letemgrow
PMA Member
Took a little video of a honey bee in action.
http://s327.photobucket.com/user/pe...0-10144-0000088A4E9F0A2F_zps4b231111.mp4.html
http://s327.photobucket.com/user/pe...0-10144-0000088A4E9F0A2F_zps4b231111.mp4.html
letemgrow
PMA Member
Buttonbush was another great one for honey bees I noticed. So many flower balls for them to pollinate and it makes a great landscape shrub for wetter locations. Although I planted these up on a dry clay hillside and they were doing great....till my brothers goats go out and took care of em.
Trying to find a picture I took last year of one bush with all the bees swarming it. I'd highly recommend that shrub!!!!
Trying to find a picture I took last year of one bush with all the bees swarming it. I'd highly recommend that shrub!!!!
Forestryguy
Member
Gladiator. Look at the State Tree Nursery. They have bushes that are native and attract wildlife. I would think that bees would be attracted also.
Nontypcl1
Member
Imidicloprid isn't only used in the green industry and is far from the only pesticide in the neonicotinoid class of chemicals. The use of this class of chemicals is common place in agriculture as well. This includes anything from seed treatments to aerial applications for aphid control.
The use of neonics has caused a lot of controversy in recent months regarding bee decline. However, pesticides are only part of the puzzle in unraveling the mystery of colony collapse and bee decline.
Bell nursery has put together a Bee informed section on they're website that links many articles. Many of which should drive some good discussions in gladiator's biology class.
http://www.bellnursery.com/gallery/links/bee-informed
Last edited:
AZHunter
Iowa Boy At Heart
This has been a great thread to follow and I PMd Matt telling him I'd chime in from a professional and personal perspective on a few things. As a genetecist (in a former life), I can say there are many misconceptions about what is a GMO. Some of the GMOs deserve the stigma they are associated with because their genetics have been modified unnaturally (chemically, etc.) to get the results growers wanted. Some plants are considered GMO even though there are no unnatural (chemical, etc.) processes at play. Some of it is simple Mendelian genetics where individuals with one trait are crossed with individuals with another trait to make a stronger overall plant. Under the definition of genetics, that makes them GMO and they are no harm to anybody. Its something that has been going on since Gregor Mendel first started studying genetics and humans realized they could manipulate genetics to get better outcomes. Before growth hormones, etc, that is how most modern livestock came to be. Its when you add the chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers, growth hormones, etc.) that they become detrimental. In short (and to keep it simple), not every GMO crop is bad for you.
Horsedoctor is correct in that you need to scrutinize the literature you are reviewing before making a point, but Gladiator responded to that one just as strongly and correctly. Reviewing peer-reviewed scientific literature is a daily task for me at work and I've seen "scientists" misinterpret or use peer-reviewed literature wrongly for their own self-serving purposes. Talk about someone getting MAD when you call them on it (different story)!
The overall decline of ALL pollinators (not just bees) is something that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been following and concerned about for several years. There are many reasons and theories and most of them revolve around the widespread use of insecticides, general pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals. Paul is dead on with his approach, especially collecting from the wild (were legal; not legal in every state). I know I've provided him some professional information in the past regarding grants and general biology for what he is doing (great job, by the way!). Decline of pollinators is a HUGE issue right now and, in many instances, the USFWS is equally concerned (if not more concerned in some cases) about decreasing pollinators than endangered species. A significant decline of all pollinators can have a HUGE impact on entire ecosystems. When looking at whether or not to protect rare/declining plant species, we often look at the pollinators as a factor (from personal experience). I have a few friends out here who are beekeepers and we talk regularly about what is going on (mesquite flower honey = GREAT, btw). In addition to the above links, check out this one when you have time: http://www.fws.gov/pollinators/
Matt (Gladiator), I stand by my offer to help with your class in ANY way I can. Us biology geeks need to stick together!
Horsedoctor is correct in that you need to scrutinize the literature you are reviewing before making a point, but Gladiator responded to that one just as strongly and correctly. Reviewing peer-reviewed scientific literature is a daily task for me at work and I've seen "scientists" misinterpret or use peer-reviewed literature wrongly for their own self-serving purposes. Talk about someone getting MAD when you call them on it (different story)!
