neonics - science collapse disorder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaleK

There are NO current alternatives. There may be in the near future. In the meantime, I can't afford to lose 10-20% of a crop,

---

No, you can't. Which is why i say more work has to be done to reach the happy medium. You as a farmer need to be supported better both by social programs, but also by social education for the general masses.
Case in point, the beekeepers called for a moratorium on neonics use and much deeper studies... yet the farmers instantly went on the offensive blasting all beekeepers and declaring their request a "ban". It wasn't... and it isn't... yet that's still the propaganda the farmers love to run with and it played a big part in polarizing the topic.

Simply saying "i only want to use harmful chemicals - I will not support any other initiatives" is no longer going to cut it with the general public. Whether Johnny Q is educated on his personal health... or a complete bandwagon jumper on the latest health crazes - nobody is buying the argument that we have to kill ourselves and other species in order to make farmers happy.

There has to be a balance point other than choosing ONLY the farmers or ONLY the bees. But the court of public opinion is no longer going to side with any group, in any industry that is pimping the use of dangerous chemicals and using threats to get their way.

You say you can't afford to lose 20% of your crop... but you think a beekeeper can afford to lose 80% of his colonies? How is that fair? Why is your life any more important than his? Again, balance must be reached.

Neonics were said to be harmless in all applications, for all involved. They hit the market, had a few years to establish themselves and now we're seeing issues. Once folks reported these issues and sought correlative/causal indicators the fingers were pointed at neonics.

And justifiably so. Tests of the ON & QC lost colonies, 80% of all dead bees from the 3 test years had substantial levels of neonics exposure - far more than Bayer ever announced could be possible with proper use and application of the product.

Then the books got opened on the testing that was performed before they were greenlit for market and all sorts of holes were found and the general public realized
"HOLY S#!+! This stuff was approved without ANYONE having a clue what will happen once it's been in the soil for 10+ years, once a human has ingested it for 30 yrs of their life, once bee colonies have been exposed to it for 4 or 5 seasons", etc etc, so on and so forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaleK

the European bans have already been shown to hurt crop yields without helping bees.

---

Well, that's false. European bees didn't rebound by any significant measure in YEAR ONE of the ban. Well, that's not surprising since we're now seeing that the neonics will stay active in the soil and show up in subsequent crops up to at least 3 years after the treated crop was first planted.

However, by YEAR TWO of the ban, European colony losses had dropped roughly 30%. Admittedly, that's far short of the 70% reduction the pro-ban-campaigners touted, because other pests and predators moved back in, in the wake of insubstantial measures of pest control.

But, the ban merits stand as the colony die-offs are 1) decreasing overall and 2) showing that neonics are no longer prevalent in the fewer bees that are dying.

Again, imo, just more evidence that we need to look for broader measures and more alternatives. I don't think beekeepers have a right to drive farmers out of business, but i also don't think farmers have a right to kill every beekeeper's colonies and incomes either.
And, because i have a strong distrust and disrespect for anyone who claims that the ONLYway to do something is based on unproven tech/chems (or even worst, by threatening to revert back to proven dangerous tech/chems) my hope is that healthier alternatives will be sought/developed and that the calmer heads on both sides can prevail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

I don't think beekeepers have a right to drive farmers out of business

---

I don't know what you are smoking , but you obviously have no grounding in the real world to post this arrogant loopy crap.
LOTS of neonics and LOTS of other crop aids are in the ground , being sprayed and they will be next year and years after as well.
A bunch of bankrupt socialist urban freak jobs ain't gonna change that.

Lol your rambling spazz outs are more entertaining than you know. Please, continue.

Hey Oddmott,

Here is a farmer on 2000 acres from North Dakota who grows cash crops, on top of many other crops and grasses and vegetables and grazes beef, goats, pork and chicken on the residues, and all with zero pesticides, chemical fertilizers, fungicides, zero GMO's and only a little herbicides. He has built up great soil. Now I'm sure it's not easy to do, and this guy is very sharp, but it can be done... Gabe brown;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk

Plus he claims he makes the most money in the county per acre because of low input costs and diverse crops.

