*I suggest you check again. No one in this thread has said any such thing. One person said that a rise in the price of honey was the way that he could tell whether there was a current crisis. That is not the same thing as saying that a rise in the price of honey would be the only harmful result.
When I first wrote “It’s not just the honey prices we’ll have to worry about”, I was neither thinking nor writing it as if anyone had said otherwise. I wrote it while thinking “here’s another significant aspect (i.e. food pollination), of CCD that hasn’t been mentioned”… ya know, as if to add another perspective or layer to the discussion. I also wasn’t feeling confrontational, or self-righteous, or argumentative, or sarcastic, or chicken little-ish, or anything else unpleasant.
Then yes, some came forth to indeed assert “otherwise.” :rolleyes:
SeanArenas said:
Google cites his article as the #1 resource on that topic. And when someone looks up that topic and clicks on his link, they are appealing to him, so by both definitions he’s an authority.
[/quote]
I guess we’re arguing over the definition of “authority”. To me, being cited as an expert is irrelevant unless the person actually is an expert and the person citing knows it.
Google doesn’t count. Google just traces hits, not hits that contain accurate and truthful information.
Wikipedia doesn’t count. Wikipedia can be altered and updated by anyone.
That’s my point. “I post a web page” does not make one an expert. Now it so happens that Doug is an entomologist, so he probably is an expert. But that is beside the point.
And I did leave a smiley.
raindrop said:
I read your comment as if you thought Musicat was saying the worst problem would be the price of honey. I was trying to explain that the point of the comment of honey prices was as a quick way to judge the effect of CCD on the world honeybee population.
As for levdrakon, he(?) is contesting the severity of the impact of the loss of honey bees. I suppose he may be arguing that there will be little or no impact even if all the honeybees disappear. If so, that would count as someone arguing otherwise.
Regarding addressing food pollination as an aspect to consider, I will quote the article by Doug:
Doug does not elaborate on the impact to world agriculture, probably because he addresses more pressing issues like how significant the effect really is, is it new or old, and that it has been overhyped in the media and web. If the condition is not as severe as it has been presented, then the risk to agriculture is lessened.
If one wishes to consider the possible impacts to agriculture, consider that honeybees are used for a couple of reasons. One primary reason is that they produce honey, so while they are being cultivated and carried around to do pollination, they are providing a marketable product on their own. If all the honeybees disappeared tomorrow, then agriculture would turn to the other 20,000+ species of bees and insects.
The puzzling question is that if something is killing off the bees, might it be a risk to killing off us? That is the most significant reason why the topic needs to be investigated.
raindrop said:
But researchers are looking into it. They haven’t waited for the price of honey to skyrocket. Again, the point is not "Is there a problem with the bees?', but “How dramatic is this problem with the bees?”
Well, my point was that very few things have to be European Honey Bee pollinated. My potatoes, onions, carrots, celery, lettuce, beets, corn, cucumbers, radishes, broccoli, cauliflower, garlic, beans, spinach, parsley, asparagus, bean sprouts, tomatoes, peppers and avocado don’t need to be Honey Bee pollinated.
Things like apples & almonds might be effected temporarily until we work something out, but personally, I don’t eat apples & almonds. Nor am I in the habit of using honey. I won’t starve.
Seed producers need flowers to get pollinated, but seed producers generally want to carefully prevent cross-pollination and preserve their specific strains, so unless I hear otherwise, I doubt the seed industry is in danger either.
The thread is right in front of all of us, and no one has said any such thing.
We’re not arguing about the definition of authority, I posted a link to the definition and we can all read it, there’s nothing to argue about. You said it’s irrelevant if he’s being cited as an expert unless he is an expert, and then you say that he probably is an expert but that’s beside the point. It’s not beside the point, it kind of is the point.
As far as Wikipedia being edited by anyone, that’s true, but when a page is moderated by someone, those changes can (and often are) undone by the moderator unless they are correct. When you go and post information on wikipedia, you must post references to your sources for information - they must be verifiable.
If you went to wikipedia and edited the article on CCD and posted false information, the topic expert who moderates the page would attempt to verify your information. You would list encyclopedic references to back up your information. If Doug can’t back it up, he clicks a button and undoes your changes. (Doug, let me know if I have this process wrong). Here’s their policies and guidelines:
Me too 
I agreed that it could also mean he’s a loudmouth.
