Bees are being used for crops argument

[Graeme M]

How do you feel that about the fact that wild bees do most of crop pollination. I didn't know this. Is it true. I read like 2 percent of bees do 80 percent of pollination. Is this good for our argument

I should do some reading into this issue. My understanding is that many crops are pollinated by honey bees. They don't *need* to be, but I think the existence of the bee industry makes pollination more reliable, because many farms are large scale operations that need consistent processes and outcomes. Interestingly many broadacre crops do not need insects for pollination, so I think the kinds of crops that need to be planted to replace meat and dairy do not need honey bees. Clearly, it isn't vegans that cause most of the use of bees, especially when many vegans do not eat honey.

This is the same thing as most crops that are grown - the vast majority are grown for the vast majority and not vegans. This means that harms to insects via pest management and/or bee use are shared equally on a person-by-person basis with vegans and non-vegans for those kinds of foods (ie the fruits, vegetables etc). The difference is that vegans then eat plants rather than meat and dairy, so the question could be asked, are more insects harmed to eat these plants compared to eating the meat and dairy. By and large, I'd say absolutely not. The average non-vegan doesn't care about trying to reduce the harm their choices cause.

 

[majorbloodnok]

...
I understand that honey bees are not the most efficient pollinators.
...

That is correct. Apis mellifera - the honeybee - is a generalist since a community has to support a lot of individuals. If it were a specialist, a bad crop of their ideal plant during one season could spell disaster for a single hive whereas it would just mean a dip in the population amongst the solitary bees. Remember that a hive is trying to survive over winter and it needs a critical mass to do so, which is not a problem solitary bees have. That also explains why many solitary bees are much closer wedded to specific species of plant and are therefore much more efficient pollinators of them.

On the flip side, the fact one hive of apis mellifera can be controlled as a single unit makes it attractive to human agriculture; any inefficiencies in pollination can be countered by throwing more hives at the problem whereas it's pretty much impossible to source, trap and ship in millions of bumble bees for a few weeks of crop pollination. As has already been mentioned, almonds only have a short pollination window and so if you're growing vast quantities of almonds in a relatively small area then the natural bee population cannot support you. If the same number of almonds were spread out far more sparsely and interspersed with other crops, natural pollination could work just fine but farmers cannot then rely on industrial-scale harvesting techniques later on.

The biggest problem, however, is that apis mellifera as a generalist and lending itself as it does to large-scale control ends up effectively raping the land and out-competing the other native species. A reduction in the use of the honey bee would see a significant growth in the populations of other bees and, on the back of that, far more effective pollination of plants.

It's the same old story, eventually. If we try to shoehorn nature into our artifically designed processes all sorts of things go wrong. If we understand how nature works and go with the flow, there is a net overall greater efficiency. Do we really need all the almonds that are currently produced or could we live comfortably with them as a bit more of a luxury? I suspect the latter.

 

[jaylen1996]

That is correct. Apis mellifera - the honeybee - is a generalist since a community has to support a lot of individuals. If it were a specialist, a bad crop of their ideal plant during one season could spell disaster for a single hive whereas it would just mean a dip in the population amongst the solitary bees. Remember that a hive is trying to survive over winter and it needs a critical mass to do so, which is not a problem solitary bees have. That also explains why many solitary bees are much closer wedded to specific species of plant and are therefore much more efficient pollinators of them.

On the flip side, the fact one hive of apis mellifera can be controlled as a single unit makes it attractive to human agriculture; any inefficiencies in pollination can be countered by throwing more hives at the problem whereas it's pretty much impossible to source, trap and ship in millions of bumble bees for a few weeks of crop pollination. As has already been mentioned, almonds only have a short pollination window and so if you're growing vast quantities of almonds in a relatively small area then the natural bee population cannot support you. If the same number of almonds were spread out far more sparsely and interspersed with other crops, natural pollination could work just fine but farmers cannot then rely on industrial-scale harvesting techniques later on.

The biggest problem, however, is that apis mellifera as a generalist and lending itself as it does to large-scale control ends up effectively raping the land and out-competing the other native species. A reduction in the use of the honey bee would see a significant growth in the populations of other bees and, on the back of that, far more effective pollination of plants.

It's the same old story, eventually. If we try to shoehorn nature into our artifically designed processes all sorts of things go wrong. If we understand how nature works and go with the flow, there is a net overall greater efficiency. Do we really need all the almonds that are currently produced or could we live comfortably with them as a bit more of a luxury? I suspect the latter.

I've decided to cut out almonds and avocodos. There are self pollinating almond trees though.

 

[Lou]

I've reduced my avocado and almonds already. And I never bought them a lot anyway. too

I also buy less apples than I used to.
but there are so many crops dependent on honey bees.

