Dzap’l Gye’a̱win Skiik translates to busy eagle or an eagle who gets things done. A perfect name for Jacob Beaton. As an Indigenous businessman from the Tsimshian First Nation, he never imagined himself farming or teaching others. He lived a quintessentially suburban life with his wife and two sons before devastating wildfires and floods in B.C. inspired him to start thinking about climate change and food security for his family. 

In 2018, they bought Tea Creek, a 140-acre farm outside the village of Kitwanga in northern B.C. With the intent of keeping most of the property forested and only farming a few acres, they settled into farm life. But Beaton had to learn from scratch. He turned to YouTube videos and started visiting other small organic farms throughout the Pacific Northwest and as far away as Europe. 

Jacob Beaton stands in his field on Tea Creek.

“Farming, ranching, field base food production were a big part of Indigenous culture in this region that got wiped out by the Indian Act,” says Beaton. When the act was enacted in 1876, it took control over land rights and access away from Indigenous populations, which blocked most agricultural opportunities. “Immediately, from day one, our First Nations friends local to the area started dropping by, really excited that we were farming,” he says. Some remembered stories their grandparents and great-grandparents had told about farming in the area and asked Beaton to come to their communities and teach them.

But he was busy learning himself and, as he put it, there’s only one of me to go around. In 2020, the pandemic struck, and with food sovereignty top of mind for Indigenous communities in the region, it quickly became clear to the Beatons that they could do more to help their community and it was time to expand. Developing the Food Sovereignty Training Program, they invited Indigenous people interested in learning how to grow their own food to Tea Creek. 

Providing skills training in a culturally appropriate and empowering way is not an easy thing to do, but Beaton is “the eagle who gets things done.” 

Realizing that whatever was taught at Tea Creek had to translate into marketable skills and employment opportunities, Beaton enlisted support from SkilledTrade BC. Working with  employers, industry and government, Skills Trade BC approves non-public training providers, such as Tea Creek, to train and certify individuals who meet industry and government accreditation standards in their trade of choice. Tea Creek is able to offer apprenticeship programs and train an individual all the way to Red Seal certification. Recognized as the interprovincial standard of excellence in the skilled trades, it is the highest level of training in the country. 

Programs run from January to November, and they are open to Indigenous peoples 16 and up at no cost. Meals are provided and bunkhouse accommodation is available. All programs have Indigenous instructors and include carpentry, safety training, first aid, drone mapping, heavy equipment operation, cooking, horticultural training and administration. 

An aerial view of the farm. Photo courtesy of Tea Creek

Tea Creek is not a school with desks and classrooms. The land is the classroom. All courses are held outside as much as possible. Instructional cohorts are small, ranging from three to six people. This creates better opportunities for instructors and mentors to connect with trainees who in turn receive more hands-on learning experiences. 

Arriving at Tea Creek in 2020, Sheldon Good was 23 years old when he learned to repair and operate tractors. He says the experience at Tea Creek motivated him to get up during the day and do things. “The environment is really welcoming and there are really nice people taking care of everything,” he says. Acquiring skills he otherwise wouldn’t have learned, he now works at a sawmill.

Tea Creek though is more than learning to operate a backhoe or tractor. The farming methods taught here include best practices from regenerative and conventional farming. This includes learning how to make fertilizer from compost and using a tractor to till the soil. Beaton’s business savvy has him insisting that trainees leave Tea Creek with a range of economically viable farming skills. With food sovereignty top of mind, traditional Indigenous crops such as corn are grown alongside kale, broccoli and lettuce. In 2022, the first crop of Ozette potatoes was harvested. These fingerling potatoes, renowned for their nutty flavor, were brought to the Pacific Northwest from South America by Spanish settlers 200 years ago. Grown primarily by First Nations peoples, they were rarely known outside of Indigenous communities until the late 20th century.

Tea Creek in B.C. Photo courtesy of Tea Creek

In 2023, Tea Creek hosted Farmstand Fridays where 20,000 pounds of fresh mixed vegetables were distributed to Indigenous families and communities. Tea Creek also prepares and serves 100 hot meals per day to trainees and staff using vegetables from the farm. 

In 2021, Tea Creek’s first year of accredited training, 33 people graduated from Food Sovereignty Training programs. Last year, 292 Indigenous people enrolled in training programs and more than 140 graduated from at least one course. 

“Tea Creek, can solve Canada’s farmer shortage. If funded and supported in a real way, Tea Creek could be scaled with multiple training centers across the country.” Jacob Beaton

It’s estimated that, by 2033, 40 percent of all farm operators in Canada will retire. Two-thirds don’t have succession plans in place. 

“Tea Creek, I’ve been told,” says Beaton, “in the area of agriculture, outputs more people in a year than any other agricultural training program in the province.” With a waiting list of 75 First Nations from the east to west coasts eager to learn, there is no shortage of enthusiasm. 

The legacies of Canada’s Indian Act, though, are far reaching. Canada’s residential school system stripped Indigenous children of their cultural identity and language. This has caused intergenerational harm that continues to be experienced through ongoing marginalization and systemic racism.

In 2023, 93 percent of Indigenous youth attending programs at Tea Creek identified this historical trauma as a factor in their mental health challenges. Through the peer-to-peer counseling Tea Creek offers, the sense of belonging and the purpose it provides through its training, 100 percent of trainees 30 and under, in 2023, reported improvements in their mental well-being. This is Tea Creek’s real success. 

“Before I got here, I was really in a dark place,” says Justice Moore, who is featured in the film Tea Creek, part of CBC’s Absolutely Canadian documentary series. “I was getting to the point of, just, no return. That’s the only way I can put it. I wouldn’t be here if Tea Creek weren’t here. That’s a fact.”

This story is part of our Future Farmers series, highlighting the joys and hurdles of a career in agriculture today. You can read more of this series here. 

The post Meet the Farmer Training Indigenous Youth and Revitalizing a Culture of Food Sovereignty appeared first on Modern Farmer.

That’s a tall order. In 2021, approximately 33.8 million Americans were living in food-insecure households and approximately 600,000 Americans died annually from diet-related disease.

But across North America is a growing cohort of hospitals taking on the challenge and turning hospital food from a blob of green Jell-O to a fresh and tasty meal. Working with FIM, hospitals are filling doctor referrals for farm-share boxes of fresh produce and supplying hospital kitchens with organically grown crops. 

These farms are not simply growing kale. They are producing medicine. 

BMC’s Power Plant Farm

At Boston Medical Center (BMC), sustainability matters. On the roof of BMC’s natural gas-powered heat and electrical power plant, there is a 2,658-square-foot outdoor container farm, aptly named Power Plant Farm. Growing more than 30 varieties of crops, including cucumbers, peppers, tomatoes, squash, herbs and leafy greens, the farm harvested 4,000 pounds of organically grown produce last year.

