# Kelley news letter says: don't feed your bees GMO sugar!



## Matt903 (Apr 8, 2013)

I glanced through the Walter Kelley news letter last night. One of their writers, a Phill Remick made this statement in response to a letter asking about the dangers of feeding bees GMO surgar. 

"GMO sugar assuredly is not healthy for honey bee colonies either! Seriously consider organic or non
GMO sugar feeding options for your best bee friends. It is literally a matter of a better quality of life
or an early demise!"

I was wondering what everyone else thought about this statement. Mr. Remick did not quote or reference any scientific study about the effect of feeding GMO sugar to bees. Is there one? Being a sideliner, I will be hard pressed to find/afford organic sugar for my bees.


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

I read it too. I wonder what it would be like eating the original ancestor of corn? From what I've read, it was the size of a head of wheat and only had one head per stem. Can you imagine? I've also never heard anyone criticize Gregor Mendel for artificially altering pea plants or fruit flies, even though the differences between artificial selection and genetically modifying an organism is nil; virtually the same thing. One uses knowledge of traits applied to breeding and the other relies on technology for gene splicing, but the results are the same. However, I do understand that there can be possible ramifications of using that technology in an irresponsible way, but isn't that the crux of all technology? As far as health altercations go concerning "GMO's", I haven't seen the first concrete study to even hint at health altercations. What I've read is by far based on opinion rooted in fear. Granted, caution should not be thrown into the wind, but I think it's blown out of proportion at this time. Just remember next time you look at Fido, he too could have been a wild dog in the form of a wolf or some other wild canine, but someone long ago wanted to breed canines for desirable traits and do away with the undesirable ones. Fido was a result along with many others. Lol, next time you look at your pure Italian or Russian bees, or whatever they are, the same story goes for them too. It's not really GMO's that scare people.....it's the splicing of genes by human hands. Done with rant....


----------



## snapper1d (Apr 8, 2011)

I cant say for everything thats GMO but what I have seen was that GMO plants were produced to contain a higher amount of Bt than normal to kill or discourage pest from eating on them.As far as sugar goes the juices are cooked down into syrups to concentrate the sugars before the rest of the processing to crystallizing it.You would think that heating to make the syrup would destroy any Bt that is in the juices.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Typically, organic sugars are less refined than plain granulated sugar. That means that granulated sugar is more "pure sucrose" than organic sugar. Organic sugars typically have higher non-digestible "ash" levels than granulated sugar. If the 'organic' sugar is anything less than 'bright white' in color (like granulated sugar is), then there are higher levels of indigestible solids in that organic sugar, compared to granulated sugar.



> Organic sugar: While chemically this is similar to white sugar the specifications show slight differences. Cane sugar or sucrose (Sunshine Sugar-Product Specification April 2009) lists a sucrose level of 99.85% with an ash content of 0.03%, whereas organic raw sugar (Daabon Organic Australia – Technical Data Sheet, May 2006) lists a sucrose level of 99.5% with a ash content of 0.20%. While these specifications suggest very small differences chemically, bees will have less digestive issues with the lower ash levels in the standard cane sugar product. The cost of organic sugar is likely to be substantially higher than refined cane sugar, making it cost prohibitive for beekeepers to consider.
> 
> http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/532260/Feeding-sugar-to-honey-bees.pdf


Note that while sugar 'beets' _may_ be a GMO crop, there appears to be be virtually _no_ GMO sugar 'cane' crops in the marketplace. If you are really concerned about GMO sugar, just use granulated _cane_ sugar. Why feed bees higher levels of ash than necessary?

.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

I can only speak for myself but I think that statement is utter hogwash. There are no scientifically based, statistically relevant research that shows there's any difference between GMO sugar and non GMO sugar being used as bee feed. You'll go broke trying to use organic sugar if you've got anything over a couple hives and it'll kill them, ironically. Most importantly the bees will realize no actual benefit no matter how much the beekeeper "feels better" about feeding non GMO sugar.


----------



## snapper1d (Apr 8, 2011)

TalonRedding said:


> I read it too. I wonder what it would be like eating the original ancestor of corn? From what I've read, it was the size of a head of wheat and only had one head per stem. Can you imagine? I've also never heard anyone criticize Gregor Mendel for artificially altering pea plants or fruit flies, even though the differences between artificial selection and genetically modifying an organism is nil; virtually the same thing. One uses knowledge of traits applied to breeding and the other relies on technology for gene splicing, but the results are the same. However, I do understand that there can be possible ramifications of using that technology in an irresponsible way, but isn't that the crux of all technology? As far as health altercations go concerning "GMO's", I haven't seen the first concrete study to even hint at health altercations. What I've read is by far based on opinion rooted in fear. Granted, caution should not be thrown into the wind, but I think it's blown out of proportion at this time. Just remember next time you look at Fido, he too could have been a wild dog in the form of a wolf or some other wild canine, but someone long ago wanted to breed canines for desirable traits and do away with the undesirable ones. Fido was a result along with many others. Lol, next time you look at your pure Italian or Russian bees, or whatever they are, the same story goes for them too. It's not really GMO's that scare people.....it's the splicing of genes by human hands. Done with rant....


I agree also.


----------



## Bdfarmer555 (Oct 7, 2015)

D Coates said:


> I can only speak for myself but I think that statement is utter hogwash. There are no scientifically based, statistically relevant research that shows there's any difference between GMO sugar and non GMO sugar. You'll go broke trying to use organic sugar if you've got anything over a couple hives. Most importantly the bees will realize actual no benefit no matter how much the beekeeper "feels better" about feeding non GMO sugar.


i believe this statement applies to more than just sugar.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

If Mr. Remick is interested in dispensing good bee advice he would warn about the dangers of feeding bees more "natural" under processed sugars like brown sugar instead of spreading the cane/beet gmo/non-gmo urban myth.


----------



## Terry C (Sep 6, 2013)

snapper1d said:


> I cant say for everything thats GMO but what I have seen was that GMO plants were produced to contain a higher amount of Bt than normal to kill or discourage pest from eating on them.As far as sugar goes the juices are cooked down into syrups to concentrate the sugars before the rest of the processing to crystallizing it.You would think that heating to make the syrup would destroy any Bt that is in the juices.


 It's not that there's Bt in the plant , they have modified the genetics so that the plant itself produces the Bt TOXINS . And that can be scary stuff .


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

If GMO is so inherently bad I suppose it is only fair to point out that each and every one of us humans is a brand new GMO experiment that has never before existed. We were converted to a brand new GMO product by viruses we encounter during the course of our lives and DNA from those viruses became permanently integrated into our own DNA. So, in fairness to the human race I expect all people who think GMO products are inherently bad to commit suicide immediately and protect the rest of us from your genetic contamination. If you think you are not a brand new GMO product this simply shows you know nothing at all about modern genetic understanding. By the way, some of you will die of cancer as a result of your personal brand new GMO experiment going bad. So GMO can be bad. That is why the people producing GMO seeds have to do all the safety testing and demonstate the seeds are safe.

We have all eaten all kinds of BT toxins our whole lives. The BT bacteria is everyplace. I have never seen a sample of dirt of any reasonable size that you could not find BT bacteria in. The stuff is all over the outsides of the fruit and vegies you eat every day. To a human the BT toxin is simply another protein source in your diet at the concentrations encountered in either your ordinary life or in eating a BT food. Some BT proteins are not even toxic to honey bees, which is why some people can spray empty supers with BT to keep moths out.


----------



## Paulemar (Aug 28, 2013)

I feed my bees GMO sugar all the time depending on where I buy it. If it doesn't say "pure cane sugar" it's beet sugar. My bees have never complained about either. I've not noticed any difference, even when I am using up a batch of cane sugar & feed it to some hives and finished up feeding the rest of the hives beet sugar. Of course, I'm very small scale and not much of a sample but If there was a problem we would be hearing about it from many beekeepers.


----------



## sjj (Jan 2, 2007)

Matt903 said:


> ... quote or reference any scientific study about the effect of feeding bees GMO sugar to bees. Is there one? ...


I use common table sugar. White refined und granulated. 
As you know, it is called sucrose. The formula is C12H22O11. 
Are there any genes in this formula? 
Can I eat it?


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

IMO Sugar is so refined that there is not much of anything else in it except sucrose. 
Pollen sub on the other hand contains all the proteins, amino acids, DNA strands from the plants used. 

Tons of pollen sub is used each year, study after study shows only positive benefits of feeding both pollen sub and syrup. Either combined or separately. 

BT targets caterpillars and BT is also used in the hive for wax moths (probably a million/billion times higher concentrations).


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

I don't feed beet sugar which is largely GMO here in the US, but I do feed pure cane sugar (Dominos brand) which is not. But I would never use organic cane sugar since I think it is less safe for the bees as noted above.

I buy cane sugar in 25# bags at BJs.

I am not a fan of GMOs, but I'm fine with ordinary plant breeding. There's a huge difference.

But the original article cited seems to have conflated a lot different issues, which is foolish and doesn't give me confidence in the author's analysis.

Enj.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

A couple years ago this came up with our local bee club, so I fired off a note to the local sugar company, which produces cane sugar at the Vancouver plant, and beet sugar at the plant in Tabor. The response was interesting to say the least. I dont have it handy, but I can paraphrase easily enough. If you are worried about the difference, bags from Vancouver and Tabor have different lot numbers, and they told us which digit in the lot number to look at to tell which plant a bag on the store shelf came from. But, after it's been thru the full refining process, the sugars from the two plants are chemically identical, and no lab will be able to tell the difference without first looking at the lot number on the bag.

BUT, and this is the BIG BUT, same company also produces organic sugar. Any of the organic sugars taken off the store shelf, with chemical analysis, will indeed be traceable back to the source plants because the organic processes leave residues.

