Bees are being used for crops argument

[jaylen1996]

Hi. I'm new to the forum and have been vegan for over 2 years. I know the traditional crop death argument is pointless because most crops are fed to animals anyway. However bee's being used to pollinate bothers me. We absolutely need them for pollination of our crops though. This also goes for crops like alfalfa hay which is only consumed by cattle and other livestock .there is 40,000 to 60,000 bees per acre for alfalfa hay so it's not only on vegans.
A lot of bees are dying in the billions. A lot of this is the commercial honey industry not allowing bees to eat their own honey and instead feeding them sugar water. This weakens their immune system allowing mites and other viruses to kill them. Also most food is grown in a monocroping way which is bad. When you grow multiple crops instead in a poly farming culture, it attracts other natural pollinators like beetles,butterflies,hover flies and humming birds. Also in a polyculture, crops help pollinate other crops. Since farms won't do this, they have to over rely on bees's I think due to lack of diversity. The biggest culprit of monocroping is animal agriculture though as they grow only one crop for livestock.
The reason this is concerning for me is I care about all life. Do you think if we treated nature better the wild bee's could pollinate enough on their own with help from other pollinators.

 

[Brian W]

Do you think if we treated nature better the wild bee's could pollinate enough on their own with help from other pollinators.

Seems highly likely. I think that if we weren't so heavy handed on nature, so many things would function better. Diversity and good interaction are extremely important.

 

[jaylen1996]

Seems highly likely. I think that if we weren't so heavy handed on nature, so many things would function better. Diversity and good interaction are extremely important.

Thanks for your reply. I don't like the reality of bee's being used but there is no way out. I am going to boycott the almond breeze milks because I think companies like them don't care about animal welfare and only money. They just want our money and I heard it's the worst for bees. These companies arent vegan truly and are just selling plant based food..will that help you think?

 

[Lou]

I think the root problem is monoculture.
For instance, there are so many almond trees, and their pollination period is so short, there is no way they can be pollinated by a native bee population.

 

[Graeme M]

I know the traditional crop death argument is pointless because most crops are fed to animals anyway. However bee's being used to pollinate bothers me.

This is a perplexing problem. Also, I don't agree with you that most crops are grown for animals alone; as best I can tell, only about 15-20% of all crops globally are grown specifically to feed animals. Of the rest, a portion, perhaps 15-20%, are grown for human markets but will eventually be sold to feed markets for a variety of reasons. What the feed market does is mitigate risk for crop farmers when the time comes to plant for a season. The rest (maybe 60%) is grown only for human markets. Note too that if we did eliminate animals as a source of food, fibre and whatever else, we'd also need to grow a lot more crops which would seem to require the same ongoing problem of managing pest animals. I do not know just how much extra land for human use would be required, but my best guess is we'd end up with much the same area under crops as we do now, with the reality that will grow notably in the coming decades.

So, how do we deal with this problem? The answer is, I believe, that you do what you personally can to feel comfortable with the choices you make. That's about it. Beyond that, 8, 9, 10 billion human beings will continue to take a massive toll on the natural environment and other species. We can only hope that as time passes and ideas about how to do better become better known and accepted, we will seek as a global population to mitigate and lessen our negative impacts.

My own take on this is that I think of the problem as one of rights. I will typically choose not to eat food from commercial animal farming systems because in such cases, all three basic rights we can assign to other species have been violated. In the case of pests being killed, we are largely only violating one of those rights plus we have the right to defend our food. In the case of bees, we are probably back in the same boat as that of farmed animals as we violate all of their basic rights. So as with animal farming we might seek to minimise or eliminate our purchase of plant foods/products that come from large scale commercial production that uses bees.

The thing with veganism is that it asks us to do what we can, within our circumstances. It seems easy enough to avoid animal products, but is it easy to avoid plant products produced from the exploitation of bees, and just how much does the exploitation of bees really matter? I think there are reasons to be less concerned about bees than cows, for example.

 

[jaylen1996]

This is a perplexing problem. Also, I don't agree with you that most crops are grown for animals alone; as best I can tell, only about 15-20% of all crops globally are grown specifically to feed animals. Of the rest, a portion, perhaps 15-20%, are grown for human markets but will eventually be sold to feed markets for a variety of reasons. What the feed market does is mitigate risk for crop farmers when the time comes to plant for a season. The rest (maybe 60%) is grown only for human markets. Note too that if we did eliminate animals as a source of food, fibre and whatever else, we'd also need to grow a lot more crops which would seem to require the same ongoing problem of managing pest animals. I do not know just how much extra land for human use would be required, but my best guess is we'd end up with much the same area under crops as we do now, with the reality that will grow notably in the coming decades.