“[This] represents a more holistic approach to care,” says Sarah Hastings, farm manager. “We are starting from square one, making the message clear that fresh foods help us heal and maintain our well-being.” 

The Preventive Food Pantry is the anchor of BMC’s FIM initiative. “We have more than 1,600 families, who receive about four days worth of food with each visit,” says Hastings. Used by cancer patients, those with heart disease, diabetes or other chronic health conditions, they are referred to the food pantry by their primary caregivers, who write prescriptions for foods promoting physical health, recovery from illness or as a preventative for future health issues. 

Throughout the hospital, patients and families are continually connected to the farm, reinforcing the message that healthy food matters. A large glass window in the waiting area of one of BMC’s buildings allows patients and their families to see the farm. “There is an especially heartwarming connection when patients or their families make it down to the farmer’s market in the foyer after observing the crops from the waiting area,” says Hastings. The farmer’s market operates once a week, with the produce sold at subsidized prices to staff, patients and their families. 

BMC’s Teaching Kitchen also incorporates farm produce into recipe tutorials for patients and their families to help them learn healthy ways of preparing food. For example, patients can attend a class at the Teaching Kitchen before bariatric surgery to help them learn simple ways to prepare food that will help their stomachs heal post-surgery and prevent nutritional deficiencies. 

“The farm brings a lot of excitement to the hospital,” says Hastings. 

The Farm at Trinity Health Ann Arbor. Photography courtesy of Trinity Health Ann Arbor.

The Farm at Trinity Health Ann Arbor

Established in 2010, the Farm at Trinity Health Ann Arbor in Ypsilanti, MI is one of the oldest hospital farms in the US. Leaders of Ann Arbor hospital, according to farm manager Jae Gerhart, started to see an increased rate of diet-related chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes. They decided to use a small portion of the hospital campus to grow nutritional food and act as a community and educational resource geared towards disease prevention. The farm sits on five acres, four of which are used as community gardens or for events. One acre produces food that is designated for FIM’s programs. 

During the growing season, the farm hosts school field trips and summer camps for children aged four to 10. There is a farm-share box program that runs for 36 weeks over the growing season, for which anyone can sign up. For those struggling to afford fresh food, there is the option to sign up for the Farm Share Assistance Program or the Produce Prescription program at no cost. 

“Doctors love the program,” says Gerhart. “More and more, they are asking those social needs questions at a patient’s appointment.”

Gerhart says FIM and farm programs can reduce overall health-care costs associated with diet-related health conditions. “More and more data supports that,” she says.

Researchers at the FIM Institute at Tufts University concur. A 2023 report suggests that FIM interventions, such as medically tailored meals, could eliminate 1.6 million hospitalizations in the US annually and save $13.6 billion in health-care costs per year. Traditionally, individuals experiencing food insecurity spend an extra $1,800 per year in health-care expenditures. Farm share assistance programs could help reduce those costs. 

The Salish Sea regenerative urban farm. Photography by Dave Ryan.

Salish Sea Regenerative Urban Farm

Changing the paradigm that hospital food has to be mushed peas and frozen carrots, the seven-acre Salish Sea Regenerative Urban Farm (SSRUF) sold organically grown cucumbers, tomatoes and 1,000 pounds of potatoes to British Columbia’s Sechelt Regional Hospital in 2023.

The American Medical Association has long advocated for adding a variety of healthy food choices, including plant-based meals and foods low in fat, sodium and added sugars to hospital menus to assist in better outcomes for patients.

But providing better hospital meals is not as simple as it sounds. The cost of local, sustainably grown foods can be more expensive than tins of marinara sauce or bags of frozen peas, especially for small hospitals with limited budgets. Large hospitals prepare food for hundreds of patients daily, with little turnaround time between breakfast, lunch and dinner. It takes time to chop, wash and cook fresh produce as opposed to opening and plating a bag of prepared salad mix. Many hospitals also have contracts with outside vendors, which makes it hard to incorporate other sources.

The SSRUF was aware of all of these concerns when it approached the small 38-bed hospital with its offer to sell its organically grown food from a farm 30 yards away from the hospital’s kitchen. But, according to Dave Ryan, a board member for the farm society, both the hospital and the regional health authority were very receptive. 

Surveys of the kitchen and care staff at the hospital were done to gauge the response of having local produce available to patients. “The kitchen staff were really excited,” says Barbara Seed, another board member of the farm society. 

The head of hospital food services also did a waste audit with preliminary results indicating that, when the fresh produce was added to meal trays, less food was thrown away. More audits will be needed to provide reliable data, but SSRUF is positive that it will concur with them about the benefits of farm to hospital food.

“It’s obvious,” says Ryan, “where nutrient-dense quality food should be—in a hospital where people have metabolic issues and should be served nutritious food to help recover.” 

The post On the Ground With the Farms Feeding Hospitals and Their Patients appeared first on Modern Farmer.

As a host to the larvae of the endangered Fender’s Blue Butterfly, Kincaid’s lupine was declared a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act in 2000. Only found in small areas of prairie grassland west of the Cascade Mountains, Mallonee Farms is the northernmost epicenter for the lupine in the US. 

Kincaid’s Lupine (Photo courtesy of Washington Natural Heritage Program)

All across North America, endangered plant species and wildlife are struggling to survive on agricultural land. The United Nations Environment Programme has pegged the global food system and its encroachment on wildlife habitats, along with its use of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals, as directly threatening 86 percent of species at risk of extinction worldwide. In the United States, more than 50 percent of threatened or endangered species are vital pollinators such as the Fender’s Blue Butterfly. Without pollinators to fertilize berry crops, orchards or field crops such as squash, all of us eaters are also endangered. But, it’s not always easy for growers to identify those species at risk on their properties.

Until its discovery in 2004 by an eagleeyed employee of Washington State’s Department of Natural Resources cycling past one of the farm’s pastures, Maynard Mallonee had no idea the lupine on the family property was endangered.

NatureServe is a US-based not-for-profit organization that acts as a clearinghouse for biodiversity data. Through remote sensing such as wildlife cameras, collaring of wildlife, satellite imagery, drones, geographic information systems (GIS) and on-the-ground eyewitness observations, analysts can predict where wildlife and plant species at risk might be on agricultural land. 

Compiled into maps, the information is used by government agencies such as state departments of natural heritage, fish and wildlife services, conservation organizations and individuals across North America to tailor responses that support at-risk species. These might include, as in the case of the Mallonee Farm, adopting rotational grazing practices or, in other instances, altering haying schedules. But nothing is full-proof and the surveying of private land is, after all, voluntary. 

“We can’t survey everywhere,” says Regan Smyth, vice-president of conservation and science for NatureServe, “which makes a lot of things hard to know.” 

