Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Winery -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Savant who wrote (437)	1/8/2016 4:23:23 AM
From: sense	Respond to of 456

The bee problem... I heard a quick bit on NPR this week... the gist of which is that they've (researchers... not the industry) finally acknowledged/proven that the problem is one of neo-nicotinoids killing bees. The issue seems it is being presented now as a problem that is a dependent function of the particular plants the stuff is being applied to, and how/when they're applied. Some plants seem they just aren't a part of the problem... while others, just from having had seeds coated, will put enough of the stuff out into the pollen they produce upon flowering that bees collecting that pollen are being poisoned by the treatments that were applied to the seeds. That suggests that all you need to do to resolve the biggest source of risks is to limit the labeled uses to exclude application to those specific plants, or limit the use of "systemics" on those particular plants, that present the biggest problem to the bees. I don't doubt that they're correct in terms of the nature and source of risks... however, I'm still skeptical that you can resolve the problem for the bees, now, at this late date, with that limited approach, the way you were able to (eventually) resolve the pending extinction of bald eagles and meadowlarks by eliminating DDT. The guys who run bees for a living are still having to allocate a larger and larger share of their time each season to detoxifying periods between jobs... and I think that's an indication the problem really is about more than a single class of chemicals... but both about the growing diversity of chemicals being applied, and the increasing density of them. New products being developed aren't being substituted for older ones they replace... but are instead just being added to the soup. Studies of the density of the agro-chemicals sampled from the air in farm country show that the air is increasingly thick with all kinds of crap that is being sprayed, now. That's a positive only if you're focused on the profitability of the ag chemical pushers... and don't have to worry about things like... living and breathing in farm country... where the bees are just the canary in the coal mine.

To: Savant who wrote (437)	1/8/2016 4:45:22 AM
From: sense	Respond to of 456

"sparkling apple cider/wine" I've previously done a bit of work enabling and fostering (U.S.) west coast cider industry development which it might be fun to get into at some point... and, as it happens, just planted a small orchard last year with around 100 different varieties of cider apples the potential of which I hope to be able to evaluate in a couple of years time. My gardening projects for this year are mostly back to being focused on wine grapes, though. Have already ordered the plants to establish a new motherblock this year... mostly focused on new selections of grapes I already know well enough, but with a few new things, and a couple research project potentials thrown in, just to keep it interesting...

To: Savant who wrote (437)	1/8/2016 5:48:32 AM
From: sense	Respond to of 456

"Ultimately, for most folks, you're correct...the price point is v.important to most folks... Both for the casual users...(on the modest prices)...and to the snobs, that like to brag about how expensive it is." Yeah. Can't ever get away from the issues with the $ for long. My focus in wine interest tends to be on "the best"... by which I mostly mean truly well made, small production, artisanal wines... and well cellared wines worth the cellaring... which doesn't mean I don't appreciate the fact, as a consumer, that the biggest changes that have occurred in wine in the last half century haven't been at the high end in quality. Market reality today is that there really isn't much "bad" wine being made now... and that wasn't close to being true 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Still, with winemaker buddies it is usually more fun to uncork something entirely new to them... or something older... than something "known" that they should be "impressed" by because of what it costs... which, to people who can taste, is a pretty foreign concept. I do know people who always want to talk wine... by leading with how much (high figures) they paid for this or that bottle... which, at the best, shows they use $ as a market proxy for quality, given an inability to tell the difference, otherwise. A lot of consumers are quite easily sucked into the "fad" generation focused on some "hot" new or hard to get label, or "limited release" products, etc., and end up overpaying as a result, for what is still fairly ordinary wine, that simply costs them a lot more without value for the $. Reality is some consumers genuinely want to pay more, for wines like that... because what they paid is an important part, to them, of being able to enjoy what they bought. As a producer, there's really no way to satisfy those customers, or give them what they want... other than by charging them more. I find that pretty twisted, personally... but I don't deny the truth of it. People who I tend to share with more often, will instead tend to brag on how little they paid for some wine of unusual quality that they've found in the market... I find a problem with the inverse, too... as there's a whole new genre of snobs out there whose focus is on avoiding ever paying more than $10 or $20 for a bottle while bragging to others about believing that wine is really only for quaffing in quantity, not for "appreciating", and that others talk about quality for $ is only snobs talking bullshit. Given a market largely focused on immediate drinkability at the low end, the fact they can't taste the difference between a decent $10 quaffer for now and something of greater quality worth cellaring is perhaps an important personal benefit... but still not something to brag on. The lack of an educated palate... isn't much of a bragging point, either... not that there's ever any utility in debating the inverse snobs, given they really can't tell the difference. Reality today is... more if you can't tell the difference... you shouldn't ever have to pay more than $10 or $20 for "really good" drinkable now wine... which still leaves a pretty significant gap, for those who can tell the difference, between "really good" and "the best there is"... as tends to be true in most things.

To: Savant who wrote (437)	2/26/2023 10:57:24 PM
From: sense	1 Recommendation Recommended By Savant Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 456

On the bee problem... As it happens, have been spending a bit of time on that again, recently... A lot has changed in the last couple of decades... since the problem of colony collapse first appeared. It's much better understood, now... And, there have been a lot of adjustments made in addressing it... A big part of that is... urban dwellers who think living in the country means "clean air"... have no idea. Agriculture has been increasingly made dependent on "big pharma for plants"... and, the number and quantity of things being applied to plants... and thus injected into our air... has continued to skyrocket over the years... Most of farm country now resembles "living under constant chemical warfare attacks" more than it resembles "clean air and the great outdoors"... as I think most imagine it to be. For the bees... that was (and remains) certainly the case. A couple of new products that were introduced, in particular, appear responsible... So, bee keepers have become more aware... and adjusted management of the bees... They now are far more aggressive in moving hives from "working sites"... to R&R sites... where the bees get a respite from the chemical warfare... and a chance to recuperate... Bee's now take longer holidays than they used to... and do so in more deliberately selected sites... where the plants they're able to access are more carefully selected to help them recover... That also means that hiring bees as pollinators is now a lot more expensive... given their reduced work week... I've had a couple of bee wranglers asking me to set up "bee resorts" for them... More interesting, perhaps... is that the ongoing industrialization of agriculture... now means that urban areas, as bad as urban pollution is, and all... are far better locations for bees than ag lands are. Probably the key reason we didn't risk losing bees entirely when the problem was at its worst... was that there were reservoirs of wild populations living in the cities... where they weren't having the same difficulties as their country cousins. Today, that remains true. Bees are better off in near urban areas where there are far more flowers, and a vastly larger diversity of them, than exist in the sterile landscape of the modern industrial ag monoculture. So, with that awareness, there are now a lot more urban beekeepers, too... Have been planning an urban installation this week... It's made more complicated, because... in farm country, if you want bees... you figure out what you need to do, do it, and then you get bees. In the urban landscape, though, they assume you're an idiot... and they won't LICENSE you to keep bees... unless you attend their classes, pass their tests, to prove... worthy of earning the honor of being certificated as an apprentice beekeeper... rolls eyes... So, am I attending apprentice beekeeping classes ? Hell no. My daughter is doing it...