So, how do we deal with this problem? The answer is, I believe, that you do what you personally can to feel comfortable with the choices you make. That's about it. Beyond that, 8, 9, 10 billion human beings will continue to take a massive toll on the natural environment and other species. We can only hope that as time passes and ideas about how to do better become better known and accepted, we will seek as a global population to mitigate and lessen our negative impacts.

My own take on this is that I think of the problem as one of rights. I will typically choose not to eat food from commercial animal farming systems because in such cases, all three basic rights we can assign to other species have been violated. In the case of pests being killed, we are largely only violating one of those rights plus we have the right to defend our food. In the case of bees, we are probably back in the same boat as that of farmed animals as we violate all of their basic rights. So as with animal farming we might seek to minimise or eliminate our purchase of plant foods/products that come from large scale commercial production that uses bees.

The thing with veganism is that it asks us to do what we can, within our circumstances. It seems easy enough to avoid animal products, but is it easy to avoid plant products produced from the exploitation of bees, and just how much does the exploitation of bees really matter? I think there are reasons to be less concerned about bees than cows, for example.

When you said most crops are grown for humans, do you account for hay. Only animals eat hay for the most part. Alfalfa hay needs 60,000 bee's per acre. Also I think when 50% of population is vegan, we can address the problems. 83% of farm land is livestock land

 

[silva]

This is a perplexing problem. Also, I don't agree with you that most crops are grown for animals alone; as best I can tell, only about 15-20% of all crops globally are grown specifically to feed animals. Of the rest, a portion, perhaps 15-20%, are grown for human markets but will eventually be sold to feed markets for a variety of reasons. What the feed market does is mitigate risk for crop farmers when the time comes to plant for a season. The rest (maybe 60%) is grown only for human markets. Note too that if we did eliminate animals as a source of food, fibre and whatever else, we'd also need to grow a lot more crops which would seem to require the same ongoing problem of managing pest animals. I do not know just how much extra land for human use would be required, but my best guess is we'd end up with much the same area under crops as we do now, with the reality that will grow notably in the coming decades.

So, how do we deal with this problem? The answer is, I believe, that you do what you personally can to feel comfortable with the choices you make. That's about it. Beyond that, 8, 9, 10 billion human beings will continue to take a massive toll on the natural environment and other species. We can only hope that as time passes and ideas about how to do better become better known and accepted, we will seek as a global population to mitigate and lessen our negative impacts.

My own take on this is that I think of the problem as one of rights. I will typically choose not to eat food from commercial animal farming systems because in such cases, all three basic rights we can assign to other species have been violated. In the case of pests being killed, we are largely only violating one of those rights plus we have the right to defend our food. In the case of bees, we are probably back in the same boat as that of farmed animals as we violate all of their basic rights. So as with animal farming we might seek to minimise or eliminate our purchase of plant foods/products that come from large scale commercial production that uses bees.

The thing with veganism is that it asks us to do what we can, within our circumstances. It seems easy enough to avoid animal products, but is it easy to avoid plant products produced from the exploitation of bees, and just how much does the exploitation of bees really matter? I think there are reasons to be less concerned about bees than cows, for example.

Where are you getting those figures?

Feeding 9 Billion - National Geographic

When we think about threats to the environment, we tend to picture cars and smokestacks, not dinner. But the truth is, our need for food poses one of the biggest dangers to the planet.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[Lou]

This is a perplexing problem. Also, I don't agree with you that most crops are grown for animals alone; as best I can tell, only about 15-20% of all crops globally are grown specifically to feed animals.

Yeah, we have differed before on this. And I Still think that it is way bigger than 20%.
I'm going to put all my sources at the botom

Here is a statistic.
If we combine pastures used for grazing with land used to grow crops for animal feed, livestock accounts for 77% of global farming land. (1)

Also keep in mind that there is a lot of inefficiency in converting plant food to animal food. Chickens are. more efficient than cows and I've read that they are like on 33% efficient. (2)

and one more.
Even though animal agriculture currently uses 77% of agricultural land, it produces only 18% of global calories and 37% of global protein in the world's food supply. (3)

Note too that if we did eliminate animals as a source of food, fibre and whatever else, we'd also need to grow a lot more crops

Not "a lot more crops".
For every pound less of meat we would end up with 2 or 3 pounds of plant food.
Ok sure animal feed is not as high a quality as human plant food. and also animals get fed some food waste. But it probably would be more like just as much instead of a lot more.

