Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 110

Thread: BBKA Pesticde Decision

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default BBKA Pesticde Decision

    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_gr...ea_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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Belfast, N. Ireland
    Posts
    5,122
    Blog Entries
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric McArthur View Post
    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.

  3. #3

    Default

    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

  4. #4
    Senior Member Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Belfast, N. Ireland
    Posts
    5,122
    Blog Entries
    94

    Default

    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.

  5. #5

    Default

    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.

  6. #6

    Default

    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/EDMDe...82&SESSION=905
    >
    >

  7. #7
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,464
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric McArthur View Post
    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.



    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,884
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    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?

  9. #9

    Default

    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

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,884
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    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.

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
  •