1-10alb
2-10alb
3-10alb
4-10alb
5-10alb
6-10alb
7-10alb
8-10alb
9-10alb
10-10alb
11-10alb
12-10alb
13-10alb
14-10alb
15-10alb
16-10alb
17-10alb
18-10alb
19-10alb
20-10alb
21-10alb
22-10alb
23-10alb
24-10alb
25-10alb
26-10alb
27-10alb
28-10alb
29-10alb
30-10alb
31-10alb
32-10alb
33-10alb
34-10alb
35-10alb
36-10alb
37-10alb
38-10alb
39-10alb
40-10alb
41-10alb
42-10alb
43-10alb

33modmansviedlauks

On Beekeeping
Why is it becoming harder for beekeepers to sell honey each year?** Several factors need to be mentioned. There's the issue of artificial honey, which is displacing natural honey from the market worldwide and cannot be distinguished from natural honey through conventional honey analyses. Additionally, with the support of the EU, new beekeepers are being trained and financially subsidized. This means that the honey supply in the market is artificially increased. According to the law of market economics, as supply increases, prices decrease. What then happens to those who do not receive subsidies and have risen on their own efforts? They probably need to consider the utilization of produced honey, as the price offered by buyers does not even cover transportation costs.

However, these factors are not the main ones. There is something more serious. The generation that grew up consuming natural products, simply because there were no alternatives, is now dwindling. This means that the taste memory of the older generation was still calibrated to natural products. For the new generation, this is no longer the case; their understanding of taste is formed based on artificial products, and natural products seem bland in comparison. In the polluted and weakened bodies of modern humans, such products can even initiate detoxification processes, which are perceived as diseases (allergies, nausea, etc.), but this is unwelcome. A preference for artificial products is made.

 

Honey is no exception
Demand creates supply. Why not produce artificial honey if, for example, the Chinese have learned to make even artificial eggs. Such honey is increasingly appearing in the EU market. To somewhat comply with regulatory requirements, finely ground pollen or 20% of natural honey, most likely some monofloral honey, is added. Food technology has advanced to the point that conventional honey analyses cannot even detect that it is a counterfeit. This 'honey' is unlikely to cause any detoxification processes (allergic reactions). Toxins that should not be in the human body continue to accumulate, eventually leading to oncological diseases.

 

Artificial honey takes over Europe
In the past 3 years, many beekeepers have reached the brink of bankruptcy, as wholesale honey prices in Europe have dropped to the level of sugar prices. This topic attracted the attention of Estonian scientists from the University of Tartu, who conducted DNA-level analysis of honey samples. In Germany, several dozen samples were collected from various retail outlets. The results of the study turned out to be shocking; they caused a great resonance in the mass media. It turned out that 90% of the samples were artificial honey, which has nothing to do with bees. In the production of such “honey”, even sugar might not be used, but rather synthetic sweeteners, which may be harmful to health. In Germany’s neighboring countries, the honey situation is not much better. In Great Britain – the same – 90%, while in Austria the situation is slightly better, artificial honey there occupies about 75% of the market. It has been heard that Estonian scientists even received anonymous threats for disclosing the results of such a study.
As a beekeeper, I have no objections against such surrogate products, because we have a free market, only on the packaging label it should be clearly and visibly indicated for the potential buyer, because otherwise it is consumer fraud and a threat to human health. Consumers have the right to know what they are buying. At the EU level, solving this issue has been postponed until 2028. A logical question arises about the causes of such slowness and indifference—perhaps signs of the influence of certain lobbies can be seen here.

 

Even all beekeepers cannot distinguish natural honey from artificial honey
An interesting experiment was conducted at the annual beekeepers’ conference, where a large group of beekeepers gathers from all corners of Latvia. Several samples of real and artificial honey were placed for tasting. A third of the beekeepers could not even distinguish the natural from the fake. Even with classical analyses, it cannot be determined. This is not surprising, because the artificial honey production business is so profitable that manufacturers and distributors can afford to set up their own laboratories and attract capable specialists to deceive both supervisory authorities and consumers.

 

Artificial Bees Are Not Science Fiction

33artificialbees

 The magazine ‘’Ilustrētā Zinātne’’ (Illustrated Science) has published an article stating that American scientists from Harvard University have developed a microdrone called Robobee, which is capable of attaching itself to plant leaves using static electricity. The discussion revolves around a future army of many thousands of such microdrones, which could replace bees, as pollination is crucial for 91 out of the 107 most important crops in the world.

My remark – what will come next after artificial honey and artificial bees, which they intend to replace?

 
Absurd Situation
A beekeeper produces the highest quality product, which can still be collected in places like Latvia, while in the EU and elsewhere in the world, pollution in the human body, as well as micro and macroelement deficiencies, catastrophically increase, which are the root causes of all diseases. Such beekeeping products would ideally fit into detox programs and microelement supplementation, but nothing happens. Beekeepers cannot convey information to consumer consciousness. Both consumers and beekeepers are victims. This stage is the weakest in Latvian beekeeping, and it is precisely here that subsidies and support should start if we wish to support both producers and buyers.

The future perspectives for beekeepers are not promising. Unfortunately, as a result of the pressure from conventional farmers in the EU, there is a partial retreat from the green course, worsening the situation in beekeeping. The media talk about the findings of pesticide residues in honey and pollen in-depth studies. The emergence of such information undoubtedly makes potential users of beekeeping products cautious. Caution, of course, should be exercised, but in this situation, pollen is the most accurate indicator of the environmental pollution, meaning that the same applies to other products, and the problem is not only with beekeeping products. Pesticides do not disappear; they end up in the environment.

 
Pesticides
As conventional agriculture expands, natural foraging areas for bees catastrophically decrease each year, making it increasingly difficult to obtain quality honey. A painful problem for the beekeeping sector is the use of neonicotinoid group pesticides in agriculture (clothianidin, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid). The harmful effects on bees start at the time of sowing when the dust from coated seeds spreads into the environment, and bees lose their orientation or ability to return to the hive. Notably, the spatial orientation of bees is a very delicate and complex mechanism that is not yet fully understood.

When a plant sprouts, especially under temperature contrasts, guttation is observed. This is the exudation of water through hydathodes (microscopic openings in the leaf epidermis) in the form of dew. Bees drink this water, and as a result, the poison enters the bee's body. Later, when this plant, for example, rapeseed, blooms, the toxins enter the bees' food through nectar and pollen. Bees are not directly poisoned but lose their way back to the hive and disappear.

Responsible state officials claim that these toxins do not harm humans. I fully agree, only with a slight note: the harm does not occur immediately; the effect is gradual, but the result is the same, just delayed. Biochemistry is universal; all living things, including plants, bees, and humans, are made up of the same 28 amino acids, only in different quantities and sequences.

 

Absurd Subsidy Policy

ruloni

Seeing collapsed hay rolls in forests is not unusual.

 

siens Others, meanwhile, roll unnecessary rolls into rivers.

Lately, the sight of hay rolls collapsed in bushes or forests has become increasingly common in the countryside. According to requirements - to receive subsidies, grass must not only be mowed but also removed. Since there is so much excess hay, and it's easier to hide it in bushes to rot rather than disposing of it properly. I do not understand the responsible authorities' subsidy policy, which wastes taxpayers' money in this way while destroying nature. Over time, the mass rotting and molding in bushes, and animals getting entangled in the rolls' strings, will occur. Moreover, if there's a dry summer, the fields will resemble a desert, with only a few grasses scattered around. Instead of incorporating unused hay rolls into depleted agricultural lands, large sums of money are spent on importing mineral fertilizers from abroad to quickly avoid loss of productivity. This process will deepen soil degradation, and it's no surprise that in a few years, these same farmers will protest at the Cabinet of Ministers, demanding even larger subsidies. Taxpayers' health will also suffer, as the produce from depleted soil with generous doses of mineral fertilizers and pesticides will not be beneficial to health.

It would be more logical to pay subsidies to those who give nature a chance to restore fields, ceasing economic activities for several years to revive the soil, allowing bushes to draw minerals from deeper soil layers to the surface and revitalize the soil's microflora.

Who's Online

We have 156 guests and no members online

33mansviedlauks
                                                

                                    About agriculture

What happens in the countryside?
With the blessing of the Ministry of Agriculture, the horizons of the countryside are increasingly devoid of former homesteads, which are bulldozed into pits dug by excavators. Surrounding old trees with their roots are uprooted and often immediately shredded into chips on site and removed, meaning valuable biomass for sustaining soil life, containing minerals essential and valuable to humans, is taken away. All that remains is a flat area. To ensure no mini reserves of natural diversity form there and to put the final nail in the coffin, these places are then sprayed with herbicides and fungicides. Genre classic – by the next year, the site is taken over by wheat or rapeseed fields. In other words, the 'food' chemical industry still requires such raw materials to produce health-damaging pseudo-food, so one should not be surprised by the logical outcome – environmental degradation.
 
 
Even the "State Plant Protection Service" raises the alarm
Yes, even the "State Plant Protection Service" is concerned about the decline in soil fertility. The most paradoxical aspect is that this service operates under the Ministry of Agriculture, which, influenced by relevant lobbying groups, pursues a policy in rural areas—cutting down everything that can be cut and plowing everything that can be plowed. Of course, in words, this ministry justifies itself by claiming that it cares about natural values, but what is happening in rural landscapes proves otherwise.

Unfortunately, these concerns about declining soil fertility are linked primarily to a decrease in crop mass rather than quality, particularly regarding the amount of rare minerals essential for human nutrition. These minerals are needed in small or even ultra-small quantities, without which the stable, long-term functioning of the human body cannot be ensured, leading to health problems.

Nature is designed in such a way that if any plant or animal species begins to lack even one essential nutrient component, that species starts to decline, giving way to other species that have sufficient access to those nutrients. This is how nature strives to maintain balance and diversity—contrary to what humans attempt to do.

The measures proposed by the "State Plant Protection Service", such as crop rotation, greening, and liming, can only partially and temporarily address this issue. Much more radical measures are needed, which to the minds of large-scale conventional farmers and forest clear-cutters, consumed by greed, might sound like a nightmare. A significant portion of degraded agricultural land should be allowed to regenerate naturally—overgrowing with shrubs that will extract all the missing nutrients from the depths of the earth. Something similar happened in the 1990s when the land was given a short but much-needed break.

The shrubs that grow on degraded lands after several years should not be turned into wood chips, as is currently happening, but instead incorporated into the soil to revive the depleted land. This is the only viable solution to the current situation. If we do not do this ourselves, nature will do it for us, because in the future, there simply will be no one left to continue destroying habitats. This process has already begun. The demographic situation is dramatic. Increasing child benefits and even in vitro fertilization (IVF) will not solve this issue.
 
 
Can nature be deceived?
Although the achievements of chemical food technology are impressive, they cannot do without the raw materials produced in agriculture. But how is raw material production going in agriculture that works with intensive technologies? It turns out, increasingly difficult. Let me explain why. Plants need to absorb at least 60 minerals from the soil, but only NPK (sodium, phosphorus, potassium) increase yield volume. In modern industrial production, collecting increasingly larger yields year after year, mainly only these three minerals are returned to the soil. Supplementing the soil with the rest is economically unfeasible, as they do not realistically increase yields. Lacking essential minerals, plants quickly become more susceptible to diseases. Logically, the soil should be replenished with all the missing minerals, but unfortunately, this does not happen. It turns out it's economically more viable to use fungicides, pesticides, and insecticides (fungi, plant, and insect poisons). But that's not the end. Pathogens and pests over time become immune to the chemicals used in conventional agriculture, so periodically, they must be replaced with even stronger substances. Since the lifespan of microbes, bacteria, fungi is much shorter than that of humans, they adapt to changes much faster than humans, resulting in each subsequent generation becoming more resistant to the applied pesticides.

Despite the expanding capabilities and capacities for chemical production, the number of problems does not decrease. Poisons also cost money. There's also thought given to how these costs could be reduced. GMO crops are grown, which produce poisons themselves (for example, genes of scorpions are introduced into corn seeds). Or the genes are modified so that the plant can withstand herbicides, surviving one particular plant species while the rest perish. Unfortunately, the poisons developed by the plants themselves, as well as the agrochemical poisons with which fields are sprayed, sooner or later end up in the soil, and then into the groundwater.

Media in Latvia had reported that analyses of both organically produced and conventional dairy products showed no difference, suggesting there's no point in spending extra money. It would be nice if that were the case. However, analyses are not that simple. Pesticides consist of many different components, and their manufacturers continuously improve and supplement their products, as pests develop resistance. To find all harmful substances, or toxins, in the final agricultural products requires very complex and expensive examinations. It happens that the same substance behaves one way in laboratory conditions and completely differently in the field due to many synergistic interactions. Although Latvian products are still somewhat cleaner compared to other countries, if pesticides are used, their residues are inevitable. There are no harmless or harmful toxins. They accumulate in the body and do their damage. The statistics on oncological diseases are terrible.

 
GMO Food
Nearly 500 bacterial species reside in the human gut, along with various microorganisms that help maintain the necessary microflora, producing antibodies and many vitamins. Essentially, our immunity is born in the intestines. When encountering GMO food, the ability of bacteria to reproduce weakens. Many bacterial species disappear completely. Pathogenic bacteria proliferate. This is the precursor to many diseases. I agree with GMO supporters that the body does not distinguish such food, completely metabolizes and expels it. No problems the next day, nor after several weeks. However, it turns out not everything is so innocent; individual fragments, some molecules, enter the bloodstream and lymph. From there, they move to the liver, spleen, kidneys, and reproductive system. Experiments with rats and hamsters, fed only GMO soy (used in sausage factories and added to combined feed by feed producers), prove this. Experiments break down by the second and third generation because there's nothing to experiment with. Even rats, the most resilient animals on Earth, begin to get sick and fail to reproduce. Nothing similar happens with the control group, which is fed regular soy.

Farmers who plan to grow GMO crop cultures should know that the yield will be larger only for the first two or three years. Then it returns to the previous level. It's not possible to obtain GMO seeds on your own. If you decide to return to previous crop cultures, expect a significant drop in yield because the number of microorganisms in the soil rapidly decreases, the soil becomes less alive, several insect species disappear, etc. Uncontrolled crossing of plants with similar ones in the wild (natives) occurs. The subsequent process becomes uncontrollable and hard to predict. This fully applies to GMO energy crops, which are becoming increasingly popular.

Not only in crop production but also in livestock, genetic engineering is at work. For example, to enhance lactation in cows, i.e., to get more milk, an artificial hormone, bovine gene (rBGH), is implanted into an E. coli bacterium, combining cow and bacterial genetic material. This creates a new bacterial form that can produce large amounts of hormone to increase milk yield. Unfortunately, a large part of antibiotics and hormones does not degrade during milk pasteurization and continues to function in the human body. The consequences can be, for example, sickle cell anemia, Alzheimer's disease, oncology, etc.

Business at the Expense of Human Health

pavasaraseja

The greed and shamelessness of conventional grain growers know no bounds. Even work safety techniques are grossly violated, not to mention the requirements for environmental protection regarding river banks.

By the way, this is the bank of the Rēzekne River in the Griškāni parish, which is managed by a farm from which the new Minister of Climate and Energy, Kaspars Melnis, has come. By acting in this way, grain growers have contributed to almost 70% of Latvia's water being so polluted that it poses a threat to human health. The European Union requires a 10-meter protective zone, but in Latvia, even maintaining a 3-meter protective zone is a big problem. In contrast, biologists believe that to truly protect the waters, this zone should be 50 meters. The leaders of the association "Zemnieku Saeima" (Farmers' Council) even have the audacity to ask who will compensate them for adhering to such a zone. Business at the expense of human health.

When we joined the European Union, we were proud to be the second greenest country in the world, behind Switzerland. Currently, thanks to conventional farmers and forest clear-cutters, we have fallen to the fourth decade in rankings, aligning ourselves with countries that even use old car tires for heating.

The European Union has initiated infringement procedures against Latvia for the destruction of habitats of European significance. At the same time, the volume of timber and wood chips handled in Latvian ports is increasing (by 20–40% per year). Due to lobbying influence, laws regarding habitat protection are still not fully regulated.

  

The Absurd Agricultural Politics
Recent global events that have caused rapid fluctuations in fuel, fertilizer, pesticide, and machinery prices clearly demonstrate the shortcomings of the previous Ministry of Agriculture's strategy. In pursuit of immediate maximum profit, the use of fallow land, which is crucial for maintaining living soil, has been allowed. Natural processes ensure that microorganisms produce nutrients for plants, fix nitrogen from the air, and transform minerals into a form available to plants. However, if microorganisms are absent, these processes do not occur, and plants become less resistant to diseases. Microorganisms require energy, which plants provide in the form of polysaccharides. If soil is continuously treated with herbicides that eliminate weeds and biological diversity, and if the entire crop is harvested, microorganisms lack food, leading to soil depletion. To compensate for this, expensive fertilizers are imported from abroad, which promote crop mass but not plant health. Consequently, expensive pesticides are also imported. Over time, these chemicals end up in the sea, excessively polluting the waters.