And, if you dig a little farther into the subject, you will find out more. The residues left in the sugar done via organic processing methods, are the same kind of things that cause dysentery in a confined bee colony, ie, a winter cluster that doesn't get regular opportunities to do relief flights.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

enjambres said:


> I am not a fan of GMOs, but I'm fine with ordinary plant breeding. There's a huge difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Enj.


You simply show you have no concept at all about classic breeding and all the DNA that is moved from species to species in classic breeding when you say you think it is safe and GMOs are not safe. You clearly do not know that 30% of the DNA in cattle came directly from a snake and this direct DNA transfer from snakes to cattle happened in the last few million years. Go ahead and look it up. There are all kinds of reports on this on the internet aimed at layman level understanding. The truth is probably all the food you eat is a GMO product regardless if the DNA transfer happened recently in controlled lab conditions or was done totally by accident in some farmers field by mother nature. Mother nature has been moving DNA across species now for four billion years and has become very good at moving it. As I said before you yourself are a brand new GMO experiment done by mom nature who moved non human DNA into your body and integrated it into your chromosomes. The difference these days between the way mom nature does it and man does it is man actually plans ahead and does the move into a section of chromosome so he does not destroy the functionality of existing genes while mom nature simply dumps foreign DNA into your DNA randomly. Mom nature is perfectly happy to dump her DNA transfer right in the middle of some essential gene totally destroying its functionality. That is why sometimes her experiments end up giving you cancer. What you consider classic breeding routes have even resulted in brand new species that did not even ever exist before man started his selective breeding experiments. Wheat is a good example. We have no GMO products that are even a tiny fraction as genetically modified as wheat. The fact is classic breeding can be considerably more dangerous than GMO as it is not regulated at all. A good example is the fungus resistant potato that was developed back in the 1970s by nothing but classic breeding back to heirloom and native varieties found growing wild. This potato was so fungus resistant it grew very well with no fungicides at all which was very attractive to potato farmers as fungicides are one of their biggest single expenses. The only problem with that potato was it was so loaded with natural toxins it was not safe for humans or animals to eat even when cooked.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

Not my creation but very cogent.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

The main issue is most ordinary people know nothing about Molecular biology or biochemistry. The only GMO beets on the market are Round-Up ready, so this eliminates any Bt out of the discussion. Now, GMO aside, if you refine a product, such as the case here, no matter what the origin, if it's biochemically exactly the same, what's the harm or difference in the final product? Absolutely nothing, so how can you make accusations or supposition that sugar from GMO plants is less safe if you cannot biochemically tell them apart and they are identical products on the molecular level? It's just plain ignorance, stupidity, or both.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

libhart said:


> Not my creation but very cogent.


The only place where there will be a difference is not in the sugar itself, but any residues and/or by products that end up in the sugar back, alongside the sugar. The quick and easy tell to see if there are other products other than pure sugar in the bag, is the color. If it's not pure white, then there is something else in there. If it is all pure white, then you need to go to a lab to see if there is anything other than pure sugar in the stuff. With modern refining and processing methods, that's not likely, because purity is one of the quality control checks done at the refinery on each batch.


----------



## Riskybizz (Mar 12, 2010)

I happen to know Phil Remick pretty well. He keeps his bee yards about 25 miles south of me. Phil is actually a really nice guy and knowledgeable about bees. Perhaps Kelley Bee's is a little short on pertinent bee news these days? I agree it was a poor choice of subject matter.


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

Wow! So many of us actually get it. GMO does NOT = BAD. Bad research practices and evil intentions can lead to bad incidents with genetically modified organisms, such as happened in India with so many farmers committing suicide, but done properly, genetic modification can be a good friend of mankind, and perhaps nature itself. Gotta do it properly, though.


----------



## seawrath (May 30, 2015)

I dont know about gmo sugar. But I'd say we'd be pretty ignorant to deny that creating gmo for the ability to dose our crops with more herbicides and pesticides would be a good thing. I don't believe nature would selectively breed this trait. Natures selective breeding IS different than gmo created by the big 5. You can visually tell a difference in livestocks organs depending if they have been fed exclusively gmo based feed. Bees may be small enough or low enough on the food chain to not cause this problem but I wouldn't be surprised if they found evidence that it was gmo the whole time being the root cause of colony demise. Its easy to say all those hippies are spilling hogwash. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the posibility.
Just sayin'

http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-...ecline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Lots of other interesting "facts" on your global research link seawrath. Here is one explaining how the passenger jets couldn't have brought down the twin towers on 9/11 because jet fuel can't melt steel beams. 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-world-trade-center-propaganda-cant-melt-steel-beams/5497083


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

GMO is essentially a breeding tool for transferring genes from one species to another. Most commercial crops have herbicide resistance transferred into them. But, genes to express the Bt toxin have also been transferred. Most of these are done for purely economic reasons.

All said, all it really is is a different sequence of genetic building blocks that already exist. Unless a toxic substance is produced, like say aflotoxin, the organism is still the same.

I sen Phill an e mail asking if he had any references for his comments.

Tom


----------



## seawrath (May 30, 2015)

I get your point Jim... However my point still plays. With good reasoning. The article was just supplement..


----------



## lemmje (Feb 23, 2015)

jim lyon said:


> Here is one explaining how the passenger jets couldn't have brought down the twin towers on 9/11 because jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-world-trade-center-propaganda-cant-melt-steel-beams/5497083


Not to hijack the thread, but years ago i was working at a national lab that specializes in nuclear energy research. I was engaged in a conversation with a fellow software guy who had just attended a lecture on how there was no way the jets could bring down the towers. A nuclear engineer i worked with had been standing in the entrance of the cubicle listening, then jumped in.

He showed us with mathematical formulas how it is very physically possible since the combination of jet fuel and steel made thermite. I cannot duplicate his work, and it could have been bluffing, but he showed the math and convinced me.

My point being, someone saying something means very little to me. Someone showing their work carries more weight. Where is the research?


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

seawrath said:


> I don't believe nature would selectively breed this trait. Natures selective breeding IS different than gmo created by the big 5. You can visually tell a difference in livestocks organs depending if they have been fed exclusively gmo based feed.
> 
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-...ecline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950


1. Exactly where do you think the genes for Roundup Ready and BT came from? Both of those genes were natures inventions. Neither of them was man made. Both could in theory have been moved into crops by the exact same breeding practices that farmers have been doing for the last 10,000 years. So you are absolutely wrong and show your total ignorance when you say nature would not selectively breed for these genes. She already did breed for them.

2. You say "You can visually tell a difference in livestocks organs depending if they have been fed exclusively gmo based feed." I assume by this you mean the organs will be different if fed GMO crops as opposed to the exact same crops that are not GMO. I am sorry, but this is simply a lie pure and simple. Now, I am not saying that you did not read this lie someplace as anti GMO people are generally perfectly happy to lie if they feel it will help their cause. The anti GMO crowd is generally not very well educated in science and seldom know any significant genetics at all and are generally writing for people even less educated then they are. So a few lies accomplish their ends quite well which is to scare the even less educated.

The truth is you have likely not eaten a single meal since you were weaned from mothers milk that was not GMO in some way.


----------



## Terry C (Sep 6, 2013)

Richard Cryberg said:


> The truth is you have likely not eaten a single meal since you were weaned from mothers milk that was not GMO in some way.


I seriously doubt that anyone was manipulating genes in a lab in the 1950's . And as far as being able to tell an animal that was fed on GMO , it's not the GMO that causes the changes in the internal organs , it's the glyphosate residues in that food . 
Did you know that one of the patented uses of glyphosate is as an antibiotic ? Do you think the recent flourishing of "probiotics for digestive health" might be linked to the glyphosate residues in our food supply ?


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

I think the recent flourishing of probiotics for digestive health goes way, way back. I remember 30 years ago drinking "acidophilus" milk at my grandparents house. It's not new. The supplement market is *enormous* right now so why not make a buck. I think that explains the flourishing.

I think the organ differences probably goes back to the Judy Carman study on pig stomachs. That study was extremely discredited as having shown no statistical difference between the two groups studied. Maybe not quite as bad as the Seralini tumor study but close. The studies that established the NOEL levels for glyphosate fed fairly large amounts of glyphosate to the test animals for months and months and found no observable effects. There's no evidence that any minute amount of residue on food over the course of an animal's lifetime is doing anything to its organs.

Glyphosate is extremely safe at the amounts detectable in food (if any). The LD50 for glyphosate is greater than salt, meaning a smaller amount of salt will kill you than glyphosate, and my pretzels are delicious. The dose makes the poison, that is *so* important to remember.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

But is it vegan and glutenfree?


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

So horizontal gene transfer can turn a boar into a jackass.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> But is it vegan and glutenfree?


Always


----------



## warrior (Nov 21, 2005)

All sugar cane is GMO! Has been for centuries as all commercial cane cultivars are multispecies hybrids, almost all naturally occuring.

Now sugar beets are another issue as there has been gene splicing done on them but the bulk of sugar procedures in the US is cane sugar.


----------



## WLeeH (Jan 16, 2015)

warrior said:


> All sugar cane is GMO! Has been for centuries as all commercial cane cultivars are multispecies hybrids, almost all naturally occuring.
> 
> Now sugar beets are another issue as there has been gene splicing done on them but the bulk of sugar procedures in the US is cane sugar.


While I'm not arguing that sugar canes haven't been altered, I sincerely doubt that 200 years ago someone performed genetic engineering with sugar cane and combined spider dna with it. Modification through crossbreeding to create hybrids is not GE. 

Just so we are clear on what GMO is; 

"GMOs (or “genetically modified organisms”) are organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering, or GE. This relatively new science creates unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods."


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

WLeeH said:


> "GMOs (or “genetically modified organisms”) are organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering, or GE. This relatively new science creates unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods."


