BBKA Pesticde Decision

[Eric McArthur]

Happy New Year All
I just received the great news that BBKA Executive have finally ceded to the voice of reason and morality and will ceases endorsing pesticides. These substances are decimating the nectar feeding insects and other arthropods, which constitute the basic food chain for many birds and other animals. In the light of this good news it was with great surprise that I read the article pasted under! Regards
Eric McArthur
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Science 8 January 2010:
Vol. 327 no. 5962 pp. 152-153
DOI: 10.1126/science.1185563
Clarity on Honey Bee Collapse?
1. Francis L. W. Ratnieks and E-mail: f.ratnieks@sussex.ac.uk; norman.carreck@sussex.ac.uk
2. Norman L. Carreck
+ Author Affiliations
1. Laboratory of Apiculture and Social Insects, Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QG, UK.
1. E-mail: f.ratnieks@sussex.ac.uk; norman.carreck@sussex.ac.uk
Summary
Over the past few years, the media have frequently reported deaths of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Most reports express opinions but little hard science. A recent historical survey (1) pointed out that extensive colony losses are not unusual and have occurred repeatedly over many centuries and locations. Concern for honey bees in the United States has been magnified by their vital role in agriculture. The California almond industry alone is worth $2 billion annually and relies on over 1 million honey bee hives for cross-pollination. So what is killing honey bee colonies worldwide, and what are the implications for agriculture?

FROM THE ECOLOGIST
http://www.theecologist.org/green_green_living/behind_the_label/723156/behind_the_label_flea_powder.html
Loss of forage biggest long-term threat to bees
Ecologist
8th January, 2010
Intensification of farming and subsequent decline in food sources rather than pesticides or disease seen as biggest threat to honey bees
The decline in wild habitat and forage is the most significant long-term threat to honey bee populations in Europe and the US, according to the UK's only Professor of Apiculture.

Campaign groups including the Soil Association and Buglife claim certain pesticides should be banned because they weaken the insects' immune system and damage honeybee populations.

However, in a newly published summary of the evidence behind bee colony losses, published in the journal Science, Professor Ratniek from the University of Sussex, said pesticides had been seriously considered and stimulated much research but were not the most important cause.

Pesticides not to blame

Speaking this week, he said campaigners were wrong to keep pointing the finger of blame at them.
'Personally, I think there are people that want to put the blame on certain factors that fit their worldview. People want to blame pesticides but I think it is highly unlikely. We're not saying they are good for bees but they are not to blame for the declines,' he said this week.

Professor Ratniek said he thought that it was the diminishing amount of forage available to honey bee populations rather than pesticides that was likely to be their biggest long-term threat.

'If you want a healthy beehive they need an abundant food supply. In the UK there has been a fall in flowers due to the intensification of farmland and similarly so in the US.'

Pollen substitutes

He said the pollen substitutes used by beekeepers to feed their bees and keep them productive were not adequate replacements: 'no beekeepers think substitutes are as good as nectar'.

Professor Ratniek's summary also highlights the 'worrying downward trend' in beehives, which in the US have fallen from 6 million in 1945 to 2.4 million today.

He said the fall was likely to affect agriculture badly, with only the few high-value crops, like the Californian almond crop, likely to be able to afford to use commercial beekeepers to pollinate their crops.

'...what will be the wider economic cost arising from crops that have modest yield increases from honey bee populations? These crops cannot pay large pollination fees but have hitherto benefited from an abundance of honey bees providing free pollination,' he said.

[Jon]

In the light of this good news it was with great surprise that I read the article pasted under!

Ratnieks:

Most reports express opinions but little hard science.

What are you saying ERIC?
Do you want pesticides banned based on newspaper reports and press releases as opposed to Science?
Maybe we should let Graham White, Phil Chandler and yourself take these important decisions.
Have you got a conspiracy theory for us regarding Prof. Ratnieks?

I agree with you that it is good news that the bbka has woken up to the divisive nature of the sponsorship deal.
It was never an appropriate match.

[Eric McArthur]

Professor Ratniek writes:
“People want to blame pesticides but I think it is highly unlikely. We're not saying they are good for bees but they are not to blame for the declines,' he said this week.
Professor Ratniek said he thought that it was the diminishing amount of forage available to honey bee populations rather than pesticides that was likely to be their biggest long-term threat.
.................................................. .................................................. .
The key words here are “think” and thought”. Is this a scientific basis for such positive statements as – “but they (pesticides) are not to blame for the declines”?
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Folk who believe in the Precautionary Principle believe that it should be invoked with regard to pesticides – considering that the mortality rate of soil dwelling beneficial organisms has been proven to be, not ‘thought‘ to be, significantly less in organic farming, where no or minimal quantities of pesticides are applied.
Eric

[Jon]

Eric.
Scientists talk about outcomes in terms of probabilities.
it is only the ignorant, those who have blind faith, or those who are wedded to preconceived ideas who talk in certainties.

There are all sorts of idiosyncratic ideas which have been put forward to explain bee decline. (which is in fact an increase rather than a decline in the neonicotinoid spraying UK.)

Ratnieks thinks pesticides are unlikely to be behind current bee problems.
I would agree with that on the basis of available evidence.
I also think mobile phone masts are unlike to be involved with bee problems based on evidence but there are a few crazies still wedded to that idea.

It really is not the black and white issue you imagine.
There are many variables.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Jon
You have conveniently ignored the Alaux/Pettis findings on imidacloprid/Nosema synergism!
...........................................

Professor Ratniek's summary also highlights the 'worrying downward trend' in beehives, which in the US have fallen from 6 million in 1945 to 2.4 million today.

He said the fall was likely to affect agriculture badly, with only the few high-value crops, like the Californian almond crop, likely to be able to afford to use commercial beekeepers to pollinate their crops.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Jon
Seems I am in good company - you can "Banks" on it!!. Check the Independent out tomorrow! out tomorrw

Eric

.................................................. ..............
Jon Wrote:
What are you saying ERIC? Do you want pesticides banned based on newspaper reports and press releases as opposed to Science?
Maybe we should let Graham White, Phil Chandler and yourself take these important decisions.
Have you got a conspiracy theory for us regarding Prof. Ratnieks?
............................................

IMPACT OF NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES ON BEES AND OTHER INVERTEBRATES
12.01.2011


Banks, Gordon MP Westminster!

That this House is gravely concerned by the contents of a recently leaked memo from the the US Environment Protection Agency whose scientists warn that bees and other non-target invertebrates are at risk from a new neonicotinoid pesticide and that tests in the US approval process are insufficient to detect the environmental damage caused; acknowledges that these findings reflect the conclusions of a 2009 `Buglife' report that identified similar inadequacies in the European approval regime with regard to neonicotinoids; notes reports that bee populations have soared in four European countries that have banned these chemicals; and therefore calls on the Government to act urgently to suspend all existing approvals for products containing neonicotinoids and fipronil pending more exhaustive tests and the development of international methodologies for properly assessing the long-term effects of systemic pesticides on invertebrate populations.


>

>> http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=42282&SESSION=905
>
>

[Jon]

.

IMPACT OF NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES ON BEES AND OTHER INVERTEBRATES
12.01.2011
Banks, Gordon MP Westminster!

I can still remember his save from Pele in the 1970 World cup to this day as he dived full length to tip a bag of Imidacloprid around his left post.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Jon
It would appear, sadly, that the well-being of the honey bee and other vulnerable species is not particularly high on your agenda.

Eric

[Jon]

On the contrary Eric. I fear that if neonicotinoids get banned the situation will revert to pesticides which are far more dangerous. If neonics happen to be banned the sprayers wont stop spraying. They will just use an older product and these older products are more harmful to bees.

If there were serious evidence that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees I would be first in line to call for a ban.
The study you mentioned which highlights interactions with Nosema is certainly one to follow up.
You have decided beforehand what the problem is. Good for you if you know better than the world scientific community.
Sadly I am not equipped with your all-seeing eye so I shall wait for the evidence to come in.
It may finger neonicotinoids at some point in the future but at the moment the evidence points the other way.
I know that is disappointing when you have already decided but that's the way it goes sometimes.
Some people think like scientists, others prefer to be crusaders for a cause.

On the bbka forum I asked Graham White to list the field studies which point the finger at neonics.
he hasn't found any yet.
He prefers his rhetoric about holocausts and armageddon, ignoring the fact that UK colony numbers have tripled in 30 months.
Maybe you could have a look too and you could post your list of field studies here for us to have a look at.

most of the evidence I can see reduced to the statement that pesticides kill pests and insecticide kills insects.
that is obvious but the real question is whether this happens in a real life situation.
Engelsdorp et al did a massive study in 2009 and found absolutely no evidence at all against neonicotinoids.

[gavin]

I've been in touch with Gordon Banks and he says that it wasn't him. He isn't allowed to, as he is a frontbench spokesman these days. The clerks have made a mistake.

G.

PS If it is going to be in the Independent tomorrow let's just see how far this lazy journalism thing (relying on Press Releases from folk with agendas) goes. I've posted this correction on three fora now.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Jon/Gavin

Sorry to bring bad tidings. The motion is back ON! Se under!

ERic

MPACT OF NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES ON BEES AND OTHER INVERTEBRATES 13.01.2011

SPONSORED BY Martin Caton MP
9 signatures

Bottomley, Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy
Durkan, Mark

Hancock, Mike
Jackson, Glenda
McDonnell, John

Meale, Alan
Williams, Stephen

That this House is gravely concerned by the contents of a recently leaked memo from the the US EnvironmentProtection Agency, whose scientists warn that bees and other non-target invertebrates are at risk from a new neonicotinoid pesticide, and that tests in the US approval process are insufficient to detect the environmental damage caused; [ That this House] acknowledges that these findings reflect the conclusions of a 2009 `Buglife' report that identified similar inadequacies in the European approval regime with regard to neonicotinoids; notes reports that bee populations have soared in four European countries that have banned these chemicals; and [ That this House] therefore calls on the Government to act urgently to suspend all existing approvals for products containing neonicotinoids and fipronil pending more exhaustive tests and the development of international methodologies for properly assessing the long-term effects of systemic pesticides on invertebrate populations.

[Neils]

I'm still not convinced that a ban of Neonicotinoids is necessarily a great idea, but other wise I'm all for it.

It's an early day motion so that might be as far as it goes, or it might snowball from there, who knows?

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Nellie
If you believe in the Precautionary Principle and wish to promote this why not add your voice to the many thousands voting in favour of common sense! Write to your MP:

Eric

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Here is a sample letter you can send to your MP:

Dear (MP),

I am writing to ask you to support Early Day Motion 1267 -
IMPACT OF NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES ON BEES AND OTHER INVERTEBRATES.

This is an extremely important measure to protect all our native
insects from these pernicious and persistent toxins, which are
increasingly recognized by the beekeeping and independent scientific
communities as being a major causative factor in the massive decrease
over recent years of the bee population.

Yours sincerely,
etc

[Neils]

It's difficult to support it as is when I don't understand the ramifications of what happens if it went through as written.

What's going to take the place of neonicontinoids? Given the supposed longevity of neonicotinoids in the environment how do they react with whatever will replace them? What do we know about the effects of what replaces them in comparison to the current known effect of neonicotinoids on non target insects?

So yes I'll admit there is also an element of "better the devil you know" going on here too.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Nellie

Depends on who your particular devil might be! I trust the info pasted under will be useful!

Best regards

Eric

...................................

This is an extract from the EU Regulations governing the use of all pesticides


“The Community shall have as its task, […] a high level of protection and improvement of the
quality of the environment, […]”.