The overall decline of ALL pollinators (not just bees) is something that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been following and concerned about for several years. There are many reasons and theories and most of them revolve around the widespread use of insecticides, general pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals. Paul is dead on with his approach, especially collecting from the wild (were legal; not legal in every state). I know I've provided him some professional information in the past regarding grants and general biology for what he is doing (great job, by the way!). Decline of pollinators is a HUGE issue right now and, in many instances, the USFWS is equally concerned (if not more concerned in some cases) about decreasing pollinators than endangered species. A significant decline of all pollinators can have a HUGE impact on entire ecosystems. When looking at whether or not to protect rare/declining plant species, we often look at the pollinators as a factor (from personal experience). I have a few friends out here who are beekeepers and we talk regularly about what is going on (mesquite flower honey = GREAT, btw). In addition to the above links, check out this one when you have time: http://www.fws.gov/pollinators/
Matt (Gladiator), I stand by my offer to help with your class in ANY way I can. Us biology geeks need to stick together!
letemgrow
PMA Member
I'd plant those that are cross pollinated like that and not manipulated in any way.
There is some misleading information in those studies. What those scientists looked at were seed treatments. NOT the topical applications that licensed applicators or even homeowners would apply.
I looked at common neonicitinoid containing insecticides in this article.
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pollinators/documents/pesticide_list_final.pdf
29 out of 39 products listed imidacloprid as the AI.
That would be a lot of product to have to pull from the shelves, not to mention find a way to destroy that was eco friendly.
It's not in the best financial interest of Bayer and other companies for their to be a link between neonics and the mortality of pollinators.
vman
Active Member
Totally agree, lots of misconceptions.
Glad do see im not the only one! BS in genetic engineering myself. At one point I intended to get my PHD and work for a seed company, but I said enough is enough with school.
I also have worked for a commercial beekeeper back in the late 90's. So, consider me biased!
It was around 96 when I was working as a beekeeper and even then the bees were in decline. I remember that because the guy I worked for was a professor by day and we discussed it allot. I'm sure there are documented trends available. We discussed bee diseases among other issues. At that time Dad was just starting to plant roundup ready beans along with many other farmers.
I guess my point is this trend was in motion before roundup went main stream. I have a hard time blaming roundup for that reason alone. I have to think pesticides are a more likely cause. Also, farming practices probably haven't helped. Look at the amount of land put into production over the last 25-40 years.
I also look at what GMO's could do, especially around pest resistance. That could be hugh, lessen the amount of chemicals used overall.
fatboy
Well-Known Member
If anyone has any kids that want to get into beekeeping, here is a link with some information or stop bt their booth in the AG building at the Iowa State Fair. http://abuzzaboutbees.com/beehive/youth-program.html
nannyslayer
New Member
This topic got me off the Ipad to the computer. :grin:
This is something that I personally have researched to death, and I am very pro GMO. There are many reasons for this, but I am also pro organic. I believe it should be an open market for anyone who wants to buy what they want.
Now, here is what all organic people hate to hear, more disease's and pathogens are found in organic food vs conventional grown crops. Also, if you look at the list of "approved" chemicals that organics can use on their crops, you are far from getting an organic vegetable or cut of beef.
First off, organic grass fed beef is highly NON-regulated, meaning I could go buy any calves I wanted, put them on grass for 180 days, and call them organic grass fed beef. Doesn't matter if those calves had been vaccinated before hand, as long as I don't do it. Which leads me to a question, you get sick, your child gets sick, you go to the doctor for medicine to help you become well. Why on God's green earth do you not want your animals healthy that you are going to eat? Pure grass fed organic beef can not have any type of antibiotic, at any point in their life (which I'm sure some have). I'm not saying all grass fed cattle are sick, but through vaccination we keep many of the diseases away, and keep our animals healthy. I want a healthy animal before slaughter, not one that might be carrying bovine tuberculosis but not showing symptoms of it yet.
Now to the organic side of fruits and vegetables. There are many, many studies have shown where organic vegetables are actually carriers of many rodent born disease's, that do not get caught with the testing done by the USDA. Also, there are tons of studies that show that organic foods are no better or healthier for you than conventional grown crops. I will list a few.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organic-food-may-not-be-healthier-for-you
http://health.usnews.com/health-new...s-not-healthier-or-more-nutritious-study-says
http://www.agbioforum.org/v9n3/v9n3a05-wachenheim.htm
Purdue University did a great study on the differences between both. I do not have the link, but I do on my work computer, and if I get a chance, I will put it up here.