These are the top five:
apples, melons, cranberries, pumpkins, squash, broccoli, and almonds

avocados and almonds are almost luxury items for me. but Broccoli is a must have in my book.

corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and sorghum don't need bees.
Surprisingly neither do peaches, nectarines, apricots, plums, citrus, figs, sour cherries, persimmons, quince and pomegranates

How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators?

Many of the world's pollinator insects are in decline. What does this mean for global food production?

ourworldindata.org

 

[jaylen1996]

I've reduced my avocado and almonds already. And I never bought them a lot anyway. too

I also buy less apples than I used to.
but there are so many crops dependent on honey bees.

These are the top five:
apples, melons, cranberries, pumpkins, squash, broccoli, and almonds

avocados and almonds are almost luxury items for me. but Broccoli is a must have in my book.

corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and sorghum don't need bees.
Surprisingly neither do peaches, nectarines, apricots, plums, citrus, figs, sour cherries, persimmons, quince and pomegranates

How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators?

Many of the world's pollinator insects are in decline. What does this mean for global food production?

ourworldindata.org

I read while soy doesn't need bee's, farmers will use them anyway to pollinate soy faster for livestock. I don't eat any mentioned foods in the top 5 already anymore. I don't know if I asked already, but do you avoid it organic

 

[Lou]

I read while soy doesn't need bee's, farmers will use them anyway to pollinate soy faster for livestock. I don't eat any mentioned foods in the top 5 already anymore. I don't know if I asked already, but do you avoid it organic

I try to buy organic whenever I can.
I have that clean 15 app on my phone that helps me.
I get some produce each week at the farmer's market, too.
Most of that is organic.
I'm less concerned about the insects than I am for the runoff.

 

[jaylen1996]

I try to buy organic whenever I can.
I have that clean 15 app on my phone that helps me.
I get some produce each week at the farmer's market, too.
Most of that is organic.
I'm less concerned about the insects than I am for the runoff.

I never imagined veganism becoming this complex

 

[Lou]

I never imagined veganism becoming this complex

The way I see it is that it is only as complex as you want it to be.
I have a favorite saying, Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Just do what you can.

I remember one day standing in a bread aisle for like 10 minutes trying of find a vegan bread.
Now a days I just buy the same one or two brands all the time.

Also being concerned with the inadvertent consequences of. our actions can be maddening. there is some key words in the definition of veganism that I was taught.

"A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose....."

the emphasis is mine. but I interpret that is "just try".

In fact, I find being socially responsible and ethical about purchases to be harder.
Avoiding palm oil, buying fair trade, buying organic to be just as hard if not harder than just avoiding animal products.

 

[jaylen1996]

The way I see it is that it is only as complex as you want it to be.
I have a favorite saying, Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Just do what you can.

I remember one day standing in a bread aisle for like 10 minutes trying of find a vegan bread.
Now a days I just buy the same one or two brands all the time.

Also being concerned with the inadvertent consequences of. our actions can be maddening. there is some key words in the definition of veganism that I was taught.

"A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose....."

the emphasis is mine. but I interpret that is "just try".

In fact, I find being socially responsible and ethical about purchases to be harder.
Avoiding palm oil, buying fair trade, buying organic to be just as hard if not harder than just avoiding animal products.

I've just read certain types nuts are the most water intense human crops. I will reduce them and consume seeds instead.

 

[Lou]

In comparison to other nuts, peanuts (yes, we know they aren't technically nuts) require the least amount of water to produce and have the smallest carbon footprint. For a one-ounce serving of shelled peanuts, it only requires 3.2 gallons to grow​

Peanuts Water Usage - Peanut Butter Lovers

peanutbutterlovers.com

To produce 1 pound of almonds, 7302 litres of water is used, making them the nut with the biggest water footprint. It actually takes 5 litres of water to produce just 1 almond!​

How Eco-Friendly Are Nuts? | Which is the Most Eco-Friendly Nut?

Some nuts use a lot of water, others cause harm to the workers. So how eco-friendly are nuts? And which is the most eco-friendly nut?

greenecofriend.co.uk

 

[Lou]

A study showed an average US freshwater consumption of 307 L per 48 oz for whole milk, compared to 175 L per 48 oz. for unsweetened almond milk.​

​

Is Almond Milk Production Bad For The Environment?

The popularity of plant-based milk has been growing. Is almond milk really more sustainable than dairy milk or other plant-based types of milk?

youmatter.world

 

[majorbloodnok]

I've just read certain types nuts are the most water intense human crops. I will reduce them and consume seeds instead.

Good to bear in mind that from an environmental perspective the goal isn't for us to have no impact; just to have a sustainable impact.

Figures on how much water is required to put something on the table are pretty readily available but information on the context is not. Growing marrows in a desert would be a big strain on resources. Growing marrows in the UK far less so. Worth taking into account where what you choose to eat actually came from.

N.B. I'm not suggesting you're not doing that, just taking the opportunity to make the point in general.

