BBKA Pesticde Decision

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Nellie

Yor intention was to give me the run around! No?
Eric

There is also another pesticide implicated, fipronil, which had been used as a substitute for imidacloprid. Fipronil (manufactured by BASF) is a phenylpyrazol that binds GABA receptors, blocking passage of chloride ions causing hyperexcitation of nerves and muscles
See : www.labtimes.org.
.................................................. .................................................. .

Would you like to participate in a discussion about Fipronil? Without paste ups?

Best Regards

Eric

[Eric McArthur]

A few revealing extracts for: www.labtimes.org. Gavin, Your heroes are fast running out of credibility.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Ratnieks and Carreck “may give the
false impression that insecticides can be sprayed” without due attention.
Furthermore, their conclusion about imidacloprid and
French bee mortality “appears to be a biased opinion and a conflict
of interest”.

Gavin

I spotted this conflict of interests weeks ago and posted it in the SBA Forum.
Eric
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Lethal and sub-lethal effects
There had been previous conflict with Carreck who, as senior
editor of the Journal of Apicultural Research, took six months
to reject their critical manuscript, written in response to a 2009
paper by Belgian researchers, “Does imidacloprid seed-treated
maize have an impact on honey bee mortality?” (J. Econ. Entomol.
102: 616-23)....

The latter study had concluded that imidacloprid
has no negative impact on honey bees, at least in Belgium
(where mites are uniquely to blame). Again, Maini et al. pointed
out that Nguyen had selectively cited work by Bayer researchers,
while simultaneously ignoring numerous scientific publications
reporting lethal and sub-lethal effects of pesticides.

Gavin
There are many beekeepers who now feel Norman is past his “sell by” date.
Eric

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Chris
How many bees do you want to kill to prove yourself wrong? This article below was written in 2003 and says it all. It was originally in German - hence the paste up. Otherwise you would not have been able to read it! Education, education, education! Imidacloprid kills and severely disorientates bees. The recent findings in France confirming the American result is the end of the road for the neonics.
You conveniently ignore the aerosol factor with the neonic seed coating. No matter how the planting is done the coating will be subject to abrasion – bad start! Leave the hard sell to the salemen and start fighting the bees’ corner.

Regards

Eric
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;
Is Imidacloprid Harmful to Bees?

by Eric Zeissstoff
Dec 2003 issue of Schweizerische Bienen Zeitung pp 21- 22 (Swiss Bee News)

