Orcadian pesticide discussions
This discussion started here and was moved to this area the following morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jon
Winter bees are not raised on maize pollen. Maize produces pollen late July or early august and there is an abundance of other pollens available at those times.
Excuse me please, Jon, when it comes to bees I am a good observer.
I watched my bees and their pollen supply carefully, and there was very little else about where I lived during the flowering period of maize.
And the bees did very well on it, high protein content isn't everything it seems.
Quote:
Doris you are determined to blame pesticides for bee problems at asll costs irrespective of easily available evidence. Bad science. Wooly thinking.
No, I am determined to find the reason for these colony losses, I promised my Austrian friend who lost all his colonies to look into it.
Bad science? I haven't quoted any science yet. I am trying to observe and to listen to as many beekeepers as possible and to use common sense.
If lots of beekeepers tell me it's the pesticides then I will not just dismiss it.
A bee 'under the influence' ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jon
Evidence of this statement was what I was interested in. I know what neonicotinoids are.
Quote:
the bees' ability to detect varroa could be diminished, in which case fewer mites will be removed
Just think of another neurotoxin, the simplest example is alkohol:
Children who are born to alcoholic mothers have diminished mental capacities, and it's not advisable to give children alcohol during their development, as they will end up disadvantaged in their cognitive functions.
Neurotoxins affect nerve cells, that means anything to do with sensation, locomotion, processing of information and memory can be disrupted.
Cleaning cells and catching bugs are complex activities for bees and I dare say that a bee 'under the influence' would do her job less than perfectly.
dummer bees in the next generation
But it proves that the effect of neonics on bees is typical of a neurotoxin, similar to the effect that alcohol has on humans.
My point is that even if the neonic levels are so low that most of the foragers can still find their way home, the fact that the brood food is contaminated with the nerve poison will lead to dummer bees in the next generation.
Orcadian pesticide discussions
And whilst I'm at it, here's another result of a recent study:
Quote:
After 12 weeks of imidacloprid dosing, all the bees were alive. But after 23 weeks, 15 out of 16 of the imidacloprid-treated hives—94%—had died. Those exposed to the highest levels of the pesticide died first.
... the full effect of the neonic damage only showed itself 6 months after exposure!
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pre...pesticide.html
- Bad science again?
Orcadian pesticide discussions
I think the question for the Ban the Neonicotinoid brigade is
Why Do you hate otters?
Environment Agency
Quote:
The return of the otter to most of England is one of the major conservation success stories of the last 30 years. The main reason for this increase has been the reduction in levels of toxic pesticides, but the improvements in water quality and consequent increase in fish stocks have probably played a significant part.
Emotive quoting of selective sections of text that back up my arguments at the ready.
If it's good enough for the goose...
Just in case that didn't work, here's a picture, look at their tiny human hands!
http://www.independent.co.uk/migrati...otters-pa.jpeg
Otters I tell you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epUk3T2Kfno
Orcadian pesticide discussions
Declining use of pesticides harmful to fish and/or mammals is what I'm going to stick with and I don't want to see their use increase. I even bolded the bit I intended to base my entire, unmoving, conclusion on.
Buffer zones are simply deceiving and ignore the fact that pesticides toxic to both Fish and mammals are the cause.
using this style of argument isn't as satisfying as I anticipated :(
Orcadian pesticide discussions
Warning: there are shills on this forum: please read the following messages carefully, they were meant for an internal conversation that goes on behind the scenes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nellie
Declining use of pesticides harmful to fish and/or mammals is what I'm going to stick with and I don't want to see their use increase. I even bolded the bit I intended to base my entire, unmoving, conclusion on.
Buffer zones are simply deceiving and ignore the fact that pesticides toxic to both Fish and mammals are the cause.
using this style of argument isn't as satisfying as I anticipated :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jon
OK Doris, it saddens me to have to do this but really, this is too much. I awoke this morning to eight copies of this message posted on eight sub-fora here. It is insulting to call people shills ("A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.") and both the insult and the spamming is totally out of order. Your accusation of orchestration and behind the scenes connivance is nonsense too, I wasn't consulting before I posted.
I'm now tidying up the mess you've left by deleting seven of the copies of the post and leaving one transferred to here. The other discussion that intervened in the 'Winter Losses' thread is coming here too.
Doris, you know both Jon and myself personally. There is no excuse for this kind of name calling. Please don't do it again. Enthusiastic debate is fine, but this sort of thing isn't.
Gavin
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shill