Not sure why that source believes that this creates unstable combinations. I think (but don't know) that many are quite stable actually, which is why the farmers who chose to buy them must agree not to save seed and replant. I'd say that at the least, they're no less stable than traditionally cross bred hybrids. My hybrid tomatoes aren't GE, but I can't replant the seed and get the same tomato every year. They're just never as good. Traditional breeding seems to also have some instability.

We have to understand that these are genes. There is no such thing as spider DNA, or fish DNA, or human DNA. It's all just DNA. And because all species have evolved from a common ancestor, all forms of life share many, many of the same genes. Mother nature did that, so to say that these combinations couldn't happen in nature is a bit short sighted. In fact, the human genome is 5%-8% retrovirus, where in the history of our ancestors, retroviruses managed to permanently meld their own genes into the genome of our ancestors. GE in crops is just speeding it up because we don't want to (or really can't, say, in the case of fighting citrus greening) wait for the genes and traits to develop naturally.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

"GMOs (or “genetically modified organisms”) are organisms

-OK up to here-

whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering, or GE. 

-All lab based genetic engineering can also be done by classic breeding given time. In the case of moving a spider gene into corn that time might be as little as one generation or as long as tens of thousands of generations depending on luck and mother natures cooperation. If your problem is you object to moving DNA from one species to another I assume you do not eat meat. After all meat always has genetic material derived from species besides the animal you are eating. I also assume you do not eat vegetables either as they are just as contaminated with foreign DNA as meat. You must be one hungry dude.-

This relatively new science creates unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and viral genes 

-There is nothing at all unstable about the combinations created by genetic engineering. They are just as stable, or unstable depending on your point of view, as any thing mom nature does. In fact in some cases mom nature is not all that stable. I can tell you with over 95% confidence that both of your Huntington's genes differ from the same gene your parents had for instance. That does not sound very stable to me.-

that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods." 

-As I said about anything that can be done in the lab can also be done by mom nature with classic breeding. In fact, mom nature has been doing genetic manipulations so long and has so many tricks there is no definition I have ever heard that separates what is done in the lab from what nature has been doing for the last several billion years. But the lab has advantages. We can do the insertion where it does not harm the rest of the DNA functionality in the lab while classic breeding is likely to wreck some important functions the organism needs for optimal survival. We can do it faster in the lab. We can do it safer in the lab. It is far easier to make sure we have not done something that might harm someone by doing it in the lab.-

By the way, man has been doing GMO with crops for about 10,000 years now. He created a brand new species of plant that never existed before quite a long time ago. This plant is totally reproductively isolated from its ancestor species. We call it wheat today. I would call a brand new species that never before existed GMO regardless if it was done by accident during agriculture or on purpose in a lab. Man also has created one brand new species of fish that never existed in nature. The fish is totally reproductively isolated from its ancestor species. This work was done back in the early 1950s.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

So, all the other alternative crap that used to be sprayed on crops that is much worse than Round-Up was much better for us and the environment?


----------



## Bombus_perplexus (Nov 17, 2015)

JRG13 said:


> So, all the other alternative crap that used to be sprayed on crops that is much worse than Round-Up was much better for us and the environment?


Of course it was! All of the pesticide companies have our best interest in mind. They would't make anything that might be harmful to us or the environment. Just ask Monsanto, creator of DDT and "Agent Orange," Because we all know that THEY were non-toxic and harmless.:shhhh: 

Oh but wait, someone is probably going to come along and dispute this so i'll just sit back and continue reading this entertaining post opcorn:


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

Prior to GMO technology being developed plant breeders did all kinds of things to cause mutations in hopes of getting desirable traits. Now plant breeders can choose the traits they want to incorporate.

In part, the non-GMO labeling has become a marketing tool. Most people have no idea what it means but think it must be good. Kind of like an organic honey label.

Sucrose is sucrose.

Tom


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

> Just ask Monsanto, creator of DDT and "Agent Orange," Because we all know that THEY were non-toxic and harmless.:shhhh:


DDT was first created in the 1800's. Its' insecticidal properties were not discovered until the first half of the 1900's. The person that did that won a Nobel prize.

Tom


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

I know nothing about GMOs, but I do know about feeding sugar to honey bees. I have fed thousands of pounds of sugar, both beet sugar and cane sugar, and the bees do as well on one as they do the other.


----------



## seawrath (May 30, 2015)

How about this site.. A little more middle of the road?

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sic...llapse-revisited-genetically-modified-plants/


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

warrior said:


> All sugar cane is GMO!


There's a statement... no intellectuals want to disagree?


> But is it vegan and glutenfree?


I love it Mark, you make me laugh... that's a good thing. But seriously, neither group would be taking pills for cholesterol.:thumbsup:


----------



## hex0rz (Jan 14, 2014)

https://www.chsugar.com/non-gmo-project-verified


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

seawrath said:


> How about this site.. A little more middle of the road?
> 
> http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sic...llapse-revisited-genetically-modified-plants/


:thumbsup:


----------



## Dave1958 (Mar 25, 2013)

The issues we actually have is something called the "paradox of the red queen",in Lewis Carroll's Alice in wonderland, Alice told the red queen it's gaining on us, she replied run faster. Basically,what we do to thwart nature, is met by a response in nature. Currently, we are fighting mites with OAV, and it is 99.9% effective. There will come a time, likely within a generation that 0.1% will start to develop immunity to OAV. We saw this with antibiotics, we saw it with DDT, and we will see this with GMO,and roundup ready crops. Authority's happen? Your guess is good as mine. FYI,I had 12 hours of graduate level Biochemistry, 6 hours of graduate level microbiologist. I still do not understand why things are as they are


----------



## hex0rz (Jan 14, 2014)

On the subject of GMO and not necessarily sugar, my wife has had many problems consuming foods. It took us years to figure out why she would have such bad reactions to food. At first we did not know what it was that causing her problems. But eventually we narrowed it down to food consumption. I'm eating the same things she does but it does not affect me. Very strange. Eventually after seeing a doctor, she had gone a totally stripped diet of only fruits, vegetables and meats. She did great.

Then after the week we incorporated food back into her system. Her symptoms came back. So much to the point she was getting sick from it. Like puking and diarrhea, etc. Her stomach would bloat like a loaf of rising bread over a woodstove. It was disturbing to see take place all in less than 30 minutes. This whole ordeal eventually turned us into super hypersensitive people and we began scrutinizing the ingredients label. We found a common denominator in almost all the foods we ate!

It either had CORN or SOY and any derivative of that. So we started experimenting, we found that if she had eliminated these two ingredients from her diet altogether, she did not have a problem eating. But if you gave her something with either of those, she would regret it. So we took it a step further. About this time is when the GMO labeling was kicking off. We decided to try and find a source of corn and soy that advertised being non-gmo. Products like Bobs red mill or Annies. There were products that had corn and soy in them, but were non-gmo. She consumed it, and GUESS WHAT? She did not have a reaction!

This is when we realized that GMO foods have no place in our lives. If she has reactions to this stuff, when what else is it doing to everything and everyone else? Why does it seem to affect her more than me? I dunno, I call her me yellow canary because of this. Maybe her genetic makeup or state of certain health is the reason. All I know is that if she touches the stuff she has reactions. She can go on making her non-GMO corn and soy foods without problems now and once again enjoy things like homemade cornbread, etc.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

hex0rz said:


> She can go on making her non-GMO corn and soy foods without problems now and once again enjoy things like homemade cornbread, etc.


She is not alone. The one percent that controls the world does not care about the 10% that gets negatively affected. They can continue to grow their wealth on the 90% that is not affected. No different than pharmaceuticals.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

And its not only about the effects itself. Its about who has too much influence over the food system. Don't think its a problem? Consider the ceo of that pharmaceutical who arbitrarily jacked the price up of one of his drugs. Am I going to trust that someone like this is going to make good decisions about food safety. That envelope will be deliberately stretched. You can see it in the general health of Westerners who depend on this system.

The idea that technology will save our bacon in the area of food production is applying the wrong set of equations to the wrong problem. Its an ecological issue of carrying capacity. Using technology without addressing it just kicks the can down the road while undermining ecosystem stability. 

So if something is GMO, I avoid buying it. Just like I avoid buying any other processed garbage food and why I grow alot of my own.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

lharder said:


> Don't think its a problem? Consider the ceo of that pharmaceutical who arbitrarily jacked the price up of one of his drugs. Am I going to trust that someone like this is going to make good decisions about food safety. That envelope will be deliberately stretched.


Lharder, many people do not see the risks and potential adverse unintended consequences associated with short term profit motives driving decisions concerning the manipulation of genes that, for example, can cause plant products to express poisons that kill animals. I'm sure others can say that more artfully than I can.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

lharder said:


> So if something is GMO, I avoid buying it. Just like I avoid buying any other processed garbage food and why I grow alot of my own.


Couldn't say it any better.:thumbsup:


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

The author of the article in the Kelley newsletter responded to my question of references for his conclusions. He didn't share any with me. I think it is just a general dislike for GMO's, no scientific conclusions.

Tom


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

TWall, I thought about asking the same thing. I'd bet they're catching some grief for that statement. Folks may dislike GMO's all they want and do whatever they wish to avoid them. That's the great thing about free will and capitalism. The bottom line is though, there is no scientific support for his statement. 

"GMO sugar assuredly is not healthy for honey bee colonies either! Seriously consider organic or non
GMO sugar feeding options for your best bee friends. It is literally a matter of a better quality of life
or an early demise!"