John W. Kennedy, that’s just another way that YMMV. It’s obvious that you and I can read the same posts and perceive them differently. And I’m really okay with that. We really don’t have to agree. Really.
Levdrakon, the same goes for you. I’ve not responded to you anymore because we obviously have vastly different perspectives, and are prone to misunderstandings. I’m simply not interested in participating in an endless argument that goes nowhere.
I know that the nature of the internet is that posts can be misinterpreted, so I’m willing to try to restate, to try to clarify myself in order to clear up any misunderstandings… to a point. Unfortunately that doesn’t always work to resolve all things.
Yep, that’s exactly how I read it.
Yeah, I noticed that. I don’t agree that the agricultural aspect is a less pressing issue. Besides, it seems that those who approach it from the agricultural angle would also like to get to the bottom of it, with sound research, and are asking some of the same questions Doug asked. I don’t see how Doug’s perspective is better than theirs. From what I’ve read the apiarists, farmers, researches all seem to want to get the truth, and are not interested in any hype either. And overall I don’t agree with some of Doug’s dismissive assessment of it either. And I would suspect that the same is true of apiarist David Hackenberg, who lost 70% (or about 40 million(?)* bees) in one year. Hackenberg is on the forefront, working with and pushing and helping researchers to find the truth. He mentioned that another 70% loss would certainly bankrupt his life-long large-scale bee business. I have relatively little knowledge of any of this, but from listening to Hackenberg’s interview and reading Doug’s SD article, I expect Hackenberg would take issue with some of Doug’s points.
The film Silence of the Bees focuses mostly on how CCD specifically affects commercial agriculture. It featured Hackenberg who rents 60 million(?)* bees delivered in a caravan of semis to some of the largest commercial farms along the eastern corridor. According Hackenberg and others speaking on the video, without the introduction of large-scale rented bees those particular farmers’ fruit/vegetable production would dwindle by 70-80%.* Without the leased bees it simply wouldn’t be economically worthwhile to plant, cultivate or harvest a crop of that small size. Hackenberg also sells honey, but most of what he had to say in the film was about the agricultural/pollination impact of CCD.
This from David Hackenberg’s website…Hackenberg has served as President of the American Beekeeping Federation and currently sits on the National Honey Board as the producer representative for region 7, representing 18 states in the eastern United States. David also sits on numerous bee research committees across the United States.
It’s just a guess on my part, but from poking around the internet to read about Hackenberg, I suspect he wouldn’t regard Doug’s opinion as carrying much weight either.
I do realize some are of that opinion, but I tend to be less optimistic about other species stepping in to take up the slack. Many beekeepers have already begun importing hoards of bees from Australia to compensate for their losses, but some argue that that is also worrisome, and is only a stop-gap solution.
I agree, and I also thought of that as well. The bees could just be the canaries. It’s my view that we are all living in a toxic chemical soup.
- I can’t play the video from this PC so I’m trying to remember the numbers I saw/heard from a previous viewing. I could be way off with some of these.
Well…I have a hard time envisioning just how that would work, essentially domesticating other insects?
And just for the record (I’m not disagreeing with you, just pointing out some sub-factors), beekeepers who provide hives for pollination do not reap much benefit from the honey production, at least at the same time. They typically rent the hives for a fee to make up for the cost in transportation and loss in honey production. When rented, bees are placed in the locations that the farmers want for pollination, which may not be the best locations for honey production.
I don’t know what I did to upset you. Broccoli, and most other foods we eat, don’t need to be pollinated, or specifically honey bee pollinated, to be brought to market. That’s not a misunderstanding, it’s reality. It’s not an endless argument, it’s reality.
Farmers aren’t going to experience a reduction in crop yield except where they currently rely on honey bees, and then, they’ll only experience a reduction, not some sort of extinction.
I asked you earlier to inform me of a plant that must be honey bee pollinated. You haven’t. That is not a misunderstanding or an argument that goes nowhere. That is you not answering a question.
Could have fooled me.
-FrL-
SeanArenas said:
Au contraire, I dispute that definition. Is an authority an actual authority if he is cited as an expert but has no actual expertise? I would say no. Just because someone listens to him and tells others what he says doesn’t mean he knows jack.