I think there are reasons to be less concerned about bees than cows, for example.

maybe. but we would all die of starvation if we lost all our bees. Not so with cows.


1. - Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture.
2. - Feed Conversion Ratios Help Explain Meat's Outsized Climate Impact.
3. - Impact of Animal Agriculture on Land Use.

 

[jaylen1996]

Yeah, we have differed before on this. And I Still think that it is way bigger than 20%.
I'm going to put all my sources at the botom

Here is a statistic.
If we combine pastures used for grazing with land used to grow crops for animal feed, livestock accounts for 77% of global farming land. (1)

Also keep in mind that there is a lot of inefficiency in converting plant food to animal food. Chickens are. more efficient than cows and I've read that they are like on 33% efficient. (2)

and one more.
Even though animal agriculture currently uses 77% of agricultural land, it produces only 18% of global calories and 37% of global protein in the world's food supply. (3)




Not "a lot more crops".
For every pound less of meat we would end up with 2 or 3 pounds of plant food.
Ok sure animal feed is not as high a quality as human plant food. and also animals get fed some food waste. But it probably would be more like just as much instead of a lot more.


maybe. but we would all die of starvation if we lost all our bees. Not so with cows.


1. - Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture.
2. - Feed Conversion Ratios Help Explain Meat's Outsized Climate Impact.
3. - Impact of Animal Agriculture on Land Use

I think the root problem is monoculture.
For instance, there are so many almond trees, and their pollination period is so short, there is no way they can be pollinated by a native bee population.

I think vegans should abandon almond milk for now. Is this extreme? Soy is better I think

 

[Lou]

"I think vegans should abandon almond milk for now. Is this extreme? Soy is better I think"

I agree.
Besides being more nutritious, soy uses less water.
Although almond has a smaller carbon footprint.

 

[jaylen1996]

This is a perplexing problem. Also, I don't agree with you that most crops are grown for animals alone; as best I can tell, only about 15-20% of all crops globally are grown specifically to feed animals. Of the rest, a portion, perhaps 15-20%, are grown for human markets but will eventually be sold to feed markets for a variety of reasons. What the feed market does is mitigate risk for crop farmers when the time comes to plant for a season. The rest (maybe 60%) is grown only for human markets. Note too that if we did eliminate animals as a source of food, fibre and whatever else, we'd also need to grow a lot more crops which would seem to require the same ongoing problem of managing pest animals. I do not know just how much extra land for human use would be required, but my best guess is we'd end up with much the same area under crops as we do now, with the reality that will grow notably in the coming decades.

So, how do we deal with this problem? The answer is, I believe, that you do what you personally can to feel comfortable with the choices you make. That's about it. Beyond that, 8, 9, 10 billion human beings will continue to take a massive toll on the natural environment and other species. We can only hope that as time passes and ideas about how to do better become better known and accepted, we will seek as a global population to mitigate and lessen our negative impacts.

My own take on this is that I think of the problem as one of rights. I will typically choose not to eat food from commercial animal farming systems because in such cases, all three basic rights we can assign to other species have been violated. In the case of pests being killed, we are largely only violating one of those rights plus we have the right to defend our food. In the case of bees, we are probably back in the same boat as that of farmed animals as we violate all of their basic rights. So as with animal farming we might seek to minimise or eliminate our purchase of plant foods/products that come from large scale commercial production that uses bees.

The thing with veganism is that it asks us to do what we can, within our circumstances. It seems easy enough to avoid animal products, but is it easy to avoid plant products produced from the exploitation of bees, and just how much does the exploitation of bees really matter? I think there are reasons to be less concerned about bees than cows, for example.

"I think vegans should abandon almond milk for now. Is this extreme? Soy is better I think"

I agree.
Besides being more nutritious, soy uses less water.
Although almond has a smaller carbon footprint.

Does most of the burden on bee's besides honey industry come from almonds?

 

[Graeme M]

When you said most crops are grown for humans, do you account for hay. Only animals eat hay for the most part. Alfalfa hay needs 60,000 bee's per acre. Also I think when 50% of population is vegan, we can address the problems. 83% of farm land is livestock land

I would say that on arable land, hay is grown as an interim/cover crop, so it doesn't utilise any more land than is used for crops for food etc. Otherwise, hay is grown on existing pasture land, so doesn't figure in what we mean by the area of arable land used to grow crops for human use. That doesn't mean that such land cannot be converted to arable land for cropping, but as you point out any exploitive treatment of bees on those lands is associated with the animal ag industry.