A still image of the NatureServe Explorer Pro interactive map that allows users to explore documented at-risk species by area and by species. The dark red hexagons represent an area with greater than 2,000 species and lightest hexagons representing an area with less than 25 species. (Image courtesy of NatureServe)

She also admits that when it comes time to do on-the-ground surveys to verify the predictive data, growers can get a little ornery about sharing information. They worry about the inconveniences it might cause to production. After the lupine was discovered on the Mallonee family farm, the Department of Fish and Wildlife told Maynard Mallonee to come up with a rotational grazing plan for his cattle that protected the lupine.

“It’s big government telling you what to do,” says Mallonee, “and if you don’t do what they want, they can make life difficult.” 

For the most part, Smythe says people managing land care about it and want to do the right thing. “Once people understand working lands need to be part of the picture of how we keep a diversity of life on the planet, then those who might in other circumstances not want people traipsing around their property become collaborators with Natural Heritage programs,” she says.

In Utah, the Wildlands Network uses mapping data to predict the migration corridors of wildlife. Hunter Warren is engagement coordinator for the organization and concurs with Smythe that there can be a mixed reaction from landowners when they learn that a migrating herd of mule deer, for example, will be stomping through their property. But once they learn that any adjustments needed to support the wildlife, such as replacing barbed wire fencing with fencing that won’t snag and harm an animal, will be paid for by the organization, they become more receptive.

Migrating herds of deer or elk, for example, can, through their grazing and trampling of the ground, break down organic matter into the soil, releasing nutrients that benefit crop production. Plants such as Kincaid’s lupine through their root systems create pathways in the soil that allows for enhanced water filtration and carbon sequester. 

Bryan Gilvesy is CEO of the Alternative Land Use Services Program (ALUS), a non-profit organization working to help fund grower’s initiatives in six Canadian provinces and in Iowa that protect species at risk. He relates how in Southern Ontario a farmer discovered his hay field was home to 250 bobolinks, a bird assessed as being of special concern in Canada by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and listed under the Species at Risk Act. A ground nesting bird, the bobolink prefers grasslands and prairies to lay its eggs. As more land is converted for agricultural use, the bobolink’s traditional nesting areas have become endangered. Combine or tractor harvesting destroys eggs and can even result in the deaths of birds. ALUS worked with the farmer to alter the haying schedule so that the fledgling bobolinks had time to grow. 

“The farmer got a more mature hay crop and was rewarded financially,” says Gilvesy.

A report by The American Farmland Trust has concluded that managed agricultural land can support both food production and wildlife. It advocates for a broader approach to mapping biodiversity on agricultural land and enlisting the help of farmers and ranchers to do it with policies that embrace the USDA’s legacy of voluntary, incentive-based and locally led conservation. 

On the Mallonee farm, the latest mapping shows a 33-percent increase in the lupine’s population. And although the farm’s grazing plan is having to be constantly updated and re-filed with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to accommodate the spread, Mallonee is happy he took the time and effort to protect the plant. 

 “In the beginning, maybe I might not have,” he says. But, without question, Mallonee is happy he did. The benefits of taking action to protect the lupine have been worth it. “The dairy farm is better managed through the rotational grazing methods we’ve developed,” he says.

The post A Win for Growers Who Protect Biodiversity on Agricultural Land appeared first on Modern Farmer.

For almond grower Christine Gemperle, it means that, for the second year in a row, she will open the gates of the irrigation canal next to her orchard located in the Turlock water district of California’s Central Valley and flood her property. As the water in the canal permeates the soil, it will travel deep below the surface, recharging depleted groundwater reserves. 

The groundwater versus surface water distinction is important, especially for dry regions such as the Golden State. Surface water is just what it sounds like: water available from the Earth’s surface, in rivers, lakes and streams. Groundwater, conversely, is water held underground in rock or soil aquifers. The only way to access it is through digging wells or pumps underground—but digging too many wells can have negative consequences, including altering the Earth’s spin. 

Gemperle Orchards recharging underground aquifers. Photography via California Almond Board.

During normal years, groundwater accounts for almost 40 percent of California’s water supply. In dry years, this grows to 60 per cent. California’s groundwater reservoirs are able to hold 850 million acre-feet of water, compared to the state’s 50 million acre-feet of surface water capacity. However, there is still a deficit most years, with 1.8 million acre-feet of groundwater pumped out annually that isn’t replenished. 

A 2020 report by the Public Policy Institute of California paints a dire picture. Between 1988 and 2017, the region’s annual groundwater overdraft was almost two million acre-feet. The deficit is largely attributed to agricultural water use. The report suggests that at least a quarter of the overdraft could be mitigated with expanded groundwater recharge efforts and managing demand. California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was enacted in 2014 to do just that, and it requires local agencies to have the infrastructure in place by 2042 to limit further depletion of the resource.

There has been some progress. Westlands Water District covers more than 1,000 square miles of agricultural land in the San Joaquin Valley. In the year leading up to this past February, it had recharged 380,000 acre-feet of surface water back into the district’s aquifers. “Hats off to district farmers for their commitment and contributions to this significant achievement,” said Allison Febbo, the district’s general manager, in a press release. 

But wide-scale restructuring takes time, and droughts that deplete surface water resources are frequent. Between 2020 and 2022, California experienced the driest years in more than 126 years. So much groundwater is pumped by farmers trying to keep their crops alive during drought years that thousands of wells have gone dry.

“During the last drought, my neighbour’s well went dry because we were all pumping to keep our crops alive,” says Gemperle. 

In a good water year, Gemperle may be allotted 48 inches of surface water to irrigate her almond trees. In drier years, this can fall to 24 inches. It makes groundwater reserves and on-farm recharge even more critical for growers looking to make up for the lack of available surface water.

Helen Dahlke heads a research group at the University of California, Davis that studies surface and groundwater use. “We are telling growers if they have suitable soils that are coarse or porous, this would be a good location to recharge,” she says.

Dahlke recommends flooding fields during dormant periods of growth—and preferably with perennial crops such as almonds or grapes. Flooding during dormancy, when less water is being used by the plant, allows for the water to seep through the underlying soil layers quickly with little adverse effect on crops. 

Jesse Roseman, an analyst with the Almond Board of California, says that surveys done by the board indicate that 11 percent of California almond growers are now so convinced in the value of groundwater recharge that they are regularly flooding their fields, filling up farm recharge ponds or re-directing water to unlined irrigation canals where it will seep into the ground. 

For Dahlke, this is only the beginning of what’s possible. “There are eight million acres of irrigated farmland in California that could be utilized for on-farm groundwater recharge,” she says. 

But as great as it sounds, Mother Nature is still in charge. “We did a study on the availability of surface water for recharge,” says Dahlke. “Wet years, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, only occur every four to five, maybe seven years.” For growers such as Gemperle, there are also bureaucratic kinks to be worked out.

“Even though I put all that water in the ground, none of it is mine,” she says. It will be administered by the district, and she may never see a drop of it. She points out that it’s a lot of work for a grower to open the irrigation gates and go out in stormy weather to monitor the process, not to mention the money spent to maintain the equipment needed to transport the water. 

