Q&A – Casey Jones Fraser on Garden Grove Organics

The debate over the future of agriculture reentered the news this election cycle with the defeat of I-522, a law proposed in Washington state requiring the labeling of all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) sold on supermarket shelves. Supporters of the measure claimed that it would give shoppers more control over their purchasing decisions, while opponents feared that the bill would create an unnecessary regulatory hurdle for farmers and manufacturers working with products already approved as safe by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration.

Commentators such as Dr. Robert Wood of Seattle have argued that initiatives such as I-522 are often driven by a distrust of science rather than a rational consideration of the benefits and drawbacks. Indeed, a recent Canadian poll found that nearly half of those surveyed were skeptical of scientists on the issue of GMOs, while a poll conducted by ABC found that over half of Americans believe GMOs are unsafe to eat (despite their rigorous approval by the FDA).

Yet for some agriculturalists concerned with the practices of industrial agriculture that often accompany genetic engineering, such as increased herbicide use, reduction of biodiversity, and aggressive patent protection, science is a powerful ally. Casey Jones Fraser, owner of Garden Grove Organics in Covington, Kentucky, provides the tools and scientific expertise for aspiring gardeners in the Greater Cincinnati area to produce crops with organic and/or hydroponic systems. Fraser agreed to be interviewed about his business and the role science plays in his work.

Casey Jones Fraser, owner of Garden Grove Organics, courtesy of River City News

Casey Jones Fraser, owner of Garden Grove Organics, courtesy of River City News

Sword of Science: What inspired you to open Garden Grove Organics?
Casey Jones Fraser: After graduating college, I got a job with a company called Worm’s Way that sold garden supplies. Unfortunately, they were owned by a manufacturing and wholesaling company, so they could only carry limited brands and products. I helped a friend open a store similar to [Garden Grove Organics] in Cincinnati, but he didn’t find it profitable enough.  When he closed his shop, our customer base – all these sciencey, techy local gardeners – weren’t going to have a diverse supply house. I opened this place because I knew there was going to be a void in the market.

SoS: Would you say that scientific gardeners are your target niche?
CJF: Yeah, definitely. People who want to take gardening a step further than just buying plants and popping them in the ground, who really want to pursue the science of growing plants.

SoS: Science in the current agricultural narrative – genetic modification, industrial agriculture — is often portrayed as a negative force. How does that conflict play out with your customer base?
CJF: Well, I hate that some people say, ‘If you’re against GMOs, you’re against science.’ A lot of the gardeners that are growing their own food and herbs are pursuing a different branch of science; they’re not at all ‘anti-science.’ While occasionally we get the ‘hoodoo-voodoo, moon cycle–type’ gardeners, most of our customers are science-oriented gardeners who want to pursue the science of growing plants without altering the genetics. It’s almost science vs. science.

All of our plants are non-GMO, and we try to make sure that all the products we sell are safe for food crops. There’s a lot of complacency in modern agriculture in terms of safety, because it’s more about production. There seems to be an undercurrent of gardeners who want to pursue as big a production as possible within the limits of safe crops and safe products. So we’ve got the safety science guys, as opposed to [those with] a total yield orientation. Our guys are more quality-oriented, more safety-oriented, more [concerned with] nutrition density. It’s really about quality, then getting as good a yield as you can while maintaining that quality.

SoS: How many of your customers are trying to make this kind of production economically feasible?
CJF: We occasionally have some local farmers shop here. We also get regional greenhouse owners, because a lot of the equipment that we sell works really well for controlled environment agriculture. We’re a destination if you have a large facility and you need small, techy parts. We do get some farmer’s market people; there’s also a lot of community garden people, and we have some Covington restaurant owners who shop here to grow herbs for their own businesses.

The vast majority of my sales [in terms of volume] are smaller gardeners. I feel like that’s really who I’m here for, the small people who pursue this as a hobby. That’s the most fun, and that’s my target market.

SoS: What kind of scientific expertise do these small-scale gardeners most often need getting started?
CJF: Probably plant propagation, whether it’s seed starting, starting plants from cuttings, or even tissue culture. Getting plants going and then continuing to produce plants year round can be a real bear. You might have a spare room in your house; in the heat of the summer it may be 90 degrees, in the cool of the winter it may be 60 degrees, and you want the 75! That’s where people struggle the most at first, is setting up an environment that’s appropriate for propagation.

Second to that is setting up an environment that’s appropriate for full-time growth. The biggest struggle is turning an indoor environment into the equivalent of an outdoor environment. Replacing the sun, replacing wind, replacing rain, replacing naturally occurring nutrition; you’ve really got to put a lot of work into it, and if you don’t do it just right, you will fail.

