In many areas of the planet, agricultural practices, both past and present,
are or were clearly not sustainable.  We have massive desertification and
overgrazing, salt buildup in soils, diminishing aquifiers, and dependence
upon exotic fertilizers transported over great distances, a high dependence
upon cheap energy, etc.  All of those factors are unsustainable.

If you look at the planet and not the US,  you may have a point.  Some areas
of extreme poverty do not plan ahead at all,  My comments were directed to
operations here in the US,  you know the ones they want to shut down.  No
one in this group of activist is working on brazilian rainforest, or
chienese pesticides.   They are trying to shut down US AG,  of which they
have little to no vested interest.
Not sure I would agree at all with the concept of cheap energy being a
factor.  When you get down to it,  everything in the world is paying for
energy. From the fuel,  to the energy used to build the machines,  to
transportation  so the reference to energy is always relative.

Aquifers' is interesting,  in most areas,  yours in particular,  its human
consumption driving it more than AG use...  but the two are related. The
points can be argued to extremes, but it is a bit of the chicken and egg
argument.  I get your point,  hopefully you get mine also.






In recent years, much agricultural land has been purchased as a short-term
investment by investors looking for a safe place to park money.  They do
not intend to be farmers, and do not care about sustainability.

Maybe in a few small areas,  but not as a whole here in the US.  You do not
buy millions in land and then let it set.  A few companies (mostly
insurance) have done some of that,  but not on any huge scale.


I put far more faith in those small or large family farmers who have a
long-term connection with "their" land, and who intend to pass
well-maintained land on to their grandchildren.  They are in general the
best land stewards.

Agreed,,,  this would cover 85% of the US AG, and  the major people being
attacked.  They have also been the ones finding solutions!



However, although you dismiss pollination services as being unnecessary for
anything other than almonds, there is substantial data to the contrary.

Mixing of words.

I in no way argue that they are not beneficial,  just not required
Blueberries and apples for examples will all set fruits.  Yup  they are
better and better yields with help.  But Mason bees,  butterflies, moths and
many other insects do a fair job also.
For example,  here in my county I have contracts for pumpkins.... from one
farmer,  another guy 2 miles or so away does not pay for pollinations.  His
yields are very close...  The differences is one sells carving pumpkins,
the other sells pie pumpkins......

While bees are a great assest,  they are not a requirement for much more
than Almonds was my point.  In fact normaly when a crop price drops the
first thing that goes out the windows is pollinations.


Charlie

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html