"Assuredly" is a grey word that hints at opinion. For the unsuspecting it may be assumed to be a known fact. The last part of the statement? Chicken little horse nuggets that are based on feelings, but not in facts.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

TWall said:


> The author of the article in the Kelley newsletter responded to my question of references for his conclusions. He didn't share any with me. I think it is just a general dislike for GMO's, no scientific conclusions.
> 
> Tom


Probably because there really isnt any solid evidence out there. Consumer Reports had an article on this back in their March edition. In my opinion the organization has integrity but also a heavy bias in their perspective. I found it interesting that more of the article was about GMO labeling (or lack thereof) than it was about whether they are safe. When the question was asked "are GMO's safe" the only response they could muster was a quote from a physician representing Physicians for Social Responsibility who said "the contention that GMO's pose no risks to human health can't be supported by studies that have a measured time frame (15 years) that is too short to determine the effects of exposure over a lifetime". So I guess Im not sure where that perspective leaves us. Guilty until proven innocent isnt a bad thing when the subject is food safety but neither is guilt by suspicion, innuendo and chosen tidbits of faux science and for sure the subject of genetically modified foods are an issue apart from that of ddt ddt or agent orange which always seems to pop up in these discussions.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Acebird said:


> Couldn't say it any better.:thumbsup:



I'm on the fence with GMO's (although, too much of it does resemble a clear desire to monopolize nature IMHO) 

BUT....Wow, 3 pages of debate and I'm left wondering...does everyone here just feed their bees sugar or sugar syrup? Does no one leave honey or set aside honey? Did I miss that post?

Please don't misunderstand, we feed sugar too.....We mix up sugar with honey (to a peanut butter consistency) and freeze it for winter feeding and on occasion when they're light on stores we'll place some syrup....but we're ready to remove the feeders once the lapse in flows have ended....However, we always leave a lot of honey, even if we have to borrow from other colonies....

TBH...we don't keep bees for the honey...we keep them cuz we really like them and desire to do what we can to keep them alive......having a good honey year, where we have surplus honey for ourselves (less and less with less desirable habitat it seems) is like fishing IMO, catching some fish to bring home is always the bonus, after spending time on the water (or ice). We look at our good honey years that way too I suppose.

Since this conversion over 10 years ago, We've yet to have a colony die over winter from lack of honey stores  .... We did have some that would die completely surrounded by syrup though...when were feeding more of it and taking more honey than perhaps...we should have.

Should we not just do a better job at building up colonies so we are leaving our bees with enough honey, and feeding sugar simply to avoid starvation? As a last resort?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

drummerboy said:


> I'm on the fence with GMO's (although, too much of it does resemble a clear desire to monopolize nature IMHO)
> 
> BUT....Wow, 3 pages of debate and I'm left wondering...does everyone here just feed their bees sugar or sugar syrup? Does no one leave honey or set aside honey? Did I miss that post?


Re-read the thread title, if someone did post about that then they were somewhat off topic. You suggest a good topic, though,....for another thread.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

jim lyon said:


> Probably because there really isnt any solid evidence out there. Consumer Reports had an article on this back in their March edition. In my opinion the organization has integrity but also a heavy bias in their perspective. I found it interesting that more of the article was about GMO labeling (or lack thereof) than it was about whether they are safe. When the question was asked "are GMO's safe" the only response they could muster was a quote from a physician representing Physicians for Social Responsibility who said "the contention that GMO's pose no risks to human health can't be supported by studies that have a measured time frame (15 years) that is too short to determine the effects of exposure over a lifetime". So I guess Im not sure where that perspective leaves us. Guilty until proven innocent isnt a bad thing when the subject is food safety but neither is guilt by suspicion, innuendo and chosen tidbits of faux science and for sure the subject of genetically modified foods are an issue apart from that of ddt ddt or agent orange which always seems to pop up in these discussions.


Very well said. The lack of a lifetime timeline of exposure is the same thing those who want to get "Round up" off the market are trying to use. It's been on the market 30+ years with no smoking gun either. If that open timeframe was demanded of all products we'd still be knapping flint spears and living in caves. Linking "DDT" or "Agent Orange" to GMO or Neonics is akin to linking "Nazi" to something the accuser disagrees with. It's designed kill conversation by putting the accused on undefendable footing.



drummerboy said:


> TBH...we don't keep bees for the honey...we keep them cuz we really like them and desire to do what we can to keep them alive......having a good honey year, where we have surplus honey for ourselves


While I truly enjoy keeping bees I expect them to cover my costs by producing sellable goods. I can sell my honey for $5+ per pound and I can feed them syrup for $25 a pound. I don't take all of their honey by any stretch but I do feed syrup to make sure they have more than enough food for winter. You undoubtedly enjoy keeping bees just as much but don't care about covering costs. Two different management philosophies that work for our respective needs/desires.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> "the contention that GMO's pose no risks to human health can't be supported by studies that have a measured time frame (15 years) that is too short to determine the effects of exposure over a lifetime".


Many people associate GMO's with a very toxic poison along with mono-culture. This is the primary reason for the objection. Have their been studies on the impact of mono-culture as to what is lost or damaging? Yes, there are two groups, those that care and those that don't. Money will always dictate the behavior of any society. And money will always be concentrated in less that 5% of the population.
Labeling has always been required in our foods as to what it contains. Those that have a stake in the game somehow got excused from this requirement. So the group that doesn't want GMO's in their food decided to label what was not in the food and those that have a stake in the game through up a fit. Anyone with a logical mind would come to the conclusion that they have something to hide. You don't need a study. You need a logical mind.


----------



## JohnBruceLeonard (Jul 7, 2015)

Acebird said:


> So the group that doesn't want GMO's in their food decided to label what was not in the food and those that have a stake in the game through up a fit. Anyone with a logical mind would come to the conclusion that they have something to hide. You don't need a study. You need a logical mind.


Something to hide - certainly. But their motivations are less than clear. It may simply be that they are seeking to circumvent ignorance.

An example. Let us say that George G. wants to make money off of a product that contains the perfectly safe chemical X. Let us say furthermore that chemical X has lately been the subject of unfair and groundless attacks on the part of certain celebrities, which have caught the eye of the press and swayed the opinion of a poorly informed portion of the public, so that many individuals have irrationally turned against chemical X and now refuse to purchase anything containing it. Now, as money is the prime concern of our friend George G., it is obvious that he has a vested interest in hiding the presence of chemical X in his product, insofar he is able - not because chemical X is dangerous, but simply because it is believed to be.

I do not know if this is the true rationale here. I present it as an alternative explanation for the phenomenon you have drawn attention to. Neither, incidentally, am I defending GMO's. Personally I believe there are deeper concerns here even than their safety for our health.

John


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Brian, just to be clear, the quote you posted was not mine but rather from Physicians for Social Responsibility


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>She can go on making her non-GMO corn and soy foods without problems now and once again enjoy things like homemade cornbread, etc.

But only if it's labeled...

Let's be honest. For the first time in history we are being exposed to the levels of round-up that we are now. According to this Forbes article a 10 fold increase in herbicide use since round-up ready crops.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhof...-herbicide-not-less/#2715e4857a0b351b8bb3a371

We don't know for sure what the long term effects are on humans or the ecology and we won't find out until years from now probably.

We have now increased the amount of Bt toxin in the human diet from almost nothing to it being in virtually all our food. We have no idea what the long term consequences of that are. We won't know for at least a few years probably and maybe not for a few decades.

We now have neonics (not GMO) in virtually all our food. Again, we don't know the long term effects on humans, but considering it's action and that you can't wash it off of your food, I think it should be a concern.

Beet sugar is now GMO and has neonics.

I think I should have the right to know what is in my food. Even if it's just for my own personal choices. Maybe I don't want to (or can't) eat meat, or pork, or milk, or gluten. I think I have a right to know if I'm eating something I don't wish to eat.

As far as bees, I think the neonics being used on the sugar beet seeds are more likely to be an issue than the round-up ready gene.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

Acebird said:


> Anyone with a logical mind would come to the conclusion that they have something to hide. You don't need a study. You need a logical mind.


Logic assumes some rudimentary level of education or logic becomes meaningless. For example most people would say it is logical for a clock to run at exactly the same rate on top of a mountain as it runs at sea level. That may be logical to most people but is also quite simply WRONG. In fact, it is quite easy to explain why it is wrong to the average 12 year old kid and have them understand exactly why it is wrong. I know because I have done it. It is also near impossible to explain to the large majority of adults simply because they refuse to listen and are incapable of thinking logically.

Concerning GMOs when you can discuss the following topic sensibly I will grant you have enough understanding to make some rudimentary judgement on safety based on logic. Please discuss how the difference in Gibbs free energy of the keto and enol forms of adenine impact T -> C during DNA replication.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Acebird said:


> Many people associate GMO's with a very toxic poison along with mono-culture. This is the primary reason for the objection. Have their been studies on the impact of mono-culture as to what is lost or damaging? Yes, there are two groups, those that care and those that don't. Money will always dictate the behavior of any society. And money will always be concentrated in less that 5% of the population.
> Labeling has always been required in our foods as to what it contains. Those that have a stake in the game somehow got excused from this requirement. So the group that doesn't want GMO's in their food decided to label what was not in the food and those that have a stake in the game through up a fit. Anyone with a logical mind would come to the conclusion that they have something to hide. You don't need a study. You need a logical mind.



:applause: Agreed.. "Money dictates the behavior of society" ..its why We advocate for a moneyless future...Ala a Resource Based/Natural Law Economic system, one whereby 'no one' is allowed to own that which can't rightfully be owned (without equally sharing the wealth)..... 

.....LAND/Resources......that which "Nobody made....but Everybody needs.....and just a few profit from" .....And don't ya all wonder why and how it came to beeeeeee this way?

(could this become a 'can of worms?")


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

Acebird said:


> Many people associate GMO's with a very toxic poison along with mono-culture.


The dose makes the poison. To what poison are you referring? If it's glyphosate, the NOEL dosage for glyphosate is much higher than salt or caffeine, so saying a poison is very toxic without including an amount really isn't saying anything.