A plant protection product, consequent on application consistent with good plant protection
practice and having regard to realistic conditions of use, shall meet the following
requirements:
[…]
(b) it shall have no immediate or delayed harmful effect […] on groundwater;
[…]
(e) it shall have no unacceptable effects on the environment, having particular regard to
the following considerations where the scientific methods accepted by the Authority to assess
such effects are available:
(i) its fate and distribution in the environment, particularly contamination of
surface waters, including estuarine and coastal waters, groundwater, air and soil
taking into account locations distant from its use following long-range environmental
transportation;
(ii) its impact on non-target species, including on the ongoing behaviour of those
species;
(iii) its impact on biodiversity and the ecosystem;

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 defines ‘environment’ in article 3(13):
“waters (including ground, surface, transitional, coastal and marine), sediment, soil, air,
land, wild species of fauna and flora, and any interrelationship between them, and any
relationship with other living organisms.”
and ‘biodiversity’ in article 3(29):
“variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine and other
aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this variability may
include diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems;”

.................................................. ..............

For detailed information on the history of pesticides and their application and effectiveness before and after the advent of neonicotinoids contact;
Henk Tennekes. Toxicology Consultant for Experimental Toxicology Services (ETS) Netherlands BV. He can be contacted at : www.toxicology.nl.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

"In 2009, Italy's first neo-nicotinoid-free maize sowing resulted in no cases of widespread bee mortality in apiaries around the crops. This had not happened since 1999. Francesco Panella, President of the Italian Association of Beekeepers, says:
"On behalf of bee-farmers working in a countryside dominated by maize crops, I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture to confirm the great news, for once: thanks to the suspension of the bee-killing seed coating, the hives in the Po Valley are flourishing again."
However, this is not true in Southern Italy, where bee mortality was high in citrus groves, which were sprayed with neo-nicotinoids that are also used in grape-.
vineyards and on other crops."

[Neils]

Hi Nellie

Depends on who your particular devil might be! I trust the info pasted under will be useful!

Best regards

Eric



Not especially to be perfectly honest, it'll take me several months to be able to arrive at anything approaching an informed opinion. Believe me it's something that I am starting to look into in more depth but aside from the actual time and effort required, there's an awful lot of opinion masquerading as fact to wade through as well.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Nellie
I suppose you are quite correct! One needs to be very careful about believing such dodgy info sources as Panella. He is after all only the President of the Italian National Beekeepers Association

"In 2009, Italy's first neo-nicotinoid-free maize sowing resulted in no cases of widespread bee mortality in apiaries around the crops. This had not happened since 1999. says, Francesco Panella, President of the Italian Association of Beekeepers.

I do hope you do not become too infirm to manage your bees before you achieve enlightenment!

Best regards

Eric

[Neils]

Ah well that's fine then, I know nothing about the Italian beekeeping association or Snr Panella for that matter.

I know lots of people who are similarly experienced Beekeepers who take their to treated OSR in this country who aren't reporting widespread problems as a result, perhaps I should take them at face value and decide that it's just a lot of hot air over nothing?

Maybe I should ask Tim Lovett for his opinion too?

Good to see that any answer you don't like continues with just insulting the person who gave it though, it makes me so much more likely not to just lump you in with the other crazies.

See when it comes to writing to MPs to suggest that things get banned I like to think I'd come at it from a position of some knowledge and understanding about just what it is I'm asking for, why I'm asking for it and what the ramifications are if it were to happen. Unintended consequences and all that.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go rock backwards and forwards in my chair and dribble into my coffee.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Nellie
Let me say firstly that I am extremely sorry if my remarks regarding concern for your well being were considered to be offensive. It must be a culture thing – Glaswegians are an odd bunch, especially Glaswegian beekeepers.
.................................................. .........................................
You wrote;
Good to see that any answer you don't like continues with just insulting the person who gave it though, it makes me so much more likely not to
just lump you in with the other crazies.
.................................................. ............................................
I’ve dealt with your main clause (above). Your subordinate clause is - “Yet Another Puzzle ”– are you implying that the other crazies have no compassion?
It is indeed an honour to be deemed “another crazy”, as a badge for my deep concern about the well being of the honey bee – see there is the phrase “well being” again! The fact that, as we speak, a petition to ban the use of neonicotinoids, until they are deemed environmentally safe (Precautionary Principle) is fast reaching the
1 000 000 votes mark, makes me feel a worthwhile part of a substantial group of other crazies.
I, of course cannot know what motivates your interest in beekeeping, but considering the positive (no losses !) Italian situation mooted by Panella and the massive negative (11 500 honey bee colony losses) in the Lower Rhine region of Germany to clothianidin in 2008, your indifference to the well being of the honey bee seems quite low on a scale of 1 – 10!
Your stated choice of Tim Lovett as a source of information speaks volumes, considering that the BBKA Executive have just conceded that they are out of step with the crazies in the BBKA, who after many years of frustration succeeded in separating the BBKA from direct sponsorship of pesticides on January 15th 2011.

Best Regards

Eric

[chris]

it'll take me several months to be able to arrive at anything approaching an informed opinion.

I've been reading up on it for a couple of years now, and the only thing that I seem to have learned is the phrase of Richard Powers:
"When you think you understand the nature of what you’re looking at, it means that you haven’t looked carefully enough".

[chris]

One needs to be very careful about believing such dodgy info sources as Panella. He is after all only the President of the Italian National Beekeepers Association


Eric, was he elected president? That conjures up all sorts of *delicate* manoevering.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Chris
This will take about 5 minutes to read but the effects will be felt in agriculture for many years.

Eric

Pesticide Usage in the UK 2000 -2009; Source FERA (Farming and Environment Research Agency) website
The attached word documents gives data for area of crops treated in each year, plus weight of insecticide applied. Summary totals are:

IMIDACLOPRID
Area of crops treated with Imidacloprid in the UK 1994-2009 – 6,383,388 hectares – or 15, 327,331 ACRES
Total weight of Imidacloprid applied in years 1994-2009: 396,172 kg – or 396 metric tonnes

CLOTHIANIDIN
Bayer's patent on Imidacloprid expired in 2003 and in order to maintain market share they introduced a far more toxic nicotinoid - Clothianidin.
Area treated: 2006-2009: 871,058 HECTARES – 2,090,540 ACRES
Weight of Clothianidin used: 75,387 kg or 75 METRIC TONNES

THIACLOPRID
Area of crops treated with Thiacloprid 2002-2009: 173,017 HECTARES, 415, 241 ACRES
AMOUNT OF THIACLOPRID APPLIED 2002-2009: 19,966 kg – or 19.97 METRIC TONNES

THIAMETHOXAM
AREA USAGE 2005-2009: 46,364 HECTARES or 111,274 ACRES
AMOUNT USED 2005-2009: 1,891 kg – 0r 1.89 METRIC TONNES

ACETAMIPIRID
AREA TREATED 2007-2009: 12,376 HECTARES , or 29,703 ACRES
WEIGHT APPLIED 2007-2009: 670 kg

TOTAL AREA OF UK CROPS TREATED WITH NEONICOTINOIDS 2000-2009 = 7,486,203 hectares or 17,966,887 acres

WEIGHT OF NEONICOTNOID PESTICIDES USED ON CROPS IN UK: 492,195 KG or 492 metric tonnes

NOTE: Imidacloprid is also the main pesticide used on grass lawns, golf courses, school playing fields, road verges, hospital grounds and in municipal parks. It is applied as a treatment against cranefly larvae (leather-jackets) which are the staple chick-rearing-food of starlings and other birds. The application rates for grasslands are far higher than for human food-crops, but we do not yet know how many acres are treated or what weight is applied. It may well exceed agricultural use.

3. IMIDACLOPRID USE IN TOWNS (see attached document)

Imidacloprid is used extensively on lawns and grasslands in towns. The attached one-page document 'Imidacloprid in Towns' is a set of notes I put together.
Imidacloprid is applied to lawns and golf courses to kill leather jackets - and once applied it remains active for up to two years. However, it is highly soluble in water and it migrates through the soil during rain storms, and is then absorbed by any wild flowers or garden flowers growing nearby. These in turn become toxic to bees - and even if thrown on the compost heap - or if grass cuttings are taken from golf courses - the compost itself is laced with imidacloprid and the poison chain continues.

4. IMIDACLOPRID USE IN THE NURSERY-TRADE, GARDENS AND HOUSE PLANTS (see attached document Intercept 5GR)

Imidacloprid is applied to flower bulbs and seeds throughout the nursery trade - especially in Holland which dominates the plant-market. The plants are thus perfused with the toxin when the seeds sprout. They are then put into tray-compost which is laced with granular Imidacloprid. They are then potted on into larger trays (for bedding plants) or into individual pots for sale in garden centres. When the plants arrive at the point of sale in the UK, they are given a 'foliar top-up' using 'Provado Bug Killer' which saturates the leaves in Imidacloprid again. So the customer who buys geraniums or petunias for her hanging baskets is buying plants which are lethal to any bees or butterflies which visit the flowers in her garden. Similarly, gardeners who buy tulips or daffodils from the bulb-fields of Holland or East Anglia, are buying bulbs which are soaked in Imidacloprid and are lethal to bees and other pollinators. In effect we have created gardens which are lethal to bees and all insects.

[Trog]

It must be a culture thing – Glaswegians are an odd bunch, especially Glaswegian beekeepers.Eric
Are we really, Eric? signed, Glaswegian beekeeper.

[Neils]

Hi Nellie
Let me say firstly that I am extremely sorry if my remarks regarding concern for your well being were considered to be offensive. It must be a culture thing – Glaswegians are an odd bunch, especially Glaswegian beekeepers.

Think it's just you to be honest, thank goodness.

Guess it shouldn't surprise me that as one of the copy and paste zealots that you're incapable of actually discussing the stuff you slap down on forums all over the web because it's far easier just to paste an article or another fact sheet you've copied from somewhere and open the Big Book of Internet Ad Hominem responses in preparation for anyone not prepared to accept whatever you've pasted this time at face value to respond. Well done.

[gavin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOuWWzP7wl0#

Eric, when did you last wonder if you might have got it wrong on neonicotinoids? Where does your certainty come from? Why is it that the studies that looked at real effects in the field didn't find any? Why is it that bees seem to do as well on OSR now that most OSR is grown from imidacloprid seed?

[gavin]

There are a number of classes of compound used to protect crops from insect and other pest damage.

Organochlorides: includes DDT which built up in food chains and caused huge problems for top predators. The elimination of these has allowed a slow recovery of birds of prey populations in the UK for example.

Organophosphates: includes some really unpleasant compounds, usually toxic to wildlife. Generally being replaced by newer, safer compounds.

Carbamates: similar mechanisms to OPs, somewhat better in terms of damage to wildlife.

Pyrethroids: analogues of natural variants. Much safer than those above. Many of us have put strips in our hives impregnated with them to kill mites, as honeybees are resistant to some of them. Many variants though, and some are better for bees than others.

Neonicotinoids: a relatively new class of insecticide, based on nicotine but with much lower mammalian toxicity. Some, like thiacloprid, are reported to be well tolerated by bees. Imidacloprid has been widely studied for toxicity and the great majority of studies report that the levels found in arable crops in Europe are safe. A small number don't and it is these that the anti-pesticide zealots keep quoting. Other neonicotinoids vary, for example clothianidin has killed large numbers of colonies when allowed to drift as a dust from mistakes in the preparation of dressed seed. The safely to man and the lack of clear evidence for environmental damage when applied cautiously means that these pesticides are dominating now. Some applications in the US seem unwise, for example in irrigation water for vegetables ('chemigation') and by drench and injection into trees in high doses. I'm not aware of these practices being approved in Europe.