Where are you getting those figures?

From a heckuva lot of time researching and talking to famers and industry bodies. Your reference talks about calories, not area. The thing is that it is extremely hard to disentangle feed markets use from human use markets, because a lot of grains etc that are sold into feed were planted to meet food demand but are downgraded due to various factors. Feed markets provide farmers with a fallback, so act as a risk mitigator. Think of it this way, if a farmer knows that of whatever acreage he plants, 40% will be rejected from human food markets, he may not be willing to risk planting so much. But with feed and export markets available, he can frequently plant as much as he can becuse there will be a good market for all harvest unless things go especially badly. Absent feed from the equation and farmers face a much tougher economic proposition. Similarly, there are also a range of co-products in some crops. Soy is an example. Much of the time the oil drives profitability, but not to the exclusion of meal value. Absent feed markets and farmers would still be able to plant and grow soy (or palm, canola etc) to grow for oil, but prices would have to rise. The net result might be a decline in demand, but whether that translate to a significant reduction in area planted and harvested would be hard to calculate.

Like your calories proportioning, proportions of crop yields by mass can possibly shed some light. Cassidy et al in 2013 found that: "...on a global basis, crops grown for direct human consumption represent 67% of global crop production by mass... Feed crops represent 24% of global crop production by mass.... crops used for industrial uses, including biofuels, make up 9% of crops by mass" and Mottet et al in 2017 found that around 40% of global crops are grown for feed (but noting that under their methodology, soy is counted as a feed crop on the basis of their Economic Allocation Factor which does somewhat obscure things as per my point above).

I'm not saying that eliminating feed markets wouldn't greatly change the cropping sector, but just how much of an impact is hard to discern. Plus remember it isn't just food - we also need to come up with plants to produce various fibre type products (eg wool) and other possible uses for animals such as pet food. I don't think we would see a significant reduction in land use overall, perhaps no more than a 20% decrease in land under crops. Also, that area must increase in time as population increases.

Even though animal agriculture currently uses 77% of agricultural land, it produces only 18% of global calories and 37% of global protein in the world's food supply.

Lou, I am just using this one quote to stand in for your whole comment. Bear in mind, we are talking about the effect of crop farming on animal harm. Yes, it is true that eliminating animal farming entirely might have a beneficial effect in terms of reducing animal harms (with the caveat that we are talking about human caused harm; land rewilded may be much worse in terms of net suffering than land used for animal farming). However, the problem of pest animal harms and/or explotation of pollinators is a problem only in the context of cropping. So, what we are concerned with then is what difference to THAT problem we can make by eliminating animal farming. Would area under crops reduce substantially? I think the answer is no. It would reduce some, maybe, but most crops are NOT grown for animal feed. No-one in the world thinks that more than maybe 20-40% of crops are used for livestock feed, depending on methodology used. So, again, your sources are referring to toal agricultural land rather than arable land.

Note: I am not saying that taken overall, eliminating animals from food and fibre production would not reduce the number of animals being harmed. It should. Just not by as much as we might think. But in terms of individual persons making ethical choices, it is even less clear cut. As I have said before, if your measure is merely harm and death, then you are almost certainly doing well to eat eggs from your own backyard chickens, catching your own fish, hunting deer, or buying a side of beef from a high welfare producer with minimal supplementary feeding. On the other hand, regarded as a matter of preventing rights violations, I think we are doing better to not buy animal products when we can choose that.

Does most of the burden on bees besides honey industry come from almonds?

I don't know, to be honest. I'd not have thought so. Many crops rely on bees for pollination.

List of crop plants pollinated by bees - Wikipedia

 

[jaylen1996]

I would say that on arable land, hay is grown as an interim/cover crop, so it doesn't utilise any more land than is used for crops for food etc. Otherwise, hay is grown on existing pasture land, so doesn't figure in what we mean by the area of arable land used to grow crops for human use. That doesn't mean that such land cannot be converted to arable land for cropping, but as you point out any exploitive treatment of bees on those lands is associated with the animal ag industry.