SoS: What’s the state of nutrition like in hydroponic growing?
CJF: We pretty much know what plants need. The biggest struggle with nutrients is the number of products out there on the market, knowing what’s worth the money, and then understanding the difference between minerals and organics. Some of the hormones out on market right now are dangerous and shouldn’t be used on food crops, but sometimes companies want to sneak them into their products so that they perform better. So knowing what not to use is equally important as knowing what to use.

SoS: How do you plan expand your business in the future?
My dream is to put a greenhouse on the roof of this building someday. I would like to be in full-scale greenhouse produce growing, as well as to give tours. As a philosophy, we’re a retail store, but we’re committed to our customers producing, not consuming. We have products that are for sale, but they’re really just tools so that our customers can be producers. In everything we do, that’s really our goal: to create production, and not consumption

SoS: Is there anything else you’d like to add?
CJF: Always question manufacturer claims. Any time there’s a lot of hype behind any product, always do the research before spending the money.

Q&A – Marisa Wikramanayake on @RealScientists

Among the far-reaching scientific consequences of the U.S. government shutdown has been the disabling of NASA’s Twitter feeds, including those of the agency’s astronauts and the Mars Curiosity rover. While social networking might be more popularly associated with desperate attention seekers and pictures of cats, many researchers and journalists have turned to Twitter and other services to spread the word about the amazing world of science.

One such group of researchers administers the feed @RealScientists, a rotational account that features a different scientist or science communicator each week. Conceived by Bernard Kealey and currently run by @theotherdrsmith, @ScienceSarah, and @upulie, the feed promotes the concept that Twitter offers one of the best ways of “communicating directly with the end-users of your research — the people who paid for it, one way or another.” The account’s constantly changing curators have exposed followers to fields as diverse as medical entomology, biogeography, and marine biology.

Marisa Wikramanayake (@mwikramanayake), a science journalist and editor from Fremantle, Australia, is the current curator of @RealScientists. She graciously agreed to be interviewed about the Twitter feed and the role social media plays in science communication.

Marisa Wikramanayake, current curator of @RealScientists

Sword of Science: What exactly does @realscientists do?
Marisa Wikramanayake: Real Scientists tries to educate and inform people about what it is actually like to be a scientist and carry out research in different areas of science. There are a lot of stereotypes, from lab coats to Einstein hair and mad scientist genius, and a lot of scientists are pretty cool people, but they are nowhere near those stereotypes. And there is a sense that people don’t really know what is involved in scientific research. The account aims to correct that, and of course allow the rest of the science community a peek behind their coworker’s lab door.

SoS: What are the most effective ways you’ve seen social media used to promote science?
MW: I do think Real Scientists is effective in what it does. I also think that there are quite a few good YouTube series as well; SciShow and CrashCourse are two of them. People run really cool science-related photo competitions online on Facebook, and Instagram and Flickr have open groups for people to add their science-related photos. I know some scientists who are fantastic at using Twitter, and there is one huge community (128,000+ strong) on Google Plus disseminating news about events and science in an easily digestible form within the community.

SoS: Do the various social media platforms differ in terms of science promotion?
MW: Well, yes and no. Each social media platform is built to do one or two things well, and it mostly has to do with 1) creating content and 2) sharing it. If you create content on one then you can share it on others or attempt to cross post it, so it depends. If you create a video on Youtube, the link can be posted anywhere.

You can use different kinds of promotion if you know what your goal in doing so is and you know where to find your target audience, but it would involve using channels differently. You would use YouTube, Instagram, and Vine as means of creating content that can then be shared around later. You would follow media on Twitter if you were interested in promoting research, sharing content, and answering questions. Networking would be best done on Twitter, Facebook groups, LinkedIn groups, and Google Plus. Deciding on your primary goal is key.

SoS: How will traditional science journalism and social media coexist moving forward?
MW: Traditional science journalism was text and a photo in a paper or online, and with social media you can get science journalism where one piece works across different platforms. You can have text online with video and photos, then add timelines from apps like Storify and Timeline JS and graphs and tables. You can have podcasts, and then you can share it all on platforms like Twitter. That’s how I see it working — a convergence of usual journalism practice with the ability to try all sorts of things with the social media platforms available. I also think it will lead us to do more feature pieces analyzing the science, discussing the history of a field or process, or talking about the larger issues around science.

SoS: What are the best social media accounts for readers with a general interest in science to follow?
MW: I mentioned quite a few of them before. SciShow is great if you want more than the basics that CrashCourse teaches you, in terms of YouTube series, and there are easily more if you search for them. The Science on G+ community is 128,000+ strong, and therefore very useful. @RealScientists on Twitter (of course) is a fantastic means of seeing what really does take place. There are Reddit communities and Facebook groups and Twitter hashtag chats — #agrichat is one of them and #scicomm another. There are groups that recommend science books on apps and platforms like Goodreads. It seems that everywhere you look, there is another place to learn something.