The stark, clear fact is that there is not one study of the factors affecting bee health in real, field conditions out there (and such studies have been done across the globe) that suggests that pesticides applied properly are damaging colonies. Not one. The stuff appearing in the press at the moment is pure fantasy.

In the last few weeks we've seen a persistent campaign by a few zealots (McArthur, White, Chandler) to target this last class of pesticides in particular for distorted attention in the media and politicial action. This comes at a time of strife in some parts of the world over rising food prices and increasing worry over the looming gaps between global food requirement and the capacity to produce food. I'll put on record now that their grandchildren will look back on their activities with shame.

Gavin

[chris]

The stark, clear fact is that there is not one study of the factors affecting bee health in real, field conditions out there (and such studies have been done across the globe) that suggests that pesticides applied properly are damaging colonies. Not one.


Happy new year Gavin. (in france we have till the end of january for wishing it)

Concerning the field studies that you know of, the longest has been carried out over how many years?

[Trog]

I think the key phrase here is 'properly applied'. Not every farmer (especially in the developing world) follows the instructions. That said, commercial farmers can't afford the losses that hobby gardeners and allotmenteers accept. I choose to garden as organically as possible but have to accept that sometimes I will get no gooseberries if the sawflies are bad (and I don't have time to pick them off) or the carrot fly will decimate the carrots. It doesn't really matter if it's a bad year for potato blight because I can go to the co-op and buy potatoes, etc., grown by farmers who use chemicals. The organic options are far too expensive for me and reflect what everyone's food would cost if the whole world grew food to organic standards. It would be lovely if we could all grow food without pesticides but it's the same thing as thinking it would be nice if there was less pollution but still using our cars to get around. All we can do is try to drive less polluting cars, use them as little as possible, etc. The same goes for food production, as far as I can see.

[Neils]

The stark, clear fact is that there is not one study of the factors affecting bee health in real, field conditions out there (and such studies have been done across the globe) that suggests that pesticides applied properly are damaging colonies. Not one. The stuff appearing in the press at the moment is pure fantasy.


My concern at the moment is that actually what we might be seeing is an ideological "fight" being dressed up as "wont someone think of the bees". It's certainly starting to bear the hallmarks of one.

Now I fully accept Trog's point and, for that matter, the points raised by the study into the efficacy of the BBKA's supposed aims in it's "endorsement" of several brands of pyrethoids.

The difficulty as your average member of Joe Public, is that it is very easy to dress something up as Science as the old dihydrogen Monoxide (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax) at the less serious end or ID and even MMR at the other seem to illustrate.

I do think it is telling that across multiple different forums, no one can give a straight answer to what happens when Neonicotinoids are banned, preferring instead to bring out that big book of strawman arguments and accompanying ad hominem attacks with a side measure of hyperbole for good luck while they paste yet another article verbatim that supports their point of view conveniently overlooking the media's recent track record when it comes to investigating, interpreting and reporting on "scientific" studies.

I'm a beekeeper, so no-one is going to convince me that any pesticide is good for my bees at any level of exposure, but I'm also a realist and quite interested to see what the logical outcome of this is.

Is the "ban neonicotinoids" lobby's ultimate aim that we dance round cow horns at midnight instead of using any pesticides? And if so, how do they propose that we, to quote Bob Geldof, feed the world? Or because the initial losers in that will be brown people in a country far away, doesn't that matter?

From the supposed reports into pesticides that I have managed to read in any detail, the main area of commonality to me appears to be the effects of Nosema Ceranae in combination with other factors yet that seems to be of little concern to those claiming to be primarily interested in Bee welfare.

[Jon]

This comes at a time of strife in some parts of the world over rising food prices and increasing worry over the looming gaps between global food requirement and the capacity to produce food. I'll put on record now that their grandchildren will look back on their activities with shame.

Gavin

Well right on cue here is the front page from today's paper (http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2011/01/20/index.php).

World grain reserves fall.

Maize price rises 64% in 6 months, lowest reserves for 15 years.
Wheat up 94% in 6 months.
Rice up 17%.

People will go hungry in this scenario.

If you argue for the elimination of pesticides I think it is only reasonable to put something else in place to maintain or increase current levels of food production.
A couple of years ago locals hijacked a goods train by blocking the line as it passed through a poor district and they made off with sacks of maize.
And Mexico is a mid level economy. What must be happening in Africa.

I have tried to produce as much of my own food as possible without chemicals on an allotment and working up to two or three acres. It is not easy.

I wonder how many of the cut and paste bandits have tried this.
They don't seem to care much for field studies with regard to evidence against neonics so I presume they don't care much for field studies with regard to pesticide free food production levels either.
There is no argument from me with regard to the superiority of organically produced pesticide free food but how do you maintain production levels?

[Neils]

What must be happening in Africa.


Jasmine Revolution springs to mind if you want an example applicable to the last 24 hours.

[Trog]

There certainly seems to be a current campaign by the cut and paste merchants. I've had 2 emails in the last 24 hours by a Mr White urging me to pass on his attachments and links to everyone I know. Personally, I'd love to live in a world where there were no pests requiring zapping or weeds requiring weeding and where there was sufficient food for everyone, but we're a long, long way from Eden and have to do the best we can with the resources available.

I wonder whether the 'ban the evil chemical giants' brigade are happy to take antibiotics, have themselves and their children immunised (whether the routine UK stuff or the extras required for travelling to certain countries), and allow themselves and their loved ones to be treated for assorted nasties like cancer should the need arise. Are their houses made of untreated, unpainted, sustainable timber with not a bit of plastic to be seen?

Just had a thought. Has anyone done any research on the effect on bees of the pollution from cars and lorries? Perhaps the American bees transported miles and miles on lorries are being exposed to more chemical fumes as they travel along the roads than they can cope with?

[Jon]

One of the early suspects was migratory beekeeping but I don't believe any studies have linked this to CCD.

[chris]

Just had a thought. Has anyone done any research on the effect on bees of the pollution from cars and lorries?

I don't know of any, but the fact that some of the most prolific colonies in France are in the big cities would suggest that food is more important than air conditions.
The only case I know of where traffic proved not too good for the bees, was when a colony that should have been pollinating an orchard crossed a motorway to the oil seed rape the other side. Or I should say tried to cross.:eek:

[Trog]

oooops ;)

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Guys welcome back;
Nellie has been minding the store and doing a splendid job, while you Gavin were in your blacked out room recovering from the trauma of dashing around 3 or was it 5 fora blowing your cover of impartiality in the neonicotinoids issue in your need to jump on the Westminster, Early Days Motion, which was subsequently correctly reinstated. I notice also from the National Press, that Dr Carreck has come out to defend the neonics as well! Despite many protestations about his neutrality credentials - you are in great company!
You guys are all over the place when the pesticides issue hits your particular fan. My issue is with the neuro-toxins. The issue with the “traditional” poisons is the need for, as Trog so succinctly puts it, “proper application” and I would stress, tighter control on their use. The pesticide multis have an extremely well organised and highly professional, high salaried sales team, pushing constantly to expand sales and profits. Over the recent months, I have been astonished that despite this situation, I am constantly being confronted by a team of professed amateurs, (beekeepers to boot!) who are also acting like salesmen for these highly toxic substances.
Last spring in Germany another serious neonic poisoning incident occurred, which did not quite make the news outside Germany! No pasting here! Ask if you dare and I will feed you the information. In India as we speak thousands of honey bee colonies are dying of pesticide poisoning – the beekeepers there are in despair – again ask nicely and I will educate you.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;

Gavin wrote:
Other neonicotinoids vary, for example clothianidin has killed large numbers of colonies when allowed to drift as a dust from mistakes in the preparation of dressed seed.
.................................................. .......................................
Hi All
The bees were killed en –masse (11 500) but it was ONLY a mistake! Does that make the colonies any less dead?
The “mistake” was criminal negligence - research in Italy into pneumatic seed drills in 2003 proved that these planters which were also used in the German masacre were flawed – but the work was suppressed. I have the report – if anyone is interested – not likely!
Try Bulletin of Insectology 56 (1): 69 - 72. 2003 ISSN 1721-8861
.................................................. ....................
Chris wrote!
Concerning the field studies that you know of, the longest has been carried out over how many years?
.................................................. ............
Try this:
COALITION AGAINST BAYER
http://www.cbgnetwork.de/2821.html
Banned in France
In France imidacloprid has been banned as a seed dressing for sunflowers since 1999, after 500,000 colonies of French honeybees died after its widespread introduction. Five years later it was also banned as a treatment for maize in France. Clothianidin was never approved in France.

Best regards
Eric

[gavin]

Post by Martin ('Brosville') on another forum:

Default Plethora of neonicotinoid dangers articles

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...s-2190321.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...ee-demise.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml
http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/articles....cles&ID=215312

I repeat: the legacy of McArthur, Chandler and White will be a shameful one. The great campaigners achieving a great victory which consists of removing relatively (bee and human) safe pesticides from food production systems. Blind stupidity pushing at open doors. Incredible.

[Neils]

Hi Guys welcome back;
Nellie has been minding the store and doing a splendid job


all I did was ask a couple of questions which you replied to in the form of name calling.

I do briefly skim your posts on the off chance you accidentally post something interesting, but I'm pretty much done taking you seriously. I do urge you to continue though simply because I firmly believe that most people are alienated by your evangelical, but substance less approach.

It could be that you're just plain ignorant about the cause you claim to champion which is why you respond to any questions on it the way you do but as forum trolling goes, I've seen much better and more subtle.

[chris]

Chris wrote!
Concerning the field studies that you know of, the longest has been carried out over how many years?
.................................................. ............
Try this:
COALITION AGAINST BAYER
http://www.cbgnetwork.de/2821.html
Banned in France
In France imidacloprid has been banned as a seed dressing for sunflowers since 1999, after 500,000 colonies of French honeybees died after its widespread introduction. Five years later it was also banned as a treatment for maize in France. Clothianidin was never approved in France.
Best regards
Eric

Eric, the *article* you divert me to has nothing , absolutely zero, nil, rien nowt , to do with my question.
What is more it "arranges" the findings of the 2003 CST report to suit a preconceived idea.
I have the report in question, as I have all the reports of the CST concerning the Gaucho and Regent AMM non renewal. As a matter of fact it consists of 106, not 108 pages, but perhaps I'm being pedantic. After all, being unable to count is to be expected in those unable to read.
The report "creates" 5 possible scenarios for the effect of imidaclopride on bees in different stages of their lives.

Scenario 1: Consumption of larval *soup* by the larva. Ratio PEC/PNEC undetermined because of absence of data concerning toxicity.

Scenario 2: Consumption of pollen by the nurse bees. Comment: absence of data concerning the stability of imidaclopride during pollen storage in the hive, and residue doses in bee bread.

Scenario 3: Consumption of pollen by foragers. Comment : Scenario relying on an estimation of the proportion of pollen ingested whilst making the balls of pollen.

Scenario 4 :Consumption of nectar by foragers. Comment : Absence of data concerning the doses of residues in honey stocked in the hive. Scenario relying on a single analyses of residues in the nectar.

Scenario 5 :Consumption of honey by house bees. Comment :Absence of data concerning imidaclopride doses in the honey and the stability of imidaclopride in the honey during its storage in the hive. Scenario relying on a single analyses of residues in the nectar.