Christine Gemperle. Photography via California Almond Board.

“The biggest benefit to growers is when there is an incentive,” says Joe Choperena, with Sustainable Conservation, a non-profit organization promoting stewardship of California’s land, air and water. He cites the example of the Tulare Irrigation District, where growers who help to recharge groundwater can be granted permission to pump more water than their neighbors.

Last fall, Bill SB 659, co-sponsored by the California Association of Winegrape Growers, directed the California Department of Water Resources to identify immediate recommendations that could increase the state’s groundwater supply, including better methods to capture stormwater run-off. In February, the California state governor’s office published a list of how it is addressing the need for improved groundwater capacity in 2024. The state has distributed nearly $1 billion to support recharge and other stormwater capture projects that will add more than 28 billion gallons to the state’s water supplies every year. 

Every drop of water in California matters, and this past winter, Gemperle added 30 acre-feet of the precious resource to recharge groundwater reserves. 

“The water went down even faster this year,” she says.

The post Are Flooded Fields and Orchards the Answer to California’s Groundwater Shortage? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

There was just one problem: Lewis and Barker could not afford to buy the farm or the land on which it sits—that is, until they worked with an agricultural land trust.

What is a land trust?

Land trusts can be non-profit conservation organizations or, in some instances, government bodies that work to conserve agricultural land in perpetuity.

Without farmland to grow crops or ranchland for livestock, we don’t eat. Conserving farmland underpins a stable local food supply. Without agriculture, jobs are lost; 22.1 million full- and part-time jobs were related to the agricultural and food sectors in 2022, which equals 10.4 percent of the total US employment. Keeping farmland in farming is crucial for our food supply and food security, and it’s why the American Farmland Trust (AFT), a national conservation organization, advocates for keeping farmers and farmland together. 

The AFT predicts that more than 300 million acres of farmland and ranch land could change ownership within the next two decades, with some of it transitioning out of agriculture use permanently. As retiring farmers exit the field, they are looking to the equity they’ve built up in their land on which to retire. That can be a significant sum, something that young or new farmers may not be able to afford. (According to the USDA’s 2022 Census of Agriculture, farmers under the age of 35 account for only nine percent of all producers.) But real estate developers can afford it. 

“Between 2001 and 2021, the country lost 11 million acres of agricultural land,” says Jen Dempsey, director of the Farmland Information Center and senior advisor for the AFT. “Development,” she says, “remains the most significant and direct threat to farmland.” 

Ben Miles, is the Southeast Program manager for Land Trust Alliance (LTA), a member organization with 950 land trusts nationwide. “Most farmers and ranchers could find a buyer willing to purchase their property and develop it, whether into 10-acre ranchettes or 1/8-acre lots,” he says. 

A land trust is able to purchase land outright, remove the development potential and then lease or sell the land back to a farmer. It is also able to help a beginning farmer if the selling price being asked by an existing farmer is too high. 

Community land trusts retain ownership of the property while the farmer pays a tenancy back to the trust to farm the land. But this can be a mixed bag. The farmer owns the buildings and the equipment, but not the land. 

[RELATED: Q&A: How Community Land Trusts Help to Preserve Farmland]

“Farmers look at their property values going up to retire,” says Lewis. Without value in the land, it becomes difficult for the farmer to gain equity or retirement savings. 

How do land trusts work?

By far the most popular way a land trust works is through the purchase of a conservation easement: a legally binding agreement between a land trust and a property owner, designed to keep farms and ranches conserved for agricultural use in perpetuity. 

The land is first appraised without any conservation restrictions placed on it. This is generally the higher value of the land with zoning and development potential attached to it. It is then appraised with conservation restrictions placed on it. The difference between the two values represents the “easement” value of the property. In 2022, the AFT and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service sent out a survey to land trusts across the US. The majority of respondents to the survey, 88 percent, reported conserving 5.9 million acres of farmland and ranchland through conservation easements. 

In the case of Oyster Bay, the former owners sold the easement value of the property to Community Farmland Trust. They were then able to retire, having leveraged the equity in their property. Lewis and Barker were able to buy the more affordable property without the development rights attached. Since 2018, they have been producing and selling free-range chicken eggs and meat on the farm’s idyllic 40 acres.

“The fee interests—the dirt, the soil, the property—are in our names,” says Lewis, while the conservation easement is in the land trust’s name. The property owner, in this case Lewis and Barker, retains ownership and usage of the land—such as the right to continue farming or to raise livestock. The legal agreements governing an easement are extremely comprehensive including the buying and selling of the farm property. “Easements can be amended and altered slightly, but it can be a very challenging process,” says Lewis. As a general rule, once the land is conserved and the easement filed with the land records office, it is binding and travels with the property for all current and future owners. Even if Lewis and Barker sell the property, the conditions and restrictions on the easement remain in place forever. 

But nothing is perfect. “The easement in our situation reduced the overall cost of the initial purchase in 2018, but now, as property values overall have risen, the land is worth almost the same as before the purchase,” says Lewis.

This is a concern for Lewis and Barker, as they wonder what will happen when it’s their turn to retire and pay the land forward. Their daughter currently does not want to farm. So, will the property again become unaffordable?

Lewis also cautions that land trusts can be complicated legal quagmires and that those entering into a trust should have tempered expectations. Lease agreements, inheritance regulations and the shared responsibility of land stewardship between the trust that owns the land and the farmer can take time to work out. It took Lewis and Barker more than three years to finally have everything in place. All three parties involved (the sellers, the land trust and Lewis and Barker) needed to work out the details of the sale and conservation restrictions being placed on the land. The land trust had to do land surveys and environmental assessments to obtain a grant that let them purchase the easement. “It all takes time,” says Lewis.

How can farmers get started with land trusts?

For farmers looking to conserve their land in a trust and for young agrarians interested in acquiring farmland, the AFT’s Land Transfer Navigators program in partnership with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service is a good place to start.

“Some land trusts,” says Miles, “also have programs connecting new farmers with retiring farmers, through Farm Link programs, or run incubator or community farms, so they may be able to directly help new farmers get access to land and to get their business started.”

Land access and the ability of young farmers to be able to purchase land is a pressing problem that could be addressed in the upcoming Farm Bill. The Increasing Land Access, Security and Opportunities Act is one of several bipartisan bills addressing the issue. Led in the House of Representatives by Joe Courtney (D) from Connecticut, Zach Nunn (R) from Iowa and Nikki Budzinski (D) from Illinois, it hopes to prioritize projects that give direct financial assistance to farmers, involve collaborative partnerships and transition farmland from existing producers to the next generation.

“We are in a land access crisis,” says Lewis. “As farmers get older and look at how they can retire, we need all the options on the table.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that land trusts are legal agreements administered by non-profit conservation organizations. The conservation easement is the legal agreement, while the land trust is the organization that holds or owns the easement. 

