My wife really loves Monarchs so we have planted a garden of milkweed and butterfly bushes. Monarchs will lay their eggs and then we make sure the caterpillars are doing well and have plenty of food. When they reach 5th instar and look for a place to turn into a chrysalis, we put them in a mesh enclosure to keep them safe and then release them once they emerge as butterflies!
It's been such an exciting thing to do every year and the kids love helping out too. It's a fun, satisfying, and easy way to help out! Highly recommend :)
FYI to anyone out there considering this- don't plant tropical milkweed:
"Another problem with tropical milkweed is that it harbors a one-celled parasite, Ophryocystis elektroscirrha, called OE for short. Because tropical milkweed does not die out in winter, the parasite does not die back either. Monarchs with large numbers of this parasite – which coevolved with monarchs and does not infect other species – are born with crumpled wings and cannot fly; the less infected are smaller, have shorter lifespans, fly poorly or are unsuccessful at mating. Only the healthiest butterflies reach overwintering areas in Mexico; butterflies with this parasite do not survive long migrations. "
This always seems like a stretch to me? I have two large butterfly bushes in my ~2000 sqft pollinator garden (NorCal) and they seem to perform only moderately; I.e. they attract significantly less pollinators than almost any other plant in the garden. Lavender, salvia, sage, rosemary, Mexican sage, Mexican marigolds, poppies, and daisies all attract way more pollinators even though they are smaller.
True, but they aren’t invasive here (NorCal, they are “potentially invasive” because they are invasive elsewhere, but do not spread) and native butterflies can use them as a host species here.
I don't know about the US but in most of France and Belgium they are everywhere, they grow like weeds, including on badly maintained brickwork, they seem to be especially suited to urban areas.
All these other plants you mentioned do attract pollinators but they don't propagate as well, they are only where they have been planted at least around here. Even on the warmer Atlantic coast, rosemary and lavender grow well but they don't propagate nearly as much by themselves as butterfly bush (Buddleja) does.
I have two butterfly bushes in upstate NY. They are not invasive here; they struggle to survive cold winters (being killed back to the roots and recovering only partially.) They show no signs of spreading. When I lived near Chicago, they wouldn't survive cold winters at all.
The best case is to use the native Milkweed in your geo. Source that if you can. However, in a lot of places only tropical milkweed is available. You can still grow it, but like the parent suggests, it is a problem if you let it survive the winter. Cut it down to the roots post summer.
Monarchs are so amazing. I recall in the early 1980s in Lake Tahoe, they would cover entire trees during their migrations. They are the most amazing evolutionary creatures migrating 2,000+ miles over multiple generations, whereby every 3rd? gen on the migration is the Super Generation that has all the 'Valkeryie' Genes that transmit the genetic knowledge forth...
Monsanto and pavement killed the Monarch.
Milkweed is fundamental to the eco system, and (this is IMO) due to its very fluidic and milky nectar that was consumed by many, it was an easy vector for Glyphosate which is literally feeding Krokodile (russian battery-acid-heroin) to Planet earth. - but being the Monarchs Sole food....
We are doomed to the petrochem blight (its not about "electrical power" -- its about forever chemicals and extinct entire food chains.
---
There is a great documentary on Teflon called "The Devil We Know" - regarding teflon forever chemicals in all of us. I was milling about in the garage and I needed some tape for the hose I was fixing - an I grabbed a roll of teflon tape for the threading -- then it hit me.
My dad owned the Timberland Water Company in Tahoe. growing up he was plumbing here and plumbing there... every where a plumber plumbed the teflon tape was there too...
Also, growing up in Tahoe - we were big skiiers - and to eschew the snow we would spray ScotchGuard all over our clothes. ScotchGuard is Liquid Teflon Aerosol Spray. Yum and we would spray ourselves down in that while wearing our snow gear.
I had to look up how it's made after you said that. What I found:
The simple and cheap domestic production process involves boiling 80-400mg of codeine with a diluting agent (mostly paint thinner that may contain lead, zinc or ferrous agents), gasoline, hydrochloric acid, iodine, and red phosphorous (which is scraped from the striking surfaces on matchboxes). In this process, desomorphine is generated from codeine (3-methylmorphine) via two intermediate steps (alpha-chlorocodide and desocodeine). The process takes 10-45 minutes. The final product is a suspension that contains desomorphine as the psychoactive core, along with all other agents involved in the production process.
Note for anyone in the UK or Europe: summer lilac (a type of butterfly bush) is highly invasive and spreads easily. In the UK consider planting native alternatives such as gorse which flower for most of the year. When gorse doesn’t flower, lavender will. For butterflies consider cow parsley.
Ceanothus and the mophead relative Hydrangea serrata can attract Butterflies in summer or spring, but Buddleja is still wonderful in this sense. The hunt for the elusive sterile Buddleja stills keeps going. Lots of promises in that sense with very complex hybrids, but they still didn't stuck with the market or didn't deserved the hype.
Gorse in a small garden can be complicated to manage. Too spiny and it reseeds itself. Rosmary or Leptospermum can take that job.
We've let the garden go wild this year (and last) because we're concentrating on other things. I can't help but notice how much the bees love the cow parsley that's sprung up, as well as the purple toadflax. Haven't seen butterflies on them unfortunately, they've declined to such an extent that now just seeing one is an occasion to point them out to my family.
If that were the case you would expect to see large growths of it in the wild, right? Whilst I do see it in the wild, I've never seen any situation where it looks to be taking over. I just see individual plants occasionally.
My reference for "highly invasive and spreads easily" is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impatiens_glandulifera#Invasiv..., which has by now completely taken over most clear and shady areas in and near forests where I live. Summer lilac is definitely far from being that bad.
> I've never seen any situation where it looks to be taking over. I just see individual plants occasionally.
Each one of those individual plants can produce 40.000 seeds each year, so give them a decade alone and you will see. Is very invasive on river beds and disturbed soils.
We plant both "swamp" milkweed (Asclepias incarnata) and common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) and the monarchs seem to vastly prefer the former for their babies. The one disadvantage, depending on how much you hate bugs, is that the swamp milkweed attracts a large variety of other polinators including various bees, flies, and some scary looking though harmless wasps[1].
I've seen one of those wasps dragging a relatively large huntsman spider across the ground. Not sure if I got a photo or not. Nature at it's brutal best.
One of the neighbors down the street did that with the patch of ground between the sidewalk and the street. Even though it's not a large area, she mixed in several different plants for the butterflies and it's amazing how many of them it attracts even in that little bit of space. Her biggest struggle is with keeping people from letting their dogs piss on the plants. Even with signs asking them to please keep their dogs from harming the plants there are some people who just don't care.
