# Govt to spend 3 million on bee pasture?



## ilikebs (Jan 3, 2013)

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/national_world&id=9444250


----------



## ilikebs (Jan 3, 2013)

3 million wont last long. Get it while you can!


----------



## burns375 (Jul 15, 2013)

ilikebs said:


> 3 million wont last long. Get it while you can!


Although planting is good, I would give incentives to land owners, parks, etc who don't mow, plant fescue or spray for weeds. Let fence rows and fields grow up, natural paster will come back.

Not only bees but other wildlife will also benefit. Kentucky fish and game is trying to urge farmers to be LAZY!!, no weekend mow warriors. Many birds grouse, turkey, song birds, rabbits etc, benefit


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

> Farmers also can get help *building fences, installing water tanks and making other changes *that better enable them to move their animals from pasture to pasture so the vegetation doesn't become worn down.


Looks like pork for farmers and livestock more than saving the bees.



> "The USDA is focusing on those five states because 65 percent of the nation's estimated 30,000 commercial beekeepers bring hives there for at least part of the year.


65% of hives are moved to the midwest? So that only leaves 35% of hives that are moved to California during the almond rush? That doesnt add up.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

65% of the commercial beekeepers. Not 65% of the hives.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Nabber86 said:


> 65% of hives are moved to the midwest? So that only leaves 35% of hives that are moved to California during the almond rush? That doesnt add up.


Sure it does. They're the same hives.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Sure it does. They're the same hives.


Ah, I see.

I suppose Californian wants thiier share of pork as well?


----------



## bearkarting (Mar 13, 2013)

Deadline to apply for this spring has come and gone (February 21, 2014).


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

This has got to be another government farce. Why would you want to support bees in the midwest? Monoculture corn???? bees don't collect nectar from corn. If the government was interested in bees they would have a program for the east coast were you can actually farm bees. Who in their right mind would farm bees in the midwest? Are we supposed to feel good about this?


----------



## rmcpb (Aug 15, 2012)

Wish we could get a deal like that for our farms. Hope they grabbed the money while it lasted.


----------



## Ray4852 (May 27, 2011)

You think our government will spend 3 million on a bee pasture. its more pork for the special interest. wake up my fellow americans. we are broke now. vote them all out of office.


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Who in their right mind would farm bees in the midwest?


 "...because 65 percent of the nation's estimated 30,000 commercial beekeepers bring hives there for at least part of the year."


----------



## larrybeach (May 25, 2013)

It would be nice if the growers could plant some bee friendly crops also, something that would bloom at different times than almonds, apples etc.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

cg3 said:


> "...because 65 percent of the nation's estimated 30,000 commercial beekeepers bring hives there for at least part of the year."


For a stress test?:scratch:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Brian,
There is a lot more to the Mid-West than what you imagine. Beekeepers wouldn't take their hives there if it were not worth the trip.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> There is a lot more to the Mid-West than what you imagine. Beekeepers wouldn't take their hives there if it were not worth the trip.


What has changed? Even when I was a young boy there was endless fields of corn, not GMO but just the same corn. Are they taking them there for cheap by products or corn syrup? When it comes to "worth" it implies and individual worth not a worth to the whole country.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

That's why we are all in business, right? Because of how it benefits the whole country?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> What has changed? Even when I was a young boy there was endless fields of corn, not GMO but just the same corn. Are they taking them there for cheap by products or corn syrup? When it comes to "worth" it implies and individual worth not a worth to the whole country.


Ever been to the Flint Hills in Kansas?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> Ever been to the Flint Hills in Kansas?


No is that considered the midwest?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

What States do you think of when you think of the MidWest?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> No is that considered the midwest?


Yes. I guess that question makes complete sense since you think Utica is in the Adirondacks.

Do you even geography?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa.


Is that all?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Pictures I see of Flint Hills looks like more grasses.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Is that all?


Four states of corn is not enough?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Is that all?


