Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We don't have to worry about it when there is no corn being pollinated to eat or drive with.

Well considering corn isn't pollinated by bee's, your point is moot.

Here's a list of crops they are involved in the pollination of.

http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/vista/html_pubs/BEEKEEP/CHAPT8/chapt8.html

Can I just ignore your fancy science and claim that I was right anyway because "Internet"?

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We don't have to worry about it when there is no corn being pollinated to eat or drive with.

Well considering corn isn't pollinated by bee's, your point is moot.

Here's a list of crops they are involved in the pollination of.

http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/vista/html_pubs/BEEKEEP/CHAPT8/chapt8.html

Can I just ignore your fancy science and claim that I was right anyway because "Internet"?

Works for me!

Thanks!

 VermGho5t wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
No bees = no honey. No honey = no food for the honey badger. No food for the honey badger = rabid honey badger. Rabid honey badgers = end of the world.

Bees are ancient protectors of this Earth, and it is our duty to see that they live on to keep the honey badger threat at bay.

As funny as this might be, this is a serious problem, as bees are a major pollinator of flowering plants.

I don't understand why you quoted me; are you implying that I don't think the loss of bees is serious because I made a joke about the situation? Anyone who learned anything about how plants live in school knows that bees are an important and nigh irreplaceable part of the eco-system. The fact I made a joke about it doesn't mean I neither understand nor care about the situation.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Who dislikes bees?
Bees are cool.

Get off my planet....

Bees are a pox among us, a winged terror that deserve to be snuffed out. There isn't a strain called "killer" for no reason-and they look almost identical to honey bees. Don't forget the cross species bed that was genetically engineered that is evil aggression incarnate.

And who said wasps should stay?! You need a good public flogging, sir. Then join purplefood in getting off my planet.

Bees rock. If you're scared of them then you suck.

purplefood wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Who dislikes bees?
Bees are cool.

Get off my planet....

Bees are a pox among us, a winged terror that deserve to be snuffed out. There isn't a strain called "killer" for no reason-and they look almost identical to honey bees. Don't forget the cross species bed that was genetically engineered that is evil aggression incarnate.

And who said wasps should stay?! You need a good public flogging, sir. Then join purplefood in getting off my planet.

Bees rock. If you're scared of them then you suck.

I'm with purplefood on this one. I'm down with the big, fuzzy bumblbees.

I hope a bee flies down both your pants. Then we'll see how "down" you are with them.


For the record, I caught one in my side and I'm mildly allergic. I run from the little bastards.

Don't whine because your inferior genes are more susceptible to the sting of our pollinating overlords.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
They could investigate chemical alternatives, or, and this will really annoy some environmentalists, GM. As you can make a plant pest resistant and not have to spray anything into the atmosphere.

Not an environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination here, but this is quite possibly one of the worst ideas that I have seen. GM products are on a downward spiral, and I suspect may have something to do with the pest- and fung- icides found in high concentrations around these dying bee colonies.

Do we have methods to artificailly produce same-tasting honey yet? If yes, kill dem bees.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
They could investigate chemical alternatives, or, and this will really annoy some environmentalists, GM. As you can make a plant pest resistant and not have to spray anything into the atmosphere.

Not an environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination here, but this is quite possibly one of the worst ideas that I have seen. GM products are on a downward spiral, and I suspect may have something to do with the pest- and fung- icides found in high concentrations around these dying bee colonies.

You'll have to expand on that argument a bit.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
They could investigate chemical alternatives, or, and this will really annoy some environmentalists, GM. As you can make a plant pest resistant and not have to spray anything into the atmosphere.

Not an environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination here, but this is quite possibly one of the worst ideas that I have seen. GM products are on a downward spiral, and I suspect may have something to do with the pest- and fung- icides found in high concentrations around these dying bee colonies.

You'll have to expand on that argument a bit.

as they have GM'd crops to withstand drought (which is kinda cool) they have also made crops resistant to pest-, fung- and herb-icide. The problem comes when the next season comes around, they have found that last years weeds, pests and fungi are now resistant to last years sprays... now they have to go back to the lab and create a product that is resistant to the newest weed killer. In more recent years, Monsanto (whom everyone knows is one of, if not the biggest creator of GMO seed) has released corn and other crop variants that is resistant to their newest "approved" pest/herbicide contains half of the active ingredient components for Agent Orange. I don't think I need to go into great detail on why Agent Orange is bad, right?

There are different ways to take GM. One thing they do is make plants resistant to herbicides, then spray these knowing only the crop is resistant. You're overstating weed resistance, they don't become resistant from one year to the next, they aren't like bacteria. The GM resistance introduced means they can use broad spectrum herbicides that kill everything in a crude manner rather than things that target specific weeds. But the big issue here is that you're still spraying, and I think there are more environmentally friendly ways to apply GM to improve plants and cut down on chemicals being sprayed into the local environment.