Thank you for doing this. I would also recommend doing the same for other pollinators as well, native bees, wasps, moths etc. all need our help. The best way to do it is follow the steps to create a certified native wildlife habitat. I converted my backyard into one and I see the difference in the variety of pollinators I see now vs when I moved in. If anyone is interested on how to do it: https://www.nwf.org/CERTIFY
TLDR: Add hosts plants for the larva. Add food sources (nectar and pollen) for the pollinators. Add safe resting spaces (old logs, leaf litter etc). Provide water. Native plants work the best, but that doesn’t mean you only have them, non natives also can be useful.
Not who you replied to, but we do this with our kids. The only things are you need are a milkweed patch (there are many varieties besides the big ugly broad-leaf ones you see everywhere) and and a mesh enclosure off Amazon for a few bucks. The process is:
You go out, look for the tiny eggs on the milkweed, bring the milkweed leaves in, wait for them to hatch, and bring in fresh milkweed leaves for food once a day. We put them in a paper-towel-lined baking pan so that they have something soft to crawl on if they wander off to taste-test new leaf. They start out rather tiny and grow to into big fat caterpillars. Eventually they stop eating to go on walkabout and anchor themselves somewhere near the top of the enclosure. (Sometimes they are dumb and you have to relocate them with pins or tape.) Once they emerge as butterflies, set them free.
We do black swallowtails too. They like dill and parsely.
We never get tired of it. We have had 20-something butterflies at a time in a 2-sqft enclosure.
Do you really need to go though all this trouble? We just plant a bunch of swan plants (milkweed) and watch the caterpillar and monarch populations go nuts. Add a bunch of flowers they like too (like zinnias) and that's about all I do.
Not sure if the wild milkweed out here in VT is the "big ugly broad-leaf one", but I think they are amazing plants. And I love the alien-looking pods with the almost fractal arrangement of fluff seeds inside. The flowers are interesting too if only because of their brevity, they only last a few days. I love watching the milkweed grow over the summer. Burdock too. Incredible plants.
Yeah it (Asclepias syriaca) is a really interesting lovely plant. I let it grow in patches out in my back field (southern Ontario). Last few days there's been some monarchs flapping around there breeding. Kinda wish I'd let more grow, but if I don't mow back there the whole area gets overrun with sumacs.
There was a company out of Quebec that was trying to commercialize making clothing with the fibers from the seed pods. They're not quite long enough to spin, but they make an excellent substitute for down for stuffing.
I have to wonder if some good old fashioned selective breeding could produce a milkweed variety that produces fiber in the pods suitable for textile industry.
There was a selective breeding program during World War II to make rubber from the milkweed latex. I swear the annual crop from my back forty could have supplied the entire allied war effort but evidently the quality of the rubber was poor and alas the effort was abandoned.
The fiber on the silk from the mature pods is too short and lacks the scales that cotton has to make it useful for textiles. It is the bast fibers from the stems that make fairly good fiber but the moisture content is very high so unlike flax the fiber tends to just rot during retting.
Again it seems like a plant that with some smart old fashioned selective breeding could be made a lot more useful. But that kind of horticultural work has on the whole fallen out of fashion, it seems.
I'd suggest doing some research before planting stuff. I recently read that it's suggested to not plant milkweed (and to be ensure you cut it back seasonally if milkweed is appropriate) if you live in certain areas as it may otherwise disrupt their migration.
If you're looking to attract butterflies there are other endangered butterflies that can use your help. E.g. the Misison blue butterfly likes certain species of lupine. Black swallowtails, while not endangered, love dill. Don't underestimate how much even just a couple caterpillars will eat.
Other fauna seem a lot less picky. The hummingbirds out here seem to like the natives and "exotics" equally. The leafcutter and carpenter bees too. If you're in California, Calscape (dot org) is a great resource. And if you're in the Bay Area there are plenty of nurseries that specialize in native landscaping that can offer guidance. In the LA area, check out the Theodore Payne Foundation.
Obligatory comment to avoid planting Asclepias curassavica (aka tropical milkweed, often found in big box stores), in favor of any of the native species.
For the healthiest to butterfly option, your milkweed should die back yearly in whatever climate you plant it.
This helps encourage butterflies to migrate at the appropriate time and prevents parasite load from building up.
I had about 13 of these caterpillers from the butterflys that came after I planted my garden. After they got big and fat, a huge fat toad came on to the pot and snacked on literally all of them.
It's just as well, many of the native birds we care about (whose population is generally also declining along with many of the native insects) need a diet that is an overwhelming majority of insects (Often over 90%, ending up numbering multiple thousand caterpillar larva consumed) in order to successfully raise young. Bird seed doesn't cut it, it's high fat and nowhere near enough protein. Protein as a percentage of dry weight in many insects can exceed that of beef.
In fact birdseed can become a sort of "trap", (much like milkweed being available at the wrong times of year for monarchs) where it tricks their biology into thinking it's a food rich area that's good for breeding, but what they need actually isn't there resulting in high mortality rate of the young they were trying to raise.
So having a bunch of garden plants getting shredded by native caterpillars is a good thing, one way or another.
this is great and all, but aren't you concerned that over-protecting them for generations will only lead to their increased vulnerability someday when you're not around?
i think adding the plant-based environment for them to thrive is the appropriate level of action, but not the human-level protection across larval stages, that's something they'll need to do for themselves in the wild or they're only going to be doomed
The issue is that it's a numbers game right now, and it's tilted poorly in their favor. Yes, butterflies have to deal with natural predators, but their low numbers amplify their susceptibility to predators. If we can restore their numbers, then the percentage eaten isn't such a big deal anymore.
My wife called our city hall to see if we could let a small patch of grass grow tall in our backyard for insect support. They said a "pollinator garden" was highly encouraged, so we did. Last June we saw more lightening bugs then ever before.
Now in hot August, just before sunset, we have butterflies and bees and lots of others bugs. We didn't plant any special flowers, we just let the grass and whatever else grow. Next year I'll plant some flowers.
Of course it's legal! You just need to fill form DN-335, wait 4-9 weeks and you can play!
Obviously planescape campaigns are banned, being innapropriate for minors, and so are characters from underdark species as they ruin neighbourhood character.
No permission was required, although we did explain we only were going to use a small area for the pollinator garden.(It's about 4 feet by 30 feet). We just wanted to make sure there wasn't a rule against it.