The post Holding onto Farmland, One Conservation Easement at a Time appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Plastic may have made farm life easier, but it’s also caused the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) to raise alarm bells about its impact on the environment. Globally, 12.5 million tons of agricultural plastic is used annually. Everything from silage wraps, tote drums, containers, plastic mulch, greenhouse sheeting and row covers have a use in modern-day agriculture, although much of it is single-use and not recyclable. 

The Rodale Institute, proponents of regenerative organic farming, estimate that, for every acre of land farmed using plastic mulch, between 100 and 120 pounds of plastic ends up in the landfill or breaks down into a farmer’s field. As the plastic decomposes, a process that takes up to 1,000 years to complete, it releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere or breaks down into tiny microplastics that attach themselves to root vegetables and enter the food system. 

In 2021, the FAO called for a more sustainable use of agricultural plastics and promoted a net zero plastic waste for agriculture. That’s where companies such as Cleanfarms, where Friesen is the executive director, come in. 

Cleanfarms is a Canadian stewardship organization that recycles agricultural plastic. It works with manufacturers and producers of agricultural plastic to recycle products on its behalf. Partnering with local collection services and municipalities, Cleanfarms is the only stewardship organization in Canada working to clean up agricultural plastic.

Baling hay using plastic sheeting. (Photo courtesy of Cleanfarms)

In 2022, Cleanfarms reported collecting and recycling 5,000 tons of crop input and agricultural film plastic, 5.2 million empty pesticide and fertilizer containers and nearly 300,000 empty seed and pesticide bags. But despite these figures, Friesen admits that Cleanfarms is only collecting 10 percent of the agricultural plastic used on Canadian farms.

The story is not much different in the United States, where 816 million pounds of agricultural plastic is used annually. The Agricultural Container Research Council operates in 46 states collecting and recycling agricultural crop protection, animal health, fertilizer and pest control containers such as jugs and drums. Since its conception in 1992, more than 240 million tons of agricultural plastic container waste has been recycled. There are other recycling programs throughout the US, but what they collect varies from state to state. 

David McDaniel is co-founder of Maine’s Greenhouse Plastic Recycling Program. He used to encourage farmers to recycle their plastic greenhouse sheeting. However, McDaniel is no longer a recycling enthusiast. “Agriculture plastic is not a cradle-to-grave product and is not easily recyclable, but instead is a mostly disposable throw-away cradle-to-landfill enabler,” he says.

[RELATED: Plastic Mulch is Problematic—and Everywhere. Can We Do Better?]

According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), each time plastic is recycled, the quality of the material degrades. Because of this, most plastics are recycled only once or twice before ultimately being disposed of in landfills or incinerators. 

McDaniel also questions why the onus to recycle is on the grower and not the company that manufactures the product. 

“Companies are creating all sorts of new plastic products, but they have no responsibility for where that plastic goes at the end of its useful life,” he says. Cleanfarms wondered if Canadian farmers were asking similar questions, and if those concerns impeded their recycling efforts. In 2020 and early 2021, Cleanfarms conducted grower surveys in Saskatchewan, Ontario, British Columbia and the Maritimes. Farmers were asked to participate in pilot projects and recycle items such as containers, twine, grain bags and baler wrap. In British Columbia, 98 per cent of those surveyed supported a recycling program for plastic twine and 100 per cent expressed support for establishing recycling programs for silage plastics.

The survey also showed that, across all regions, farmers, almost unanimously, were opposed to covering the costs of recycling themselves. 

The answer: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Shifting the responsibility for managing materials at the end of life away from consumers and onto producers, EPRs are government regulations imposed on products that are intended to make it easier for the consumer to recycle. It’s not uncommon for manufacturers of computers or tires to ask consumers to pay an extra fee at the time of purchase for the cost of collecting and recycling the product. It’s now becoming normal for agricultural plastic. 

Hay bales wrapped in plastic. (Photo courtesy of Cleanfarms)

Having encountered resistance in the past from waste management and recycling companies that perceived EPRs as giving the packaging industry control over recyclables, EPRs are now seen as business opportunities to improve and expand recycling services and facilities. 

In Canada, many provinces have legislated EPRs on agricultural plastic, making it illegal not to recycle plastic at the end of its useful life. Saskatchewan was the first province to establish an EPR on grain bags. From 2016 to 2020, recycling of the bags doubled from 1,257 tons a year to 2,536 tons. 

In Maine, McDaniel’s solution to recycling has been to stop using plastic, as much as he is able, on his own Earth Dharma Farm. Instead of using black plastic mulch, he plants his crops closer together.

“After about four to six weeks, the canopy completely closes and little sunlight reaches the soil. Weeds can’t compete and soil moisture is conserved due to the cool understory microclimate.”

Instead of seed trays, he uses soil blocks that compress soil into uniform bricks that hold their shape without the need for plastic cell moulds. He refuses to use spun polypropylene row cover until manufacturers create a product that can be recycled. 

Bioplastics may be McDaniel’s wish come true. Made from renewable organic material rather than petroleum or natural gas, they are supposed to be less harmful to the environment. Many are made to naturally biodegrade without harm to soil or crops. In 2023, global bioplastics production reached 1.79 million tons, but more research is needed. In 2021, the Canadian government earmarked $4.5 million to improve not just plastic waste management and on-farm sustainability but to advance bioplastic research.

Part of the impetus for Cleanfarms’ conception in 2010 was a recognition that farmers, consumers and governments would no longer accept plastic’s environmental impacts and demand alternatives.

“Before Cleanfarms programs,” says Friesen, “farmers had limited options to manage the types of packaging and products they used on [the] farm. To ensure farmers can operate sustainably, one solution is to continue to provide opportunities to include these materials, through recycling in a circular economy.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that 816 million tons of agricultural plastic are used annually in the US. That number is reflected in pounds, not tons. 

The post A Plastic Tsunami is Taking Over Farms. What Will Stop Plasticulture?  appeared first on Modern Farmer.

“Not all farmland is created equal,” says Jesse Womack, a conservation policy specialist with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC). “Some acreages are inherently less productive than others.” The soil quality may not support crops or the land may not have appropriate water drainage. The cost of trying to create viable conditions for growing can be enormous and may not be worth the expense or the crop it might produce. 

For many farmers, the answer is to enroll in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Created by Congress in 1985, the CRP asks agricultural producers to voluntarily take environmentally sensitive land out of active production and conserve it. In return, they are paid a yearly rental rate per acre of land enrolled in CRP programs.  

 In 2023, he USDA Farm Service Agency made more than $1.77 billion in payments to agricultural producers and landowners enrolled in all CRP programs, and more than 23 million acres of private land in the US was being conserved.

Photography submitted by Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust.

Pros and Cons

Advocates of the CRP hail the program as protecting water quality, improving soil health and creating a refuge for wildlife and pollinators.

But not everyone agrees. The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit organization focused on public and environmental health, is advocating for a change to the CRP.