They should concentrate on GM crops that are directly pest resistant. Rather than herbicide-resistance, which requires spraying of the surroundings, they could make them pest-resistant to fungi and insects. You introduce anti fungal traits from other species that prevent fungi taking a foothold, and you can improve pest resistance by making plants less palatable or even toxic to pest species. These things are achievable without affecting taste and quality to us humans. Ideally, I think you could grow GM crops and cut down almost entirely without chemical sprays, you could have 'organic GM'. I don't think that's contradictory. Many non-GM breeding practices are totally unnatural and lead to hybrids that couldn't exist without laboratory work, GM is just the next step beyond that. GM and breeding approaches are a different and separate agricultural issue to chemical spraying for pests and disease. But it's suited some people to scaremonger and group GM in as equivalent to 'evil chemicals' instead of looking at it as an entirely new thing that could be treated as an ally. Take a plant developed in the laboratory, and then grow it in organic conditions free from artificial chemicals. Seems ideal to me, as both a scientist and environmentalist.

Currently with climate change and our need to expand crop production onto more and more land we are going to see more agriculture having to deal with more challenging conditions; heat, cold, drought, excessive water, increased salinity, together can bring increased insect, bacterial and fungal threats. It's nice for the middle-class organic lobby to want everything grown like its 1900 but on a practical level, to feed the world in the face of these problems I'm not sure that there's much option other than to invest in GM. And the sooner the better, from a British perspective. The more it's shunned, especially in Europe, the more we leave ourselves prey to other countries and corporations when we begin to struggle and they are well ahead in research, development and production.

I once got a bee caught *under my armpit* as a small child. That really, really hurt. For hours. I still think there's no need to kill the things off. We lose honey and a lot of flower breeds if we do.

I was all for mass genocide of wasps, thinking that they served no useful purpose, but two things have made me change my mind. One, that description also kinda fits humans. Two, they do as previously mentioned hunt down other pests while not being overly aggressive to us unless threatened.

I like bees for the most part, but wasps can feth off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and mosquitoes too.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
There are different ways to take GM. One thing they do is make plants resistant to herbicides, then spray these knowing only the crop is resistant. You're overstating weed resistance, they don't become resistant from one year to the next, they aren't like bacteria. The GM resistance introduced means they can use broad spectrum herbicides that kill everything in a crude manner rather than things that target specific weeds. But the big issue here is that you're still spraying, and I think there are more environmentally friendly ways to apply GM to improve plants and cut down on chemicals being sprayed into the local environment.

They should concentrate on GM crops that are directly pest resistant. Rather than herbicide-resistance, which requires spraying of the surroundings, they could make them pest-resistant to fungi and insects. You introduce anti fungal traits from other species that prevent fungi taking a foothold, and you can improve pest resistance by making plants less palatable or even toxic to pest species. These things are achievable without affecting taste and quality to us humans. Ideally, I think you could grow GM crops and cut down almost entirely without chemical sprays, you could have 'organic GM'. I don't think that's contradictory. Many non-GM breeding practices are totally unnatural and lead to hybrids that couldn't exist without laboratory work, GM is just the next step beyond that. GM and breeding approaches are a different and separate agricultural issue to chemical spraying for pests and disease. But it's suited some people to scaremonger and group GM in as equivalent to 'evil chemicals' instead of looking at it as an entirely new thing that could be treated as an ally. Take a plant developed in the laboratory, and then grow it in organic conditions free from artificial chemicals. Seems ideal to me, as both a scientist and environmentalist.

Currently with climate change and our need to expand crop production onto more and more land we are going to see more agriculture having to deal with more challenging conditions; heat, cold, drought, excessive water, increased salinity, together can bring increased insect, bacterial and fungal threats. It's nice for the middle-class organic lobby to want everything grown like its 1900 but on a practical level, to feed the world in the face of these problems I'm not sure that there's much option other than to invest in GM. And the sooner the better, from a British perspective. The more it's shunned, especially in Europe, the more we leave ourselves prey to other countries and corporations when we begin to struggle and they are well ahead in research, development and production.

If they can prefect GM I'm all for it, as of now we get things like the frost resistant strawberry. Big prefect shape, gorgeous red color, inviting smell, and taste like AIR. Total fail.

I can think of some good reasons to have frost resistant strawberries increase the amount of areas the fruit can grow as well as a longer growing season.

Well, I guess that solves that.

Hopefully it isn't too late for our fuzzy yellow friends. Or else Eddie Izzard may never make a "COVERED IN BEES" joke again, and that would be sad.

You guys say "Impending ecological disaster." All I hear is "Get in on the ground floor of microdrone tech."

 grayshadow87 wrote:
I hate to say it, but I find myself growing less and less concerned with GM foods. Maybe it's just that I've heard about it often enough that I've become inured to the whole issue, or maybe it's a subconscious desire to develop mutant powers through spliced tomatoes, but regardless I've grown to accept them. If it takes a bit of tinkering to save the bees, that fine by me.

