Who Killed the Honey Bee?

There's a famous quote attributed to Einstein about how man would have only fours years of life left on the planet following the dissppearance of the bees. It really grabbed me by the balls at the time but I've since found out that he never said it.

It does get a man thinking about the role these little critters play in the ecology though.

This is an extremely interesting (and important) topic and thread. The BBC's original documentary (which is on YouTube, if anyone who missed it is interested) is excellent and thought-provoking. As they say in the documentary, we have pushed nature so far into the margins, turning the countryside into a green desert, with vast swathes of monoculture crops, treated with pesticides etc., and wildlands practically eliminated, that something had to give. (It's so ironic that bees are doing fine in the cities, but can't survive in the 'unpolluted' countryside.) This may be one of the first indications of many to come of just how damaging the 'take no prisoners' approach of agriculture to the natural environment has been.

Many thanks to Mike 65 for raising the issue, and to all the other contributors too.

periodictable wrote: »

It also raises another question which has bugged me-payments to farmers to keep their land in an environmentally sound condition. Are other citizens paid not to trash their property?
Why should that cost be borne by others? It doesn't take much to put some money aside to buy 50 thornquicks or 50 oak saplings-at most €50 euro. There has to be some personal responsibility for maintaining land, and for realizing that by leaving a swathe of untilled land/wildflower area benefits accrue.

It's important to remember that a farmer's livelihood is his farm, which is run pretty much like any other business, albeit with some important differences. A farm isn't comparable, for example, to a city garden, which is mostly for relaxing in.

Only a tiny minority of farmers are ever going to take decisions which are going to work directly against - as they see it - their ability to make a living from the land, such as leaving wild areas, or allowing them to develop - unless they are encouraged to do so financially.

In that they are no different from any other group of people. How many people (very few) used shopping bags that could be used over and over until the plastic bag tax was brought in. Then we all changed and stopped using the throwaway ones. That seems to be an unavoidable part of human nature.

So encouraging farmers financially to be more wildlife friendly is essential if we are serious about conserving what wildlife remains. The problem is that the current set-up (i.e. the CAP), despite pretending to encourage the preservation of wildlife, does largely the exact opposite. For example, penalising farmers who allow land to 'degenerate' into scrub - which in reality means disallowing the process of ecological succession back to native woodland.

mike65 wrote: »

0.5% of every owned plot should be left fallow by law, the land owner could choose the a single area or to split up the area so long as its 0.5%.

An interesting suggestion, though to make it really work farmers would have to be paid something for it, perhaps with duties attached, such as removing invasive species etc., as well as inspections.

To impose something without any attempt to get those most affected on board is rarely the right approach, either in terms of fairness or, more importantly, achieving the right end result.

periodictable wrote: »

I took over the running of a farm 10 years ago. New gates, roadside plantings, hedgerow maintenance, planted shelter belts and copses. A neighbour asked me what REPS measures I was signed up to. I replied that I wasn't in REPS. He immediately told that I could get paid for what I was doing. So I signed up and got €5k/yr for the next five years, and had nothing to do. I reckon the total cost of what I had done cost €2k, which worked out €400/yr.
Frankly I think I was overpaid by what REPS offered!
I guess I have pride in what I have, and can see the benefits of what I am doing, know I have a duty as a caretaker of land and the wider environment, and know that there will be a financial benefit both tangibly and intangibly for future owners.
Perhaps it's a mindset-to me €2k is a holiday so it's money better invested in what I did.
However, in the case of forestry, the Cinderella of agriculture, once someone is into second rotation and the premia and grants have stopped and it's not supported by the state, best practice such as setback distances and other environmental considerations are mandatory.

REPS, which was probably full of defects (I'm not that familiar with it) is pretty well gone now; it seems that there are replacements like aeos, but these are less of a gravy train than REPS from what I can gather.

I would be like you, periodictable, in terms of seeing the environmental side of things as important, but 99% of people won't be interested without an incentive, and 1% of the population aren't going to change much.

Great idae. I's like to see it mandatory to plant and maintain a tree, even a dwarf tree for small gardens.