 

[Lou]

Good to bear in mind that from an environmental perspective the goal isn't for us to have no impact; just to have a sustainable impact.

You touch on another subject there. And not a 'Vegan Issue".
but since Plant Based food is almost always more "sustainable" than animal based food something vegans probably don't have to worry about so much.
But one thing we can choose to do better is to keep an eye on where our food comes from. food that is grown locally has a smaller carbon footprint.

 

[Lou]

Some guy on reddit posted this today.
I thought it was another way to look at the same problem
---------------------

Animals

Food for thought: You need around 100 calories of grain to produce 12 calories of chicken or 3 calories of beef. The world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion – more than the entire world population. Animals are an incredibly inefficient food source.​

"It takes about 100 calories of grain to produce just 12 calories of chicken or 3 calories worth of beef" (How much of the world's cropland is actually used to grow food?)
Livestock "provides just 18% of calories but takes up 83% of farmland" (Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth)
"The world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people – more than the entire human population on Earth." (Eating Meat Harms the Environment - The Issues - PETA India)
"If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares" (If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares)

 

[jaylen1996]

The cattle alone eat as much as earths humans not counting pigs,goats etc. Anyone who says animal agriculture is sustainable is lying.

 

[Graeme M]

but since Plant Based food is almost always more "sustainable" than animal based food something vegans probably don't have to worry about so much.

Do you think this is true? Having read a lot about this, I am still somewhat in the dark but I'm not convinced. To grow crops to replace all the products we get from animals would require a lot of land, much of which has to be those dreaded large-scale "monocultures" (ie grains, soy, rice etc). The trouble with this is that it greatly reduces biodiversity where there are crops, while artificial fertilisers (made from natural gas) are necessary to get the yields necessary and the use of chemicals are a threat to ecosystems. I know these are all the talking points of the regenerative animal farming fans, but they are right to some extent.

I have never seen an estimate of the land needed to actually replace animals entirely. Now, I know that will never happen, but it IS an argument proposed by ARAs and vegans. But does anyone know of any such estimates? As far as I know, we have at most maybe 2-2.5 billion hectares of arable land available. Some of that is currently used to grow livestock feed, but not THAT much. Estimates suggest that for food, we need about .13 hectares per person, or about one billion hectares (increasing to perhaps 1.3 billion hectares by 2100). BUT, I don't know whether that includes permanent crops (eg rubber etc) which are usually regarded as about 300 million hectares, pet food for domestic animals, fibres (eg cotton and replacements for wool etc), and so on. Also, I don't know whether these estimates include an allowance for losses which can be high, especially as climate change begins to bite.

I honestly don't think it's possible to replace animals entirely, but I am also a little bit wary of claiming that plant-based agriculture at that scale is actually sustainable in the long term.

 

[Brian W]

Do you think this is true? Having read a lot about this, I am still somewhat in the dark but I'm not convinced. To grow crops to replace all the products we get from animals would require a lot of land,

Do you never take in factual information presented here? Most crops are grown to feed livestock. Not rearing livestock would reduce the amount of crops needed, not increase it.

 

[Brian W]

Do you think this is true? Having read a lot about this, I am still somewhat in the dark but I'm not convinced. To grow crops to replace all the products we get from animals would require a lot of land, much of which has to be those dreaded large-scale "monocultures" (ie grains, soy, rice etc). The trouble with this is that it greatly reduces biodiversity where there are crops, while artificial fertilisers (made from natural gas) are necessary to get the yields necessary and the use of chemicals are a threat to ecosystems. I know these are all the talking points of the regenerative animal farming fans, but they are right to some extent.

 

[Graeme M]

Do you never take in factual information presented here? Most crops are grown to feed livestock. Not rearing livestock would reduce the amount of crops needed, not increase it.

Of course I've read what others say and I've presented plenty of information that brings this particular claim into question. By the way, I am not saying anything about whether nor not someone should be vegan and eat a plant-based diet, merely commenting on the sustainability of a plant-based agriculture. The question is, is eliminating animal use by humans feasible and sustainable. There are far more nuances than simply greenhouse gas emissions (and livestock are not the real problem in this regard) and land use. It doesn't matter at all if we "save" 75% of agricultural land by eliminating animals, what matters is whether or not what we replace that with works in the longer run. I don't think it can.

But let me remind you once again - the majority of crops are NOT grown to feed livestock. That just is not true. And while eliminating animal farming might reduce overall area of land under crops, it would not be by very much. Not when you factor in all the crops needed to replace products other than human food.

As to that video, I think it's somewhat misleading. Like I said, the issue is more complicated than that.

 

[Lou]

Honey bees are not in peril. These bees are.

Want to save the bees? First, throw out most of what you know about them.

www.vox.com

There is a good companion video for this
Search for Vox AND What we get wrong about saving the bees