Land use laws and culture around land use differ greatly. The further you get out from urban and suburban areas the less you typically encounter. Rural areas tend to have less land use laws than urban/ suburban areas.
America is really bad for this sort of thing though? One example that stands out in my mind:
The shower is outside on the back patio. The shower is fitted with hot water from the conventional water heater plumbed from the house. The shower is surrounded by a stainless steel privacy screen and a lot of really tall tropical plants. It’s the one feature that friends and family seem to like the most about the cottage. But the county authorities said it was completely illegal.
First, the county inspector cited the raw sewerage that was being released into the environment. By “raw sewerage” he was referring to warm soapy water. The “environment” in this case was my rural back garden. The remedy was to plumb the outdoor shower with a drain that carried the “sewerage” into the septic system for safe disposal. I had this work done at some considerable expense that I struggled to afford at the time. Then the inspector was invited back to final the plumbing permit. Unfortunately he cited the project for another violation instead. It seems that rain water was able to drain into the outdoor shower and enter the septic system which was a code violation. He couldn’t have told me this earlier? Evidently inspectors shy away from proscribing holistic solutions. Instead they just look at what’s in front of them and check off boxes on their clip boards. It’s up to the property owner to understand and comply with the impenetrable codes on their own. So I covered the outdoor shower with a simple roof that prevented the rain from entering the drain (completely ruining the whole concept of a tropical outdoor shower). When the inspector returned this too was a code violation since a covered structure with plumbing constitutes a second dwelling unit on a lot that is only zoned for one unit. I removed the roof from the shower in disgust. Finally a sympathetic neighbor said he had a similar problem with his outdoor shower and solved the problem by re-labeling it as a hose bib on the permit documents. I plugged up the shower drain with concrete, removed the shower head, and invited the inspector back to approve the hot and cold hose bibs inside the little privacy screen on the back patio. In fifteen seconds he was able to check off the little boxes on his clip board and there were no more problems with the outdoor shower. A sense of relief and calm washed over me. But it only lasted for ten seconds. The inspector then said he couldn’t sign off on the building inspection because this house didn’t have a shower or bath tub…
It reminds me of when a friend called into their property management at their apartment complex to make sure she could have three guests come over to her apartment to watch a movie. I don’t know what to call it.
Try having neighbors. I've one who thinks she's quite the environmentalist because she "feeds the deer", which means leaving fresh fruit and veg out. Sure the deer love it, but so do the rats (the neighbor blames the HOA landscaping for the rats). She also leaves out peanuts, so I constantly have squirrels and jays digging up my attempts at gardening things so they can bury their loot. The HOA copes by leaving poison traps out. Of course the coyotes and raptors don't know this and keep coming by anyhow. But hey, she's an environmentalist.
Alternatively try living in an area with a high risk of fire. Leaving your back yard to grow wild could easily create a huge tinderbox. There are fire resistant plants suited to e.g. dry summers, but invasive stuff that's ill-suited to dry summers is just as happy to take root.
It sounds like you want to live in a place devoid of animals - deer, squirrels, rats, jays, coyotes, hawks - isn’t that a but cruel, considering they were here first?
No, it sounds like I don't want my neighbor feeding the wildlife. It sounds like I don't want the HOA to feel emboldened to set out poison traps to deal with the consequences of feeding wildlife.
FWIW I said raptors, not hawks. So yeah. Owls, vultures, hawks, osprey, falcons, we get them all out here. When they eat a poisoned rodent they'll likely die. Scavengers that eat the dead birds will also get sick. It's bad all around. Deer are already overpopulated. None of what this person is setting out is particularly good for any of the animals. These are wild animals that are perfectly capable of finding their own, healthier, safer food.
It's like with the monarchs. Folks should be careful about where they plant milkweed in part because of the disastrous effects it can have on their migration. The same thing can happen with vertebrates like migratory birds.
There's a reason why feeding wildlife is pretty much universally condemned: it's bad for the animals.
In several towns I've lived in.. I _know_ everyone in city hall. It wouldn't be a deferential call, but a friendly one, where I'd mostly ask "Hey Bill, would there ever be a problem if I...."
Bill's got my back. If there was a problem, he'd be the first one to tell me _how_ to work around it, and since I'm the kind of guy to want to make things easy for everyone I live around, he'd probably be the first one to help do it if I needed it.
I’m talking about the subject matter. Something as petty as growing some lawn or flowers on my own land. I can’t imagine asking for permission to do that.
I'm talking about the realities of actually living in a community. Something as simple as not mowing your lawn may actually be against local codes. Your neighbors may be the type to use code enforcement against you if they don't like you. Your code enforcement officer may just be eager. There could be any of a number of simple misunderstandings along the way.
Who knows? What I do know is you will solve nothing by pretending it's petty and for sheer prideful lack of imagination can't bring yourself to pick up a phone and spend 3 minutes asking questions.
Yes. I just did imagine it for you. Are you a lawyer? Do you spend time making yourself aware of the laws, bylaws and codes in effect in your area? If it makes you feel less burdened to check first, then at the very least, don't be one of the people who inevitably complains when they find out what they've done draws unwanted attention to yourself.
It's government. You pay for it. Why you wouldn't expect it to be useful to you is beyond me.
Not to be confrontational, but this example is super tiny in the grand scheme of things. Government at this point practically owns us. They take almost 50% of our labor via taxes (under the "noble" euphemism of paying for our fair share of government governing us.)
They don't protect us from crime via police, they beat and imprison us if we stray from their stated path, and we have no choice to not participate. Yes we can technically choose to move to another king's domain and be serfs there. To be fair even this highly regulated legally and not an easy option for many.
Honestly, we're way passed due for a revolution. The government has become a self serving and self perpetuating machine that uses people rather than serving them.
I strongly suspect that most of this is a consequence of declining democratic participation, especially at the local level. When most people don't vote, it makes the government beholden only to those few who do — and they tend not to be a demographically representative bunch. This is the same issue that makes it so easy for HOAs to become heavy-handed or corrupt.
One of the pleasant surprises I had, immigrating from the US to Australia, was discovering how much more responsive the government is to the populace, even at the municipal level. The big difference is that, here, virtually everyone votes in all elections at every level of government because it is considered a legal responsibility of citizenship, just like jury duty and taxes. This means that time-poor, lower-class single parents have exactly the same voting power as retired busybodies, and that makes a HUGE difference to how smoothly and fairly everything operates.