On the one hand, I'm one of those "don't play God types." On the other hand, GM is just a much faster version of what humans have been doing for thousands of years. Did you know Horses were approximately a half-foot taller (on average)* 800 years ago than they are today? We choose plants and animals that benefit us, and we cultivate them. That in itself is human interference in natural selection to try and preserve and grow organisms perceived as being most advantageous to us. GM is just a much faster way of doing what we were already doing where crops are concerned.

*As clarity here, Knights and mounted European warriors before them did not ride horses like we have today in movies. They rode breeds much closer in size to large Clydesdales which today are less common because we have less use for them than smaller riding breeds. The horses knights would ride, were so strong a knight's back could actually be broken just by the motion of the horse if they made a mistake.

 Super Ready wrote:
I once got a bee caught *under my armpit* as a small child. That really, really hurt. For hours. I still think there's no need to kill the things off. We lose honey and a lot of flower breeds if we do.

I was all for mass genocide of wasps, thinking that they served no useful purpose, but two things have made me change my mind. One, that description also kinda fits humans. Two, they do as previously mentioned hunt down other pests while not being overly aggressive to us unless threatened.

They also don't polinate anything and actively destroy bee hives. feth wasps.

Actually, wasps control the populations of insects that would otherwise overrun crops and flowers and destroy them.

The warm bit we had here in the UK during early spring brought most wasp queens out of hibernation early, and the cold weather that followed killed most of them off, which explains why thus far this year I have seen exactly 1 wasp. The population could take years to recover, if it ever does, and the impact it could have on the eco-system could be fairly large.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Actually, wasps control the populations of insects that would otherwise overrun crops and flowers and destroy them.

I'm sure there's plenty of other animals that could fill that gap.

 notprop wrote:
DId some one say Badg.....wooooah!



[slowly reverses out of the thread looking at the floor all the time]

Excellent

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Actually, wasps control the populations of insects that would otherwise overrun crops and flowers and destroy them.

I'm sure there's plenty of other animals that could fill that gap.

Not really, no.

 LordofHats wrote:

*As clarity here, Knights and mounted European warriors before them did not ride horses like we have today in movies. They rode breeds much closer in size to large Clydesdales which today are less common because we have less use for them than smaller riding breeds. The horses knights would ride, were so strong a knight's back could actually be broken just by the motion of the horse if they made a mistake.

Knights didn't ride racing ponies, this is true. They didn't even ride "stockhorses" (which are just a tougher breed of arabians) - they rode 'draught animals' like clydesdales and percherons.
A kiniggit in full plate would break the back of an arabian (tiny horses used for racing).

Just watched an hour documentary on this after hearing about it here, thanks for posting it

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Actually, wasps control the populations of insects that would otherwise overrun crops and flowers and destroy them.

I'm sure there's plenty of other animals that could fill that gap.

Not really, no.

Dragonflies? Spiders? Mantises? Birds? Bats?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Actually, wasps control the populations of insects that would otherwise overrun crops and flowers and destroy them.

I'm sure there's plenty of other animals that could fill that gap.

Not really, no.

Dragonflies? Spiders? Mantises? Birds? Bats?

To put it into perspective, nearly every insect that is considered a 'pest' has at least one species of wasp that preys upon it. Wasps are used a lot by farmers instead of insecticides because of just how efficient they are at controlling pests. You cannot remove a species as large, varied, and important as the wasp without a huge impact upon the eco-system, no matter how many other things you think would fill their role.

Also, a bit more perspective, dragonflies feed on wasps. If the wasps die, the dragonflies lose a food source, and any species or group that relied on wasps as their main source of food starves, which deprives the local populations of their predators of food, and so on and so forth until the loss of a single insect species has starved an entire area.

Nature is far from as simple as 'if the wasps die out, everything else will take over'.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Actually, wasps control the populations of insects that would otherwise overrun crops and flowers and destroy them.

I'm sure there's plenty of other animals that could fill that gap.

Not really, no.

Dragonflies? Spiders? Mantises? Birds? Bats?

To put it into perspective, nearly every insect that is considered a 'pest' has at least one species of wasp that preys upon it. Wasps are used a lot by farmers instead of insecticides because of just how efficient they are at controlling pests. You cannot remove a species as large, varied, and important as the wasp without a huge impact upon the eco-system, no matter how many other things you think would fill their role.

Also, a bit more perspective, dragonflies feed on wasps. If the wasps die, the dragonflies lose a food source, and any species or group that relied on wasps as their main source of food starves, which deprives the local populations of their predators of food, and so on and so forth until the loss of a single insect species has starved an entire area.

Nature is far from as simple as 'if the wasps die out, everything else will take over'.

While that may be true, can it be known with absolute certainty that there is no other animal (or combination of animals) that can replace role that wasps have in similar way or scale?