Below, I quote from your reccommended article

*The results of the examination on the risks of the seeds-treatment Gaucho (imidacloprid) are alarming. The treatment of seeds by Gaucho is a significant risk to bees in several stages of life.*

Is this statement justified by the report?

[Calum]

Colony Posionings in Germany (Clothianidin
from seed coatings) (http://www.umweltjournal.de/AFA_umweltnatur/14253.php)
Speigel Report (http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,552275,00.html) I could post more from Stern and some Austrian and Swiss publications but it is all in German.

clothianidin coated maise seeds are no allowed to be used in Germany at this time -since 2008 (they may try to improve the coating technology in the future). I suppose they have to offload their stocks somewhere.

The courts are still deciding about Imidacloprid.

I find it dismaying that beekeepers who all want the same thing (a safe environment for their bees) are conversing in such a tone with each other. The issue is odviously dear to peoples hearts as it should be.

My opinion is that these are not chemicals you would feed your children (I beleive it says so on the tin) so they are probably not healthy for the bees. How they get into hives is debateable (pollen or water) but they are being found in them.
Their purpose it to kill insects that consume them.

There is a need for insect control in farming to enable food & feed production to meet worldwide demand without it being nessicary to convert more unfallowed ground into farmland thus depriving nature of more space on this planet.

So we will have to try to live and let live and find common ground. The only other feasible solutions being another world war or pestilance wiping out large numbers of us which I hope noone will promote.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Nellie

Yor intention was to give me the run around! No?
Eric

There is also another pesticide implicated, fipronil, which had been used as a substitute for imidacloprid. Fipronil (manufactured by BASF) is a phenylpyrazol that binds GABA receptors, blocking passage of chloride ions causing hyperexcitation of nerves and muscles
See : www.labtimes.org.
.................................................. .................................................. .

Would you like to participate in a discussion about Fipronil? Without paste ups?

Best Regards

Eric

[Eric McArthur]

A few revealing extracts for: www.labtimes.org. Gavin, Your heroes are fast running out of credibility.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Ratnieks and Carreck “may give the
false impression that insecticides can be sprayed” without due attention.
Furthermore, their conclusion about imidacloprid and
French bee mortality “appears to be a biased opinion and a conflict
of interest”.

Gavin

I spotted this conflict of interests weeks ago and posted it in the SBA Forum.
Eric
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Lethal and sub-lethal effects
There had been previous conflict with Carreck who, as senior
editor of the Journal of Apicultural Research, took six months
to reject their critical manuscript, written in response to a 2009
paper by Belgian researchers, “Does imidacloprid seed-treated
maize have an impact on honey bee mortality?” (J. Econ. Entomol.
102: 616-23)....

The latter study had concluded that imidacloprid
has no negative impact on honey bees, at least in Belgium
(where mites are uniquely to blame). Again, Maini et al. pointed
out that Nguyen had selectively cited work by Bayer researchers,
while simultaneously ignoring numerous scientific publications
reporting lethal and sub-lethal effects of pesticides.

Gavin
There are many beekeepers who now feel Norman is past his “sell by” date.
Eric

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Chris
How many bees do you want to kill to prove yourself wrong? This article below was written in 2003 and says it all. It was originally in German - hence the paste up. Otherwise you would not have been able to read it! Education, education, education! Imidacloprid kills and severely disorientates bees. The recent findings in France confirming the American result is the end of the road for the neonics.
You conveniently ignore the aerosol factor with the neonic seed coating. No matter how the planting is done the coating will be subject to abrasion – bad start! Leave the hard sell to the salemen and start fighting the bees’ corner.

Regards

Eric
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;
Is Imidacloprid Harmful to Bees?

by Eric Zeissstoff
Dec 2003 issue of Schweizerische Bienen Zeitung pp 21- 22 (Swiss Bee News)

Imidacloprid, the substance used in seed preparation is causing great concern among
beekeepers. How badly are the bees damaged due to the effects of this systemic substance,
which is able to contaminate the pollen and nectar of agricultural food plants?
The Journal of Pesticide Reform 21/2001 introduced Imidacloprid as a new pesticide with a
systemic mechanism. Its chemistry is related to nicotine and similar to nicotine acts as a
nerve poison. Worldwide Imidacloprid is utilised in massive quantities primarily as a seed
preparation substance in agriculture, but it is also used in the household.
In laboratory trials Imidacloprid produces apathy, uncoordinated movement, distress and
weight loss etc. Fertility rates fall and miscarriages increase. Imidacloprid increases genetic
damage in the reproduction of DNA. It is highly toxic to certain bird species like ducks and
canaries. Eggshell formation is also affected.
Earthworms are killed at a soil concentration of 60ppb and begin to indicate injury at levels as
low as 1 ppb.
Imidacloprid is a persistent substance; it remains as a residue in soil for many years, as trials
in Minnesota have already demonstrated.
The American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pronounced Imidacloprid a
potential danger to water supplies. In Colorado, after only two years of Imidacloprid use
Colorado beetle resistance to the substance was observed. Soil Residues after preparation
with Imidacloprid the seeds are planted.
The amount of Imidacloprid at the planting stage is extremely low. However, because of its
long persistence, traces of the substance in the soil are able to be detected even a year later.
Bayer, the manufacturer has carried out testing.
R. Schmuck in his report describes the following analysis results. Residues of 10 ppb at a soil
depth of up to 10 cm correspond to a chemical burden of 45g Imidacloprid per hectare.
The following statement was found in a Bayer document:
"The evidence indicates that over a period of 6 years a relatively low level of Imidacloprid will
be achieved [in the soil], namely 0.030 mg/kg".
This corresponds to a level of 60g/ hectare.
The quantity of Imidacloprid recommended for seed-dressing crops is as follows:
Potatoes - 135g
Oil seed rape - 10g
Sugarbeet - 19.5g
(Akteur) - 118.3 g
(Gaucho) - 117g
(Imprimo) - 117g
Barley - 63g
Corn - 118.8g
Onions - 179.9g
Sunflower - 45g (approx.)
The persistent Imidacloprid soil residues of 45-60g/hectare have the ironic consequence for
agriculture, that it is no longer necessary to apply new dressings of the pesticide to oilseed
rape, since there is enough already in the soil from previous years to kill all earthworms and
invertebrates.
The effects on soil organisms, earthworms etc are dealt with in another study. However
questions must be asked relative to beekeeping regarding the uptake of Imidacloprid in the
target plant and its transport into the pollen and nectar.
Residues in Plants, Nectar and Pollen
Schmuck reports no residues above 0.010mg/kg (10ppb) in sun-flowers nectar and sunflower
honey and the bees themselves (the quantifying boundary was defined at 10 ppb). In a further
report residues in pollen were stated to be 0.0039 mg/kg (3.9ppb) and in nectar 0.0019 mg/kg
(1.9ppb).
Klaus Wallner confirmed in his study of Imidacloprid prepared Phacelia with a burden of 50
g/hectare, that the honey sac average contamination was 5ppb and the pollen taken from the
'pollen baskets' of the bees contained 7ppb. The centrifuged honey contamination level could
not (yet) be ascertained. The level was less than the 3ppb traceability level for honey.
Clarification in France:
In a report issued by the French Agriculture Ministry it was stated: According to the sunflower
variety the residues in the flower on the 65th day (at start of blossom period) varied between
2.5ppb (Pharon) and 8.7ppb (Natil). These values could possibly be higher at point of harvest.
The sunflower pollen is contaminated at an average level of 3ppb (up to 11 ppb max.). In
untreated plantings (sunflower, rape and corn), which were planted in Imidaclopridcontaminated-
soil, up to 7.4ppb was detected in the flowers.
Effect on the Bees
The Bayer study produced a mortality rate due to Imidacloprid for bees as follows: The LD 50
(the lethal dose which kills 50% of test organisms within 48 hours) lay between 3.7 and 40.9
Nanogrammes Imidacloprid per bee. Long term injury was investigated by Bonmatin.
He achieved an LD 50 after 8 days by feeding individual bees an Imidacloprid/ sugar solution
of 0.1 ppb. The substance showed itself to be highly toxic when delivered over time.
Tests conducted in Austria (CGB) also showed up risk for bees. In co-operation with the
German Bee Research Institute in Celle, the Vienna Institute, the Federal Biological Institute
(BBA) and also the manufacturer, Bayer field trials were carried out. At the start of the rape
bloom period 10 colonies of bees were situated in rape which had been Imidacloprid treated.
As a control 10 other colonies were placed in untreated rape.
According to the methodology of the trial, the following observations among others were
recorded: at 2.0 O'clock with the rape in full bloom, at 20 C ambient and brilliant sunshine
approximately 1.5kg of bees (about 5,000bees) were clustered on the landing board of a
colony. After these bees had been brushed onto the ground in front of the hive it took over 2
hours for the bees to climb back into the hive. (bees would normally climb back in a matter of
a minute or less).
It was further noted that no pollen was collected in the field where the rape had been treated
with Imidacloprid, however in the test colonies in the untreated fields pollen was collected in
large quantities. The evaluation of the test has indicated that bees affected by Imidacloprid
suffer problems with orientation. Bees with a particular level of Imidacloprid contamination at
500 metres from the colony did not return to the hive at all.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Calum
Post your references - there are German speakers on the forum - some are native speakers - others are among the educated elite.

I have read all the recent work being done in Germany and Switzerland from the 4 magazine I receive each month from the publisher - which do you read. Die Biene, Deutsches Bienen Journal, Allgemeine Deutsche Imkerzeitung or Bienenmütterchen?
Regards
Eric

[gavin]

Why didn't I consign this thread to the 'ranter's corner' down below when it first appeared? Keep going Eric, you are making yourself look sillier and sillier as time goes on. You are almost as good at it as Graham now.

[Neils]

Hi Nellie

Yor intention was to give me the run around! No?
Eric

Not originally, but I keep making the same basic mistake when it comes to people like yourselves that you're actually interested in the reams of stuff that you continually copy and paste into various forums or are even remotely interested in discussing it without resorting to calling anyone who doesn't accept your "facts" at face value names.

You do your cause far more harm than good because I've now basically written you off as a crank. You could tell me the sky was blue and I'd question your motives. Shouting at me the same stuff as last time but a little bit louder doesn't work on me either.

I'm quite happy to try one last time to get one of my original questions answered or at least discussed sensibly.

Lets say the approval of all neonicotinoids is revoked pending further studies. What takes their place? How do their replacements compare to what is currently known about neonics when it comes to the affects on Honey Bees? What are the wider implications of those pesticides evironmentally?

As one of the criticisms often cited about neonicontinoids is their persistence in the environment, are there any implications of having two, presumably very different, pesticides effectivey mixing with each other?

[Calum]

I read Die Biene.

I just reread the full thread, Gavin I recommend you just delete it.
Both sides have good and valid point but this discussion is now just people provoking each other and is not in the spirit of this forum.
Noone is covering themselves in glory and noone is looking good here.
Noone is going to change anything on this issue in this thread so it is pretty pointless.

There is quite case for independent UK scientific institutes studying the impact of these pesticides. In many countries (USA and European) studies are ongoing, as are lawsuits. They will have worked it out before the UK has its boots on.

This site should bring beekeepers together and be a positive force for beekeeping IMHO.

[lindsay s]

Another two links to keep Eric happy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/exclusive-bees-facing-a-poisoned-spring-2189267.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/call-to-ban-pesticides-linked-to-bee-deaths-2190321.html

[Jon]

Hi Lindsay
Graham White, et al are the sources of these stories. They hardly need the link to their own press releases.