We have federal and state holidays that specify that those government employees have those holidays, but private employers aren't required to do anything on those days (there might be some states that impose requirements, but certainly not a majority).
And yes it's "progressive", but I'm rounding up for arguments-sake due to all the "other" taxes that aren't individual income tax. Fuel levy, sugar tax, VAT, import tax (err "duties"), cigarette tax, employment insurance tax, property transfer fees/taxes, estate taxes, capital gains tax, etc.
Either way... 50% is big, but so is 40%, or 30%. Doubly so in South Africa because we have no choice but to pay for a lot of supposed government services using post-tax income (due to this being a failed 3rd world state that doesn't provide actual services). E.g. healthcare, security, fire, insurance, etc.
Cherry on top: Only 5-10% of the population even pays income tax here. So no it's not paying one's fair share, this is a giant socialist wealth-redistribution system where a good chunk gets carved out and given to the high-ranking government priesthood and otherwise connected individuals. The scraps make their way to underfunded government services for the real poor serfs to maybe get some benefit out of, unfortunately. The reason I mention this, is that it's the same in other governments, they're just less blatant about it. It's only in these extreme examples that people see the nature of what's going on, and how they are actually slave-labour for the government. Well... at least only 50% of their labour /s.
In the suburban city we live in, the city looks the other way if no one complains when it comes to certain rules. Like for instance, you can't keep a dead car in your drive way(unless you are repairing it) or backyard, you can't have a dead tree in your front yard for an extended time. You must keep your yard grasses below twelve inches in the summer, except, we know now because we asked, for a pollinator garden. I'm sure there are other rules I don't know about. I'm also sure that in most towns and cities there are rules similar to these.
However, I've never seen these rules enforced unless someone calls in. The city does not have an enforcement squad who inspects the neighborhoods. On my street, my next door neighbor is the street busybody. She called in on me once because of a tree that died in early spring and by mid-June I still hadn't removed it. The city worker told me I had two weeks to remove the tree or they would, for a fee. I explained my tree guy was busy and he said no prob, now he knows it will get done.
So, we asked about the pollinator garden just to be sure.
It's usually neighbors complaining vs. the government. My buddy had parents who lived in New Hampshire, a notoriously small-government state. They kept their front yard unmowed for insects and wildlife. Got so many complaints from neighbors they had to register their front yard as an "urban nature preserve" of sorts to get them off their backs.
In some urban and suburban areas, where there aren’t a lot of predators, thick vegetation will harbor pests like mice and rats. I’m not sure if there’s a code against in my town, but I have let certain areas of my back yard get thick, sure enough tons of mice showed up in my sheds and moved indoors, too. Do not recommend.
Canadian here, I let my entire back yard grow wild for 7 years. My neighbor was mad about it "because of ticks" and if the town found out about it, they would have come and mowed it and charged me for the "service" plus a fine.
Wouldn't these hypothetical ticks only be a problem for him if he wants to walk through your barkyard? Never mind that ticks can and do live in short grass just fine...
Americans love rules and regulations. America is big on social structures that allow the common man to enforce rules upon others, giving them a sense of power. See HOAs or middle managers as an example.
In my town we have Neighborhood Services drive around on patrol looking for code violations. I put a chair for free at the end of my driveway for not even 24 hours and received a letter from the city. My town really is just one large HOA.
I've been planting milkweed for monarchs. We just had 4 hatch today! Another 11 in their chrysalis and 12 hungry little caterpillars.
The biggest pest I've seen personally has been flies. Tanchid flies will lay their egg inside the caterpillar and the larve eats the caterpillars from the inside and they die. So we round up caterpillars we see on our outdoor plants and place them in a protected mesh enclosure with potted milkweed for them to eat.
In 2021 I successfully raised 81 monarch caterpillars to full grown butterflies. In 22/23 we still had some success but I didn't have a garden so we raised 10-20 wild ones. But 2024 we have a house now and a big garden full of milkweed!
I have a milkweed too. Last year it was kinda small since it was its 1st year but we had 5-6 monarch caterpillars, but gradually they disappeared 1 by one with no chrysalis I could find.
This year none yet, I was hoping the migration hadn't started, because my milk weed is giant and ready to raise these lil things if they would just show up.
They can travel a far way to setup their chrysalis. Though I've also found that when they disappear they tend to be dead from tanchid flies or something else.
Yes, and tanchid are an important fly. However, they don't seem to have much issue in regards to population etc. I'm not exterminating nor killing the flies just protecting the caterpillars. I still lose many caterpillars to the flies. In 2021 when I got 80 successful caterpillars I still had a ton that died from the flies. I was approximately 40% success rate with my caterpillars growing into butterflies the rest 60% died mostly due to the fly.
Thus far in 2024 I have 23 dead from flies. With my other 4 hatched, 11 chrysalis, 12 caterpillars that's 46% dead from flies (thus far) I suspect some of the 12 caterpillars are already gotten by the fly so roughly ~50% dead to the flies thus far.
It‘s interesting how the impact of roads and traffic on our insect population is always ignored in these discussions. Neither the article nor any of the top comments mentions it.
I highly recommend the book „Traffication“ by Paul Donald about this subject. It explains how cars harm our wildlife, not just by road kill, but also through noise-, light-, air- and salt-polution. These influences cover far more area than just the road surface, for some species the negative effects extend to more than 2km on each side of the road.
Moreover, for species that rarely cross roads, they also cut up the landscape in little pieces, reducing genetic diversity.
And all this harm definitely and directly affects insects, not just mammals.
The book cites numerous studies on the subject, and it also highlights how nature conversationists seem to mostly ignore this problem, focusing more on agriculture and other harms (exactly like the article). While these other problems certainly also negatively impact our wildlife, we do seem to have a collective blindspot for our roads.
As a reformed bee-keeper, I've come to understand that it is the native pollinators that really matter. Monarchs and other native pollinators do most of the work. Except in exceptional (and artificial) situations (like almonds in Ca), domesticate bees mostly get in the way.
However, I will add all the "helpful pest control contractors" who want to kill every insect on my property probably don't help.
I take it you mean honey bee keeper and I'll assume American (you) and European honey bees (ie non-native to US). There is nothing wrong with that, provided you also allow for solitary bees and other pollinators too. Note that even "foreign" pollinators are still useful for pollination.
Do try to discourage "helpful pest control contractors".
As a honey bee keeper, you can't be faulted. Yes you would deploy colonies of 50,000 insects at a time into an area where the locals are not that well organised. However, thanks to the likes of neonics and monocultures, any pollinators at all are welcome.