I guess some people (yourseld excepted) in the east, dont know about the Louisiana Purchase. So Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois are technically in the west and Iowa must be Indian territory.


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

Acebird said:


> Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa.


You got 1/3 0f them. I have more cattle farm's around than corn fields, we do have some corn . I have a few locations where the bee's would never see a corn field and most farmers around here let fence row go not much bushing either. From tree bloom till golden rod always some thing in bloom.


----------



## tommysnare (Jan 30, 2013)

i see it as nothing more than smoking mirrors. those funds will be sucked up by the suits before it even gets distributed. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> Pictures I see of Flint Hills looks like more grasses.



Yes natural prairie grasses. Is there something wrong with that? Earlier you were ranting about mono-cropping.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Acebird said:


> This has got to be another government farce. Why would you want to support bees in the midwest? Monoculture corn???? bees don't collect nectar from corn. If the government was interested in bees they would have a program for the east coast were you can actually farm bees. Who in their right mind would farm bees in the midwest? Are we supposed to feel good about this?


Guess you've never traveled in the upper midwest where this is being implemented, sprawling dairy farms of WI/MN and large pastures and praries in the Dakotas. That is why the commercial guys head there after almonds. East coast? You mean like Philadelhia, Long Island, Boston?


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

North and South Dakota are our top honey producing states.


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

cg3 said:


> North and South Dakota are our top honey producing states.


There are bee's yard about every 4 mile with 40 to 60 hive's per yard. I have pic's from last summer in N Dakota but don't know how to post them here.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Four states of corn is not enough?


 
Four States do not make up the whole of the MidWest. There's a lot of honey produced in Iowa in case you didn't know. There is more to Iowa than corn, as well as those other States too.

Just to bring Brian up to date, the Midwest is made up of 12 States. Those being IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, and WI. Lots and lots of good bee forage in those States.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

tommysnare said:


> i see it as nothing more than smoking mirrors. those funds will be sucked up by the suits before it even gets distributed. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


"smoking mirrors"?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Just to bring Brian up to date, the Midwest is made up of 12 States. Those being IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, and WI. Lots and lots of good bee forage in those States.



And of those, only three (IA, IL, and NE) are really well know for corn production.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

And in Illinois, only the central part of the state is wall to wall cornfields. North and south have lots of good forage.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Contrasted w/ NY which everyone knows is a big city that everyone from NY lives in.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

OK,ok, you win. Seems like half the country is the midwest. That wasn't what I envisioned.

Is the money actually going to go to areas that benefit bees or is it going to be swallowed up by the big farms with a make believe benefit?


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

hilreal said:


> Guess you've never traveled in the upper midwest where this is being implemented, sprawling dairy farms of WI/MN and large pastures and praries in the Dakotas. That is why the commercial guys head there after almonds. East coast? You mean like Philadelhia, Long Island, Boston?


Maybe if a program created more bee forage in other areas of the country, like the Eastern time zone states or the Mountain and Pacific time zone states bee keepers would have a decent alternative to the prairie.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> OK,ok, you win. Seems like half the country is the midwest. That wasn't what I envisioned.
> 
> Is the money actually going to go to areas that benefit bees or is it going to be swallowed up by the big farms with a make believe benefit?


Read the article, Ace. There are numerous benefits to the program: 

*Dairy farmers and ranchers *in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Dakotas can qualify for about $3 million to reseed pastures with alfalfa, clover and other plants appealing to both bees and livestock. Farmers also can get help* building fences, installing water tanks and making other changes that better enable them to move their animals from pasture to pasture *so the vegetation doesn't become worn down.


Not to :digging: any deeper, but the article is titled "Government spending $3M to feed honeybees in *Midwest"* then goes on to mention Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Dakotas. How could you have missed that?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

*Dairy farmers and ranchers *in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Dakotas can qualify for about $3 million to reseed pastures with alfalfa, clover and other plants appealing to both bees and livestock. Farmers also can get help* building fences, installing water tanks and making other changes that better enable them to move their animals from pasture to pasture *so the vegetation doesn't become worn down.