From a heckuva lot of time researching and talking to famers and industry bodies. Your reference talks about calories, not area. The thing is that it is extremely hard to disentangle feed markets use from human use markets, because a lot of grains etc that are sold into feed were planted to meet food demand but are downgraded due to various factors. Feed markets provide farmers with a fallback, so act as a risk mitigator. Think of it this way, if a farmer knows that of whatever acreage he plants, 40% will be rejected from human food markets, he may not be willing to risk planting so much. But with feed and export markets available, he can frequently plant as much as he can becuse there will be a good market for all harvest unless things go especially badly. Absent feed from the equation and farmers face a much tougher economic proposition. Similarly, there are also a range of co-products in some crops. Soy is an example. Much of the time the oil drives profitability, but not to the exclusion of meal value. Absent feed markets and farmers would still be able to plant and grow soy (or palm, canola etc) to grow for oil, but prices would have to rise. The net result might be a decline in demand, but whether that translate to a significant reduction in area planted and harvested would be hard to calculate.

Like your calories proportioning, proportions of crop yields by mass can possibly shed some light. Cassidy et al in 2013 found that: "...on a global basis, crops grown for direct human consumption represent 67% of global crop production by mass... Feed crops represent 24% of global crop production by mass.... crops used for industrial uses, including biofuels, make up 9% of crops by mass" and Mottet et al in 2017 found that around 40% of global crops are grown for feed (but noting that under their methodology, soy is counted as a feed crop on the basis of their Economic Allocation Factor which does somewhat obscure things as per my point above).

I'm not saying that eliminating feed markets wouldn't greatly change the cropping sector, but just how much of an impact is hard to discern. Plus remember it isn't just food - we also need to come up with plants to produce various fibre type products (eg wool) and other possible uses for animals such as pet food. I don't think we would see a significant reduction in land use overall, perhaps no more than a 20% decrease in land under crops. Also, that area must increase in time as population increases.



Lou, I am just using this one quote to stand in for your whole comment. Bear in mind, we are talking about the effect of crop farming on animal harm. Yes, it is true that eliminating animal farming entirely might have a beneficial effect in terms of reducing animal harms (with the caveat that we are talking about human caused harm; land rewilded may be much worse in terms of net suffering than land used for animal farming). However, the problem of pest animal harms and/or explotation of pollinators is a problem only in the context of cropping. So, what we are concerned with then is what difference to THAT problem we can make by eliminating animal farming. Would area under crops reduce substantially? I think the answer is no. It would reduce some, maybe, but most crops are NOT grown for animal feed. No-one in the world thinks that more than maybe 20-40% of crops are used for livestock feed, depending on methodology used. So, again, your sources are referring to toal agricultural land rather than arable land.

Note: I am not saying that taken overall, eliminating animals from food and fibre production would not reduce the number of animals being harmed. It should. Just not by as much as we might think. But in terms of individual persons making ethical choices, it is even less clear cut. As I have said before, if your measure is merely harm and death, then you are almost certainly doing well to eat eggs from your own backyard chickens, catching your own fish, hunting deer, or buying a side of beef from a high welfare producer with minimal supplementary feeding. On the other hand, regarded as a matter of preventing rights violations, I think we are doing better to not buy animal products when we can choose that.


I don't know, to be honest. I'd not have thought so. Many crops rely on bees for pollination.

List of crop plants pollinated by bees - Wikipedia

Turns out almonds need 10 times more bee's then apples. Almonds are #1 on list. Apples are #2 in u s at least

 

[Lou]

Does most of the burden on bees besides honey industry come from almonds?

no. but it does represent a big deal. Maybe it sticks out more than others because in the last 30 years almond production has quadrupled - mostly becuse of the popularity of almond milk.
Also maybe because almonds have such a short polination period. And also almond flowers are very inefficient - requiring multiple trips by bees for pollination. So the farmers have little choice to bring in billions of bees. Some of these bees are trucked in from the East coast and the trip is very stressful and many of them die.
I don't know but I think the beekeepers don't bother to harvest honey on these trips. So the honey bees probably get to eat their own honey - but I also bet the beekeeper provide some supplements as well.
I also think that with all these bees needed for pollination - honey collection is just a byproduct or maybe even not done with some of these commercial bees.
A lot of these bees are also trucked to Washington. For apples.

At my local farmer's market I have talked to the local beekeeper and he has a few hives in his backyard. His backyard is next to a field that is used for crops. His bees never get trucked anywhere. And he is a pretty good responsible bee keeper. Even so he lost a few hives to CCD.