I'm a 53 year old Brit and I live next to a park and have a very insect friendly garden. Butterflies are really down compared to my memories as a child. I do see quite a few social bees (eg bumble bees) and solitary bees (eg masonary bees) but again, they seem to be rather sparse compared to my memories. Also, a summer drive does not leave my car covered in bugs.
I have a customer: https://butterfly-conservation.org/ ... you'll have a local equivalent. I think we should all try to follow their advice, otherwise we may be the last humans to remember something and the world goes a bit "Mad Max". That's a bit unlikely but it won't end well if we do nothing.
I can't speak for every location, but where I live, feral honeybees (escapes from beekeepers) out-compete many native pollinators. They also outcompete many native birds by taking their nesting sites (tree hollows, man-made bird houses, etc.).
For example, in my region, there is exactly one species that can perform buzz pollination (a specific pollination technique that is required by certain plants, including tomatoes) — blue-banded bees — but they are in decline due in large part to wild honeybee colonies.
I have worked very hard over the years to grow lots of plants specifically appealing to blue-banded bees, but I still very rarely ever see them. The flowers are overwhelmingly dominated by honeybees. I don't mind a few of them around, but there are WAY too many of them. They leave so little food for other pollinators and so few nest sites for native birds.
Professional beekeepers prevent their colonies from swarming, and many of them — certainly all the ones I know of in my area — will also capture wild colonies (and kill the colonies they cannot capture) as a service to the public to help control this nuisance invasive species. But there is only so much that a few good beekeepers can do; they are massively outnumbered by feral bee colonies released by less responsible amateur beekeepers from years past.
So buzz pollination is very important. Here in the UK I suppose bumble bees do the job. Blue banded bees are native to Australia (according to some frantic searching!)
I'm not sure what to suggest and you will know better than most what happens when you try to tinker with species introduction. Australia is practically a poster child for how not to do it but to be fair very few parts of the world are unscathed from unwise introductions. Here in the UK, Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam, a shrimp from NZ (can't remember the name) and others are a bit of an issue. We even have feral apples (thanks Romans) - not really, that was a benign introduction, that seems to have been a win/win and cider resulted!
I think we got honeybees from the Roman occupation too but the climate here means that colonies usually need some assistance to survive - wild colonies are rare. The biggest pest for honey bees here is the Varroa mite. Varroa can only live in honey bee colonies, but you let that loose and I doubt it will end well.
I can only suggest trying to find what attracts honey bees and growing that in one place and what works for blue banded bees as far away as possible.
Its a tough one but you could try getting touch with the nearest uni biology/environmental/conservation or whatever department and see if they have any ideas.
For those curious about helping native pollinators, it should be noted that there are dozens in not hundreds of different types of bees that should be found around any given area. Many of them need certain plants to complete their life cycle, as well as need certain types of habitat.
Sadly, this is a woefully understudied area, and it's exceptionally rare to find easy "plant this mix to maximize resources for your local bees across the year". There's a lot of mental overhead to get through when you start getting into it.
In many of the hazelnut orchards in sandy areas, it turns out that having compacted bare soil is a huge win for the sand bees, it's exactly what they need and there can be dozen of holes made by them per square yard in some places.
If there's not natural water sources nearby, a water feature is a good thing to look into for both birds and bees.
Also note that beetles and moths are also a hugely important part of the ecosystem as well and are big pollinators, you just typically won't see them near as much as bees and butterflies. Healthy beetle populations can reduce slugs. We don't have them here, but fireflies and glowworms also heavily feed on slugs.
I was going to say, people over index on Monarchs, but other native pollinators need a lot more help. Native bees, wasps, wasps. I converted my backyard into a certified wildlife native habitat and I see the difference in the variety of pollinators I see now vs when I moved in. If anyone is interested on how to do it: https://www.nwf.org/CERTIFY
If I look at the crop that isn't useful for pollinators, and occupies the largest amount of land area in the US, the result is not corn which is sprayed with insecticides: It's lawns. The Kentucky bluegrass or fescue that is cut so short it never seeds? Might as well be concrete as far as insects are concerned.
But we not only allow, but often mandate that acres upon acres of land are kept that way, or the owner gets a fine. American suburbs make more space ecologically dead per inhabitant than anything else we do: The greyest of cities at least take less space.
That’s hard to believe. Lawns take up such a small space. It had to until recently (robots) be mowed manually, at least for residental lawns. The American West is so devoid of lawns clusters (metro areas) that all of it except the West Coast should have excellent insect conditions, if lawns have such a large impact.
This feels like explaining pollution by studying how many bottles are thrown into bodies of water in Orange County.
The article specifically cites a study from the past year that shows the major current factor in pollinator decline is not RoundUp, but insecticide use.
I don't mean this as an apologia for RoundUp (or Monsanto). There's a need for more attention on, and regulation of, harmful pesticides, though.
> "As a result, farmers increased glyphosate use while reducing the use of other herbicides," Swinton noted. "This became particularly concerning for monarch butterflies since their host plants are strongly associated with row crops and their numbers began a sharp decline during the period of glyphosate adoption."
It kills the plants where insects happen to live and breed.
Roundup kills milkweed, a common weed in corn and soybean fields, also used in some other crops. Monarch caterpillars _exclusively_ feed on milkweed. This is not a case of glyphosphate toxicity, but habitat destruction because it does the job on the label well. And folks tend to apply it lots of places it doesn't necessarily need to be used. Heavily farmed areas need to have some more land set aside for biodiversity and better managed to that end.
Additionally there are concerns about insecticides affecting monarchs in an entirely different thread, in particular increasingly banned neonicotinoid insecticides.
> And folks tend to apply it lots of places it doesn't necessarily need to be used.
Glyphosate is the easiest way to keep a property clear of plants for fire insurance reasons in California, which is really unfortunate. My family had a big conflict with our neighbor over his use of roundup to clear his land because they were trying to grow a bunch of their own stuff.
If he got herbicide on their property a lawsuit would have been justified.
If their concern was over slight contamination, not enough to noticeably affect plant growth, then not. It's not like it would have significant effect on human health in that situation, if it has any effect at all.
I don’t understand how people grew things without glyphosate. Getting rid of the weeds manually is extremely labor intensive. It’s many hundreds of hours of hired labor every week.
Smaller farms, smaller plots, greater variety in crops. There's a bit in episode eight of the documentary series Omnivore contrasting farmers in Mexico versus industrial farming in the USA, showing one of the remaining farmers in Mexico and how they do corn, talking about how a million Mexican farmers were put out of work because they could not compete with lower cost imported corn from the USA after NAFTA.