Now on to the GMO's. One must understand that in todays world, we CAN NOT produce true organic foods on the available land. We live in a world that is full of pest, which we have always had, but now we have the intelligence to protect our crops from them. A GMO in a corn plant is not a pesticide, it is a protein, nothing more, nothing less. Root worm protection for example, is how the proteins are shifted and placed into the plant, which makes the plant resistant to root worms. Corn borers, stalk borers, ear worm protection, is all the same, just how the plant displaces protein to protect itself. That is it. If we were to try and shift all acres to organic, we would automatically be producing 78% less than with conventional crops.
How did the farmers do it back in the day? Glad you asked. Many of the farmers back in the old days used an organophosphate to protect the plants, through insecticide boxes on their planters. They would also us parathyroids foliar to protect from flying and biting insects. We still use both of these chemicals today, but in limited fashions. We only use them in we have a infestation of insects that is going to set back yield in the crop. Personally, I would rather have a GMO corn plant with the round up ready gene, sprayed with round up (which the plant will metabolize quickly) than to have a conventional corn, protected by many of the products on the market today.
Now with the bee's. The finger has been pointed at Monsanto the whole time on bee reduction because of imidacloprid. Funny thing is, imidacloprid is not produced by Monsanto, but by bayer crop science. Monsanto isn't even the biggest distributor of it either. So why point at a company, who doesn't produce a product, but yet it is their fault??
Honey bee's are also loosing much of their habitat, and natural "foods". There are also a list of disease's and pathagens that are attacking the honey bee's. I'm not about to say that we don't kill a substantial amount through use of insecticides every year, but pointing the finger at 1 source is not what is causing the total collapse. Here is a good article on the subject.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572
This is something that I personally have researched to death, and I am very pro GMO. There are many reasons for this, but I am also pro organic. I believe it should be an open market for anyone who wants to buy what they want.
Now, here is what all organic people hate to hear, more disease's and pathogens are found in organic food vs conventional grown crops. Also, if you look at the list of "approved" chemicals that organics can use on their crops, you are far from getting an organic vegetable or cut of beef.
First off, organic grass fed beef is highly NON-regulated, meaning I could go buy any calves I wanted, put them on grass for 180 days, and call them organic grass fed beef. Doesn't matter if those calves had been vaccinated before hand, as long as I don't do it. Which leads me to a question, you get sick, your child gets sick, you go to the doctor for medicine to help you become well. Why on God's green earth do you not want your animals healthy that you are going to eat? Pure grass fed organic beef can not have any type of antibiotic, at any point in their life (which I'm sure some have). I'm not saying all grass fed cattle are sick, but through vaccination we keep many of the diseases away, and keep our animals healthy. I want a healthy animal before slaughter, not one that might be carrying bovine tuberculosis but not showing symptoms of it yet.
Now to the organic side of fruits and vegetables. There are many, many studies have shown where organic vegetables are actually carriers of many rodent born disease's, that do not get caught with the testing done by the USDA. Also, there are tons of studies that show that organic foods are no better or healthier for you than conventional grown crops. I will list a few.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organic-food-may-not-be-healthier-for-you
http://health.usnews.com/health-new...s-not-healthier-or-more-nutritious-study-says
http://www.agbioforum.org/v9n3/v9n3a05-wachenheim.htm
Purdue University did a great study on the differences between both. I do not have the link, but I do on my work computer, and if I get a chance, I will put it up here.
Now on to the GMO's. One must understand that in todays world, we CAN NOT produce true organic foods on the available land. We live in a world that is full of pest, which we have always had, but now we have the intelligence to protect our crops from them. A GMO in a corn plant is not a pesticide, it is a protein, nothing more, nothing less. Root worm protection for example, is how the proteins are shifted and placed into the plant, which makes the plant resistant to root worms. Corn borers, stalk borers, ear worm protection, is all the same, just how the plant displaces protein to protect itself. That is it. If we were to try and shift all acres to organic, we would automatically be producing 78% less than with conventional crops.
How did the farmers do it back in the day? Glad you asked. Many of the farmers back in the old days used an organophosphate to protect the plants, through insecticide boxes on their planters. They would also us parathyroids foliar to protect from flying and biting insects. We still use both of these chemicals today, but in limited fashions. We only use them in we have a infestation of insects that is going to set back yield in the crop. Personally, I would rather have a GMO corn plant with the round up ready gene, sprayed with round up (which the plant will metabolize quickly) than to have a conventional corn, protected by many of the products on the market today.
