Neonic threatening the ecosystem of otters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nellie
I'll also add that, for what it's worth there was no co-ordination, going on. We do talk outside this forum and we tend to agree on a lot of things, unusual in beekeeping circles I know.
The discussion is there to be had from my point of view. If spamming this and other forums about what a git I am is the worst that I can expect then I'm doing better than elsewhere :) but I still don't think that it does much to drive the discussion. For the most part I enjoy your input to the forum. I don't agree with everything you say (obviously) and especially not around this subject, if you're going to cite the Harvard study seemingly because it appears to confirm what you want to believe while dismissing completely numbers you don't want to see or subjects you aren't interested in then I think you're out of luck.
I raised Otters specifically because a) I'm interested in them and b) the Environment Agency specifically cited reduction in pesticides use as the primary cause for their return (with general reduction in pollution and improvement in habitat also cited as important). I left out the qualifier that the major blamed pesticides in question were banned in the 70's and ignored your, perfectly valid in some respects, points simply to use your own line of reasoning against you, i.e. if it doesn't fit what I want to hear then I'm going to discount it.
Nellie, as you are refusing to look at evidence that neonics kill bees, how about looking at evidence that neonics can harm the environment that otters depend on?
This EPA memorandum about clothianidin should set your alarmbells ringing:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_s...2-Nov-10_b.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Memorandum
Clothianidin registration of Prosper T400 Seed Treatment on Mustard Seed (Oilseed and Condiment) and Poncho/Votivo Seed Treatment on Cotton.
Nov 2nd, 2010
It states that
... Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk from a stressor include water bodies adjacent to, or down stream from the treated field and might include impounded bodies such as ponds, lakes, and reservoirs, or flowing waterways such as streams or rivers, for uses in coastal areas, aquatic habitat also included marine ecosystems, including estuaries.
For clothianidin, the terrestrial ecosystem primarily at risk is the rhizoshpere zone in which treated seeds are planted on the crop field, through contaminated nectar and/or pollen, or due to the seed left (accidental spillage or otherwise) on the soil surface at the time of planting. Seedbound clothianidin may pose risk to aquatic ecosystems through leaching, runoff, or erosion from the crop field. It is noted that for soil incorporated chemicals, or seed treatments, drift is usually a minor component.
p. 21:
The major endpoints related to aquatic environments at issue are:
(a). Direct effects to aquatic invertebrates in the water column via acute toxicity.
(b). Direct effects to benthic aquatic organisms dwelling in the sediment and/or pore water via acute and/or chronic toxicity
p.40:
The data showed that clothianidin significantly reduced survival of mysid shrimp at 0.051 ppm, categorizing the compound as very highly toxic. ...
p. 50:
A comparison of EECs, both pore water and sediment bound residues, with the LC50 (mortality) and the NOAEC (sublethal) reveals that the proposed uses have the possibility of acute toxic risk to non-endangered and endangered freshwater and estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates, via runoff especially if repeated uses occur. The acute risk, based on both lethal and sublethal effects, to estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates was independent of the region and the incorporation efficiency when exposure occurs via sediment bound concentrations. Chronic risk to this taxa also shows a similar result. ...
The solution: Integrated Pest Management and organic farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nellie
After three years of asking the same question and despite knowing your fondness for ignoring it in favour of chucking insults I'll ask it again anyway.
If neonicotinoids are banned, what happens next?
Point still remains that on current evidence I still believe that Neonics are less harmful to bees and the wider environment than the classes of pesticides they largely replaced. And none of the studies that I've seen so far have convincingly suggested otherwise.
No one who likes to scream "won't someone think of the bees!!!11one!!1" has ever spelled out what the next stage is if they get their way and ultimately I don't think it matters to them.
But it does to me, I don't in principle have a problem with removing approval for something on a precautionary basis but I want to know what the effect of that will be.
There's no silver bullet replacement as far as I can see and no plan past "ban this stuff" so the simple assumption has to be a return to previous pesticides and absolutely bees and much else besides being poisoned directly in quantity again.
I've said and asked this time and time again over the past 3 years and been threatened, slandered and insulted for my trouble so unless you actually want a discussion rather than an excuse to throw more insults I'm done discussing anything related to this with you on this forum or any other.
The answer is Integrated Pest Mangagement (IPM) or organic farming.
IPM works on the principle that you only use insecticides where and when needed and that the spraying is done under controlled conditions with minimal damage to beneficial insects like pollinators.
This way people have produced food for decades, and as long as farmers act responsibly, the damage is way smaller than when systemic pesticides are applied.
Systemic pesticides are the Kill-All method, they leave nothing alive in the field, while in IPM there can be several years without treatment, therefore lots of wildlife can thrive around and even in those fields. Only at times of increased threats from crop pests will sprays be applied, and not on every field.
Annual prophylactic seed treatments destroy agricultural ecosystems, while IPM and of course organic farming allow crops and wildlife to live side by side.