Slashing and mulching, crop rotation, sturdier non-gmo varieties. The problem is that a lot of these techniques don't scale to the tens of thousands of acres and small margins of large industrial farms.
It is one of these paradoxes. Yes, the older techniques can IF done right match or even exceed calories per acre. But that is in ideal conditions. You could scale this up provided you want 25%-50% of the population working farming, that is not going to happen voluntarily.
In most normal conditions, large scale agro needs large scale solutions and unfortunately Glyphosate is but one of these tools to get that scale up.
Pol Pot understood this, evidently, and tried to convert Cambodia's population to being largely agricultural. This led to the near extinction of humans in Cambodia, which it would seem many commenters here would applaud.
Don't forget burning. Lighting residues on fire after harvest, or running across fields with propane flamers was thing. Propane flaming is still rarely done in our few remaining mint fields. It helps control both diseases, weeds, and spider mites (though that latter we finally have somewhat economic options for predatory beneficial applications)
> At least not as long as we continue to allow the agriculture industry to blanket a not-insignificant portion of the earth with glyphosate.
How is it possible that something so obvious and so catastrophic has been allowed to go on for decades? Why have so many well-meaning smart people been co-opted by Green Revolution stories?
Because the ugly truth is that you can't actually feed the world population any other way. Once your money is in the Ponzi scheme, the only way to get anything back is to ride it out and hope you're at the bottom of the pyramid.
Sure you can. Glyphosate is used because food prices got stuck in a race to the bottom due to commoditization. Farmers deal with shrinking margins and rely on govt subsidies and poison in competition with each other to raise commoditized corn and other crops. The ultimate result is we have cheaper, less nutritious food and a devastated natural ecosystem.
You can certainly farm in other ways, but it's a question of yield. High yield requires removing any competition to the plants you're cultivating - including milkweed. The fact that it's done with glyphosate is an implementation detail. If you want to produce the same amount of food with lower yield techniques you need more land - so more deforestation and destruction of natural habitats, which is hardly an improvement.
There are more expensive ways, but the world's population – even the moderately rich segment of that population – cry that they can barely afford the food as-is. Feeding the world's population requires more than the capability to produce food.
It's almost like there is more involved in a successful migration to a less synthetic approach to agriculture than simply stopping using fertilizers and pesticides.
Not at all. I am implying that if you know how to farm in a different manner than the current widely used methods and deliver enough food at an acceptable price to the population, then you should do it.
But I suspect that people around the world who have decades of farming experience are paying for glyphosate for a reason.
Just so you know that kind of reasoning is flawed.
Farmers are perfectly capable of using less glyphosphate, but the problem is that their buyers pay them so little that it isn't cost effective to do anything other than spray glypho everywhere.
With the health risks associated with glyphosphate, I assume a lot of farmers actually would love to stop using that shit.
My comments were not intended to insinuate that farmers were not physically capable of producing food without glyphosate.
Clearly, a farmer is not going to work for a loss, so the context of what is possible (from the farmer’s perspective) is assumed to be within the existing business and political environment.
Which is obviously that not using glyphosate makes your product priced too high.
One of the biggest contributors to pollinator decline is loss of habitat for native bees. Most bees are actually solitary (don’t live in hives) and live in little crannies or holes in the ground.
One of the coolest things I’ve come across recently is the idea of “bee homes” that you can put in your garden to provide habitat for bees. I’ve bought a couple beautiful wooden units from Scopa and we just got our first bee resident this week!
If you've got a lot of carpenter bees in your area, those bee homes are actually a good idea, otherwise they'll burrow into the wood of the house: https://imgur.com/a/cxQFNWG
Hey there, I actually make these homes! Unfortunately, carpenter bees don't have any interest in the model we have now as they like to make their own holes in softwoods. I'll be working with a professor that specializes in larger carpenter bees (Xylocopa) over the winter to build some habitats that are suitable for them, though, and plan to test them at her research site in the spring.
We design our blocks so that they are easy to clean. They are pre-split, but held together with UV resistant bands so that they are tightly sealed.
The need to clean them mostly comes from the agricultural sector though, and isn't required for small habitats with only a handful of nesting sites. My partner is a wild bee researcher, and they've been using these in the field for about 60 years. As long as the density is low, the requirement for cleaning them is optional.
The approach to the problem at this point seems to be relying on every day people to plant things in their backyard, which seems ultimately too minor to be impactful.
I don't see a good future unless:
1) the Federal and various State governments buy up substantial lands all through this migratory corridor to preserve along this corridor as butterfly habitat.
I love golf and hate that it's often a deeply problematic game, when, if we line the out-of-play areas with native flora, they have high enough area, and low enough humans per sq mile, that they can be effective wildlife habitats... if only the players would be satisfied with non-pristine conditions, by not using herbicides and pesticides. This is happening here and there with municipal courses in CA, but the culture of golf is still focused on surreal conditions and monostand grasses.
It's an imperfect solution, but as spawl and farmland eat up more and more native areas, I honestly don't have much of an idea what else to do.
I see two mutually reinforcing avenues that should be pursued.
The first is creation of natural preserve areas. The second is control of invasives by introduction of biocontrol species from their native ranges (yes, there is concern of attack on other species, but there's often no other way than biocontrol to stop an invasive, and it takes time for local controls to evolve.)
Invasive species are having a huge effect on natural ecosystems, to an extent I don't think some people understand.
Beyond that, maximizing yield on farmland is important so more area is available to be set aside for nature.
As a species we are a pitlies, merciless, relentless machine. We poison the sea. We poison the land. We poison ourselves. We are geo-engineering our planet to a point way beyond our environmental tolerances.
Because we need our phones. We need our cars. We need population to grow because otherwise nobody's making money, and we need arable land to feed that population.
It isn’t even that complicated. Humans just like destroying things.
I sit here, listening to a bulldozer demolishing woodland just outside the perimeter of our land in order to turn it into bare earth. Not to plant. Not to use. Just to clear, because that’s tidier, and there are wild animals in the forest.
Such is man. Our road will wash away this winter because of what they’re doing today, and while they destroy, we plant.
Like fighting the tide with a teaspoon.
People tell me there are no bees here any more - the apiculturists who put their hives in their olive groves that they spray several times a year to deter hornets (not asiatic hornets, just boring, gentle, European hornets) are puzzled by their decline. Meanwhile, I throw hives into random spots in the forest, and they are all full of bees who chose them as home.