Regardless of ones personal feeling on this, these two threads have been good reading. Am more knowledgable today, than yesterday.

For what it's worth as an outsider ( aka just learning about some of the concerns) who has no bone in this. Interesting dilemma, on one hand we know how important bees are and the problems there, on the other we know how important food is.

I almost liken this to another topic. Idealism rarely works. ITD that's wonderful that guy can do it. Think we can feed the US or the world by going that way? We also know that organic meats and produce cost way more for the consumer. See Walmart vs local independants. Likewise farmers are already heavily subsidized M and while your points about social programs are good,

Pray tell where the $$ is to come from in this day and age.


On the whole I would tend to side with M. It wouldn't be the first time something was rushed to market without adequate testing, science, consideration for the future and ramifications. But that pendulum can swing both ways and if we have learned anything the past 40-50 years. Correcting big problems caused by knee-jerk reactions is always just as bad, if not worse.

Environ Toxicol Chem. 2014 Apr; 33(4): 719–731.
Published online 2014 Apr 1. doi: 10.1002/etc.2527

PMCID: PMC4312970

Risks of neonicotinoid insecticides to honeybees


This is a good primer with the most of the current literature on the subject.

EDIT:
This is only Apis mellifera, other bee species behave differently and have difference sensitivities to neonicotinoid pesticides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaleK

There are NO current alternatives. There may be in the near future. In the meantime, I can't afford to lose 10-20% of a crop, particularly when the European bans have already been shown to hurt crop yields without helping bees.

---

I'd correct Dale's statement to "there are NO CURRENT PRACTICAL" alternatives. Hence the return to the previous generation of more toxic pesticides. And its not at all "spiteful" for farmers to use these - it's a livelihood for them, not a hobby - as it is for most bee keepers.

Part of the issue surrounding colony collapse disorder research is that it is difficult to collect quality data from apiarists.

There was a caution in the last couple of papers I have read; the self-reporting data from the beekeepers that agreed to the study contained major omissions. These studies were on the control of the scourge of beekeepers worldwide, the Varroa destructor mite, and the efficacy of treatments for colony infections. There appeared to be no consistent treatment of infected colonies across the board, with varying degrees of post-treatment assessment. Not confidence-inspiring, considering these mites have been dragging down colonies since the late 80's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

I'd correct Dale's statement to "there are NO CURRENT PRACTICAL" alternatives. Hence the return to the previous generation of more toxic pesticides. And its not at all "spiteful" for farmers to use these - it's a livelihood for them, not a hobby - as it is for most bee keepers.

---

It was absolutely spiteful. The statement that they would return to use of previous pesticides was made as a threat. They used it as a threat in an effort to force public, industry and government to allow them to continue use of a product that is being proven dangerous, being applied by growers who are proving to be uncaring (hence the improper use and application). You cannot threaten without spite.

Your claim that most farmers are doing it for a living while most beekeepers are hobbiests is erroneous... i think you'll find that the ratio of commercial beekeepers (depending on it for livelihood):hobbyists (<20 hives) is pretty much the exact same as the ratio of commercial farmers:backyard gardeners.

I get the point you're trying to make, the amount of food (and resources required to grow it) demanded globally dwarfs the global demand for honey, so obviously the industries are on a completely different scale.

Regardless of any of it... i still simply cannot understand the commercial growers' casual indifference A) to any species being snuffed out but particularly B) an entire spectrum of pollination species that directly benefit growers efforts.

The top 4 pollinators in Canada provide 5x better pollination than wind in Ontario, and 3x better than wind on the Prairies. It's not even a close race... yet so many commercial growers truly do not care.

It's not a threat. It's what is going to happen. The moved from one generation of pesticides to another, which is now being banned. How is reverting to what they used before spiteful? What do you expect them to do? All go organic???

As far as ratios of bee keepers and farmers livelihood vs hobbies. There are a lot of livelihood farmers in eastern Ontario. I don't know of any livelihood bee keepers. I was with the impression that almost all of Canada's honey came from one of the western provinces - Alberta, I think.