They are to be found at cut and paste central otherwise known as moraybeedinosaurs.co.uk

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Nellie
There is nothing cut and pasted here!
Eric

Combinations of pesticides only lead to more combinations of pesticides.
Many of the world’s most dangerous chemicals used as pesticides were banned by the Stockholm Conference some years ago. Codex Alimentarius, which is ostensibly understood to be for consumer protection, which it actually is not, has ruled that nine of the most dangerous to human life chemicals, be reinstated because the organisations behind Codex are the multis which need access to these substances to create ever more toxic poisons, which incidentally makes them a lot of money.
The Monsanto’s pesticide Roundup (glypohosate) was designed to kill weeds threatening the development of Monsanto’s GM crops, without affecting the crop. The target weeds quickly became tolerant of Roundup and Monsanto decided to supplement their wonder pesticide with atrazine (banned in Europe) to make it more effective. The same weed scenario repeated and at this present time Monsanto is actually encouraging farmers to use a competitor’s weed killer compound.
SmartStax corn is a relatively new “kid on the block” – it kills virtually everything that lives in the soil!
Smarstax corn uses Acceleron seed treatment products. These contain a combination of fungicides including ipconazole, metalaxyl and trifloxystrobin for protection against primary seed-borne and soil-borne diseases, along with clothianidin, an insecticide, to reduce damage caused by secondary pests.
The pesticide scenario is not really working and agricultural use of these substances is the proverbial “road to hell”. Nature (not God!) always finds a way for her ‘creations’ to survive and all the most powerful poisons on the planet will not change that in the long term, except to destroy life on the planet as we know it. We have to learn to live with Nature not against it. Pesticides properly applied and properly regulated in conjuction with a return to crop rotation in agriculture will go a long way to reducing the weed and predator burden on our food sources. Do your own homework on glypohosate and atrazine and the fungicides – you already know what clothianidin does!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

[Neils]

You should consider a career in politics Eric.

You've got the magic of internet powers to ban neonicotinoids tomorrow. What happens now? Seriously. You want me to write to my MP and ask, nay demand, that Neonicotiniod based pesticides are taken off the market [until they're proved "safe"]. What's the outcome of achieving that aim?

[GRIZZLY]

+Eric you old scoundrel,shame on you again,stirring up the goodfolks-I'm just off to my workshop to make you an authentic hobbyhorse.You can collect it when you come down here to buy me the pint you promised-then gallop off back to Glasgow on it.

[gavin]

Another two links to keep Eric happy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/exclusive-bees-facing-a-poisoned-spring-2189267.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/call-to-ban-pesticides-linked-to-bee-deaths-2190321.html

Chandler* is chipping in to the Neonicotinoid hate-fest he's helped generate thusly:

<< This is a real opportunity to help make a substantial and important change and to collectively stick a finger in the eyes of the corporate criminals who are intent on profiting from the destruction of wildlike, while balming it on 'global warming'. >>

Is he really a climate change denier too??

Apparently not, according to a comment in his blog.

Eric, how come you've jumped into bed with these 'natural beekeeping' no-chemical-treatment folk when you yourself are famed for endless interference with the bees including risky Heath Robinson devices for fumigating them with oxalic? Is this really all about attacking big corporations and nothing else? Your own beekeeping seems to be almost the diametric opposite of Chandler's largely leave-alone stance.

* What I mean is that he's joined the moaners adding comments to the Independent's article online.

[gavin]

bb

I just reread the full thread, Gavin I recommend you just delete it.

.....

This site should bring beekeepers together and be a positive force for beekeeping IMHO.

Hi Calum

I know what you mean, but there are two reasons not to.

One is that it would be seen by some (and Eric in particular) as censorship. I'm trying to keep this forum free from that accusation. So far we haven't pulled any threads or posts and the only 'users' banned were hackers with no interest in beekeeping. Eric has been getting close to being placed under moderation sometimes but so far has avoided it.

The other is that healthy debate is good, especially when those making accusations can be directly and quickly challenged in public. In Eric's case he has had an easy ride from far too many bee magazine editors (including, for many years, himself) who don't seem to question the distorted and poorly argued pieces he sends them. Now, the internet offers a chance for his views to be challenged and debated much more effectively. As we saw over inbreeding, after a lot of debate involving many people Eric finally saw reason (I think!), and we couldn't have done that in a magazine. In the process many more had the chance to see that his grasp on such technical matters is weak. It is pretty clear that his understanding of the real impact of farm pesticides is also weak, yet he has been regaling Scottish beekeepers with his characteristic certainty about this for many years.

So in future I'll try to catch these threads involving ranting about agrochemicals, GM and corporate power earlier and shift them to the ranter's corner down below where people can go or not, according to their wishes, leaving a more peaceable and productive discussion in this area. I've been distracted lately by heavy work pressure.

So I think that by allowing such debate, even though tempers may get frayed, it is still a positive force for beekeeping.

G.

[Eric McArthur]

Calum wrote:
There is quite case for independent UK scientific institutes studying the impact of these pesticides. In many countries (USA and European) studies are ongoing, as are lawsuits. They will have worked it out before the UK has its boots on.
This site should bring beekeepers together and be a positive force for beekeeping IMHO.
.................................................. .....................
Hi Calum
Good objective observation!
Eric

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Grizzly

I look forward to that! Work a Saltire into the paint job! You got any snowdrops /crocus blooming down there?

Eric

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Gavin

Each to his own! Beekeepers are an inventive bunch. Ask Ian Craig and many other progressives about the effectiveness of oxalic acid fumigation.

Eric

[gavin]

Hi Jon
You have conveniently ignored the Alaux/Pettis findings on imidacloprid/Nosema synergism!


On the supposed Nosema/pesticide link, here is Pettis who is being cited as a scientist sitting on crucial work pointing the finger at pesticides (including by that campaigning hack at the Independent). This was nearly two years ago but apparently after he produced his neonicotinoid-Nosema data. Do bear in mind too that the Americans seem to throw neonicotinoids around with gayer abandon than we do.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs4vxA2StAU

The Alaux work, as I keep saying, has the same small to medium effect across a 100-fold range of imidacloprid concentration. You can take that as either meaning that imidacloprid has almost magical abilities to damage bee colonies at homeopathic concentrations, or you can take it as a sign that the study was flawed. My colonies guzzle oilseed rape in spring and they have no detectable Nosema. I know, I've looked.

G.

[Eric McArthur]

Gavin Wrote:
My colonies guzzle oilseed rape in spring and they have no detectable Nosema. I know, I've looked.

.............................................
Eric wrote:
Seems if imidacloprid and Nosema act synegistically - that is when the trouble starts. Well done keeping your colones Nosema free!


Gavin wrote:
As we saw over inbreeding, after a lot of debate involving many people Eric finally saw reason (I think!), and we couldn't have done that in a magazine.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Hi Gavin
I wondered when inbreeding would surface again! Many thanks!
Eric
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;

In my original much (maligned) postulation, I submitted 10 unrelated colonies, the queen in each colony having been mated 16 times. Thus there was the potential of 160 drone fathers in that population.
Cruel fate being what it is and in line with a, not quite, worst case present day scenario. I proposed that 50% of these colonies would not make it through to the spring. Thus exit 5 colonies (80 potential drone fathers!).
To deviate slightly from the original postulation: Consider the affected beekeeper having to deal with a less than optimum Scottish summer and being unable to obtain ten replacement queens: obtaining only 5 successful matings.
He is now in the position where he will be over-wintering only 5 colonies, Cruel fate again intervenes and the following spring he loses, to be kind, two of his 5. He enters the summer with only 3 colonies (Gavin wrote: If you have three colonies fully isolated from all other apiaries then it will be hard to maintain 6 alleles in the long term!).
It would appear that even if the beekeeper in question manages to rear a number of queens, that his gene pool is now fatally weakened.
Returning to the original postulation, after reinstating colony numbers to 10 each year, still constitutes a reduction genetic diversity. Since each of the replacement queens from each colony will be sisters Gavin wrote: (...the workers and queens, each queen makes can be more diverse as they are fertilised with stored sperm, but over time this strong filtering when queens make drones will reduce the diversity in such small isolated populations).
When reducing drone numbers are considered rather than reducing alleles the postulation as presented is much simplified. However I am greatly indebted to my peers for the exhaustive discourse on csd and the limiting factor of allele numbers, be it 16 or 20.

Gavin - regarding the rubbish I have been contributing to the bee press over the last 40 years, I would be pleased to enter a discussion and constructive critiscism the merits and demerits of the material.

Best Regards

Eric

[Jon]

Gavin - regarding the rubbish I have been contributing to the bee press over the last 40 years, I would be pleased to enter a discussion and constructive critiscism the merits and demerits of the material.
Best Regards
Eric

Well the debunking of your conception of the genetics of inbreeding was at least a start.

It looks like your erroneous logic re. neonicotinoid pesticides would be a good place to continue.
You are arguing for a ban on neonicotinoids based on their perceived danger to bees.
Fair enough.
What that amounts to is a vote for the return of the pesticides which were used in the 70s and 80s, the ones Gavin mentioned in a previous post, organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids.

I would be curious to know why you prefer these pesticides to neonicotinoid pesticides.
By all accounts these products represent quite a danger to bees and other pollinating insects.

You have to vote Eric, as banning neonicotinoids will not stop farmers and growers from spraying/protecting their crops against pests and disease.
Banning one is a vote for the other. We live in the real world.
I am curious as to why you prefer these older products.

[GRIZZLY]

Hi Grizzly

I look forward to that! Work a Saltire into the paint job! You got any snowdrops /crocus blooming down there?

Eric
One saltire encrusted hobbyhorse coming up.No crocus or snowdrops at home tho' I believe they are starting to show locally.

[Eric McArthur]

One saltire encrusted hobbyhorse coming up.No crocus or snowdrops at home tho' I believe they are starting to show locally.

Hi Grizzly

I'll bring my riding boots!

Eric

[Eric McArthur]

Jon wrote:
Well the debunking of your conception of the genetics of inbreeding was at least a start.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;
You never let me down – fighting Gavin’s corner and twisting. I have already thanked you for your homily on alleles.
The prose I posted yesterday restates the fragility of a limited gene pool. As I have reiterated previously; a similar scenario actually occurred on Islay in the early 70s. Where the only beekeeper on the island reached the limits of his lone beekeeping enterprise.
Collectively you guys should hang your heads in shame by spreading the lie that inbreeding in the honey bee is something to be ignored in this current scenario of high year on year colony losses. Beginner beekeepers need to be informed of pit falls in the craft, not misinformation based on party political dogma, aimed at scoring Brownie Points! Unless I miss my guess Trog mentioned that he had some problems of either colony survival or colony viability in a not quite recent post – drones were also mention. A few of your colleagues have actually written to thank me for raising the profile of inbreeding – they felt too intimidated by the petty mass attacks on myself to venture into the public domain. I have noted that in matters which do not conform to the accepted wisdom of the Forum hard core and which generate interesting exchanges, that the kibitzer numbers rise quite steeply – but the silence is deafening. Perhaps they are responding to the stimulus, which draws people to the circus – blood on the sawdust!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;
Jon wrote:
Banning one is a vote for the other. We live in the real world.
I am curious as to why you prefer these older products.
Try this link:
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-21-top-USDA-bee-researcher-also-found-Bayer-pesticide-harmful
The letter in the Independent tomorrow also tells it all!