Butterflies and moths abound - we have Europe’s largest moth, and the world’s smallest butterfly, and meadow fritillaries coat the riverbanks like a gently breathing carpet, scattering in clouds as you approach.
All we do is we let nature be, work with existing systems, cut some dead brash here to make a path, scatter some seeds and saplings there to grow the patch of scrubby trees.
Even the custodians of nature have completely lost their connection, as when one owns a tractor, one must use it.
You are wrong. Rich will be rich and can easily pay x5 price for free range grass-fed eco friendly zero emission kosher halal no-gmo food.
Who suffer are actually poor people. There is even a recent example: chemical fertilizers ban in Sri Lanka. It destroyed local farming and many poor people struggle a lot as the consequences.
I think I should have added the /s.
I agree with you and that was the point as it mainly affects poor people the owners/rich people don't mind, in fact it's better for them as desperate people are easier to be abused as we can see all around the world. They tell us not take long showers while they keep the water for golf courses. Not to mention airplane traveling, etc ... In the end it will affect them but in the meantime all the rest are going to pay the bill.
In the context of pollinators, our pointless want of animal products is a far bigger factor. Something like 75% of farmland is used for animal AG, which only provides x<<75% of calories and protein we consume.
Honey comes from a farm animal, the honey bee, that is out competing other native animals, and has all the fun problems of a monoculture.
I'm sitting in a comfy airchair, drinking tea, and enjoying life while it is still possible. And in spite of all common sense, spending a lot of time and money planting trees and bushes, as I have done since 2010.
I don't think that's clear at all. There's damage being done, and ameliorating or avoiding that is sensible, but "destroying" is quite an exaggeration.
The question is when you consider planet Earth "destroyed". Most likely it will remain blue and keep its atmosphere. Life will continue. It could be "destroyed" in the sense that humans sustainably sabotage their own long-term survival, or the survival of other species.
Short of a nuclear war, I don't think humanity will get close to extinction. But I think we are on a path to lose access to today's cultural knowledge (like microchips, vaccines, aviation). If the population is forced to shrink over the next couple of centuries, wars over fertile ground seem more likely than specialized global supply chains.
I mean you're kind of being a bit silly. I don't think OP is saying we will spontaneously catch on fire and die. I think they are suggesting that vegetation which can only support a certain amount of heat and no water will parish. Also funny enough we can only support a certain amount of heat and no water.
It is pretty apparent that we are going to have water problems in the coming decades. You don't need to be a scientist to put those two together.
I am not saying we can't fix it, I do not hold the same outlook as OP. But we will have problems. Even if you don't believe global warming, there is obvious signs of issues popping up with water, and heat. Mexico, parts of USA, Canada, etc limiting water usage and saying they'll run out if it doesn't rain. That will be a problem.
The sea is fine, the land is fine. The planet is fine as well.
Think of many extinction events this planet had previously. Up to 90% of life died.
However, humanity needs to pay more respect to the habitats of the native species. But for a few dollars people easily looks the other way, unfortunately.
We'd also be 'fine' as in 'surviving' without music and other arts and any other creative/emotionally uplifting/mentally challenging thing. Which happens to be something actively sought-after by humanity.
When my mom was in her last week, she told my sister she'd come back as butterflies. (Of course, I don't believe in that.)
At the time, there was a single sprig of milkweed near my mailbox. Since then, the milkweed has exploded.
I can't bring myself to trim it back, because every time I look at the milkweed I think of my mother's statement. Of course, it's magical thinking on my part.
My mother said similar things before her death, and I accepted them with love while privately dismissing them. But since then I've softened a little. I still don't believe in those ideas in a literal, empirical sense, but they have emotional value for me anyway.
I guess I'm trying to say that, at least for me, it's been more pleasant to entertain these ideas as comforting fantasy, and I don't think that small personal allowance has eroded my more practical abilities elsewhere. Not struggling so much against this kind of thinking has freed me in a certain way.
As a quite skeptical and secular person, I have been spending a fair bit of time and energy reflecting on what is precious / miraculous in recent years. An idea born in her now passed mind still reaches you across time and me across the internet, and is capable of touching both our hearts. That's not magical thinking, that's _magic_ <3.
I've started keeping my own chemical-free bees. My hope is to build a healthy apiary of local bees that casts swarms, which will help replenish the wild bee population around me.
Honey bees aren't native to North America, "replenishing" isn't really the right idea, and if you do a bad job, especially "chemical free", you could be cultivating and spreading bee diseases. If you want to help native bees, plant lots of flowering plants with blooms that span the seasons.
Please, please, please don't let your bees swarm unless you are 100% certain you have the support of local conservationists and professional beekeepers.
Where I live, feral honeybees are an extremely damaging invasive species, causing huge declines in both native pollinators (by taking their food) and native birds (by taking their nest sites).
Feral honeybees also threaten domestic honeybees by spreading diseases. Up until recently, we were 100% free of verroa mites, but now they are spreading through feral populations and will cause major population losses of domestic bees.
If you are new make sure to contact your local beekeeper club (if available) to learn about bee diseases. From parasites like varroa mites, to fungi, to viruses: They can get really sick and if you accidentally produce an unhealthy hive it can be bad for other hives nearby.
Definitely go ahead, this is a great thing to do! Just positng this as a hint :)
Ideally, colonies that are unable to keep mites etc. under control will simply die. I expect some losses before a strong colony emerges that I can split.
One thing that seems interesting to me is Paul Stamets' work around mushroom nectar.
Now I have no bloody idea whether or not anything he's come up with has been independently validated (and I really should) but his claims (at least at the time) were that the nectar derived from a number of different mushrooms reduced viral load in bees by a staggering amount across a number of significant viruses.
Including the deformed wing virus - which is exactly what it sounds like.
The virus not only limits how efficiently and thus how far a bee can fly, it limits how long they can do it for.
They live short and die young.
This majorly constrains the hives in two very significant ways:
A reduced grazing radius: a bee that can only go half as far only has access to one quarter the food supply.
A bee that dies young needs to be replaced early, so the hive gets hungrier.
Increased needs and reduced resources kills the hive.
I see a lot of local pollinators here. Because we're beekeeper as a hobby, I do worry about honey bees out-competing local pollinators, though I have not noticed any fewer local pollinators since we started. In fact, I rarely see our honey bees on our flowers -- they seem to prefer to go out foraging in the direction that we've pointed their hive entrances, which is towards another property. What I might do next Spring is start doing a weekly local pollinator census so that in the next couple of years we might notice if there is a noticeable change in their population.