Similarly, there are other defintions of authority, such as a person giving commands, a person who others follow, etc. I don’t think these are relevant to the discussion at hand, but they are valid definitions for authority.
But perhaps it is just ambiguity in the word choice of the definition cited.
Being cited by google does not make one an authority, just makes one popular.
I am aware that Wikipedia is moderated. But Doug says he maintains the page. Does that make him the moderator? Self-moderated page… yeah, that says fair and balanced.
Look, I was picking on Doug’s choice of wording. He said
If what he is saying is, “I have become the #1 cited person,” then he is probably accurate. But I read that as possibly meaning, “I am the #1 informed person, the #1 expert,” and that is what I am contesting. Maintaining a page on Wiki does not make you the foremost expert, just makes you the most cited person. That is the distinction I am arguing.
raindrop said:
This is a point to consider. Certain crops are greatly aided by the availability of the bees. Otherwise, farmers wouldn’t pay to have the bees hauled in, they would rely upon indiginous species. I guess the question is how reliant are those crops on the rented bees. This cite makes it seem fairly reliant to make the farming profitable.
One question might be if the hauling the bees around is contributing to the problem. Would bees maintained in sutu provide the same effect, and would that reduce CCD? May be a line for investigation.
Musicat said:
Perhaps. Look, I’m no expert, I’m just restating what I think Doug is saying. I might be misunderstanding him. Apparently agriculture feels that carting in pollinators is much more beneficial than relying on idigenous ones. Is that an artifact to the layout of the farms not providing habitat for the indigenous pollinators to live?
Hmmm, I suppose that makes sense. During transportation, there’s bound to be a disturbance to the honey making process, and a loss to the hive of workers. But if the bee owners weren’t collecting some honey to sell, wouldn’t the rental price be higher?
Sure. They get some honey, but less than they might if located in some other locations. So they factor in the difference somewhere in the rental price so everyone comes out a little bit ahead.
I’m not up on current rental prices, but they might fluctuate according to the principal crop, too (I don’t know, but they might).
Honey has a different taste based on the nectar source. Honey producers (the people, not the bees) may have to blend crops from different seasons and orchards to make the best commercial product, and that’s another factor to consider.
We’re not talking about a random person maintaining some random topic on wikipedia, we’re talking about Doug maintaining a wikipedia topic on which he is an expert. I’m not saying that he’s an expert because Google or Wikipedia says he is, but because he (Doug) says that he is. I believe him.
So, we have a person who is an expert, who maintains a page on wikipedia. That page comes up as #1 when you google Colony Collapse Disorder.
Doug says that makes him an authority on the topic. I’m merely backing him up.
If you want to change the words of his sentence, and say, “To me, when Doug says ‘Not to brag, but thanks to Wikipedia I’ve become the #1 authority on disappearing bees.’ it seems to me he really means ‘…’” - then of course you’re changing his meaning.
Doug says he’s an authority.
Merriam Webster says an authority is a person who is cited as an expert.
When people cite a wikipedia article maintained by Doug who is (as it turns out) an expert, I think that fits the billing of an authority on the subject.
Upset me? Being “not interested” and being “upset” aren’t even close to the same thing, at least not from my side of it. And that’s yet another example of how we have vastly different views, and why we shouldn’t try to discuss any further.
Yep, you’re absolutely correct on that point.
Ah well, at least on that we do agree.
Then you’ve also misunderstood. I can only offer you the clarification, but it’s your own choice whether to hold fast to your misunderstanding.
This from an article at the VOA News site, about Florida farmer Carl Grooms… “If I weren’t able to lease hives of bees to put next to my squash crops, I wouldn’t plant them because there’s not enough natural bees to pollinate them,” he says. “Cantaloupes [are] raised quite extensively here – that and water melon. You’ve got to have bees for those, and obviously if you’re a big grower of those items you would decide real quick if there [were] no bees to rent, you would not plant them – and we’re facing that”.
I’ve thought of that too. Hackenberg has been hauling bees around for years before having this type of drastic CCD episode, so I suspect he wouldn’t think hauling them around is the problem. But as I watched the film I couldn’t help but consider what an unnatural process it is to load millions of bees on and off of trucks, traveling several thousand highway miles per year. And while a large-scale farm could certainly consider an on-site apiary as a reasonable option, I suppose they forgo that option for the same reason I go to the bakery for a french baguette, or why I buy clothes instead of making them, because others do it better and easier than I could. On the other hand, it’s interesting that Hackenberg has gotten very picky about the farmers to whom he leases his bees.