Now with the bee's. The finger has been pointed at Monsanto the whole time on bee reduction because of imidacloprid. Funny thing is, imidacloprid is not produced by Monsanto, but by bayer crop science. Monsanto isn't even the biggest distributor of it either. So why point at a company, who doesn't produce a product, but yet it is their fault??
Honey bee's are also loosing much of their habitat, and natural "foods". There are also a list of disease's and pathagens that are attacking the honey bee's. I'm not about to say that we don't kill a substantial amount through use of insecticides every year, but pointing the finger at 1 source is not what is causing the total collapse. Here is a good article on the subject.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572
meyeri
PMA Member
I like this topic Gladiator. I definitely agree that we should be concerned. I'm a healthy eater, eat whole foods and lead an active lifestyle, but not to the point that I cut that stuff out completely. I definitely know that there is truth to whole foods equaling wellness. I think people would be surprised at how much better they would feel if they ate more whole foods and less sugars, fats and processed foods.
I worked for a big food processing/additive company for almost 5 years so I can honestly say that you're a fool if you don't look at labels to see exactly what you're putting in your body. Some of the products they churn out claiming to be food has been so processed that it's nearly nutrient deficient. Fillers are cheap though so it's big business. Their mentality was, well we have this leftover byproduct from process "A" so lets find a way to market it as a food additive.
Most people don't understand that it's not apples to apples getting vitamin C from a pill compared to getting it from an actual orange. (even if it is an orange that was cultivated with pesticides or a GMO orange it's still way better than a vitamin c tablet.)
My problem is that I think most of the public sees some one sided post on Facebook about how bad GMO's, gluten and pesticides are so they take it and run with it without researching it for themselves. It's all about moderation and informing yourself.
Completely organic is simply not feasible on a large scale though. Yields are so much higher today not only because of all the built in resistance, but also because they can plant the corn closer together than the previous non GMO varieties of the past, because the GMO varieties require less.
I worked for a big food processing/additive company for almost 5 years so I can honestly say that you're a fool if you don't look at labels to see exactly what you're putting in your body. Some of the products they churn out claiming to be food has been so processed that it's nearly nutrient deficient. Fillers are cheap though so it's big business. Their mentality was, well we have this leftover byproduct from process "A" so lets find a way to market it as a food additive.
Most people don't understand that it's not apples to apples getting vitamin C from a pill compared to getting it from an actual orange. (even if it is an orange that was cultivated with pesticides or a GMO orange it's still way better than a vitamin c tablet.)
My problem is that I think most of the public sees some one sided post on Facebook about how bad GMO's, gluten and pesticides are so they take it and run with it without researching it for themselves. It's all about moderation and informing yourself.
Completely organic is simply not feasible on a large scale though. Yields are so much higher today not only because of all the built in resistance, but also because they can plant the corn closer together than the previous non GMO varieties of the past, because the GMO varieties require less.
JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
Honey bees are an introduced species to North America, along with sparrows, starlings, dandelions, etc...... 
Honey bees are an introduced species to North America, along with sparrows, starlings, dandelions, etc......
Concerning bees, about 4000 different kinds are native to this continent.
Interesting fact about pesticides, they can't discern between honey bees and the native variety. They kill or weaken them all.
Did you know: the honey bee does not know how to pollinate a tomato or an eggplant flower? Only the native bees do!
Class dismissed
One of the reasons disease is such a problem in modern farming has to do with farming practices in general. Free range animals aren't in such close proximity to each other, thereby avoiding contact/spread of certain diseases. Pen raised deer (CWD) ring a bell with anyone? Flounder, no hijacking this thread!
Also, when determining whether or not I believe something at face value, I automatically dismiss info from blogs and forums. I may take what was said there and verify it from a different source but never directly from one of those. Even news sources quote people who are expressing a biased opinion so care should taken there as well
Last edited:
I also think if we did away with large scale farming and returned to the "family farm" style if producing food, quality would increase, price would decrease and we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by not having to ship foods so far to be processed. Maybe the pheasant would come back too...
Last edited:
nannyslayer
New Member
We run cattle, and run WAY below holding capacity of our farms. Diseases will still be present if we did not vaccinate.
EHD ring a bell in the wild deer herd? CWD out west? Point being, animals are going to have disease's no matter what you do. Bovine are more susceptible to disease than cervid. When I butcher a cow/pig whatever, I want to butcher a healthy animal.
Do you get vaccinations or take antibiotics, or have you're children vaccinated? Why do you do that?