“Our biggest criticism of CRP,” says Anne Schechinger, mid-west director for EWG, “is that, as it is currently set up, it is not doing enough to store carbon in soil or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Agriculture is responsible for 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the US. She also questions the long-term environmental benefits of the program if the reserved land is pressed back into service. All the carbon sequestered in the soil, she notes, gets released back into the atmosphere once the land is re-cropped.  

“At least half of CRP acres go back into production after the end of the farmer’s contract, and most contracts only last for 10 years,” she says . “In general, permanently retiring farmland has much better benefits for the climate than even working lands with conservation.” 

Short term versus long term

In southern British Columbia, the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust (DFWT) Grassland Set-Aside Stewardship Program (GLSA) also asks farmers to uncrop their fields and plant them with wildflowers, perennial grasses and broad-leafed plants. They’d argue that there are benefits even after a short period of uncropping (up to six years).  

The GLSAs provide vegetative cover for foraging, roosting and nesting wildlife including raptors, wading birds, songbirds, pollinating insects and small mammals such as moles and mice. “We are ensuring farmland remains viable by balancing the needs of both the natural systems and the farmer,” says Christine Schmalz, executive director of DFWT. In this way, the program provides an opportunity to rejuvenate soil while supporting local wildlife.

A 2020-21 survey conducted by DFWT recorded greater use of the uncropped fields for habitat and hunting by raptors and the endangered Great Blue Pacific Heron, compared to cultivated fields. As the deep roots of the grasses and wildflowers permeate the soil, drainage is improved and the nitrogen levels in the soil increase, a key for building healthy root structures and plants. Research conducted by the Faculty of Land and Food Systems at the University of British Columbia further discovered that when GLSA fields are returned to agricultural use, the increased nitrogen levels lessen the need for fertilizers and the naturally enriched soil often produces increased crop yields compared to before the set-aside.

“One farmer noted to me recently that the potato crop is grown after a GLSA always has a substantial increase in yield for his fields,” says Schmalz.

But, despite these benefits, both Womack and Schmalz concede that farmers are finding it harder to take large areas of land out of productive use even for short periods. The annual rental rate paid to them often isn’t equal to what the farmer could make if they kept up production on the land. 

In 2023, farmers enrolled with the DFWT were paid $500 (CDN) per acre. If that same land was producing a harvest of potatoes, a typical crop for the area, farmers could expect, based on 2020 prices, to have received approximately $736.56 (CDN) per metric ton from their harvests.

The Wetland Reserve Easement program administered by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) pays 100 percent of the easement value for the purchase of land and 75 to 100 percent of its restoration costs. This makes setting land aside lucrative and appealing.

 “Way more farmers want to return land permanently into that program than there is funding for,” says Schechinger. “It is always overdrawn.”

Photography submitted by Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust.

Balance on the range

 Farmland is not the only agricultural land that requires conservation. There are  770 million acres of rangeland in the United States. Areas of grasses, forbs, shrubs and dispersed trees are used for grazing cattle and other ruminants. CRP Grasslands works with producers to support grazing operations, plant and animal biodiversity. Conservation of this land requires a balanced approach.

The Society for Range Management (SRM) is a membership organization that provides educational resources for landowners, conservationists and producers. Julie Elliot is a director on SRM’s board. “Obviously, farming crops and rangelands are not compatible,” she says. “Removing livestock for even 10 years from this land can cause an ecological disaster in grassland communities.” Grassland foliage relies on the grazing and trampling of livestock to keep the soil aerated and the plant community growing. But when livestock graze on the same pasture repeatedly, plants don’t have the opportunity to recover and will die.

“It’s the combination of disturbance [grazing] and recovery that yields a healthy rangeland,” says Elliot.

In New York State, Stone Barns Center for Food & Agriculture strives to increase the production of the soil as well as ensure there is wildlife habitat, specifically for ground-nesting birds. By moving livestock daily, the land is not overgrazed and undisturbed areas for ground-nesting birds, such as the threatened Bobolink, have been established. This type of land management has also increased the water filtration capabilities of the soil. 

“We had fields that two decades ago wouldn’t hold more than an inch of rain an hour; the rest would run off. Now, they absorb up to 16 inches of rain per hour,” says Jack Algiere, director of agroecology at Stone Barn. He credits this with the deep-rooted grasses aerating the soil and the added nutrients deposited from the manure of the grazing animals. 

Initially, this type of land conservation can be expensive. Fencing, for example, may be needed to protect water systems from livestock. In the long run, though, costs are reduced. The need for fertilizer is lessened as the livestock service the soil through their manure. Herds are healthier, because of the biodiversity of the natural foliage they consume, which can reduce disease and veterinary costs.

Photography submitted by Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust.

Looking ahead

Incentives have been added to the draft of the upcoming Farm Bill that would allow farmers to enroll land into CRP programs for longer periods of time.

Congressman Jim Costa (D) from California has introduced the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Improvement Act of 2023. He is suggesting reforming the CRP to provide cost-share for the establishment of grazing infrastructure on all CRP practices and contracts, including interior cross fencing, perimeter fencing and water infrastructure.

Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) have introduced the bi-partisan Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Reform Act. They are proposing financial incentives for enrolling marginal land into CRP continuous categories, including providing the first five years of annual payments upfront and extending current contract lengths in the CRP Continuous and Grassland programs to 30 years.

Back in Canada, a raptor is hunting over a set-aside field. It’s a sign of success for the DFWT. “We are ensuring farmland remains viable by balancing the needs of both the natural systems and the farmer,” says Schmalz.

The post When Not Farming is the Best Use of Land appeared first on Modern Farmer.

“We lost 10 percent of our saleable Christmas trees that year,” says Leanna Anderson, owner of Aldor Acres Family Farm in Langley, British Columbia and treasurer of the BC Christmas Tree Association. “The needles burnt from the heat, and we had to trim them back.” 

Photo courtesy of Aldor Acres Farm.

Across North America, heat waves and average increases in temperatures are affecting Christmas tree growers. Without a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, average temperatures in Oregon, the largest producer of Christmas trees in the United States, will increase 8.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2080. Warmer and drier conditions could alter the composition of Oregon’s forests and reduce productivity of evergreen species such as the Douglas fir, a popular Christmas tree choice.

But increasingly longer and hotter summers are already having a detrimental effect on Christmas trees. Evolved to go into dormancy as temperatures drop in the autumn, conifers develop a resin coating that keeps the needles intact and protects them from frost damage. But with longer summers, the trees are harvested while temperatures in November often remain above freezing. Thus, they aren’t getting that cold signal to develop their resin coat, which causes post-harvest needle loss—that pile of shedding needles under the decorated tree.

Dr. Gary Chastagner, a professor of plant pathology at Washington State University, has been studying Christmas trees for more than 40 years. His research has taken him to Turkey and the Republic of Georgia, where evergreen trees such as the Nordmann fir thrive in the area’s milder climate. Trials, which Chastagner has conducted, have shown that Eurasian trees can last up to three months in water as a cut tree and still retain its needles. 