[/QUOTE]
I don't see this benefiting bees. I see it as another money grab using bee hype.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Okay.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> I don't see this benefiting bees. I see it as another money grab using bee hype.


That was my point.


----------



## jdmidwest (Jul 9, 2012)

I live in MO and consider it to be the Mid West. Technically, the population center of the USA is about the center of MO. That means, people wise, the center of MO has the same number of people in all 4 directions as you travel. We are west of the Mississippi, everything on the other side is considered to be the Eastern US.

Most of the Midwest is farmland and produces the bulk of the corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, and grain sorghum for the USA.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*This could be of interest to some.

Seems like $3M isn't very much for a program like this to have very much effect.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, February 27, 2014*

* 
GILLIBRAND PUSHES USDA TO REVIVE NEW YORK’S BEE POPULATION, STRENGTHEN FARMS ​ 
 Senator Calls on USDA to Expand Pollination Initiative to New York State​ ​ New York Beekeepers Lost 30 Percent of Hives from 2011 to 2012 – Hurting Fruit, Vegetable Crops​ ​ Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, today called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to bolster its efforts to revive New York’s bee population after a year when beekeepers lost on average 30 percent of their hives to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) -- hurting New York farms' ability to pollinate crops. Earlier this month, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack directed $3 million to study bee losses in the Midwest. Senator Gillibrand is urging the USDA to expand their investigation to New York and the Northeast. 
 
“New York’s farms rely on a strong and healthy bee population to pollinate our fruit and vegetable crops,” Senator Gillibrand said. “The alarming decline of the bee population comes at a steep price for our environment, our farms, and our economy. It is critical for the USDA make this investment here in New York to respond to Colony Collapse Disorder, and help revive New York’s farms.”

New York State has an estimated 52,000 beehives, each of which produce approximately 51 pounds of honey, ranking the state the tenth in honey production. Bee pollination supports blueberries, cherries, squash and other fruit and vegetables. Apple trees require two to three hives per acre to pollinate. Bee pollination adds an estimated $300 million value to a $4.4 billion agriculture industry in New York. 

Throughout the U.S., a staggering 45 percent of beehives were lost just last year. 
The pollination initiative would be implemented by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), a branch of USDA, from their field offices in New York State. NRCS conservation experts would provide New York farmers with the technical and financial resources to provide honey bees with nutritious pollen and nectar while providing benefits to the environment. For example, planting certain cover crops provides a benefit to producers by reducing erosion, increasing the health of their soil, inhibiting invasive species, providing quality forage and habitat for honey bees and other pollinators, as well as habitat for other wildlife.


*


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

sqkcrk said:


> *New York farmers with the technical and financial resources to provide honey bees with nutritious pollen and nectar while providing benefits to the environment.
> 
> 
> *


*

still only helps the farmers, and the only time I've seen any major nectar or pollen dearth in N.Y. is either during a drought or when large commercial operations move into the area.
instead of setting up another govt. program, a better use of the money would be to put it into the conservation land program's so they could start offering the same rate as farmers are offering to rent land to plant corn. All of the places that I had hives on that was whip's land is now corn.*


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I applaud Gillibrands and Schumers efforts, as well as those pushing the Midwest Program, but I believe that they themselves will benefit from these programs more than honeybees, native pollinators, and/or beekeepers will.

Opening Federally held lands to commercial beekeepers may be of benefit to some beekeepers, but not most of the rest of the beekeepers experiencing the losses I am hearing about recently. 

If a comprehensive survey of beekeepers across NY State could be done in April I believe we would see great loss, if what I heard from a small group of 15 relatively new beekeepers is indicative of what is being experienced across the State by others.