I have seen one monarch butterfly this year, I remember when I was a kid I would reliably she flocks of them so thick you could spot them from a mile off. The massive drop in biodiversity is terrifying.
I have a summer home on 38 acres of hardwood forest and prairie in southwest Wisconsin. We keep it basically as a nature preserve for birds and butterflies.
Last year was a drought but we had plenty of monarchs. This year's been extremely wet, and there are extremely few monarchs, consistent with the observation of the article. We've had plenty of swallowtails, fritillaries, and red admirals, though.
Yes, by transplanting biomes. Climate changes the world, but plants are slow when it comes to travelling to where the new home is. Sp food sources "vannish". But if you move a biome piece towards the new home that is climatewise its old, you stabilize that transition.
You're missing the point. With global warming out of control, the climate will be unsuitable for butterflies within a few years. You can plant as much milkweed as you want, but there simply won't be any butterflies left in the world to eat it very soon.
The biggest problems are monoculture agriculture (few places for milkweed to grow), and widespread use of insecticides (kill what few butterflies there are).
The answer is yes. Same as "Can we stop using lead on gasoline?". But the real question asked here (and in a lot of other cases) is if can be done --without the pain of allocating resources--
Translated: "Could people please do it for free (so the government don't need to move a finger?".
Not always. People can design (and should design) more natural gardens. Just because is nice, save energy and will improve their lives. But gardeners can't stop chemicals to enter their gardens, specially if they live near a farm. Pesticides will not respect the borders of a garden or a natural park.
Only the government can force people to use chemicals in a more sensible way. A "war for better control of chemicals that kill people" would save animals but most probably alleviate also a lot the obesity epidemic and save a lot of healthcare money. Several birds for one shoot.
The problem is that politicians don't want to pass those laws. They know that they would be viciously attacked and called "socialists", "hippy fairies" or "against the American way". Unfortunately the benefits will not be visible until an lot of time on "politician's years" scale.
I mean we can... We can eat less animal food and cut down the farming areas used to grow food for them, we can ask politicians to ditch zoning, parking minimums, enforce more taxes on fossil vehicles, build better public transport, better bike infra and plant more trees and other vegetation for insect corridors. We can at least stop investing in fossil energy and redirect those $ on solar/wind/hydro/nuclear/geo. We can increase the taxes for car ownership to reduce it. But ultimately the question is will we? I don't think so. Ppl like their current lifestyle, politicians do like money from fossil industries and are invested in those. So...
What do you know about what ppl like? The car-centric infrastructure wasn’t built because a thousand would-be-drivers (consumers) voted for it and it won’t be changed to something else because a thousand reluctant drivers vote against it. People can “ask” all they want but like you reference the politicians’ phone lines are probably busy with the people they actually work for.
And politicians do like their money but it’s not fundamentally so frivolous. You can try to not get millions in funding from some industry or other but good look in the election when the other candidates invests hundreds of thousands in attack ads against you. Which you won’t be able to do even if you wanted to because you have no money. Politicians are greedy and corrupt but that’s because the system selects for that.
Ultimately you can say that the ppl do not want change hard enough to dedicate hours a week to work for the issues that you so easily list in a comment and then dismiss as impossible because ppl apparently do not want it. But that’s not a revealed preference for the status quo. You cannot make that conclusion.
I think the route that doesn't require 300mil people coordinate to solve a problem against their individual interests, which like you say probably isn't going to happen, is purposely growing the plants pollinators need and artificially constructing homes for ground-nesting native bees, treating those things as crops, and paying large landowners to use their land for pollinator habitats.
Our system doesn't know what to do with land that isn't directly economically productive but I bet a lot of farmers would choose a "farm" that requires almost no effort and money to maintain for like 40% of what they would have got growing corn.
in the end it boils down to political will. It could facilitate planting more stuff polinators do like with tax incentives, or could ditch zoning/park mins or invest more in pub transport/bike infra to reduce pollution, but again, will they? Pub transport can longterm be cheaper than facilitating car infra and it's costs (the more cars - the faster you need to repair the road and the more parking you need over time) so it's clearly not even costs are enough motivators for them to act...
I see common milkweed and swamp milkweed all over the place around here (upstate NY). I have swamp milkweed in my garden (deliberately planted, it's attractive; I prefer native plants.)
I have never seen a Monarch caterpillar around here in the five years I've lived here. I don't think host plant availability is the problem here.
In an opposite situation: when I planted Pearly Everlasting the thing was eaten the ground by (non-Monarch) caterpillars. A bit too much of a good thing! It survived, thankfully.
Dismantle the "rts for billionaires" that our society has become. 99% of our effort is wasted fighting each other (in "business" and otherwise). We don't need it.
Maybe we could go totalitarian world government. Or put facebook in charge. I dunno. Somehow take away everybody's freedom to digest everything within reach.
It would certainly reduce the incessant grinding effect that we have upon the world. Choke the volcano of pollution and ecosystem destruction.
That would save many butterflies, and other of our co-earthlings too.
Can we also stop the hordes of big brown slimey snails destroying pretty much everything in my garden. Any pointers greatly appreciated. I mean i love animals, insects, birds and whatnot but these snails are just way out of order.
2. Harder: Go out at night, pick up the snails, walk 1 mile away, deposit snails. Snails will find their way back if they are relatively close to where you are so you have to go to an unfamiliar place
Use of many natural resources jumped by orders of magnitude since the industrial revolution; comparing the current situation with historical records would give you a false sense of confidence.
That's actually part of the problem with climate change.
We have. Demography stats show we're going to hit peak ahead of time, and enter a down trend. Worldwide trends are to less babies not more.
Curves don't feel like they're slowing down and I do agree the peak is north of where we are, but there is a peak coming, and a decline the other side.
Japan, China, Korea are all ahead of trend. Australia too but it's masked by immigration. Developing economies with high birthrates especially rural see huge declines with increases in local economy, opportunity.
The relevant peak would be the population at the consumption level of Americans/other developed countries.
Probably one of those 80/20 relationships, where 20% of the population is consuming 80%, so if you reduce total population, but there is still plenty of population that can pick up the slack of consumption, then peak population won’t be the beginning or the downward trend.
We did, unfortunately the foundation of our society and economy is built on the assumption that the age pyramid is not reverse. Expect hard times ahead.
It's been such an exciting thing to do every year and the kids love helping out too. It's a fun, satisfying, and easy way to help out! Highly recommend :)