Regards
Eric

[Neils]

So, let’s get this straight. The chief scientist at the top U.S. government bee-science institute completed research two years ago implicating a widely used, EPA-approved pesticide in what can plausibly be called an ecological catastrophe—the possible extinction of honeybees, which pollinate a huge portion of U.S. crops. Why are we just now hearing about this—and why are we only hearing about it through an obscure documentary filtered through a British newspaper?

I’ll be digging into these questions next week.
Little bit of hyperbole there, but it is an interesting question and I hope he does dig into it, because I'll be interested to see what conclusions he draws. Again though, when you look at the details of the article, it's a study of two colonies. Two. Not Two hundred, or two thousand or even two different colonies every time over hundreds of iterations of the test always showing the same results.

What the article outlines is a basis for further study, not a call for legislation.

Maybe the letter in the Independent tomorrow will be far more illuminating than what you've linked so far which continually asks more questions than it answers.

[gavin]

Eric

Your continuing inability to think straight amazes me. Four exposures of your misunderstanding in one post:

1)



Collectively you guys should hang your heads in shame by spreading the lie that inbreeding in the honey bee is something to be ignored in this current scenario of high year on year colony losses. Beginner beekeepers need to be informed of pit falls in the craft, not misinformation based on party political dogma, aimed at scoring Brownie Points!

No-one, not one, nobody, none of us, has been 'spreading lies' about ignoring inbreeding. What happened here was that your lack of understanding was exposed and - perhaps - finally put right. Everyone who joined the discussion seemed to have a more realistic view of inbreeding than you, yet once again you come charging back with outrageous accusation that we are the ones who don't understand. That is really sad. And you spread stuff the other day about Norman being past his sell-by date!

2)

There is no army of people popping into read the threads you have stirred up beyond the numbers looking at other threads. I would hazard a guess that this kind of stuff is a major turn-off. It seems to be so on other fora.

3)

Trog is a woman not a man.

4)

For heaven's sake, was it not obvious to you that Jon *does not like* the older pesticides? Nobody does but he is especially strong on this point. If the utterly bonkers campaign that you and a few others are on is ultimately fully successful, you will be consigning humanity to two things:

i) a future food supply that is more unstable than it has to be
ii) at least in some parts of the world (and perhaps most shockingly where personal protection is used much less well than here) you will be forcing poor people to indulge in dangerous acts to secure their food supply. Neonicotoids are much less harmful to humans than some of the pesticides they replace, and probably a lot less harmful to the environment too - especially when used in moderation.

These last two points are why this campaign is seriously misguided and is, in my view, shameful.

Now go and have a lie down and think it all over, again. I see that Graham has signed up. Maybe you can take him for a lie-down too while you are at it, and you can both consider what you have done and what you are doing.

[Jon]

Collectively you guys should hang your heads in shame by spreading the lie that inbreeding in the honey bee is something to be ignored in this current scenario of high year on year colony losses.

What colony losses?
UK colony numbers have increased from 40,000 to 120,000 in 30 months. That is a huge increase.
Some individuals, especially the beefarmers, have suffered high losses from foulbrood -and those who think you don't have to treat for varroa have lost a lot of colonies. Most others I know are doing well.

Personally I increased from 4 colonies to 30 in 4 years. That included one swarm I collected. I am now back down to 20 after losing some queens and combining colonies in the autumn. I have sold or given away 10 nucs as well. I have oil seed rape beside me most years. Presumably this is sprayed or has been seed treated.
Are you having problems with your own bees? if so, you may be over generalising as most beekeepers in the uk are doing well.


it's a study of two colonies. Two. Not Two hundred, or two thousand or even two different colonies every time over hundreds of iterations of the test always showing the same results.

Grist article

in the transcript, Pettis says he and his research team exposed two sets of honey bees to Nosema, a fungal pathogen toxic to honey bees.

Nellie I don't think it was even two colonies. It was two sets of bees in lab conditions, ie caged individual bees. It's hard to be sure as noone has seen the paper.

Serious problems are emerging with this type of study as caging individual bees causes stress in itself so it is very difficult to separate the interaction of imidacloprid and nosema from the effect of stress + nosema.
I suspect that the problem with the Pettis study and his failure to have it published is due to a design flaw through not having adequate controls for stress levels in caged bees. We will be able to pick through the bones if he manages to get someone to publish it.

In addition there is not a single field study which has demonstrated this effect or any other negative effect of neonicotinoids on honeybees. Not one Eric. Assimilate that. If I am wrong, post a link or reference the study. I challenged Graham White to do that exactly a week ago on the bbka site and the silence had been deafening apart from the gentle click of CTRL C CTRL V every few minutes.

Grist article

This is potentially game-changing research for understanding Colony Collapse Disorder. Scientists have been focusing on the interaction between the Nosema fungus and a virus called Iridoviridae as the culprit.

This refers to the recent study by Jerry Bromenshenk where he claimed to have isolated a new virus in 100% of ccd colonies.
Unfortunately Grist is off the pace as doubts have now emerged re. the design of his study as he may have been sampling proteins with recognisable sequences from IIV which originated from a source other than the virus itself, possibly dna from the bees. (Gavin correct me if I have got that wrong)



You are arguing for a ban on neonicotinoids based on their perceived danger to bees.
Fair enough.
What that amounts to is a vote for the return of the pesticides which were used in the 70s and 80s, the ones Gavin mentioned in a previous post, organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids.

I would be curious to know why you prefer these pesticides to neonicotinoid pesticides.

I am still keen to hear why you want these to be more widely used.


Trog is a woman not a man.
I thought she was a wren!

[Eric McArthur]

Hi All

Apologise to you Trog!

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

I'll never walk alone! See under. This petition was only started about a week ago!
I would ask who is out of step? The list is growing at around 5 per second!
Eric
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
To US and EU decision-makers:
We call on you to immediately ban the use of neonicotinoid pesticides until and unless new independent scientific studies prove they are safe. The catastrophic demise of bee colonies could put our whole food chain in danger. If you act urgently with precaution now, we could save bees from extinction.

Axaaz.org will protect your privacy and keep you posted about this and similar campaigns.

1,250,000
1,080,193
1,080,193 have signed the petition. Help us get to 1,250,000
Recent Signers
• 11 seconds ago

Brummer, Germany
• 13 seconds ago

Cornelia Schaich, Switzerland
• 14 seconds ago

Nichola Forbes, United Kingdom
• 19 seconds ago

Madarassy, Hungary
• 24 seconds ago

[Jon]

I'll never walk alone!

That's true. There are masses of conspiracy theorists out there.

Try assimilating the research and commenting on the findings if you want to be taken more seriously - rather than the newspapers, press releases and petitions. We don't want another posh spice incident.
I am still keen to know why you want to increase the use of organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids at the expense of neonicotinoids. It's not an academic exercise or a hypothetical conjecture. That is what will happen if neonics are removed from the market.

[Trog]

Hi All

Apologise to you Trog!

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;


Er, what about, Eric? Do I have to read back through all these posts to find out what you've said about/to me? Been a bit busy this weekend so no time for chatting here!

[Trog]

the silence had been deafening apart from the gentle click of CTRL C CTRL V every few minutes.
:D ;) :D Tee hee (laughing wren)

[Eric McArthur]

Jon wrote on 21/1/2011
What colony losses?
UK colony numbers have increased from 40,000 to 120,000 in 30 months. That is a huge increase.
Some individuals, especially the beefarmers, have suffered high losses from foulbrood -and those who think you don't have to treat for varroa have lost a lot of colonies. Most others I know are doing well.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;
On February 2010 Jon reported:
"Bee farmers in Scotland have reported losses on the American scale for the past three years. Andrew Scarlett, a Perthshire-based bee farmer and honey packer, lost 80% of his 1,200 hives this winter. But he attributed the massive decline to a virulent bacterial infection that quickly spread because of a lack of bee inspectors, coupled with sustained poor weather that prevented honeybees from building up sufficient pollen and nectar stores".


Hi Jon?
What do you consider the word "dead" means? Seems to me that if the colonies are dying. No matter what the reason is they are dead! No?

Eric

[Jon]

What do you consider the word "dead" means?

What do you get when you subtract 40,000 from 120,000?

There will always be some colony losses and the EFB/AFB outbreak in Perthshire and beyond is surely a special case. Maybe you think it was caused by neonicotinoids?

[gavin]

Eric

Your co-conspirator Graham White has been posting at the Independent newspaper's web site and has revealed a rather unsavoury side to his nature.




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/24-billion-extra-people-no-more-land-how-will-we-feed-the-world-in-2050-2191260.html

2.4 billion extra people, no more land: how will we feed the world in 2050?

Steve Connor reveals how scientists propose a major policy shift to tackle one of the great challenges of the 21st century

The finite resources of the Earth will be be stretched as never before in the coming 40 years because of the unprecedented challenge of feeding the world in 2050, leading scientists have concluded in a report to be published next week.

Food production will have to increase by between 70 and 100 per cent, while the area of land given over to agriculture will remain static, or even decrease as a result of land degradation and climate change. Meanwhile the global population is expected to rise from 6.8 billion at present to about 9.2 billion by mid-century.

The Government-appointed advisers are expected to warn that "business as usual" in terms of food production is not an option if mass famine is to be avoided .....



And our trusty Green Warrior from Coldstream ....




This is THE NEXT BIG THING - i.e. the next chance for the multinationals and the Science establishment to make a few £trillion by forcing GM crops and wall-to-wall pesticides on the Third World. Sir John Beddington was on the Today Programme this morning, presenting himself as the New High Priest of GM/Pesticide Solutions - the acceptable face of Bayer, Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF.

Beddington is the Scientific High Priest who sold the Global Warming hoax to Thatcher and she gave him the Met Office and £130 million to build a supercomputer that would tell us what the climate would be in 200 years time; except it got the summer and winter forecasts wrong for 6 years in a row. Beddington then sheared off to create the UN's IPCC on global warming, but after a decade with no warming, he led the fight to RE BRAND it as 'Climate Change' - a phrase as meaningless as 'Wind Blows'. 'Rain Falls' or 'Snow falls':

We must all fight rainfall and wind blowing NOW!!

Anyway, climate change might fool the Islington Elite but the man and woman in the street are getting wise to this endless succession of hypothetical DOOMS: Acid rain, ozone hole, Y2K bug, global warming, climate change, dangerous climate change. So Beddington needs a NEW Hobgoblin to scare the politicans and make them give his pals another £100 billion of YOUR money. So the new Hobgoblin is GLOBAL STARVATION - and the solution is GM Crops and revolutionary pesticides and industrial monocultures, wall to wall across the Third World. And if you do everything he says, and give his pals ALL your money, he will make the big, bad scary hobgoblin go away. You have to give it to this guy: global warming; Climate Change; Dangerous Climate Change and Global Starvation - he is a TRYER!!!



Can you now explain to us why you are aligning your self with people like that?

Do you think that the MPs signing that Early Day Motion know that they've been had?

Gavin

[Eric McArthur]

Gavin wrote:
Can you now explain to us why you are aligning your self with people like that?

Gavin -
If I ever aligned myself with you and your cohorts - I could never explain that to anybody! I hear that you, as a sworn neutral in the GM issue (I of course knew better long time previously!) have jumped on the Beddington gravy train - as always looking for the winning ticket! As an aside I do subscribe to climate change. But Beddington, Monsanto, Bayer or Bill Gates and folk like yourself will only make matters worse! GM and monoculture dusted ad infinitum with poisons is a doomsday scenario!