Acebird said:


> Labeling has always been required in our foods as to what it contains. Those that have a stake in the game somehow got excused from this requirement.


So that's a valid point, but the label of "GMO" or "GE" doesn't tell us anything about what the food contains. It was a technique used to breed the plant which produced the food in the first place. When radioactive mutagenesis is used, this isn't even considered GMO or GE, so no one is required to analyze all of the various gene scrambling that went on due to the radiation. Those crops can even be labelled organic. So should we need to list all of the proteins produced by say, a ruby red grapefruit since that's how that variety was developed?

Then, if the issue is labeling what's been sprayed on the food, I'd go along with that too as long as all of the organic produce lists the pesticides that were sprayed on it.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

jim lyon said:


> Lots of other interesting "facts" on your global research link seawrath. Here is one explaining how the passenger jets couldn't have brought down the twin towers on 9/11 because jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-world-trade-center-propaganda-cant-melt-steel-beams/5497083


A little googling makes it pretty clear that the Global Research Centre is a group of psuedo-science, conspiracy theory, wack jobs:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

https://www.quora.com/Journalistic-Ethics-and-Norms/How-legitimate-is-The-Centre-for-Global-Research

http://www.madcowprod.com/2014/08/14/true-lies-canadas-global-research-trolls-the-internet/


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Bombus_perplexus said:


> Of course it was! All of the pesticide companies have our best interest in mind. They would't make anything that might be harmful to us or the environment. Just ask Monsanto, creator of DDT and "Agent Orange," Because we all know that THEY were non-toxic and harmless.


What is your point? The old pesticides were banned and safer alternatives have been developed. The process is called scientific advancement.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

drummerboy said:


> Agreed.. "Money dictates the behavior of society" ..its why We advocate for a moneyless future...Ala a Resource Based/Natural Law Economic system, one whereby 'no one' is allowed to own that which can't rightfully be owned (without equally sharing the wealth).....
> 
> .....LAND/Resources......that which "Nobody made....but Everybody needs.....and just a few profit from" .....And don't ya all wonder why and how it came to beeeeeee this way?
> 
> (could this become a 'can of worms?")


Uh, nope.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> Brian, just to be clear, the quote you posted was not mine but rather from Physicians for Social Responsibility


Yes Jim I should have included the previous words in the quote. I am trying not to over quote posts which Barry doesn't like. In this case I made a mistake not including those words. It wasn't intentional. Sorry.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

TWall said:


> DDT was first created in the 1800's. Its' insecticidal properties were not discovered until the first half of the 1900's. The person that did that won a Nobel prize. Tom


The Nobel prize was one by Paul Muller because he figured out that DDT killed mosquitoes and virtually eliminated malaria. Here are some numbers from the CDC concerning the recent malaria cases:


· 3.4 billion people (*almost half of the world’s population*) live in areas at risk of malaria transmission in 106 countries and territories.
· Approximately 198 million cases of malaria are reported, resulting in *500,000 deaths – per year*.

The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends DDT to control malaria. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69945/1/WHO_HTM_GMP_2011_eng.pdf

Two things to think about:

1- What would say to the families members of the 500,000 dead people that would have been saved because you think DDT is bad for the environment?
2 – What are you going to do when the zika virus comes to your town?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Richard Cryberg said:


> For example most people would say it is logical for a clock to run at exactly the same rate on top of a mountain as it runs at sea level.


The only clock I have is my cell phone (old technology flip phone) I haven't noticed any inaccuracy due to elevation unless you go swimming. So it is good enough for me.



> Please discuss how the difference in Gibbs free energy of the keto and enol forms of adenine impact T -> C during DNA replication.


Well you know I can't, it is off topic.

The people who don't have doctorate degrees want to know if poisons have been used in the food they intend to buy. GMO's are associated with neonics which are an extremely toxic pesticide used on food. No one is going to take the time to try and figure out which GMO's use this chemical and which ones don't they are just going to eliminate all of them from their diet. If that majorly impacts the bottom line of some mega company then maybe they shouldn't produce what a customer doesn't want instead of ramming it down their throats and implying they are stupid.

If you are afraid of telling people what you are doing to the food I am afraid to eat it.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Monsanto

https://www.rt.com/usa/320104-monsanto-backlash-sugar-beet-farmers/


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

Acebird said:


> The only clock I have is my cell phone (old technology flip phone) I haven't noticed any inaccuracy due to elevation unless you go swimming. So it is good enough for me.
> 
> 
> Well you know I can't, it is off topic.
> ...


Do you have a GPS of any type? Does your cell phone act as a GPS which many do? Then perhaps you are not as safe with constant time as you think you are.

My question is directly on topic and has absolutely nothing to do with my PhD. That question was drawn from a first quarter undergrad genetics textbook. Just for the record I have only taken one genetics course in my life. That was clear back in the 1961 when nothing was known about the topic. I just took it because I wanted an easy A in an elective. The last biology course I took was in high school in the 50s.

If the people who do not have PhDs want to know if there are poisons in their food the answer is a resounding YES. Mother nature puts poisons in all your food. In fact everything is poison at a high enough dose.

Did you know for example that every commercial statin drug causes cancer in mice fed doses that generate roughly the same plasma concentrations of drug as expected in treated humans? Likely one in ten people reading this are taking a statin prescribed by their doctor. At least 97% of those taking statins will never see the slightest health benefit from taking them according to test data.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Wow. I had know idea. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150220110850.htm


----------



## jcolon (Sep 12, 2014)

In conclusion, eating, breathing and being alive are the three major causes of death. :scratch: Where do we go now?


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Nucleotide tri-phosphate discussion incoming, or nucleoside if you really get technical, just never liked saying it that way! I have to admit it's been awhile since I thought about that stuff.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

Acebird said:


> GMO's are associated with neonics which are an extremely toxic pesticide used on food.


Only by those who are quite misinformed.

If you associate neonics with GMOs then you're simply conflating and confusing two completely separate topics. Neonics are a class of pesticide. They are systemic and can be applied as a seed coating or a soil treatment. They have nothing to do with GMOs. Again, "extremely toxic" is a meaningless description unless you discuss specifics. The amount in the stem of a canola plant is extremely toxic, but only if you're a flea beetle. If you're a large 75kg mammal, then it's not.

GE (resulting in what are now called GMOs) is a breeding technique used to imbue desirable traits into plants/fruits/vegetables. This serves the same purpose as the older techniques of cross breeding or bombarding seeds/plants with radiation or certain chemicals to artificially induce genetic mutations. GE techniques simply allow the specific gene sequence responsible for a desired trait to be added to the genome of the plant. No other changes need to be made at that point. Some GE techniques don't add anything and simply are silencing techniques. Non-browning Arctic apples for instance use a gene silencing technique to prevent the apples from browning once cut. Many of the newest GE crops were developed to give the plant viral/bacterial/fungal resistance such as the papaya resistant to the ring spot virus. There's now a GE chestnut under development which is resistant to chestnut blight. Chances are that the battle against citrus greening will be won (if possible) with GE citrus. None of this has anything to do with neonics.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Richard Cryberg said:


> At least 97% of those taking statins will never see the slightest health benefit from taking them according to test data.


At least we agree on something.


----------



## ncbeez (Aug 25, 2015)

I buy cane sugar, because in my area it is usually less than fifty cent higher than beet sugar. I have beekeeping friends for and against GMO. When someone told me about losing all 40 of his hives after allowing a new person to grow GMO corn, unknown by him at the time, it got my attention.(He is a sharecropper)
The claim was after that growing season he lost all of them that winter. I do not know if he used anything round-up ready. I do not think he had any testing done on the bees afterward, which is disappointing.However, he is a well experienced beekeeper.
I feel like it may be many years, but one day it will be much clearer to all of us whether GMO crops hurt or do not hurt honeybees over a long period of time.
I can also relate to some of the others in the small percentage affected by what others are not. I had one hive that showed up with at trace of Round-up one year. My wife who sprays the fence-line and Poison Oak, knows not not to spray anywhere close to blooms. She mixes her weed-spray with a smurf blue dye so she can see that the weeds are well covered. Later that season, at honey harvest time i found 4 cells with a slightly lighter colored tint.
I also have a scottish terrier we have nicknamed Billy Goat. I have seen him eat dirt, devour sticks and nasty things I don't want to mention but he has an allergic reaction every time he eats any dog food containing corn products.(The Veterinarian correctly diagnosed it). Is it really the corn or what comes with the processing of the corn,...hmm?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...noids-will-be-weeded-out-u-s-wildlife-n174211



> Most of the corn grown in the U.S. has been genetically modified to resist the herbicide glyphosate, commercially sold as Roundup.


I'll find more.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

http://www.bjornapiaries.com/gmoneonicotinoids.html



> How are neonicotinoids associated with GMO?
> GMO crops are designed to withstand the chemicals used to control both insects and weeds. GMO corn, as well as other crops, can be sprayed with neonicotinoid systemic pesticide and herbicides, allowing all other plants to be killed except the GMO crop being cultivated. Roundup Ready crops is the best known example.
> 
> Systemic pesticides are also applied to the seeds prior to planting. For some crops such as corn, soybean, and cotton, better than 90% of the seeds planted are coated with neonicotinoid system pesticides. While GMO and neonicotinoid applied systemic pesticides are two different issues, from an industry practical application, they are one and the same.


They are one and the same.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

Acebird said:


> http://www.bjornapiaries.com/gmoneonicotinoids.html
> They are one and the same.