If I could get reports from all of the local bee clubs in NY State, what would I see?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> I applaud Gillibrands and Schumers efforts,


I don't. Bees will thrive if the government stops subsidizing monoculture and bio fuels. This subsidizing multi million dollar operations has got to stop. It doesn't solve anything it creates more problems.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

sqkcrk said:


> If a comprehensive survey of beekeepers across NY State could be done in April I believe we would see great loss, if what I heard from a small group of 15 relatively new beekeepers is indicative of what is being experienced across the State by others.
> 
> If I could get reports from all of the local bee clubs in NY State, what would I see?


They did a comprehensive survey last year(off the top of my head less than 100 beeks participated), I'ts my understanding that they are going to do the same study this year all ready. Maybe someone should start an effort now to make all of the bee clubs aware of it and try and get their members to take the survey. Maybe Paul Cappy the head bee person should do something, I know he is very busy getting those minuets for the AIAC meeting written so must be extremely busy as they still have not been published.

Both Gillibrand and Schumer's article said that the state has to ask for the relief, that be the new Ag. commissioner with input from Paul Cappy and the AIAC committee?
I'm sure that what you heard from the 15 relatively new beekeepers is probably pretty bad, and by the end of March will probably be worse. When mother nature decided no honey flows after July last year, and then gave us this winter, there was no reason to believe that losses wouldn't bee high. The Govt. is paying the appropriate lip service to it. 
The hives that survive, breed queens of off them, start new hives with the queens, next time recognize what is going on, don't assume you are going to have an easy winter, and the next time it's this bad your losses will be less maybe. What is going to be worse for most is most everyone is sold out of nucs and or packages or afraid to commit to selling bees, many people are over ordering just in case, so we will probably end up with more hives next year not less. so what exactly were the 15 saying?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

The AIAC minutes have to be approved by the Commissioner's Office. The minutes probably are ready, they just haven't been approved for release to the general public it appears. This is standard operating procedure for any Governmental Department.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Mike, what are folks in your club saying about their colony count?


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

sqkcrk said:


> Mike, what are folks in your club saying about their colony count?


Well one of the persons was in the video on the thread that got closed, he expect 30% or higher, not sure how he knows as he hasn't checked any hives but he is treatment fee, but he did say he left all the honey supers on because the flow was so bad. One other experienced beek said his hives went in light he was putting sugar into the empty comb and putting them back in the hive, most of the newer beeks said they had lost some but they expected to lose those as they were weak. I haven't heard any percentages of losses from anybody, I don't know of any of the experienced beeks that have even gone out and checked any hives. No one that checked has said they are surprised by the losses.
I snowshoe'd in to a little over half of my hives, they went into winter lighter than normal but heavier than most leave there hives, I have lost 10%, 3 to small clusters or queenless,
1 got stuck and starve, and 1 (my best breeder queen last year) went straight up the middle(really nice cluster) and ran out of honey. The 5 hives lost saved another 5 that would have run out of honey shortly. none of that includes any that are queenless etc. So I would guess people that aren't checking would be running about 20% loss right now.
I expect higher losses in two of the yards I haven't checked because I picked up queens from two different locations last year, they were heavy enough but not being my bees and being from further south have to wait and see.
I would venture that my hives are 20-30% lighter this year than they were last year at this time. None of the dead hives had any sealed brood as of last week, so I would guess that when they do start, the bees will not be as far along this spring as last spring. People trying to find nucs are having problems. I'm making up more feeders for spring.

what did the 15 you talked to have to say?


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

sqkcrk said:


> The AIAC minutes have to be approved by the Commissioner's Office. The minutes probably are ready, they just haven't been approved for release to the general public it appears.


I'll let you know I sent the commissioners office a letter.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> I don't. Bees will thrive if the government stops subsidizing monoculture and bio fuels. This subsidizing multi million dollar operations has got to stop. It doesn't solve anything it creates more problems.


If the goverment stops subsidizing monoculture, the farmers are still going to farm. All that will happen is the price farm products will rise. It's not like a mulit-million dollar farm operation is going to switch to organic gradening with an abundance of plant species. The world needs corn, soy, and wheat. That is not going to change. 