[Jon]

Hi Eric.
One of the key points in that independent article was moving GM from private ie the likes of Monsanto, to primarily public ownership.
The agribusiness stranglehold is one of the main problems I have with GM.

Did you read it?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/24-billion-extra-people-no-more-land-how-will-we-feed-the-world-in-2050-2191260.html


The scientists are expected to recommend that GM technology should be shifted away from the private sector to one that is mostly funded and deployed by publicly funded bodies, in order to avoid what is seen as the stranglehold of large agribusiness companies such as Monsanto.

[gavin]

Eric

I think that you have always misunderstood me. Or maybe you're just mischief-making by throwing out extreme accusations.

The Global Food and Farming Futures Report (http://www.bis.gov.uk/foresight/our-work/projects/current-projects/global-food-and-farming-futures/reports-and-publications)

(go on, click it, you know you want to)

is not about ramming GM down people's throats. It is a serious, sober, and sobering assessment of where mankind is going regarding the food supply. GM is hardly discussed - it is about *everything* to do with the looming food crisis. That is one major reason why I've called your anti-neonicotinoid campaign, in the face of all the evidence out there, shameful. No pesticide is perfect, but these ones are an improvement on what has gone before and all the evidence from field studies is that they are not harming bee stocks.

This is the Foreword to the Executive Summary Report:

The case for urgent action in the global food system is now compelling. We
are at a unique moment in history as diverse factors converge to affect the
demand, production and distribution of food over the next 20 to 40 years.
The needs of a growing world population will need to be satisfied as
critical resources such as water, energy and land become increasingly
scarce. The food system must become sustainable, whilst adapting to
climate change and substantially contributing to climate change mitigation.
There is also a need to redouble efforts to address hunger, which continues
to affect so many. Deciding how to balance the competing pressures and
demands on the global food system is a major task facing policy makers,
and was the impetus for this Foresight Project.

GM? Have a read. Try the 44-page Executive Summary. How many times is GM mentioned? Not once!! Let me say that again - not once!

If you are thinking that my career as a crop researcher will benefit from concern about the food supply, well, it might. But that is what crop researchers are for, isn't it? My interests are not in GM, in case you weren't aware. However what interest do I have in trying to argue against those wanting to eliminate pesticides from agriculture? Pesticides are an alternative to what I do, study genetics and help breeding. Resistant varieties are a better answer than pesticides. Do you really think that I am driven by self-interest?! I'm just very annoyed that internet idiots are trying to bring about their own particular stupidity, and apparently all for different reasons. Chandler hates any kind of chemical used in food production. You don't share that view (at least in your own beekeeping) but instead you are driven by - what, hatred of the big corporations? And White - is he just driven by hatred?! Or stupidity? You tell me, I can't work it out.

Gavin

PS Your accusations. No, I've always thought that GM has a place although sometimes it has been over-hyped. And I'm not busy jumping on any kind of GM gravy train.

[gavin]

Cracking programme on science and public perceptions of science. Largely climate change but strays into other topics including GM. The last few minutes of the programme are very relevant to this thread.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y4yql/Horizon_20102011_Science_Under_Attack/

[GRIZZLY]

Absolutely brilliant programme Gavin.I just loved the way Sir Paul "EXPLODED" the sceptical guys warped views.Can't we get him onto this forum ???

[gavin]

He was a lecturer of mine in my undergraduate days, but I doubt that he remembers me! Maybe he's a beekeeper ...

[Jon]

In the word we live in science has been so downvalued that the conspiracy theories seem to have taken over.
lazy journalists and the internet are a big part of that problem.
Single issue nutters can reach an audience they don't deserve far too easily.
You read everywhere now that man made climate change is a big hoax yet 99% of the science supports the hypothesis.
It's sad how lazy some people are. They take complete bull at face value.
This morning I read a post on beesource from a poster who claimed that the introduction of neonicotinoids in the US coincided with the first cases of CCD - according to anything he had read!
In actual fact neonics were first used in the US in 1992 and the first cases of CCD were noted in 2006.

[gavin]

Perhaps we need a more organised way of countering the single-issue nutters. I don't know what, it is just that they have the media at their beck and call, it seems, and maybe it is time that beekeepers stood up to be counted.

[Jon]

It's the old problem of dumbing down.
People are happier with simple answers to complex problems even if the simple solutions are quite incorrect.
There is a real anti intellectual climate in some places.
A lot of Americans (not all thankfully) are happier with a George Bush or a Sara Palin rather than a cerebral Obama as intelligence is viewed by many with deep suspicion.

Not long to Groundhog day now which must be the most important date in the cut and paster's calendar.

[Neils]

A copy and paste "Dear MP, I urge you not to support EDM 1267 because...." (it's all a load of b****s dressed up as science playing on the legitimate concern and good intentions of the public who'll stick their name to anything if it's worded right.

[edit]Bugger, mine's already signed it.

[Eric McArthur]

Jon wrote;
One of the key points in that independent article was moving GM from private ie the likes of Monsanto, to primarily public ownership.
The agribusiness stranglehold is one of the main problems I have with GM.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Hi Jon
Do I see a glimmer of consensus here Jon? I posed that point some time back – a start!
The suspension of all further commercial GM crop plantings, should cease forthwith.
The seed distribution infrastructure must be reinstated and removed from the anti trust monopoly which Monsanto et al are striving to achieve.
Seed segregation should be rigorously monitored to filter out GM contamination.
All food crops should be grown for food not bio diesel.
Work on GM crops must be conducted under controlled secure, conditions under glass!

Having listened to the Beddington interview on Radio 4 recently, where it was conceded that
even with a burgeoning world population of 9 billion the planet could still feed this population, which it was estimated would peak at this figure – his not mine!
The main problem with food supply at this present time, according to expert, current thinking is lack of the infrastructure necessary to facilitate access, planting, harvesting and distribution. Much of the food that is grown in the highly productive regions of Africa rots in the field due to transport problems.
Beddington is an expert in his field. His statement about the potential for conventional crops to feed the world, begs the question of why we need this at present quite crude GM technology, which by its very nature takes agriculture down the path of mono culture when we still have a vast diverse range of conventional, proven food plants which are already in great peril of gross contamination by the massive, headlong rush into a food production system which is more dependent on pesticides than conventional crops due to the false prophets who are preaching that crop rotation is an outmoded system, a system which has stood the test of time over the centuries.
GM may have a place in the supply of our daily bread at some time in the future, but to squander a precious resource needlessly at the behest of a minority of powerful avaricious individuals for profit is sheer stupidity. Hans Christian Anderson epitomised the present situation beautifully in the tale of “The King’s Magic Suit”.

The results of GM research, if successful in establishing suitable crops which do not require any pesticides to thrive, must be stored as in present day seed bank facilities – in reserve for the time when they can used as a fall back measure.

Using the analogy of a ship at sea – it would be crass stupid to throw all the lifebelts into a calm sea and then cast the lifeboats adrift as well! When they are there as a fall back in the event of an emergency!

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Grizzly

UK Politics

GM food banned from Commons

The government still issues licences for genetically modified crop tests

Genetically-modified food has been banned from restaurants and bars in the House of Commons.

Full-time catering managers have decided to avoid using genetically-modified (GM) food - developed from crops given genes from other species - until more is known about the long-term effects.

Eric

[Jon]

Hi Eric.
I have always been wary of GM - more to do with the politics than the technology itself.
If it is pushed too hard we lose heirloom species and it impacts on agricultural systems such as sharecropping, although preserving crop species diversity was well flagged up in that document Gavin linked to yesterday.
The interspecies transfer of genetic material does not worry me so much as long as there is strict regulation.
It happens all the time in nature if you care to read up on what viruses get up to.
There is even speculation that bits of virus from bee pathogens such as IAPV have ended up in the bee genome.

In basic cell structure it is reckoned that the mitochondria used to be a separate organism which became integrated into the cell.

[lindsay s]

Here's another link. In the meantime I will keep sitting on the fence.
http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/rural/news/organics-beekeepers-buzzword/3938141/

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Jon
There is seemingly a narrowing gap of difference between us Jon. Relative to preserving crop and genetic diversity.
Eric

Jon wrote:
The interspecies transfer of genetic material does not worry me so much as long as there is strict regulation.
It happens all the time in nature if you care to read up on what viruses get up to.
..................................

Yes, if we go back far enough in time all species are subject to integration of separate organisms. The termites are a clasic example of this evolutionary process, in which however over cosmic time the lethal combinations were eliminated by Natural Selection. What Monsanto et al are about is firing exotic genes from fish, fowl, even human sources into organisms (plants in this case - instant evolution!) which would not carry them in Nature - except, to concede your point, over vast time scales!
Eric

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Lindsay
Keep sitting on the fence lass, you are doing a grand job! That was a breathe of fresh air!

rRic

[gavin]

You may be having gender issues again there Eric.

Sitting on the fence when heated technological stuff is flying about is fine by me too!

The piece you quoted Lindsay was just opinion though. The argument has been about the real position of science, as opinion may be fine for pubs and living rooms but when aggressive media and political campaigns are being mounted by people with plenty of opinion but little science to back them up ... then people who know the science and see things differently should not be keeping quiet.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Gavin
Apart from the Jerry Bromenshenk’s suspect study. Please point me in the direction of any INDEPENDENT research which gives your pro -GM, pro- pesticide stand-point any credibility.
Anyone interested in who USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack used to work for? The corruption and conflict of interests of the folk singing from your hymn sheet beggars belief.
Eric
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;
(NaturalNews) Wikileaks continues to rock the political world by shedding light on conspiracies, corruption and cover-ups. The latest batch of diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks reveals what can only be characterized as a U.S.-led conspiracy to force GMOs onto European countries by making those countries pay a steep price if they resist.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_GMOs_Wikileaks.html#ixzz1C9oOqEoc
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
http://www.NaturalNews.com/031093_unscientific_GMOs.html
"Unscientific" is secret code for anyone who opposes GMOs or pesticides
Monday, January 24, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
(NaturalNews) Watch out for the word "unscientific" in propaganda that's pushing GMOs, pesticides or other dangerous chemicals onto our world. In a joint letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, three Republican members of Congress (Rep. Frank Lucas, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Sen. Pat Roberts) attempted to spin GMOs as being "scientific."

[Jon]

- except, to concede your point, over vast time scales!
Eric

Not necessarily over vast time scales.
I believe it happens on a regular basis.
Bits of viral dna can get incorporated into other genomes.
DNA is just a series of base pairs irrespective of its origin.

Gavin you should explain this, it's not my day job. I'll only dig myself into a hole!

[gavin]

You're doing very well!

Eric - I agree, time to discuss the science. I'm thinking that maybe we should do this properly. A new area to discuss science as it relates to beekeeping. Calmly. A resource that will grow over time and people can refer to. Maybe a special area for it but with controlled starting of threads, and one thread per piece of science for debate. Good idea or not?

G.

[lindsay s]

Hello Gavin
I haven’t been spending all my time trawling the internet for links to this thread. I came across the N Z link by shear chance because I’m a regular visitor to that website.
I agree with everything you said in post 90 including the gender issue. (I hope Eric doesn’t have trouble differentiating between drones and workers) Having no scientific knowledge what so ever I think it’s best I remain neutral but I wont be sticking my head in the sand.
I feel that for many years beekeeping in Orkney was a case of the blind leading the blind with myself included.(with the exception of Hugh Clyde) Therefore I value this website for its ideas and exchanges of information even if we have to agree to disagree.
Finally I spent this morning helping a beginner move his hive about 20 meters to a more sheltered spot in his garden. His bees seemed ok and it was nice to get hands on at this time of year.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Gavin

Why not?