They are one and the same because Mike says so? No (sorry Mike). A plant does NOT need to be genetically modified to "withstand" a neonic. Neonics are sprayed on an enormous range of plants. The massive bumblebee kill in Oregon a few years ago was due to a neonic being soil drenched onto linden trees in a parking lot to kill aphids. Those trees are clearly not genetically modified, nor do they need to be. I'll mention too that the bee kill there was due to the fact that trees were treated while in full bloom and while bees were clearly working the blooms, something the label of that pesticide flatly states never to do. So the licensed applicator who should clearly know better is to blame, not the pesticide.

There are two things that generally reduce a farmer's yield, weeds and insects. Corn, soy, and cotton, canola, and sugar beets are the crops that currently fall into the GE category for herbicide resistance and this gives the farmer a tool to use to fight weeds and increase yield. Neonics are systemics that tackle the insect pests and are used much more widely across a much broader range of agriculture and greenhouse growing. To my knowledge neonics do absolutely nothing to weeds. 

These two are not mutually tied together nor are they mutually exclusive.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

libhart said:


> I'll mention too that the bee kill there was due to the fact that trees were treated while in full bloom and while bees were clearly working the blooms, something the label of that pesticide flatly states never to do. So the licensed applicator who should clearly know better is to blame, not the pesticide.


A classic case of operator error.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Neonics are an insecticide, not an herbicide and they are systemic in their mode of action which means the plant uptakes them and disperses it throughout it's tissues and some are metabolized into secondary products, some of which are other neonicitinoids (i.e. Thiamethoxam actually breaks down into clothianidin + some other metabolites). They're associated with GMO's because most corn, soy, and canola is GMO and the in recent times, the addition of adding a seedcare or crop protection aspect on top of the traits has added a lot of value in cutting downstream costs of foliar sprays during the growing season. That being said, they're used on conventional crops, lawncare, and ornamental plants as well (i.e. potted plants from the box stores are now being labeled if they're treated with neonics).


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> I think I should have the right to know what is in my food. Even if it's just for my own personal choices.


You already have this choice. All you have to do is pay an organic producer the extra bucks it cost to produce food in this way. Like the old days.

And vica versa, people who buy food that has been grown in the presence of chemicals or incorporating GMO choose to do so also, because of the cheaper price.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

2/10/2016
Bought my first sack of C & H sugar today with the Non-GMO label on the front lower left side.
Regards,
Ernie


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Here is the _visual aid_ to go with Ernie's post above ... 









photo credit and more info at this C&H page


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> You already have this choice. All you have to do is pay an organic producer the extra bucks it cost to produce food in this way. Like the old days.


The only sure way of knowing what is in your food is to grow it yourself. Like the old days. Now that big Ag is in organic farming the rules and regs tend to change.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

And as someone who does grow my own vegetables I can tell you the real cost is greater than what I would pay at the supermarket.

However it gives me a degree of certainty over what has been applied to our vegetables, but then on the other hand I do not know the history of the soil in my vegetable plot, or what may have been used there in times past.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

BEES4U said:


> 2/10/2016
> Bought my first sack of C & H sugar today with the Non-GMO label on the front lower left side.
> Regards,
> Ernie


You don't need a label on C&h sugar to tell you that it is not GMO. The brand C&H stands for California and Hawaii. As in: C&H pure cane sugar, growing in the sun, that's the one....


http://youtu.be/w2RNh2neIRI


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I feel so clean when I watch that!


----------



## pinkpantherbeekeeper (Feb 10, 2016)

I would like to point out that using GMO or Non GMO sugar ultimately is irrelevant in many areas. The OP lives in TN. I bet it wouldn't be hard to find corn crops near the hives. Basically all commercially grown corn is GMO crops. I have always seen bees taking pollen from corn when pollenating. So there is one example where you are more likely to have a greater GMO source to come from pollen than any sugar you feed them.


----------



## CW Finnerty (Feb 4, 2016)

A friend of mine tried going completely organic with his bees, and he says that he couldn't tell any difference between the non-GMO and GMO.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

CW Finnerty said:


> A friend of mine tried going completely organic with his bees, and he says that he couldn't tell any difference between the non-GMO and GMO.


Is going completely organic even possible with bees? We haven't discovered how to make bees avoid what may or may not be considered organic, have we?


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

drummerboy said:


> Is going completely organic even possible with bees? We haven't discovered how to make bees avoid what may or may not be considered organic, have we?


It's actually quite easy, if you live in the right area. Load them up on the truck, haul em out into the bush 10 miles from the nearest cultivated land, and voila, you have bees that dont hit anything 'not organic'.


----------



## CW Finnerty (Feb 4, 2016)

OK, maybe not completely organic. :shhhh: What I meant was that he did all that he could to make sure that they didn't get anything GMO (which he said was impossible to do since he lives right next to a farming field that his bees are attracted to because of the soy beens). He also said that it was more expensive and a pain in the neck trying to do all non-GMO.


----------



## ncbeez (Aug 25, 2015)

Just saw the "Fishy Sugar Beet" car today. Cute!


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

grozzie2 said:


> It's actually quite easy, if you live in the right area. Load them up on the truck, haul em out into the bush 10 miles from the nearest cultivated land, and voila, you have bees that dont hit anything 'not organic'.



I remain skeptical....(unless I had complete control over what was there or being dumped there)....and it doesn't seem 'easy' at all....


----------



## ltr77 (Feb 16, 2016)

kilocharlie said:


> Wow! So many of us actually get it. GMO does NOT = BAD. Bad research practices and evil intentions can lead to bad incidents with genetically modified organisms, such as happened in India with so many farmers committing suicide, but done properly, genetic modification can be a good friend of mankind, and perhaps nature itself. Gotta do it properly, though.


Therein lies the rub. It has never been done properly, at least when it comes to the commercially available GMO's. They have been developed to increase spraying of chemicals and reduce labor inputs, so that people can "farm" large expanses of acreage without leaving the comfort of their AC'ed tractor cab. Yields have largely stagnated since the inception of GMO's (although realistically it has more to do with farmers who don't take care of their soil) yet pesticide use has gone up. All so that we can produce so much corn that we require government subsidies to buy it and put it in our fuel tanks.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

ltr77 said:


> Therein lies the rub. It has never been done properly, at least when it comes to the commercially available GMO's. They have been developed to increase spraying of chemicals and reduce labor inputs, so that people can "farm" large expanses of acreage without leaving the comfort of their AC'ed tractor cab. Yields have largely stagnated since the inception of GMO's (although realistically it has more to do with farmers who don't take care of their soil) yet pesticide use has gone up. All so that we can produce so much corn that we require government subsidies to buy it and put it in our fuel tanks.



:applause: Now we're getting to the ROOT..........Thanks!!!

GMO's? Fact is; NONE of us know (not even those making the stuff) what these substances are doing to the soil, to the surrounding ecosystem, our bees or to us.........The manufacturer's are concerned about today's profits, not tomorrows potential problems.

Just heard/saw a report that Portugal has called for a Global Ban on Glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUP, which is used to saturate fields of GMO (roundup resistant) corn, soy beans, wheat (it ain't the gluten making people sensitive to bread) ...etc....

http://www.trueactivist.com/preside...m_campaign=Feed:+TrueActivist+(True+Activist)


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

drummerboy said:


> :
> 
> GMO's? Fact is; NONE of us know (not even those making the stuff) what these substances are doing to the soil, to the surrounding ecosystem, our bees or to us.


FACT - We are farming fewer acres than ten, twenty, forty or sixty years ago because of increased yields per acre.

Fact - Which is more environmentally friendly and safer to consumers?
A) Roundup ready plants and glyphosate
B) A rototiller and cow manure

Glyphostate is very rapidly bound very tightly by soil which is why it has zero root uptake. Reasonably rapidly it is metabolised in the soil to inorganic phosphate. Inorganic phosphate is what people call fertilizer. It is a rather expensive fertilizer. By use of glyphostate to control weeds farmers no longer have to do all the soil wrecking mechanical operations called tilling. Things like plowing, disking and cultivating. Those things all wreck soil texture, promote erosion and hinder water penetration. They also create hard pans under the cultivated zone that roots can not penetrate hindering plant development. By far the most destructive tilling tool ever developed is a rototiller. Unless you are farming pure beach sand the only useful thing you can do with a rototiller is dump a large amount of gasoline over it and light with a match then take the pile of rubbish to your local metal recycler.

Without incorporation of the gene that degrades glyphostate rapidly into our seed crops the uses of roundup are limited. But, by taking a gene which was invented 100% by mom nature in a weed and plucking that gene out of the weed and moving it into crops we can make our crops degrade glyphostate instead of being killed by it. This gene could have been moved into crops by classic breeding techniques but that would have taken many, many years. It simply is a lot faster to cut it out of the weed and insert it directly into corn and soy beans. Moving it like this also allows us to put the gene where we want it and make sure it does not interfer with existing genes in the crop species which might lower yields or change nutrition values.

By the way, we keep reading about people getting sick from eating produce from farms that use cow manure as fertilizer. Yet we never hear of anyone getting an e coli sicknesses because they ate a crop fertilized with liquid ammonia. 

Organic farming ruins soils, reduces yields and produces less safe produce for the consumer to eat. If you hate the environment, want to cut more forests so we can put more acres under cultivation and enjoy the occasional food poisoning I think you should shop for organically produced foods.

In the meantime I will continue to use Roundup to control weeds in my bee yard. It does a real nice job of keeping the weeds under control under my electric fence which I need because we no longer farm much in NE Ohio and over the last 100 years much of what was farmed has regrown to forests and the bears have moved back. Bears think bee brood is good eating. You can not believe how much honey the trees in forests can produce. Way more than the weeds on any organic farm would ever produce.

Dick


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Dick,

Very well said. I wanted to respond to the prior soapbox that was low on evidence but high on hype. Glad I didn't. You did a much better job than I would have. Those who want to bash companies as only profit driven, forget people run those businesses. Those people live on this earth too and have families with kids and even grandkids. Even at the highest level, they wouldn't sell a product they know would injure their own family. Internal company info would leak out as a form of rebellion if they knew it was 1/10 of what some claim. 

