A new survey says America's honeybee hives just staggered through the second highest death rate on record, with beekeepers losing nearly half of their managed colonies. But using costly measures to create new colonies, beekeepers are somehow keeping afloat. Thursday’s University of Maryland and Auburn University survey says that even though 48% of colonies were lost in the year that ended April 1, the number of United States honeybee colonies remained relatively stable. Honeybees are crucial to the food supply, pollinating more than 100 of the crops we eat, including nuts, vegetables and fruits. Scientists blame parasites, pesticides, starvation and climate change for large die-offs.
One concrete thing to do is to get your governing body to promote diverse crop rotations. Ask them to end subsidies for single-crop farms, especially crops that don’t serve as a food source for bees or have been made toxic by pesticides (frequently found on massive corn farming operations).
I’d honestly have to do the math, but I suspect we’d be able to get rid of synthetic fertilizers if we actually wanted to. Afterall, what do you think happens to the nitrogen after we eat it? We pee and poop it out, for the most part. Yes, there are losses to the air when you till the soil, but a proper farm that focuses on soil health has ways to deal with that problem.
Right now we use the system we have because it’s cheap and easy to do so on an individual level. Growers want to simplify their workflow; they don’t want to actually manage the health of the land they work. It’s too much effort.
Plus, there’s a bunch of government policy that encourages bad farming practices and discourages good ones. Corn subsidies, banning the use of treated sewage for fertilizer, blatant blind-eye enforcement of labor laws, price-dropping policy instead of price-stabilizing policy, etc.
It’s not that we would starve, not in a properly structured system, anyway. It’s that food would become more expensive and some of us would transition to careers in agriculture. The pay would become seductive when the farms become desperate for labor. A farm that actually takes care of the land and the animals is absolutely more labor-intensive, and that’s why very few modern farms do it.
Edit: I should also say that the plants and animals we have today are not the same as the ones we had when the Haber process was invented. We wouldn’t be going back to the yields of the early 1900s. Even if we did everything exactly the same as they did back then, we’d still get better returns and have a more robust food delivery system. Hell, they didn’t even have refrigeration back then.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
One concrete thing to do is to get your governing body to promote diverse crop rotations. Ask them to end subsidies for single-crop farms, especially crops that don’t serve as a food source for bees or have been made toxic by pesticides (frequently found on massive corn farming operations).
We really do need to just straight-up ban pesticides, antibiotics, and synthetic fertilizers in agriculture.
If there was a way for legislate that all farms needed to be mixed use, I’d go for immediately.
Yeah, I’m aware of the Haber-Bosch process.
I’d honestly have to do the math, but I suspect we’d be able to get rid of synthetic fertilizers if we actually wanted to. Afterall, what do you think happens to the nitrogen after we eat it? We pee and poop it out, for the most part. Yes, there are losses to the air when you till the soil, but a proper farm that focuses on soil health has ways to deal with that problem.
Right now we use the system we have because it’s cheap and easy to do so on an individual level. Growers want to simplify their workflow; they don’t want to actually manage the health of the land they work. It’s too much effort.
Plus, there’s a bunch of government policy that encourages bad farming practices and discourages good ones. Corn subsidies, banning the use of treated sewage for fertilizer, blatant blind-eye enforcement of labor laws, price-dropping policy instead of price-stabilizing policy, etc.
It’s not that we would starve, not in a properly structured system, anyway. It’s that food would become more expensive and some of us would transition to careers in agriculture. The pay would become seductive when the farms become desperate for labor. A farm that actually takes care of the land and the animals is absolutely more labor-intensive, and that’s why very few modern farms do it.
Edit: I should also say that the plants and animals we have today are not the same as the ones we had when the Haber process was invented. We wouldn’t be going back to the yields of the early 1900s. Even if we did everything exactly the same as they did back then, we’d still get better returns and have a more robust food delivery system. Hell, they didn’t even have refrigeration back then.