Production Blog

Bringing Down the Bee Barrier

Farmers can take steps to improve their bee attitudes, but first they need to understand the problem. (DTN photo by Pamela Smith)

DECATUR, Ill. (DTN) -- My bees have been bundled up for the winter, but they are far from safe. Straw bales and barriers have been put up to help protect them from the prairie winds. I treated this fall for the bloodsucking Varroa mite and took measures to fend off other varmints, such as mice, that might attempt to set up housekeeping in the hive for the winter. The bees have been well nourished this fall, and I will continue to feed special winter supplements.

Still, the future of my hives is far from certain. Their ability to overwinter depends on my husbandry skills, the strength of the colony, the severity of the winter and, well... a drop of luck. Like any farmer who plants a crop or tends livestock, I hope I have done enough.

The question these days is has the rest of agriculture done enough to support bees and other pollinators? In late October, USDA announced it would provide $4 million in financial and technical assistance to help farmers and ranchers in the Midwest improve the health of honeybees. USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is focusing the effort on five Midwestern states: Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin. The announcement renews and expands a successful $3 million pilot investment that was announced earlier this year. It also contributes to the June 2014 Presidential Memorandum -- Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators, which directs USDA to expand the acreage and forage value in its conservation programs. Funding will be provided to producers through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Applications are due today, Friday, Nov. 21.

I can imagine the collective eye rolling from commodity corn and soybean farmers regarding this announcement. I travel in sectors of agriculture that, for the most part, do not depend on insects to pollinate their crops. Truthfully, many corn and soybean growers don't always get why they should care about the plight of pollinators.

Efforts to pay farmers to plant flowers and leave roadsides weedy fly in the face of their practical natures. While flowers are nice, every farmer knows the way to a potential landlord's heart is clean-shaven field borders and roadsides.

Lack of foraging sites is one important piece of the pollinator problem and it needs to be addressed. However, what puts farmers smack in the middle of the environmental crosshairs on this issue is the increasing reliance on seed treatments. Although there is also some finger pointing at fungicides, neonicotinoid insecticides a have become the main poster child for bee care evangelists.

Earlier this month I attended the Bayer CropScience's Corn and Soybean Forum, a global conference designed to "talk" about agriculture's image and the problems currently confronting it. Bayer is one of the major manufacturers of neonicotinoid insecticides and obviously the company has a vested interest in the problem. However, the company also has a long history of manufacturing products to help bees fight insects and disease.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had just released a report claiming that neonics are being used as insurance in soybeans and, in the Midwest at least, are not of economic benefit.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Farmers attending the conference felt threatened. I get it -- insecticide seed treatments take care of those below-ground pests that are hard to scout. Rescue treatments can threaten pollinators too and are often sprayed in volumes that far exceed seed treatment levels.

Still, what troubles me is many of the farmers I've quizzed on this topic can't tell me what compounds are on their seed or what it costs them. Most seemed surprised to learn that seed treatment is an elective option on soybean (corn doesn't come with those options in the U.S.).

There seems to be little knowledge about the fact that the talc added to planters is at the heart of much of this issue or that there are now alternative additives that are helping mitigate that problem.

During the Bayer discussion, I was asked to comment on the issue from the viewpoint of a beekeeper. There are several kinds of beekeepers -- those who do it to make a living through pollination services, those who produce honey, those who raise queens and bees, and those who keep bees because we think they are sweet. I belong to the last group with a sticky note attached that I also consider myself to be a farmer at heart.

So there was a giant sucking sound when I expressed the viewpoint that I think farmers can be arrogant about this issue. Instead of looking for ways to compromise, I hear a lot of attitude about bees.

By rough estimates, each hive represents a $400 to $500 investment. I'm basing that on new hive costs, the cost for a package of bees and some equipment costs. Throw in extractors and other gadgets and the cost climbs. But let's say each hive represents in value the equivalent of an acre of cash rent in central Illinois these days. I'm guessing most farmers wouldn't too thrilled to find acres of their crop had disappeared or died.

My point here is let's not be too quick to say: "Oh they are just bees." This movement has legs and if you don't believe it, ask Canadian farmers who are having trouble keeping neonics in their arsenal. Ontario farmer Dan Campbell reached out me last spring. Here are some things he said Canadian farmers are doing to make sure they keep the use of these valuable products:

-- Using Bayer's new fluency agent instead of talc or graphite in air or vacuum planters

-- Using deflector kits for planters (to keep dust directed down)

-- Seed companies have begun offering non-treated seed to a limited extent.

-- Using non-treated seed near bee hives.

-- Gathering up empty bags and returning them to pick-up points instead of burning.

-- Having conversations with local beekeepers.

Meanwhile, it also wouldn't hurt to consider planting a few flowers next spring.

Pamela smith can be reached at Pamela.smith@dtn.com

(AG)

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Bonnie Dukowitz
11/25/2014 | 6:17 AM CST
A lot of good points, Pamela. Not only some farmers are arrogant though. Included should be the general public, especially shore land owners and occupants. Some cities are so blasted with chemicals, one has difficulty breathing. It is amazing, Unknown, what nature can do if helped out a bit.
Pamela Smith
11/22/2014 | 4:52 PM CST
"It was a joy to watch the transformationâ?¦." What a wonderful image that is. Thanks for your comment, for reading and for taking a step to do something remarkable.
Unknown
11/22/2014 | 9:54 AM CST
Pam. I interseeded a pasture mix[ mostly red clover] into a two acre patch of grass on the heritage farmstead where I recently relocated. We let this grow without mowing. We had a huge array of pollinators and other beneficial insects. It was a joy to watch the transformation from this over groomed patch of grass which I have now seen depreciate a couple of generations of expensive lawn mowers into a small sea of multi-species activity. It is amazing how quickly this transformation occurred. Amazing also was the reaction of my farming peers. Every comment from" surely you are going to bale that" to "I'll bet your father is disappointed with the way you are caring for that". Luckily the latter statement was nowhere near the truth. After many years of mowing he for sure gets my approach. There are many areas that could be reverted to flowering species very quickly with absolutely no harm to the land or the cash crops growing there. It is just a matter of cosmetics. The only way this will happen is if there is a clear financial incentive to do so. The comment heard often is "if you are going to pay $1x,000 dollars for this ground you want someone to mow around it. Many producers spend many dollars to appease this attitude. The responsibility lies with those who own the land.