Biofuel production will certainly drop without subsidies but again, it isnt like they are going to convert the former corn producing acerage to bee forage.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

Nabber86 said:


> If the goverment stops subsidizing monoculture, the farmers are still going to farm. All that will happen is the price farm products will rise.


and each product will be sold for what it is really worth instead of what the Govt. decides its worth. Living in N.Y. I have no problem saying that all subsidies for the Dairy industries should be done away with and let the price of milk reflect the actual cost to produce it. If I feel its a good value, I will buy it, if it's labeled growth hormone free, I may actually pay a little more. If they are going to use my tax money to subsidize anything I elect that subsidy to go to beer!! but no one listens to me.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

So if the government actually handed out subsidies to _beekeepers_ (as opposed to farmers, ranchers, and dairymen) that would be used to help improve the health and well being of honeybees, how many people on this forum would think this was a good practice?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

wildbranch2007 said:


> I elect that subsidy to go to beer!! but no one listens to me.


I agree


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

wildbranch2007 said:


> If they are going to use my tax money to subsidize anything I elect that subsidy to go to beer!!


They should be funding startup craft breweries with the requirement that at least one brew be done using honey!


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

"Wisconsin and the Dakotas can qualify for about $3 million to reseed pastures with alfalfa, clover and other plants appealing to both bees and livestock."

Is the alfalfa going to be cut before it blooms? What kind of clover? red?
What other plants can farmers bale that bees like?

If they don't do it right they may just be giving money away to rich farmers to grow animal feed for free.

If they want to so something they should put land in CRP or natural restoration.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

FlowerPlanter said:


> If they want to so something they should put land in CRP or natural restoration.


said it b/4 and still agree, why waste time creating all kinds of new govt jobs, when you already have agencies that do this very well. I'm starting to lean to subsidizing hops if it doesn't already have one.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

Nabber86 said:


> So if the government actually handed out subsidies to _beekeepers_ (as opposed to farmers, ranchers, and dairymen) that would be used to help improve the health and well being of honeybees, how many people on this forum would think this was a good practice?


I don't think anyone said the above but you, eliminate all subsidies and don't start a new one for bees, and let the price of produce float to the proper level's.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Subsidies create an economic system for the "too big to fail".


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

wildbranch2007 said:


> I don't think anyone said the above but you, eliminate all subsidies and don't start a new one for bees, and let the price of produce float to the proper level's.


I am not offering an opinion either way. 

I was asking if any forum members think subsidies that would actually go to beekeepers, and be used to help the bee population, would think this is a good idea. 

Big commercial beeks wouldnt take the money if they could actually help the bees? 

What about reaserach subsidies similar to WLC's STEM Scholar program?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> What about reaserach subsidies similar to WLC's STEM Scholar program?


Education benefits everyone. Is there waste in the educational system? You betcha. Should we support those that apply and not support those that don't? You betcha.


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

Maybe they are talking about restoring some of the prairie that was under CRP and been disked under for more corn.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

marshmasterpat said:


> Maybe they are talking about restoring some of the prairie that was under CRP and been disked under for more corn.


If you are going to restore something to its natural state all you have to do is leave it alone. You don't have to throw money at it.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

I think the bottom line is: What can 3 million dollars do for pollinators that are spread out over hundreds of thousands of square miles of midwestern land? Answer: virtually nothing. It's more of a symbolic effort than a biologically meaningful one. Billions of dollars would be needed for meaningful biological impact, but the government has other, non-earth based spending priorities, like space telescopes and Martian land rovers.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

If you define the natural state of the land as being the native pastures of years gone by I doubt that there was much in the way of bee forage contained in it.
I have a 100 acre parcel of marginally productive farm ground that I chose to put in the CRP program about 5 years ago. I choose to sew in the native grasses like big and little blue stem, Indian Grass, and Needle Grass. We also mixed in some sweet clover and alfalfa. It took about 3 years for the grasses to get fully established. The sweet clover only bloomed the second year and hasn't been seen since. The alfalfa still blooms but it is getting progressively chocked out as well. In short, it's turned into a marvelous nesting habitat for birds but great bee forage it's not.