Now, that doesn't fit the conspiracy theorists but little does. I can't imagine trying to contain invasive Lespedeza without Glyphosate. http://mdc.mo.gov/your-property/problem-plants-and-animals/invasive-plants/sericea-lespedeza-control I guess those who want to ban it don't own property or are okay with going back to spraying old motor oil or diesel (or worse) to better control invasive weeds.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Gotta love the concept of Forums....everyone gets to be an expert.....(we've only been farming organically for a little over 30 years, so we still have lots to learn) .......


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

drummerboy said:


> (we've only been farming organically for a little over 30 years, so we still have lots to learn)


Your soil must be completely dead by now.

I always thought you put chemical fertilizers in soil because you need some way to put back what you took out. You know what I find funny? Things grow in my garden after I have wrecked the soil with my tractor and have never put chemical fertilizers in it. How can that be?


----------



## ltr77 (Feb 16, 2016)

Richard Cryberg said:


> FACT -
> Fact - Which is more environmentally friendly and safer to consumers?
> A) Roundup ready plants and glyphosate
> B) A rototiller and cow manure


Actually there are plenty of variables in the above option. If you choose Option A, you could be right you could be wrong. Same with option B. In option A, I noticed you said nothing about providing a living cover for the soil, which is of course the only way that option A would work better than option B. Cover crop, keep the ground covered, and you may have a soil as healthy as that in option B. There are a couple of factors in this though, how are you fertilizing, and what impact does glyphosate have on the soil micro-organisms? We know that reliance on chemical fertilizers has a long term impact of lowering PH, creates more sodium in the ground, and in the case of anhydrous ammonia has a tendency to kill micro-organisms. 

The only benefit that option A presents over Option B is that you cease to destroy aggregates which you will do by tilling (depending on frequency, depth, and vigor of the tilling... it can be a varied impact). However, you are giving the microbes a nice food source that they like, and that has a tendency to balance out. We have a trial field here that we test every year and have tilled as frequently as twice a year and I can tell you that the soil would outcompete 95% of no-till roundup fields in the nation in terms of soil health (weather being what it is, as well as the soil being shallow, other soils would yield higher than it). In fact, I have the data on it if you want to compare. Where are you getting your Soil Health Testing done?

Also, let's not ignore the fact that there are way more options than these two scenarios. No-till organic is a thing, and the yields are not that different than conventional. Generally speaking corn yields 85%-90% of what conventional yields with fewer inputs. If you look at the percent of each field that actually becomes food, organic out-performs simply because they are not diverting a third of the crop to put into gas tanks. Then of course, you get into the economics of it, and organic is hands-down the winner. 

Just my two cents, granted, I am not a soil or plant scientist.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

ltr77 said:


> They have been developed to increase spraying of chemicals and reduce labor inputs, so that people can "farm" large expanses of acreage without leaving the comfort of their AC'ed tractor cab.


You are completely wrong. "Spraying of chemicals" has reduced dramatically do to the development GMOs. Seeds are treated, so the need spray is greatly reduced.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

drummerboy said:


> Gotta love the concept of Forums....everyone gets to be an expert....


I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Acebird said:


> Your soil must be completely dead by now.
> 
> I always thought you put chemical fertilizers in soil because you need some way to put back what you took out. You know what I find funny? Things grow in my garden after I have wrecked the soil with my tractor and have never put chemical fertilizers in it. How can that be?


Oh yes....depending on who's opinion is blasting their own presumptive version of 'our' reality, too often throwing a low ball by denigrating an alternative viewpoint, our soil is either dead or quite amazingly...alive. 

Our multiple gardens (covering roughly 10 acres) haven't received more than 'green manure' or spoiled hay/mulch for many years....as such we practice 'minimal tilling' and usually when planting some type of cover crop. All things considered, we've done alright by ourselves but have downsized a lot over the last few years....due more to advancing age than anything....and its A LOT easier, utilizing less space and much more profitable than Dairy Farming ever was.....


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> Your soil must be completely dead by now.
> 
> I always thought you put chemical fertilizers in soil because you need some way to put back what you took out. You know what I find funny? Things grow in my garden after I have wrecked the soil with my tractor and have never put chemical fertilizers in it. How can that be?


What is your point? Organic gardeners use compost for fertilizer.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

The Misconception; We are beings of logic and reason.

The Truth; We are beings capable of logic and reason who fall short of that ideal in predictable ways.


----------



## ltr77 (Feb 16, 2016)

Nabber86 said:


> You are completely wrong. "Spraying of chemicals" has reduced dramatically do to the development GMOs. Seeds are treated, so the need spray is greatly reduced.


We will have to agree to disagree on this. I will cite Benbrook, you will cite another study. Ultimately it will get us nowhere. The one thing I think we can agree on is that any spraying of chemicals designed to kill plants is probably not good for the environment, and robs bees of a multitude of food sources that used to be available to them making their lives just a little bit harder. If you're a migratory guy, might not matter, you are moving with the seasons and they get plenty of pollen, if you are a guy out in the middle of corn fields where people are practicing "clean farming" it might matter a great deal. Luckily, I am pretty far from conventional ag producers. Most farms locally are 5-20 acres and net about $20-$30,000 an acre versus the $630 that corn farmers were getting last year. Of course none of them have half a million dollar combines that can comb through 500 acres a day. Our labor hours are higher certainly, but it certainly evens out in the end.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

ltr77 said:


> We will have to agree to disagree on this. I will cite Benbrook, you will cite another study. Ultimately it will get us nowhere. The one thing I think we can agree on is that any spraying of chemicals designed to kill plants is probably not good for the environment, and robs bees of a multitude of food sources that used to be available to them making their lives just a little bit harder. If you're a migratory guy, might not matter, you are moving with the seasons and they get plenty of pollen, if you are a guy out in the middle of corn fields where people are practicing "clean farming" it might matter a great deal. Luckily, I am pretty far from conventional ag producers. Most farms locally are 5-20 acres and net about $20-$30,000 an acre versus the $630 that corn farmers were getting last year. Of course none of them have half a million dollar combines that can comb through 500 acres a day. Our labor hours are higher certainly, but it certainly evens out in the end.


Well said.....nothing at all wrong with disagreeing, we all embrace our own worldview, as it should be. 

However, It doesn't have to digress into antics best left in High School, we can leave that to the politicians. When ideas/opinions are ridiculed, honest debate/discussion is impossible, both sides are blinded, neither recognizes the validity of the other, logic and reason fall into the abyss. We become the "un" Human IMO.

IMHO; Civility should reign highest whenever we engage in a heated debate, regardless of the topic and 'especially' on the www. 

When we are 'closed' or select to ridicule another's perspective out of hand, we always loose an opportunity to connect, engage, and possibly learn something. Rather than shutting the conversation or FORUM down, we should try to open it up, no?

Thanks for any consideration.....


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

ltr77 said:


> We will have to agree to disagree on this. I will cite Benbrook, you will cite another study. Ultimately it will get us nowhere.


Since you mentioned it, can you provide a link to the Benbrook study? I would like to read it.


EDIT: Nevermind. I did a little googling and found hundreds of sources (literally) indicating that Dr. Benbrook studies are flawed and that he is basically a crackpot with a political agenda.


----------



## ltr77 (Feb 16, 2016)

Nabber86 said:


> EDIT: Nevermind. I did a little googling and found hundreds of sources (literally) indicating that Dr. Benbrook studies are flawed and that he is basically a crackpot with a political agenda.


Great, now since I can do a google search and find literally thousands of sources that state that GMO's result in greater pesticide usage and do nothing to increase yield then that makes it correct right? The scientific criticism of Benbrook largely comes from one guy who Benbrook's research contradicted. It is also, let's just say Cherry picked and flawed. My favorite argument that he offers "Sure, Benbrook is right if you look at the facts and the data, but it doesn't take into account the toxicity of the different pesticides, therefore despite it being right, I say it is wrong." Kind of a paraphrase there, but you get the gist.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

You're both wrong. Usage is down but overall volume is up because a lot of ground became more readily farmable with the advent of round up ready crops and other traits. 1990, for corn, treatment was about 3lbs per acre, it dropped to around 2.2 in 2015, but acreage increased by 20 million acres as well.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

JRG13 said:


> You're both wrong. Usage is down but overall volume is up because a lot of ground became more readily farmable with the advent of round up ready crops and other traits. 1990, for corn, treatment was about 3lbs per acre, it dropped to around 2.2 in 2015, but acreage increased by 20 million acres as well.



Volume is a really poor choice of metrics in this case. At least you got the mass per acre right,but that depends on the concentration in water. Pesticides/herbicides are measured in mass, or mass per acre as you correctly got. 

Not understanding the basic concept illustrates ignorance.


----------



## Bdfarmer555 (Oct 7, 2015)

JRG13 is referring to actual pesticide only...not counting the water. (Active ingredient only). Most pesticide applications are in ounces/acre of actual ingredient. 

He is using the term volume as total sales volume, etc. not in gallons per acre applied. Typical applications are made with 10 gal/acre/application. Water weighs 8.6 lb/gallon, resulting in many hundreds of lbs/acre/season if one counted the carrier(water).


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Bdfarmer555 said:


> JRG13 is referring to actual pesticide only...not counting the water. (Active ingredient only). Most pesticide applications are in ounces/acre of actual ingredient.
> 
> He is using the term volume as total sales volume, etc. not in gallons per acre applied. Typical applications are made with 10 gal/acre/application. Water weighs 8.6 lb/gallon, resulting in many hundreds of lbs/acre/season if one counted the carrier(water).



Something isn't right here.

