Peter Borst dragged my sleeping body into
the "cell-size" discussion as a straw man thusly:

> despite what James Fischer says, beekeeping is not
> plagued by more problems than other agriculture.

I said nothing so silly.
What I said was limited to ANIMALS.
What I said was:

   "Quick - name an animal in US agriculture with more problems than bees.
    If cattle farmers were losing up to half their herds every year, they would
    call out the national guard!"

> I just took a short course on pesticide application and ALL
> agriculture is dependent on multiple applications of pesticides

That may be what the pesticide vendors may want you to think,
but in fact, the "monoculture" approach to agriculture and the
use of "bought" seed, rather than the more variation-prone "saved"
seed is what created situations where pests could run rampant
in the first place.  There is strength in diversity.

When you do not have diversity, you are forced to use things like pesticides.
Then you need to take a "pesticide application course", a "Haz-Mat course",
and a "First Aid/First Responders" course.  While you are in school, your
crop withers in the field because your $30,000 automated roving sprinkler
got a wheel stuck in a groundhog hole.  So, then you take a course on
how to poison all the animals that might wander onto your land, and so on.

Once started, where do you stop?

The whole concept of monocultures, larger industrialized farms,
and regular application of toxic chemicals to food is a very recent
and highly speculative idea, one that has yet to show any solid
evidence that it is responsible, sustainable, profitable without
large government subsidies, or even ethical.

Pesticides made monocultures (appear to) work, which certainly
increased yields, at the price of higher capital equipment cost
(machines), and in the process, making diesel fuel and other
petro-chemical by products "required" parts of farming.  Sadly,
this nearly eliminated the "smaller farm" where other approaches
might be possible.

Beekeepers are not being honest (or are simply not thinking
clearly) when they rant and rave about "pesticide kills".  The
monoculture approach is a major factor in the creation of the
need for truckloads of bees to be shipped in.  Only monoculture
approaches require large numbers of bee colonies to be rented
by one customer at one time, which is the entire economic
basis of pollination.  Pesticide kills "come with the territory",
no matter how hard one tries to eliminate human error.

One need look no further than organic farmers to see that a
decision to accept lower yields can result in a more profitable
farm and a lower "sunk capital" investment not only "up front",
but also every season.  It also assures a sell-out every year
where the farmer can sell "at retail", with nothing more than a
handmade sign saying "Pesticide Free".

Manufactures of ANY product who are willing to pollute and poison
can always make a better short-term profit than those who do not,
since the key to their equation is the replacement of skilled labor
with machinery and chemicals.  But even they can't make a profit
and satisfy their investors unless they constantly increase production,
increase yields, and make ever more complex spot deals with "the devil",
ignoring both their own long-term profitability, and their need for land that is
capable of supporting life.

Please note that I made no comment on "cell size".
If I wanted to be dealt in on that hand, I would have
sat down at the table, and offered an ante.

        jim

        farmageddon