An article from Penn State University… For his part, Hackenberg now quizzes farmers about what pesticides they use on their crops before he’ll rent his colonies out for pollination. “I was never one of those people to push for organic farming and all that stuff … but I guess I’m agreeing a whole lot more these days,” he says. “You have to wonder how much of this stuff is not just affecting insects, but is affecting us. I mean, think of the corn going into corn syrup, the soy going into our food supply — all this stuff is treated with these chemicals.”
Coincidentally that was also mentioned in the film. Commercial farms destroy habit so drastically, planting only one crop over a huge area. Some say that is itself very unnatural and destructive to all types of beneficial insects. It is done that way in order to be more productive and profitable, and to better control destructive insects and diseases. But it also makes the crops more vulnerable to disease and mishap in a different way. Organic farmers mix up crops in smaller sections, and rotate crops from year to year, all in an effort to return to a more natural habitat with lots of variety. Variety encourages a good balance of beneficial insects. It’s better for the soil, better for the crop bounty, and better for the little critters who live there and help with the process.
The film mentioned that Hackenberg rented his hives to the blueberry farmer at $90 per hive for a period of 3 weeks. In that particular situation he delivered 2600 hives to serve 7000 acres of blueberries. That comes to $234,000 for 3 week pollinating session. Each hive that got destroyed by bears added another $100 to the bill. Another farmer in the film said his total cost was $900,000 for a pollinating session. Obviously these are large-scale operations. I found it fascinating to be made aware of this aspect of our food production.
And for the record, Musicat, I’m sorry you and I bumped heads. I do appreciate your input and expertise on beekeeping and have been reading your offerings in this thread with a great interest.
Basically a million dollars? For bees? What was this farmer/corporation growing?
My interlocutor’s failure to understand is identical to my failure to communicate.
-FrL-
数据库修复
mdf修复
mdf恢复
sql server修复
sql server恢复
Oracle修复
Oracle恢复
上海数据恢复
上海硬盘数据恢复
上海 数据恢复
数据恢复 上海
I just wanted to thank Doug for this report.
IMD intoxication sounds interesting, SeanArenas, thanks for that info.
Haven’t seen many bees hereabouts since late summer when the clover blooms & roses decreased. Hope they’ll be back, wherever they are.
This was sent to me in an e-mail. There’s a byline, but no copyright notice, so I hope it’s OK to re-print it here. I did search online for a link to an article I could just link you to, but not too deeply.
Bayer and Beekeepers Meet to Discuss Pesticides and Honey Bees
by Randy Oliver
Scientists from Bayer CropScience met with representatives of the national and California beekeeping associations, commercial beekeepers, bee scientists, the Almond Board, and a state agricultural official at South Lake Tahoe during the California State Beekeepers meeting on November 11, 2008. This meeting was the first in a series of workshops intended to provide open and honest discussion of pesticides and to overcome preconceived perceptions by both sides.
Key goals for improved interactions included: 1) improving trust through greater transparency from manufacturers regarding products and testing protocols, 2) establishing better communications between all parties, 3) providing improved education to applicators for bee-friendly practices, and 4) addressing regulatory and enforcement systems to ensure adherence to label directions and to establish a nationwide system of reporting, tracking, and correcting misuses.
A priority action item was appointment of a Honey Bee Advisory Board (HBAB) by the two national beekeeping associations. The HBAB will work with Bayer on setting priorities, as well as the design of tests that better address beekeeper concerns. Other immediate action items included development of models for a national database for pesticide incident reporting, and ideas for web site posting of bee information, including regular notices to appear in beekeeping trade journals.
Bayer also agreed to pull together publications and conduct a briefing concerning clothianidin, imidacloprid, and Movento at the next meeting, which will be in conjunction with the upcoming American Honey Producers Association meeting in Fresno, in January.
This first meeting was a result of an invitation from researcher Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk (The University of Montana) to Dr. David Fischer (Chief Scientist, Ecotoxicology, Bayer CropScience) to participate in a stakeholders meeting in conjunction with the California State Beekeepers Convention.