JRG13 mentioned volume, but then gave units of _3 pounds per acre_. Pounds of what? Pure glyphosate? 

You say 10 _gallons per acre, _I assume you mean concentrate. A quick google indicates 3 to 5 gallons per acre (of concentrate) 

Another google indicates 350 mL per acre of pure glyphosate

The EPA measures pesticides/herbicides in millions of pounds.

And finally, water weighs 8.3 pounds per gallon, not 8.6 as you indicated.

If some of us cannot get the correct units, then these people should not be discussing this subject. 

Total mass per area applied is the bottom line measurement for environmental studies. Volume of product is useless unless the concentration is given (mg/L), the dilution after mixing in the tank is taken into account, the spray rate is factored in, and the number of application per time unit (per year/season) is considered. Also remember that formulations change with time and that the volume of product per acre from what I have seen, ranges from 3 to 10 gallons per application. That is a three-fold difference in the amount of mass applied. Therefore, while it may be incredibly useful when mixing pesticides in the field to use units of volume and follow mixing directions, just measuring volume is incredibly not useful for any scientific calculation.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

ltr77 said:


> Luckily, I am pretty far from conventional ag producers. Most farms locally are 5-20 acres and net about $20-$30,000 an acre versus the $630 that corn farmers were getting last year.


Well, you might wish you were closer to conventional ag producers. The commercial guys I know say that round up ready crops are wonderful for bees as they have such great spring flowers compared to cultivated crops. I checked with a couple of people who are actually experts on Ag in ME. They tell me spuds run at best $4000 an acre, broccoli around $7000, blueberries and organic hops about $4500. Perhaps a pot farmer might get the returns you claim but no one else does.

Any corn farmer that only did $630 an acre last year either had crop failure or was growing dry land corn where we would not even grow the stuff were it not for the ethanol mandate. It is hard to irrigate the corners of fields with a circle unit. Net result you only farm 70 to 75% of the land.


----------



## ltr77 (Feb 16, 2016)

Richard Cryberg said:


> They tell me spuds run at best $4000 an acre, broccoli around $7000, blueberries and organic hops about $4500. Perhaps a pot farmer might get the returns you claim but no one else does.


First off, I want to correct something I stated that was wrong, it was gross not net. Secondly, anyone who was familiar with Ag in Maine probably should have told you about things like organic farming and the size of the farms here. As I said, they are typically 5-20 acres (not the hundred acre blueberry farms, or the thousand acre potato farms). They are labor intensive, and because of it, they have to be small. They often times use season extending techniques and sell direct to consumers. I have several friends who eclipse $20k an acre, and even know one farmer who is hitting $80k an acre. None of them are growing marijuana. Now, your contention that they make over $630, some farmers do, but 170 bushel corn (which is the average) at today's prices works out to be $630 an acre. Now, of course, they get government support payments that take it higher than that, but the actual value of their corn is less than $700 an acre. Unless of course you have some different information than I have, or can show me where my numbers are off.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

This site needs an icon to symbolize a 'dead horse'.......

Can't remember what the exact 'net' figure or total pounds were, but in 1999 (Before NAFTA allowed the dumping of imports into Canada that made their way to the US) ...we harvested over 50,000 garlic bulbs off one acre....it was also the last year we had any kids at home to help ...but we were able to take the whole family on an extended vacation that year...our first one.

Since then, even in a retirement slow down, we've done just fine financially (our needs are admittedly simple), growing a 'wide variety' of plants (as nature intended), taking care of just a few acres as opposed to as much as 100 or more under conventional/modern farming. Couldn't imagine farming thousands.........can we really call it farming?

We're actually working less, with less equipment, less debt, leaving less of a footprint for many more benefits, practicing the art of 'husbandry' and sustainable farming with an emphasis on leaving our part of the world ready to return to nature after we can no longer serve her, and still have plenty left over to provide the local food shelf..........it may seem corny to some folks, but it remains our personal mantra, one that has worked very well for us for decades already, one that is beyond ridicule, and one we've hopefully passed on to our children's, children....for their sake and for all of yours who also turn the soil for the production of food 'and' profit (two different end games IMO) , along with the rest of humanity, whose lives depend on it...on us all who work the soil that "Nobody Made, but Everybody Needs".

Everyone better start growing bigger gardens IMO....


----------



## ltr77 (Feb 16, 2016)

drummerboy said:


> ...we harvested over 50,000 garlic bulbs off one acre...


The "seed" alone on that is a killer. Garlic's great if you have some to start out with. We generally sell for .50 a bulb here, although I think the density is substantially higher. It is rare anyone does over a quarter of an acre, but I have a friend growing seed garlic on 6 acres. Kind of a nice setup for him.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

ltr77 said:


> The "seed" alone on that is a killer. Garlic's great if you have some to start out with. We generally sell for .50 a bulb here, although I think the density is substantially higher. It is rare anyone does over a quarter of an acre, but I have a friend growing seed garlic on 6 acres. Kind of a nice setup for him.


We started in the early 80's, growing around 20 varieties, by 1999 we had enough seed to plant an acre "AND" (this was the turning point) enough to also sell for a profitable income....previous years had us expanding to the point of an acre planted....so income was limited by 'our choice' to go slow. That said.....we always sold out whatever we had every year as we grew.

...fun, fun, fun....


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

drummerboy said:


> .we harvested over 50,000 garlic bulbs off one acre.


Wholly cow! And my wife won't let me grow two 100 ft rows. I am trying to figure out what is the point of growing at this density if you have the land? I make my rows 5 ft apart so I can use the tractor and I space the plants 6-8 inches apart so I can get the weeding hoe easily between plants. I plant and harvest using a potato plow.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Apologies for unintentionally taking this thread off topic...

We Fall Plant Garlic (just a few rows these days), usually before Oct. 15. in 3' wide raised beds, very close together (3-4"), cover with 2' of hay mulch and wait until Spring. Its usually the first 'green' thing to appear, often right through the snow. Deer often will chew a few leaves but rarely more than that after a single taste. We Harvest by mid/late August. In over 30 years, only nematodes bothered/threatened our crop - 'one' time, but it nearly wiped us out. It was our own fault, we should have rotated/move aliums the year before but got lazy or busy or something like that....NEVER AGAIN!


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I meant total volume of pesticides used is up, but usage per acre is down, volume referring to total amounts, perhaps it was a poor choice of words in this instance. This is due to the fact that with corn and soy alone, acreage increased by about 45 million acres from 1990 to 2015. The advent of GMO crops made a lot of marginal ground profitable due to the easier control of weeds during the season via glyphosate and better yields with Bt protection built in w/o additional spray costs for those pests.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

drummerboy said:


> In over 30 years, only nematodes bothered/threatened our crop - 'one' time, but it nearly wiped us out.


Sorry for off topic but please advise me about nematodes. I thought they were good. How much do they eat? Aren't they little worms?


----------



## Bdfarmer555 (Oct 7, 2015)

Nabber86 said:


> Something isn't right here.
> 
> JRG13 mentioned volume, but then gave units of _3 pounds per acre_. Pounds of what? Pure glyphosate?
> 
> ...


I was not an English major, so I'm the wrong one to express the different usages possible of the word volume. 

I am somewhat embarrassed that I made the mistake on the density of water. Thanks for the correction. 

I did a quick google, 3rd result states in the title, "Application rates; Herbicide per acre; How much in the tank? ... Typical amounts range from 10 to 30 gallons per acre." source UMN extension. Once again, this is mostly carrier(usually water), not pesticide. 3-5 gal/acre is more typical of an airplane application(including carrier). 

You or I can buy glyphosate in 4 or 5 lb active ingredient formulations, or go to Walmart and buy the stuff prediluted and ready to spray. But when properly applied, the same amount of active ingredient is applied per area. Most every university extension service I know of offers private applicator training classes, many that are free. I recommend attendance to any who are interested.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Acebird said:


> Sorry for off topic but please advise me about nematodes. I thought they were good. How much do they eat? Aren't they little worms?



Under better/normal conditions there's nothing wrong w/ them...but w/out diligent rotations (a requirement in organic farming) all alliums will suffer as nematodes build up in numbers...they attack the base of garlic...as you pull infected bulbs out of the ground they 'appear' normal but light, tip them over and you'll see dozens of tiny holes where they've been feeding (we lost 70% of our crop that year, good thing we had an exceptional berry, cherry and apple season the same year  

As organic farmers we never put all our eggs in one basket....no mono-culture here, always some other crop to fall back on.....


----------



## Richter1978 (Oct 3, 2013)

How do you all find the time to argue like this?


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Richter1978 said:


> How do you all find the time to argue like this?



Huh? You can't possibly believe that you're witnessing arguing. IMHO; Seems more like an 'honest debate' which is the 'purpose' of any FORUM, no? (personally, I spend only about an hour a day on the computer)


----------



## Richter1978 (Oct 3, 2013)

I must be slow on the ol' computer. Looks like alot of time invested in the "honest debate". Really, I'm just kicking a wasp nest.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Richter1978 said:


> I must be slow on the ol' computer. Looks like alot of time invested in the "honest debate". Really, I'm just kicking a wasp nest.



Why would anyone kick a wasp nest? Why' is it important how other's spend their time?

Its supposed to be calm and sunny today, so right now I'm waiting for the temp to go above 32F so I can check stores on our survivor colonies, we've still got until mid April before dandelions bloom so I guess one can spend more time here from November through March....but we can still get below freezing into June....those tend to be bad beekeeping years around her....although its been a few years since we've had 'that' particular issue.

Our primary issues effecting bees up here have much more to do 'habitat loss' due to expanding logging operations, BIG agriculture (more corn, soy and cranberries) every year taking up once natural meadows, invading wetlands, and tourists bringing their bad habits to the Northwoods.

Xin Loi.... so it goes....


----------