I look forward to some objective stuff on the pro - GM /pesticides issue from you which is Independent of Monsanto et al

Eric

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Lindsay
Gavin wrote:
The piece you quoted Lindsay was just opinion though.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Everytthing which contradicts or questions intelligently Gavins doctrine - is either rubbish or "opinion".
By the bye I know at least 4 ladies in my circle called Lindsay! Regarding your "aspersions" on my beekeeping lore. If you wish I will question yours! To which location do you think the bees from your 20 metre dispaced hive will return after their early cleansing flights?
Eric

[Eric McArthur]

Hi John
I liked your reference to "Bits of viral dna can get incorporated into other genomes" - just the stuff that the Monsanto blunderbuss shoot into its - "to be modified" target plants. This is science? - It smacks of the electric shock treatment used by promordial mind doctors, or worse the highly qualified barbers and quacks who bled seriously ill patients to cleanse their bodies - which usualy became dead quite quickly after the cure!

Eric

[gavin]

I believe that Jon was trying to describe a purely natural process.

[gavin]

Everytthing which contradicts or questions intelligently Gavins doctrine - is either rubbish or "opinion".


Sorry Eric, I try hard to retain scientific impartiality. I will criticise and contradict when the evidence says it is right to do so. Opinion and fact are quite easy to tell apart when you start to try.

Yes, I will go ahead with an area on science ... not quite yet as I have a few pressing things to sort first.

[Eric McArthur]

Jon wrote.
I believe it happens on a regular basis.

Hi
Not over night it don't!

Eric

[Eric McArthur]

Jon wrote:
Not necessarily over vast time scales.
I believe it happens on a regular basis.
Bits of viral dna can get incorporated into other genomes.
DNA is just a series of base pairs irrespective of its origin.

Gavin wrote;

I believe that Jon was trying to describe a purely natural process.

Hi
Jon's statement was a description? Lots of believing going on! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?? Trust me I'm a ????? or something.

Eric

[gavin]

J
Jon's statement was a description? Lots of believing going on! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?? Trust me I'm a ????? or something.


Yup, trust me I'm a Doctor and trust Jon he's a sensible, thoughtful fellow with some biology training.

Maori et al. 2007 (http://tinyurl.com/6z9kcye) Just click and find yourself in a new world.

G.

[lindsay s]

Hello Eric
The hive had to be moved because it was in the wrong location and I informed the owner that any bee losses could be blamed on neonicotinoid pesticides.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Gavin
Your reply to justify the retro-viruses gets zilch Brownie Points. You get two more shots then you are out! Your paper discusses same species divergence! The subject is exotic genes!
Eric
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;

Reciprocal sequence exchange between non-retro viruses and hosts leading to the appearance of new host phenotypes
Eyal Maoria, , Edna Tannea, and Ilan Sela , a,
aVirus Laboratory, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Quality Sciences, Rehovot 76100, Israel


Abstract
Divergence among individuals of the same species may be linked to positional retrotransposition into different loci in different individuals. Here we add to recent reports indicating that individual variance occurs due to the integration of non-retroviral (potyviral) RNAs into the host genome via RNA recombination followed by retrotransposition. We report that in bees (Apis mellifera), approximately 30% of all tested populations carry a segment of a dicistrovirus in their genome and have thus become virus-resistant. Reciprocally, segments of host sequences have been found within defective-interfering-like sequences of a dicistrovirus. Similarly, host sequences were found fused to potyviral sequences, previously described integrated into their host genome. A potential, continuous RNA exchange leading to divergence is discussed.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
When I was a student the most important aspect of passing exams was – READ THE QUESTION. In my day one got no marks for waffle or worse – in your case here “worse!” is the key word!
I have pasted the item under discussion to eliminate any possible misunderstanding of the issue!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Jon wrote
The interspecies transfer of genetic material does not worry me so much as long as there is strict regulation.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;
Eric wrote
What Monsanto et al are about is firing exotic genes from fish, fowl, even human sources into organisms (plants in this case - instant evolution!) which would not carry them in Nature - except, to concede your point, over vast time scales!

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Lindasy

Woe is me! - 300 Brownie points from Gavin for that inane observation!

Eric

[gavin]

What *are* you on about? I'm not diving into a discourse on GM, but responding to #101 above and the posts that came before.

The integration of foreign DNA is something that takes place naturally. That was Jon's point and you didn't seem to accept that.

What man has been doing in the last couple of decades is something special, of course, but Jon's point was that it does happen naturally too.

G.

[Jon]

Your reply to justify the retro-viruses gets zilch Brownie Points. You get two more shots then you are out! Your paper discusses same species divergence! The subject is exotic genes!

I feel a rerun of the inbreeding thread coming on!

That article Gavin posted could be crucial to the understanding of CCD.
The paper showed that 30% of sampled bees had a chunk of genetic material which originated in IAPV. (a virus)
You will remember that IAPV was one of the first suspects throught to be involved in CCD.
the interesting thing here is that the bees with a chunk of RNA from IAPV has resistance to this virus.
Mull over that.
So the question for you Eric is, How did RNA (genetic material) from Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus get into the bee genome?
Do you think Monsanto put it there?

Eric there is no such thing as 'exotic' genes
All genes are made out of a sequence of 4 elements arranged in pairs.

[Eric McArthur]

Jon wrote:
I feel a rerun of the inbreeding thread coming on!
.............................................
Hi Jon
I don’t believe it! You are still in denial that a small number of honey bee colonies in a closed, totally isolated population, losing 50% of the colonies every year will not become grossly inbred!! Truly remarkable!
.................................................. ........
Jon wrote:
Not necessarily over vast time scales.
I believe it happens on a regular basis.
Bits of viral dna can get incorporated into other genomes.
DNA is just a series of base pairs irrespective of its origin.
.................................................. ................
Eric wrote
I liked your reference to "Bits of viral dna can get incorporated into other genomes" - just the stuff that the Monsanto blunderbuss shoot into its - "to be modified" target plants. This is science? - It smacks of the electric shock treatment used by promordial mind doctors, or worse the highly qualified barbers and quacks who bled seriously ill patients to cleanse their bodies - which usually became dead quite quickly after the cure!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Gavin wrote:
I believe that Jon was trying to describe a purely natural process.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Hi Gavin
Bits of viral dna do not promote the transfer of fish, fowl or human genes into plants NATURALLY!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Just a few reassuring words about GM crops and viruses.
Revelations concerning the CaMV recombination hotspot (3) have prompted us to consider the safety implications of the CaMV promoter. That is all the more urgent as CaMV promoter is in practically all transgenic crops already released commercially or undergoing field trials.
Phylogenetically, CaMV belongs to a group of caulimoviruses most closely related to the hepadnaviruses of animals, which includes the human hepatitis B virus.
.................................................. .............................
Check this link – Monsanto admits that GMOs damage the liver of mammals.
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-videos/6-must-see-videos/12072
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ ’’’’’’’’’’
The effect of an insecticidal GM crop is constantly present in the crop throughout growth rather than intermittently sprayed, there is a concern that insects will be completely absent while the crop is growing. This will affect beneficial insects as well as pests, and small rodents and birds could suffer lack of food. Combined with the neonics. This scenario is already upon us!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;
Eugenics Alert: The use of GMO Food to deliberately sterilise humans
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/vaccines-and-gm-crops-to-reduce-world-population/

One long-standing project of the US Government has been to perfect a genetically-modified variety of corn, the diet staple in Mexico and many other Latin American countries. The corn has been field tested in tests financed by the US Department of Agriculture along with a small California bio-tech company named Epicyte. Announcing his success at a 2001 press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants, announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.”

Hein explained that they had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants. In this manner, in reality they produced a concealed contraceptive embedded in corn meant for human consumption. “Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,” said Hein. “They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.” Hein claimed it was a possible solution to world “over-population.” The moral and ethical issues of feeding it to humans in Third World poor countries without their knowing it countries he left out of his remarks.

Spermicides hidden in GMO corn provided to starving Third World populations through the generosity of the Gates’ foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Kofi Annan’s AGRA or vaccines that contain undisclosed sterilization agents are just two documented cases of using vaccines or GMO seeds to “reduce population.”
................................................

[AlexJ]

I'm trying to bring myself up to speed with current opinions regarding best practice and the most environmentally friendly way to keep honey bees. I need a resource(s) that draws on local best practice tied into informed debate on the raft of environmental issues that undoubtedly surround beekeeping.

Unfortunately threads that reel from mass sterilisation of humankind to global conspiracy theories cloud the often pertinent and very real issues being discussed. In saying that I don't deny they may be a real side issue, only that they make it difficult for the majority to plough their way through the posts to extract any meaningful information regrading the aims of the thread.

I acknowledge managing these debates in a transparent and fair manner is difficult -hats off to the moderator/administrator in this case. However, if there is a consensus to debate the current data and science regarding these issues surrounding honey bees in a focussed manner - I'll sign up for that. The proposal to create a folder containing current scientific/agricultural themes seems fine to me. Managing it to include all viewpoints while maintaining focus may provide difficult.

[gavin]

Thanks Alex.

Pre-Eric we were achieving the aim of having rational, sensible debate in a better way than other places on the internet, I believe. To some extent having Eric here letting off stream has allowed us to expose his opinions to the debate that never properly came when he simply held forth in the SBA's magazine, so I've seen this open and rapid challenging of his misconceptions as a positive thing. For that matter anyone challenging mine, or Jon's for example, is also doing us all a service. That protracted inbreeding thread was my fault, as I brought private correspondence here out into the open in frustration at his inability to listen to what he's being told. However, we now see that he just simply doesn't remember the outcome of these debates, and comes charging back with more confusion based on incredible conspiracy theories.

These kinds of irrational views have a real impact on communities of beekeepers and society as a whole. Some of these misconceptions run deep and are hard to shift, as I've been finding out in other ways. Deep misconceptions driven by forceful hot-heads, drawing on the receptive nature of their audience for their particular nonsense. We are now in the bizarre position of have a goodly number of MPs signing up to an Early Day Motion built on the propaganda and misinformation of a bunch of climate change deniers, fundamentalist anti-pesticide people and anti-corporate campaigners. The scientific justification for their action is weak - and if we want to see the truth of their position it needs exposure and debate.

I think that I'll start a new thread on thoughts on the development of the forum, to get the discussion away from all that BBKA and conspiracy theory nonsense.

This one is now closed as it has drifted far from the original topic.

Gavin

PS For anyone wondering whether the conspiracy theorists and their zillions of copy-cat websites actually were right, the Guardian actually spoke to an Epicyte executive at the time:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2001/sep/09/gm.food

They started by researching sexual health products which suppress viruses, especially STD viruses like the papilloma virus and herpes virus. They tried extending this to develop an anti-sperm product so that they had a combined anti-viral and anti-sperm product to be used in items bought for the purposes of contraception. The company shut down in 2004. But hey, let's not stop the conspiracy theorists and nutters continuing to propagate the myth that the US government was funding research to sterilise the Third World. Whether or not the Vatican had a hand in shutting down the company was never revealed (Joke!! Please don't start another internet myth based on that one ... ).

So this thread stops here. Sufficient people have been trying to move the debate back to reality and back to beekeeping. There are other places on the forum to go with this kind of garbage should you wish to debate it further, so please start new threads in the appropriate place if you have more to say.