Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59

Thread: UK Parliament submissions on pesticides

  1. #11
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,464
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    I see that Peter Melchett of the Soil Association believes that the fields of peas on his farm would need armies of manual labour to get pollinated should the bees all die. The only bees I've ever seen on peas were pinching pollen from the edges shrivelling flowers, as they routinely self-pollinate and usually bees can't be bothered going in for pollen when there are better things to visit locally. He then later talks about the 'catastrophic decline' in honeybees and other bees since the neonics came in, contrasting with massive habitat loss in the decades before that which caused earlier declines.

    Murray McG on the Beekeeping Forum the other day was mentioning the best estimates of Giles Budge of the NBU showing that since the 1980s honeybee numbers are up maybe 20%, but with large error bars. Even that modest increase was probably quite dramatic in recent years as numbers of beekeepers continued to fall in the 1980s and 1990s.

  2. #12

    Default Still happy with the status quo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon View Post
    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.
    So, Jon , you are maybe reluctantly accepting that neonics may be seriously harmful to, say, bumblebees.

    There have been well over 30 trials now showing deleterious effects on honeybees.

    Why are you not campaiging for the ban?

    The argument that farmers will only revert to far worse insecticide treatments is defeatist.

    Far better to argue for a positive way forward.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Belfast, N. Ireland
    Posts
    5,122
    Blog Entries
    94

    Default

    Tell me about those 30 trials John if you have read them and tell me if they used field realistic doses and if not, why not. I have read a lot of them so would be quite happy to discuss some of the issues.

    The alternative to neonicotinoid seed dressings is unlikely to be permaculture.
    What do you propose to protect oil seed rape from pests such as pollen beetle?

    I have an open mind and assess evidence as it comes in.
    I could change my views tomorrow and it would not take a drop out of me.

    Are you like that as well?

  4. #14

    Default Above my pay grade ,but what the heck...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon View Post
    Tell me about those 30 trials John if you have read them and tell me if they used field realistic doses and if not, why not. I have read a lot of them so would be quite happy to discuss some of the issues.

    The alternative to neonicotinoid seed dressings is unlikely to be permaculture.
    What do you propose to protect oil seed rape from pests such as pollen beetle?

    I have an open mind and assess evidence as it comes in.
    I could change my views tomorrow and it would not take a drop out of me.

    Are you like that as well?
    Believe it or not, I do not really have a crusade against neonics as my main agenda.

    I mistrust the motives of companies producing lucrative products which may well have harmful effects to admit to them. I also think that so much money is often at stake that they will resort to all kinds of shenanigans to defend their products. Makes business sense. Is that a conspiracy theory?

    As for the 30+ trials. You probably know them better than I do. Reduction in navigational skills, reduced proboscis control, lack of grooming ability, lowered immunity to various infections, dying foragers requiring job swaps within the colony etc(you fill in). What you might expect of a neurotoxin.

    The question of dosages and duration is a difficult one for me to answer convincingly. Still, if a short, low-funded trial finds bad effects using rather high dosages because low doses would be harder to find a result with, is that sufficient to dismiss their findings? Maybe.

    I think the onus should be on the companies to fund clearly independent reseach to demonstrate the effects of their multimillion dollar products on the environment.
    Last edited by Johnthefarmer; 27-11-2012 at 08:58 PM.

  5. #15

    Default

    By the way, SSE want to take 120 acres of my land to build a marine energy substation. This land is one of the few remaining habitats for the Great Yellow Bumblebee. What should I do about it?

  6. #16

    Default

    Surprised you even have to think abut it John.
    the answer is obvious.

  7. #17

  8. #18
    Senior Member Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Belfast, N. Ireland
    Posts
    5,122
    Blog Entries
    94

    Default

    Believe it or not, I do not really have a crusade against neonics as my main agenda.
    Glad to hear it as it is often presented as the only show in town with regard to bee problems.

    I mistrust the motives of companies producing lucrative products which may well have harmful effects to admit to them. I also think that so much money is often at stake that they will resort to all kinds of shenanigans to defend their products. Makes business sense. Is that a conspiracy theory?
    Probably fair comment. The mobile phone manufacturers all challenge each other over so called patent infringements. You can ask someone closer to home about the conspiracy theories/shills/contrails etc.

    As for the 30+ trials. You probably know them better than I do. Reduction in navigational skills, reduced proboscis control, lack of grooming ability, lowered immunity to various infections, dying foragers requiring job swaps within the colony etc(you fill in). What you might expect of a neurotoxin.
    The question of dosages and duration is a difficult one for me to answer convincingly. Still, if a short, low-funded trial finds bad effects using rather high dosages because low doses would be harder to find a result with, is that sufficient to dismiss their findings? Maybe.
    Yes, a non field realistic dose is sufficient to dismiss any claims. If you use a high enough dose you get a kill or a measurable effect such as disorientation. Everything has an LD50, even water.

    I think the onus should be on the companies to fund clearly independent reseach to demonstrate the effects of their multimillion dollar products on the environment.
    You should listen to James Cresswell's comments in the oral evidence link Gavin posted above. Re, his funding from Syngenta, he insisted on a clause which allowed him to publish what he wanted even if the results were unfavourable to the funder.
    Last edited by Jon; 27-11-2012 at 10:00 PM.

  9. #19

    Default So, who's done it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon View Post



    Yes, a non field realistic dose is sufficient to dismiss any claims. If you use a high enough dose you get a kill or a measurable effect such as disorientation. Everything has an LD50, even water.



    .

    Could you let me know of any 'field realistic' trials published that have not been funded by Bayer, et al?

  10. #20
    Senior Member Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Belfast, N. Ireland
    Posts
    5,122
    Blog Entries
    94

    Default

    By the way, SSE want to take 120 acres of my land to build a marine energy substation. This land is one of the few remaining habitats for the Great Yellow Bumblebee. What should I do about it?
    What do you mean they want to take it? Do you mean they want to buy it from you or have they power to vest it from you whether you want to sell or not.

    If you hold the cards it is up to you whether bumblebee habitat is more important than hard cash. Your call.
    personally I never give a sh1t about money so would not be tempted to sell something I was happy to keep for a sum of money.
    Being honest I suppose my head could be turned if it were silly money I could invest elsewhere, but I would also be thinking of what my neighbours would like on their doorstep for the next 50 years or so.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •