Some familiar names.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...8/contents.htm
Edit. Just posted the link which includes all the submissions as opposed to just the facebook one.
UK Parliament submissions on pesticides
Some familiar names.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...8/contents.htm
Edit. Just posted the link which includes all the submissions as opposed to just the facebook one.
Last edited by Jon; 09-11-2012 at 11:33 AM.
Wonder how many people that have clicked onto this facebook petition have the least understanding of foulbrood spores? Being of an increasingly cynical nature I also wonder why that issue has been tacked onto the pesticide campaign?
The facebook petition also claims that the bbka endorsed neonicotinoid pesticides until recently and cites our old friend Michael McCarthy of the Independent as the source. The BBKA, until recently, endorsed several pesticides as bee friendly but none of them were in the neonicotinoid family.
Submissions from people like Dave Goulson and Robert Paxton are worth reading as they are researchers and know the science and the pitfalls. Dave Goulson is certainly worried about neonicotinoids and he is a bumblebee specialist.
The submissions from the campaign groups are riddled with innuendo and conspiracy theory and are short on evidence. No surprise there.
Last edited by Jon; 09-11-2012 at 11:31 AM.
The submissions page didn't load for me initially -just got the page of waffle about neonicotinoids being bad and foulbrood spores being imported in honey; now I can't find that page!
certainly some worthwhile reading here but nothing that explains how it is that people who holding large numbers of well managed hives in areas where there's usage of neonicotinoids are still reporting that they're not suffering mysterious (otherwise unexplainable) large scale losses.
Could be that other pollinators are more susceptible to neonicotinoids than honeybees.
The large size of a honeybee colony means that it can take a hit and recover relatively quickly.
The work by Dave Goulson at Stirling has suggested problems with bumblebees at dosages which do not seem to be a problem for honeybees.
Those thoughts did cross my mind. May possibly have been a better place for the protestors to concentrate in the first place rather than trying to force a connection between CCD and pesticides irrespective of what practice in the field is showing.
I doubt that anyone questions that these pesticides are designed to kill things but what I dislike is the way in which certain factions have tacked their as yet unproven beliefs onto the beekeeping fraternity as if expecting us to back up their unsubstantiated claims. When people ask (no, TELL) me about all the bees dying I quickly try to snuff the conversation by pointing out that niether myself or anyone that I personally know (who's management I rate) have suffered from these huge die offs; I'm sure that the majority of people assume that I'm lying... because everyone knows all the bees are dying.
If there's valid ground for a suspension or total ban then fine, but let it be for genuine reasons and let's hope that eventually it's not the honeybees that suffer from being exposed to whatever substances fill the void.
If there are some problems, tighter management and control may well sort it out.
Pesticides are authorised for specific crops with specific application techniques.
The US beekeepers talk about the difference between various crops treated with neonicotinoids.
Some won't take on pumpkin pollination contracts as it exposes the bees to a more dangerous level of pesticide. I think the seedlings get a spray at some point.
It is these nuances that the ban the neonic/save the bee brigade completely ignore.
I imagine the submissions from the scientists will be taken seriously and the other conspiracy stuff will be ignored.
I have heard of pumpkin/neonic connections but in truth can't think of the exact context off the top of my head. I do seem to remember that the Hackenbergs were involved in pumpkin pollination.
However, I think the main issue with mass commercial pumpkin pollination is that it's a crop which is very hard nutritionally on the bees and can see colonies go down hill very fast.
I wonder whether those submissions will, in the context of this petition, be given serious consideration or whether they'll be tarred by the rest of the presentation?Originally Posted by Jon
The oral sessions are online and they make interesting viewing. Watching the afternoon session with James Cresswell, Dave Goulson, Lynn Dicks and Graham Stone. A lot of interesting points on exposure, and on the data held by the regulators but not easily accessible (which James Cresswell says is of publication quality).
Odd choice of entertainment for my lunchtime, I know.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/insects-and-insecticides/insects-and-insecticides-further-information/
The decline of pollinators and wild bees talked about at the start largely pre-dates neonics, and from the Scottish perspective the apparent expansion of the range of some bumble bees (and other insects) and the colonisation of England and Wales by a new one gets no mention.
Last edited by gavin; 27-11-2012 at 01:46 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks