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.


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.


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

Seeing collapsed hay rolls in forests is not unusual.


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 188 guests and no members online


                                       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.


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


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 coast of the Rezekne River in Griškāni parish, managed by a farm from which the new Climate and Energy Minister Kaspars Melnis comes. By acting this way, almost 70% of water in Latvia is so polluted that it endangers human health. The EU requires a 10m protective buffer zone, but even maintaining a 3m buffer zone in Latvia is a big problem. In contrast, biologists believe that to realistically protect the waters, this zone should be 50m. Leaders of the "Farmers' Saeima" association even have the audacity to ask who will compensate for maintaining such a zone. Business at the expense of human health.

When we joined the European Union, we prided ourselves on being the second greenest country in the world after Switzerland. Currently, thanks to conventional farmers and loggers, we have fallen to the fortieth place and are in league with countries that even burn used car tires for heating.


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.

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!