup Ready Xtend Crop System. Through Ground Breakers® Field Trials Under Permit, Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans have demonstrated improved soybean production with enhanced agronomic packages. “Asgrow Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans will give farmers another option in their toolbox to help control broadleaf weeds,” says Asgrow and DEKALB® Technical Agronomist Steve Eichenberger. Key Asgrow Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybean products that are expected to be available in 2016 to Iowa farmers include: • AG23X6 brand – 2.3RM with strong emergence, good standability, and resistance to both SCN and Phytophthora rot. • AG25X6 brand – 2.5RM with top-end yield potential and tolerance to SCN, PRR, SDS, and white mold. • AG28X6 brand – 2.8RM with outstanding yield potential and protection against SCN, Phytophthora, and sudden death syndrome. • AG30X6 brand – 3.0RM with solid agronomics, a broad defensive package and exceptional yield potential.

How to Maintain Clean Fields Weed control is an essential part of farming as it can impact the crop’s ability to reach full yield potential. Eichenberger recommends the following tips to keep fields clean throughout the season: • Target weeds that are shorter than four inches for herbicide application • Start clean on every field: apply a pre-emergence residual herbicide on every acre • Include multiple mechanisms of action in tank mixes to ensure best results of tough-to-control weeds

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ROUNDUP READY 2 XTEND SOYBEANS VISIT ASGROW.COM/RR2XTEND This information is for educational purposes only and is not an offer to sell Roundup Xtend™ or XtendiMax™. These products are not yet registered or approved for sale or use anywhere in the United States. Commercialization is dependent on multiple factors, including successful conclusion of the regulatory process. The information presented herein is provided for educational purposes only, and is not and shall not be construed as an offer to sell, or a recommendation to use, any unregistered pesticide for any purpose whatsoever. Bollgard II® XtendFlex™ cotton contains genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides, dicamba, the active ingredient in M1691, and glufosinate, the active ingredient in Liberty® brand herbicides. Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate. Dicamba will kill crops that are not tolerant to dicamba. Glufosinate will kill crops that are not tolerant to glufosinate. Contact your Monsanto dealer or refer to Monsanto’s Technology Use Guide for recommended Roundup Ready® Xtend Crop System weed control programs. As of January 30, 2015, Bollgard II® XtendFlex™ cotton has been approved for cultivation in the United States and approved for import in Australia, Mexico, Canada, and Japan. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Growers should refer to http://www.biotradestatus.com/ for any updated information on import country approvals. *Roundup Ready 2 Xtend™ soybeans are not currently available for commercial sale or commercial planting. Dicamba herbicide is not currently approved for commercial in-crop use with Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans and nothing herein is a promotion or an offer to sell dicamba herbicide for this use. It is a violation of federal law to promote or offer to sell an unregistered pesticide or a registered pesticide for an unregistered use. Commercialization is dependent on multiple factors, including successful conclusion of the regulatory process. Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship® (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto’s Policy for Commercialization of BiotechnologyDerived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. Only commercialized products have been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Excellence Through Stewardship® is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship. Always read and follow IRM, where applicable, grain marketing and all other stewardship practices and pesticide label directions. Asgrow and the A Design®, Asgrow®, DEKALB®, Genuity®, Roundup Ready 2 Xtend™, Roundup Ready 2 Yield®, Roundup Ready®, VaporGrip™, Roundup Xtend™ and XtendiMax™ are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. ©2015 Monsanto Company.