In Zemgale, which was once considered the granary of Latvia, almost no organic farms remain. Everything is oriented toward immediate profit. The fact that such farming will have serious consequences for future generations does not concern anyone. The money obtained from selling the harvest is mainly used to purchase fertilizers, pesticides, and more modern machinery, which reduces the number of workers in rural areas. As a result, homesteads, which shape the rural landscape and maintain biodiversity, are disappearing. Rivers and the sea are also being polluted.

Humans, by nature, are actually frugivores and not predators, yet they allocate a large proportion of their diet to meat. Meanwhile, livestock, which are supposed to eat grass, are fed grains. In large farms, animals often do not see the sun at all in their lifetime, as everything is subordinated to immediate maximum profit.

This absurd farming is subsidized with taxpayers' money, although it would be more logical to redirect more subsidies toward vegetable and fruit growers, as the current demand cannot be met without imports. By the way, Latvia supplies itself with only 60% of its vegetable needs.

 
On Subsidies for Farmers and Logic
Everyone knows that doping is banned in sports because those who have achieved results on their own end up as losers. From my experience, as a small producer who has successfully developed on his own without subsidies, it is difficult to compete even with small subsidy recipients, but that's not what this is about. I am not about to demand any subsidies for myself. I want to see logic and far-sighted thinking in government decisions.

Logic tells me that subsidies are a mechanism to support the interests of the same society - supposedly cheaper food, while also keeping track of what happens in the fields, as I understand it. According to my logic, society needs food that is friendly to health at an affordable price. So far, everything makes sense to me, but in real life, driving through the countryside, I see something completely different. The most popular agricultural crop areas are wheat and rapeseed, the most health-damaging cultures, which are economically the most profitable to grow. According to that logic, it would be even more economically beneficial to grow marijuana, but what would the international community say.

We are worried about the catastrophic demographic problems in the country and cannot understand where to get the money to solve them. At the same time, large conventional grain growers are subsidized with taxpayers' money, sending their products to countries that have diametrically opposite demographic problems compared to Latvia. As a result, we are destroying biodiversity, depleting and poisoning the soil, polluting water bodies, and degrading the natural landscape, making it an unattractive place to live.

Covid-19 has shown us the 'pit' where human immune systems and overall health stand. This virus is like the first snowdrop for the avalanche process that threatens if we don't change anything, and we won't save ourselves with vaccines; suppress one virus, three will take its place. Health should not be sought in pharmacies and hospitals, but in rural areas, from where we all come. Subsidies should support those who try to organize the rural environment, not those who degrade this environment by killing everything living in it, and it's naive to think that this won't affect city dwellers.

We have reached such an absurdity that flax, once very popular, is almost no longer grown in Latvia, flaxseed oil needs are met by imports from Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Canada. In the context of health, flaxseed oil is the top product number 1. Other massively needed crops include hemp, mustard, quinoa, amaranth, millet, lentils, broccoli. Vegetables should be grown in living, mineral-rich soil. By the way, fermented cabbage was a staple for our ancestors in winter, without adding salt, vinegar, or sugar, people didn't eat white bread and were much healthier. Substantial subsidies should be paid for these and similar cultures, but for wheat and rapeseed, it would be more logical to pay excise tax, similar to alcohol and tobacco.

I appeal to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Education, not even to the Ministry of Health, because they deal with mitigating consequences. Isn't this Covid-19 pandemic, this warning from nature, enough for you? Do you want the daily casualty count to be in three or four digits, not just single and double digits as it was? We cannot change the laws of nature; we have to live with them. The parliament cannot amend or repeal them, but voters can change the composition of the parliament! If a suitable environment for a pandemic is created, then it will surely come, I fear, not just one, but also severe ones, with which we will heroically fight like in a fairy tale against a multi-headed dragon, cut off one head, two grow back. This website describes in various resources how to live with nature, all explained step by step. There's nothing new here, honest scientists have long been raising the alarm. It just takes the will to want to act and adhere to logic!

                                                                                                                              biteend