----------



## beeware10 (Jul 25, 2010)

blue diamond is correct. the cost to replace one road bridge today can be 3 million dollars. to throw 3 million dollars into a national program means nothing. just a talking point for slick polititions.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

jim lyon said:


> If you define the natural state of the land as being the native pastures of years gone by I doubt that there was much in the way of bee forage contained in it.
> I have a 100 acre parcel of marginally productive farm ground that I chose to put in the CRP program about 5 years ago. I choose to sew in the native grasses like big and little blue stem, Indian Grass, and Needle Grass. We also mixed in some sweet clover and alfalfa.


I think I know what the problem was.

Grass _does_ tend to crowd out other things. Perhaps mostly wildflowers next time?


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

jim lyon said:


> I have a 100 acre parcel of marginally productive farm ground that I chose to put in the CRP program about 5 years ago.


question, around here the price paid for whip's, which is similar to crp hasn't gone up while the price per acre paid by dairy farms has gone up significantly, is that the case with crp also?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> In short, it's turned into a marvelous nesting habitat for birds but great bee forage it's not.


Of course. Man cannot sow in natural habitat and that includes wild flowers. If left untouched nature will sow in what survives best on the land. In our area there will be a lot of trees and shrubs, grasses and wild flowers not necessarily the ones we want. It is my understanding that bees get the greatest amount of nectar from trees.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Acebird said:


> Of course. Man cannot sew in natural habitat and that includes wild flowers. If left untouched nature will sew in what survives best on the land. In our area there will be a lot of trees and shrubs, grasses and wild flowers not necessarily the ones we want.


But this is the reason for the "throwing money at it". We don't necessarily have to sew in natural habitat or let the land revert on its own; we can sew in wildflowers we want, deliberately. It's the same proven theory that lets us plant and maintain a single crop in a large acreage field year after year - except simpler, because we don't have to plant in rows or till or weed. Just seed with clover or vetch or whatever tickles your tastebuds and every so often throw some more seed in.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

melliferal said:


> Just seed with clover or vetch or whatever tickles your tastebuds and every so often throw some more seed in.


I think it is a lot more difficult then that. You have to take out what is there before you can sow in what you want. If you don't do a good job of taking out what is there you will have that anyway and the seeds you sew will just die.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

The word is "sow", not "sew". 

Thanks to you guys I now have an image of a sweet little grandmother on her hands and knees with needle and thread in hand carefully stitching away in a midwestern field...


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Acebird said:


> I think it is a lot more difficult then that. You have to take out what is there before you can sew in what you want. If you don't do a good job of taking out what is there you will have that anyway and the seeds you sew will just die.


Okay fair enough - so till the field once to begin with. Then just plant and reinforce the forage.

It doesn't have to be strictly wildflowers, either - somebody mentioned that bees love trees. Seed some basswood or locust or whatever is appropriate for your location.

It will take some effort, but I think the results will be worth it.


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

Did anyone read the article?


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

I wonder how much three million is after administrative costs are subtracted? Of course, there will have to be lengthy study on the environmental changes brought about by changing the vegetation. In the end, it will be less than three million by a bunch.

I contacted my area wildlife management officer for Texas, and he advised me to fallow plow my pastures in January. He said that fallow plowing would allow the sun to warm the ground deeper, and that in turn, would allow native grass and weed seed to germinate. Seeds that had been in the ground for decades. I did it, and I still do each January, and I now have more native grasses and wildflowers that ever before. It has made for a huge sunflower crop.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Barry Digman said:


> The word is "sow", not "sew".


So?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

melliferal said:


> I think I know what the problem was.
> 
> Grass _does_ tend to crowd out other things. Perhaps mostly wildflowers next time?


 A pasture left to itself will yield cedar trees, sumac,,thistles, shrubs, and grasses that really do not support bees. Agreed.


----------