He predicts that, in the future, trees that  thrive in these warmer regions will become popular consumer choices. “By identifying trees that don’t need cold acclimation for good needle retention, it will help mitigate problems of post-harvest needle retention, especially if we have warm falls,” he says.

Photography courtesy of Aldor Acres Farm.

Heat, though, is not the only issue affecting the beloved Christmas tree. 

Climate experts predict that, as the atmosphere continues to warm, its ability to hold moisture will increase. This will cause periods of heavier rain and waterlogged soil. For Christmas tree growers, this means phytophthora root rot, a species of spore-like fungal organisms that can lay dormant in soil or plant debris for years. During wet periods, the swimming spores germinate and become attracted to tree roots. Over time, they deprive the host of nutrients and water. Spread by rain, runoff water or even on footwear or farm equipment, once phytophthora is active in the soil, it’s almost impossible to eradicate.

At North Carolina State University, Justin Whitehall, an extension specialist in Christmas tree genetics, notes that there’s been a slow but steady increase in phytophthora in North Carolina. “Eleven percent of fields were infected in 2014. In the last few years, that number is closer to 16 and 17 percent,” he says. This is concerning for a state ranked as the second largest producer of Christmas trees in the US. 

 “Growers and consumers want high-quality trees, but in some places, North American trees cannot be grown because of phytophthora,” says Chastagner. “Eurasian firs, particularly the Nordmann, Trojan and Turkey firs, have shown some resistance to the disease.” Cones from mother trees have been brought back to Washington State, where seeds have been extracted and orchards planted to gauge the trees’ adaptability to the Pacific Northwest. 

The Momi fir from Japan has also proven to be resistant to phytophthora. “By working on a biochemical level trying to explore how the species resists the disease, we may be able, through genome editing or modification, get some of those traits into North American Christmas trees,” says Whitehall.  

Photography courtesy of Real Christmas Tree Board.

While researchers look at ways to adapt to an altering climate, growers are already making changes. 

 “When you have a crop that takes between eight  and 10 years to grow from seed to harvest, a lot can happen in that window,” says Marsha Gray, executive director of the Real Christmas Tree Board (RCTB), a non-profit organization supporting Christmas tree growers throughout North America. “When we are talking about weather issues, especially when it comes to getting seedlings established, growers are having a harder time,” she says. But they’re adapting. 

In the United States, there are 15,000 farms growing Christmas trees and more than 100,000 people are employed annually by growers and sellers. In an industry valued at more than  $2.5 billion, approximately 25 million to 30 million natural Christmas trees are sold annually. With so much at stake, growers have no choice but to adhere to changing conditions. 

In North Carolina, planting on slopes encourages better water drainage and helps combat phytophthora. In other places, such as Oregon, growers are looking at adding irrigation. Although common in other regions, the soil in the state has traditionally held enough moisture to keep trees from drying out. At Aldor Acres in British Columbia, Anderson touts irrigation as having been the farm’s saving grace during hotter summers. “It’s a fine line, though, between keeping the tree moist when it’s hot but not too wet that it encourages disease.”

The RCTB has invested more than  $250,000 in research to try and ensure the future is merry and bright for the trees. “That might seem like a lot,” says Gray, “but, for our industry, that’s more than has ever been invested. Over half of our research is in response to the changing weather.” 

The post Climate Change is Coming for Christmas Trees. Can They Be Saved? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Genetically modified crops (GMO) are also cross-bred, but instead of pollen, foreign DNA is introduced into the plant’s genome to create a new crop with desired characteristics such as sweeter-tasting fruit or longer-lasting color.  

But genome-edited (GE) breeding falls somewhere in the middle, depending on how you look at it. Ian Affleck is vice president of biotechnology for CropLife Canada, a trade association representing developers and distributors of plant science innovations and plant biotechnology. He describes GE crops as naturally derived, because you’re not introducing anything new into the genome. “The GE process is like tweaking a Word document. Instead of importing data, you are simply copying and pasting within the original document, using the material that has already been written.”    

In this metaphor, the seed, or document, had no bugs or glitches before moving things around internally, so, it shouldn’t  have any after the treatment, as nothing new has been added.The process, better known by some as CRISPR, is highly controversial among proponents of organic growing. 

Allison Squires is an organic farmer and president of  Canadian Organic Growers. “It’s still not natural. The seed has been synthetically altered.” Now, regulations from the Canadian government this spring have put Squires in what she sees as a precarious situation. 

CRISPR editing of seeds. Photography by Shutterstock.

In May, the Canadian federal government introduced new guidelines that removed public disclosure requirements and reduced health and safety assessments on some GE seeds. In the new wording of the regulation, two types of plants fall under an automatic assessment from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). All seeds that introduce DNA from another species (meaning all GMO seeds) trigger an automatic assessment from CFIA. Plus, plants that possess “new traits and have the potential to negatively impact the environment” require assessment. Some GE seeds may fall under that second umbrella, and others will not. 

The bulk of Squire’s grain is exported to the European Union (EU), where any plant that has had its DNA altered in any way that doesn’t occur naturally is classed as a GMO. This includes GE-derived products. “It’s a huge market,” she says. Every load Squires sends overseas is genetically tested two or three times by EU customs, and agricultural officials have to make sure it’s not been in any way genetically manipulated, before being allowed into commercial circulation. “It’s a stringent process,” she says. “If my grain is deemed to be synthetically altered, I not only will lose the income from the shipment but will not be able to sell to the EU for several years until I can prove myself again.” 

The issue, for Squires and other growers like her, is that GE seeds can be released in the Canadian market without any additional testing—and growers are not obligated to disclose that the seeds have been gene edited.

When Squires buys seed from a distributor, they sign an affidavit assuring her that what she buys hasn’t been genetically altered. In Canada, under the Canadian Organic Standards, farmers are required to disclose if they use gene-edited seed or feed for livestock. If they do, even by mistake, they lose their organic certification. However, it is possible that because GE seeds won’t be identified as genetically altered within Canada that neither she nor the seed distributor will know if she is being sold GE seed.  

Proponents of gene-edited products point to Seeds Canada as the answer to everyone’s woes. The advocacy group has developed the Canadian Variety Transparency Database as a way for growers such as  Squires to keep track of GE seeds as they enter the marketplace.

Alison Squires at her farm, Upland Organics. Photography courtesy of Upland Organics.