Since crops are dependent on pollinators we must be make sure we have pollinators. but they don't have to be honey bees. I can envision land use that intersperses various species of flowering plants that might even support native bees year round. I'm also under the impression that bees have evolved along with the flowers they pollinate. So perhaps more attention should be placed on that.

 

[Graeme M]

Turns out almonds need 10 times more bees then apples. Almonds are #1 on list. Apples are #2 in u s at least

I guess that is in the USA, I was more talking globally. But talking the US, is the demand for bee services with almonds greater than all the other crops put together? I wouldn't have thought so, but as I said I have never researched this issue.

I'm also not sure how much concern we need to have with bees. I know anti-vegans like Piers Morgan have made some ground using the bees being killed for almonds argument, but Joey Carbstrong has countered that most bees die from things like varroa mite and CCD etc. Not from directly being killed by the operator. That may be splitting hairs though, as the bees only die due to being bred and used by the operators. However, insects being killed by human activities is a matter of gargantuan proportions and we simply cannot worry about this to some extent (though we should be sure not to create conditions in which whole species become extinct). I have often wondered whether the facts that insects are very simple animals in neurological terms (and hence the quality of "what it is like" to be an insect) and also that they focus less (in reproductive and evolutionary terms) on individuals and more on the group means we have a lesser moral duty. It seems more important to worry about cows than bees.

I have written about this on my blog, which I think I have shared here before:

A Possible Defence for the Moral Concern of Killing Rodents and Insects in Crops | Just Us Too

 

[jaylen1996]

I guess that is in the USA, I was more talking globally. But talking the US, is the demand for bee services with almonds greater than all the other crops put together? I wouldn't have thought so, but as I said I have never researched this issue.

I'm also not sure how much concern we need to have with bees. I know anti-vegans like Piers Morgan have made some ground using the bees being killed for almonds argument, but Joey Carbstrong has countered that most bees die from things like varroa mite and CCD etc. Not from directly being killed by the operator. That may be splitting hairs though, as the bees only die due to being bred and used by the operators. However, insects being killed by human activities is a matter of gargantuan proportions and we simply cannot worry about this to some extent (though we should be sure not to create conditions in which whole species become extinct). I have often wondered whether the facts that insects are very simple animals in neurological terms (and hence the quality of "what it is like" to be an insect) and also that they focus less (in reproductive and evolutionary terms) on individuals and more on the group means we have a lesser moral duty. It seems more important to worry about cows than bees.

I have written about this on my blog, which I think I have shared here before:

A Possible Defence for the Moral Concern of Killing Rodents and Insects in Crops | Just Us Too

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

 

[Lou]

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

not sure if either of those statements are true.
I do kmow that many crops in the US are somewhat dependent on honey bees.

I understand that honey bees are not the most efficient pollinators. I think bees evolved along with certain flowers. however since many crops are not native to the areas they are grown, we might have to import/cultivate exotic bees - and maybe not a safe road to go down.

About one-third of the food eaten by Americans comes from crops pollinated by honey bees, including apples, melons, cranberries, pumpkins, squash, broccoli, and almonds, to name just a few.​

​

Helping Agriculture's Helpful Honey Bees | FDA

 

[jaylen1996]

not sure if either of those statements are true.
I do kmow that many crops in the US are somewhat dependent on honey bees.

I understand that honey bees are not the most efficient pollinators. I think bees evolved along with certain flowers. however since many crops are not native to the areas they are grown, we might have to import/cultivate exotic bees - and maybe not a safe road to go down.

About one-third of the food eaten by Americans comes from crops pollinated by honey bees, including apples, melons, cranberries, pumpkins, squash, broccoli, and almonds, to name just a few.​

​

Helping Agriculture's Helpful Honey Bees | FDA

I'm just passionate about veganism. I try to discuss this but don't get many answers elsewhere even on vegan reddit. Thanks for trying. Omnivores don't realize farmers aren't vegan. The whole system is animal based

 

[Lou]

I'm just passionate about veganism.

good.

I try to discuss this but don't get many answers elsewhere even on vegan reddit.

I like reddit. but it can get crazy.

Thanks for trying.

uwelcome

Omnivores don't realize farmers aren't vegan.

huh?!

 

[jaylen1996]

good.

I like reddit. but it can get crazy.


uwelcome

good.

I like reddit. but it can get crazy.


uwelcome

huh?!

Vegans are blamed for farming practices that arent theirs. There are veganic farming methods but farmers who sell plant based foods aren't vegan so don't care about wild life etc and will use cruel methods.