Lucy Sharratt is a coordinator for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) and works with farmer associations and environmental and social justice groups opposed to the synthetic engineering of food. She isn’t convinced the database will be effective when it comes to GE seed. “It’s entirely voluntary; seed companies can choose to register their seeds or not. There’s no tracking of who has or hasn’t [registered] and no enforcement. ”

Sharratt also points out that this lack of disclosure could translate to the consumer. In most Canadian grocery stores, organic and non-organic produce is clearly labeled. However, if GE seed is not required to be disclosed, it only follows that what is grown from that seed won’t be either. Consumers are already leery of this, according to a 2022 public opinion poll conducted by CBAN. A majority of Canadians (54 percent) are concerned about the safety of genetically altered foods and opposed by nearly two to one to letting companies conduct their own safety assessments, rather than the federally regulated Health Canada.

In the United States, there’s also opposition to government policy surrounding GE products. In 2020, the Plant Protection Act removed requirements regarding public disclosure and safety assessments on GE seed.

The Organic Trade Association (OTA) represents 10,000 organic businesses across 50 states and, as in Canada, continues to advocate for the organic food system to remain true to its intent by keeping modern biotechnology out—including GE seed. 

Currently, there are only a handful of GE vegetables and a soybean variety available commercially in the US. “In Canada, a few vegetable seeds could enter the marketplace in time for the 2024 growing season, with grain following a couple of years later,” Affleck predicts. 

And despite media reports that the Canadian decision was influenced by biotech companies such as CropLife lobbying the government, there is currently no review process of the legislation scheduled. Affleck maintains the decision “was based on reviews by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and all available science.”

This is not reassuring to Squires, who, in a September press release from Canadian Organic Growers, writes that “mandatory transparency of GE seeds is one of the most significant issues organic farmers are facing today. Without it, the integrity of organic production in Canada is severely threatened.”

Personally,  all Squires wants, she says, is for GE seeds to be identified and to be able to protect her family’s livelihood. “I don’t care if folk use GE seed, I just want to know, so I have a choice not to.” 

A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that all GE seeds were exempt from assessment under Canadian regulations. In fact, some GE seeds may require additional scrutiny from CFIA. We’ve updated the story to reflect this change. We regret the error.

The post How Should Gene-Edited Seeds be Regulated? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

“They can be divided into two categories,” says Claudio DiBacco, a research scientist with Canada’s Fisheries and Oceans Canada. “Those that have been around since the latter part of the 19th century, they don’t harm the environment. It’s the newcomers that have arrived in the last few decades that are the troublemakers,” he says.

How sea squirts arrive and spread in a new area is no mystery. Often, they hitch rides in the ballast water used to weigh down ships without cargo. “The larvae are invisible and float with the ocean currents. They’re onboarded with a ship’s ballast water, and when it discharges in a new location, so does the tunicate,” says Boris Worm, a marine ecologist at Dalhousie University’s Ocean Frontier Institute. “It is almost impossible to keep them from spreading.”

Sea squirts are tiny (species range from 6-10 inches long) and have cute nicknames such as Compound Sea Squirt, Golden Star and Pancake Batter. But, despite their small stature and fun names, these invaders sucker themselves like barnacles to any hard surface, natural or manmade, singularly or in massive colonies. And they are heavier than they look. Made up of organs, sea squirts are 95 percent water; an oyster cage weighing five pounds can easily exceed 75 lbs. when attacked by colonized tunicates. 

“We weren’t prepared for how heavy they were.” (Photo courtesy of courtesy of Fisheries and Oceans Canada)

Colton D’Eon is a self-described sea farmer and chief operating officer for D’Eon Oyster Company in Yarmouth, NS.  He remembers the first time his oyster farm was hit with a tunicate infestation. “We weren’t prepared for how heavy they were, and lines snapped and we lost equipment. Now, we’re diligent. Our oysters are grown on the surface of the water in cages that can hold up to six bags of 300-1,200 oysters. We have learned to regularly take the bag and cage out of the water and let the sun and wind dry it out. This kills the tunicate but doesn’t solve the problem. They never go away,” he says.

It used to be that tunicates would die back in the cold winter water, and reemerge in the spring as the ocean warmed. “Now,” says DiBacco, “they’re finding thermal refuges, where the water stays warm enough for them to survive all year.”

Since the 1980s, there’s been an increase of more than two degrees Celsius (four degrees Fahrenheit) in the Gulf of Maine and surrounding waters. The average global ocean temperature has risen by only 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) during that time. “The rate of warming is more than twice as fast as the global average,” says Worm.

Where the Bay of Fundy converges with the Gulf of Maine, for example, the water has warmed from a low of -3 degrees Celsius in 1960 to a low of just above freezing in 2020.

In 2006, NASA scientists said warming sea surface temperatures were also causing a global decline in phytoplankton productivity, a main food source for tunicates and shellfish.

“This competition for resources has caused the growth rate of mussels in some areas with heavy tunicate populations to be reduced by 30 percent,” says DiBacco. In 2015, bio-fouling tunicates so severely affected mussel supply in Nova Scotia that there was a three-month shortage for shellfish consumers.  

Bio-fouling tunicates have severely affected mussel harvests. (Photo courtesy of courtesy of Fisheries and Oceans Canada)

Controlling bio-fouling organisms such as tunicates is expensive for fishermen, sometimes taking up to 10 percent of their profits in terms of manpower and equipment needed. These expenses can then be passed on to the consumer.

They are everywhere along the eastern coast of North America. The United States Department of Agriculture lists several species of sea squirts including clubbed and compound as invasive. In 2008, tunicates were found in Lake Tashmoo, a protected marine pond with shellfish aquaculture operations located on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. 

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts says oyster farmers along the US Eastern seaboard are continually finding cages and equipment covered with the brown-and-orange foam of the pancake batter tunicate. It takes months to clean it off and recoup the market loss of thousands of oysters suffocated by the invader. The institute is now studying the adaptive qualities of tunicates, wondering if there are any limits to their survival.

 “I don’t think there’s a way for humans to stop them,” says D’Eon.

Aside from manually flipping and drying cages, pressure washing to rinse off the fouling tunicates has also been effective, along with adding a chemical lime solution to infested mussel stocks. And starting in 2024, the Canadian government will implement new ballast water regulations that require ships to scrub the water of organisms before dumping it. But, ultimately, it may be climate change that solves the problem. 

In July 2023, Nova Scotia experienced a massive rain event. A total of 200 millimetres  of rain fell within 12 hours, adding fresh water to Halifax harbor where the DFO had set up plates to track tunicate populations. “After the storm,” says DiBacco, “the invasive tunicates were gone and, as of mid-September 2023, hadn’t returned. It might be that the rainfall lowered the salinity in the water, changing oxygen and PH levels and affecting reproduction. We’re still collecting data.”   

It’s a small flicker of hope for D’Eon, especially as more fresh water is coming. As polar ice caps melt, volumes will spill into the Atlantic. This, along with a warmer atmosphere and its ability to hold more moisture, increasing the frequency and velocity of rain events, could be the sea squirt’s kryptonite—an outcome for which fishermen and shellfish farmers have been hoping.

The post What Will Stop Troublemaking Sea Squirts Along North America’s Atlantic Coast? appeared first on Modern Farmer.