Imidacloprid, the substance used in seed preparation is causing great concern among
beekeepers. How badly are the bees damaged due to the effects of this systemic substance,
which is able to contaminate the pollen and nectar of agricultural food plants?
The Journal of Pesticide Reform 21/2001 introduced Imidacloprid as a new pesticide with a
systemic mechanism. Its chemistry is related to nicotine and similar to nicotine acts as a
nerve poison. Worldwide Imidacloprid is utilised in massive quantities primarily as a seed
preparation substance in agriculture, but it is also used in the household.
In laboratory trials Imidacloprid produces apathy, uncoordinated movement, distress and
weight loss etc. Fertility rates fall and miscarriages increase. Imidacloprid increases genetic
damage in the reproduction of DNA. It is highly toxic to certain bird species like ducks and
canaries. Eggshell formation is also affected.
Earthworms are killed at a soil concentration of 60ppb and begin to indicate injury at levels as
low as 1 ppb.
Imidacloprid is a persistent substance; it remains as a residue in soil for many years, as trials
in Minnesota have already demonstrated.
The American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pronounced Imidacloprid a
potential danger to water supplies. In Colorado, after only two years of Imidacloprid use
Colorado beetle resistance to the substance was observed. Soil Residues after preparation
with Imidacloprid the seeds are planted.
The amount of Imidacloprid at the planting stage is extremely low. However, because of its
long persistence, traces of the substance in the soil are able to be detected even a year later.
Bayer, the manufacturer has carried out testing.
R. Schmuck in his report describes the following analysis results. Residues of 10 ppb at a soil
depth of up to 10 cm correspond to a chemical burden of 45g Imidacloprid per hectare.
The following statement was found in a Bayer document:
"The evidence indicates that over a period of 6 years a relatively low level of Imidacloprid will
be achieved [in the soil], namely 0.030 mg/kg".
This corresponds to a level of 60g/ hectare.
The quantity of Imidacloprid recommended for seed-dressing crops is as follows:
Potatoes - 135g
Oil seed rape - 10g
Sugarbeet - 19.5g
(Akteur) - 118.3 g
(Gaucho) - 117g
(Imprimo) - 117g
Barley - 63g
Corn - 118.8g
Onions - 179.9g
Sunflower - 45g (approx.)
The persistent Imidacloprid soil residues of 45-60g/hectare have the ironic consequence for
agriculture, that it is no longer necessary to apply new dressings of the pesticide to oilseed
rape, since there is enough already in the soil from previous years to kill all earthworms and
invertebrates.
The effects on soil organisms, earthworms etc are dealt with in another study. However
questions must be asked relative to beekeeping regarding the uptake of Imidacloprid in the
target plant and its transport into the pollen and nectar.
Residues in Plants, Nectar and Pollen
Schmuck reports no residues above 0.010mg/kg (10ppb) in sun-flowers nectar and sunflower
honey and the bees themselves (the quantifying boundary was defined at 10 ppb). In a further
report residues in pollen were stated to be 0.0039 mg/kg (3.9ppb) and in nectar 0.0019 mg/kg
(1.9ppb).
Klaus Wallner confirmed in his study of Imidacloprid prepared Phacelia with a burden of 50
g/hectare, that the honey sac average contamination was 5ppb and the pollen taken from the
'pollen baskets' of the bees contained 7ppb. The centrifuged honey contamination level could
not (yet) be ascertained. The level was less than the 3ppb traceability level for honey.
Clarification in France:
In a report issued by the French Agriculture Ministry it was stated: According to the sunflower
variety the residues in the flower on the 65th day (at start of blossom period) varied between
2.5ppb (Pharon) and 8.7ppb (Natil). These values could possibly be higher at point of harvest.
The sunflower pollen is contaminated at an average level of 3ppb (up to 11 ppb max.). In
untreated plantings (sunflower, rape and corn), which were planted in Imidaclopridcontaminated-
soil, up to 7.4ppb was detected in the flowers.
Effect on the Bees
The Bayer study produced a mortality rate due to Imidacloprid for bees as follows: The LD 50
(the lethal dose which kills 50% of test organisms within 48 hours) lay between 3.7 and 40.9
Nanogrammes Imidacloprid per bee. Long term injury was investigated by Bonmatin.
He achieved an LD 50 after 8 days by feeding individual bees an Imidacloprid/ sugar solution
of 0.1 ppb. The substance showed itself to be highly toxic when delivered over time.
Tests conducted in Austria (CGB) also showed up risk for bees. In co-operation with the
German Bee Research Institute in Celle, the Vienna Institute, the Federal Biological Institute
(BBA) and also the manufacturer, Bayer field trials were carried out. At the start of the rape
bloom period 10 colonies of bees were situated in rape which had been Imidacloprid treated.
As a control 10 other colonies were placed in untreated rape.
According to the methodology of the trial, the following observations among others were
recorded: at 2.0 O'clock with the rape in full bloom, at 20 C ambient and brilliant sunshine
approximately 1.5kg of bees (about 5,000bees) were clustered on the landing board of a
colony. After these bees had been brushed onto the ground in front of the hive it took over 2
hours for the bees to climb back into the hive. (bees would normally climb back in a matter of
a minute or less).
It was further noted that no pollen was collected in the field where the rape had been treated
with Imidacloprid, however in the test colonies in the untreated fields pollen was collected in
large quantities. The evaluation of the test has indicated that bees affected by Imidacloprid
suffer problems with orientation. Bees with a particular level of Imidacloprid contamination at
500 metres from the colony did not return to the hive at all.

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Calum
Post your references - there are German speakers on the forum - some are native speakers - others are among the educated elite.

I have read all the recent work being done in Germany and Switzerland from the 4 magazine I receive each month from the publisher - which do you read. Die Biene, Deutsches Bienen Journal, Allgemeine Deutsche Imkerzeitung or Bienenmütterchen?
Regards
Eric

[gavin]

Why didn't I consign this thread to the 'ranter's corner' down below when it first appeared? Keep going Eric, you are making yourself look sillier and sillier as time goes on. You are almost as good at it as Graham now.

[Neils]

Hi Nellie

Yor intention was to give me the run around! No?
Eric

Not originally, but I keep making the same basic mistake when it comes to people like yourselves that you're actually interested in the reams of stuff that you continually copy and paste into various forums or are even remotely interested in discussing it without resorting to calling anyone who doesn't accept your "facts" at face value names.

You do your cause far more harm than good because I've now basically written you off as a crank. You could tell me the sky was blue and I'd question your motives. Shouting at me the same stuff as last time but a little bit louder doesn't work on me either.

I'm quite happy to try one last time to get one of my original questions answered or at least discussed sensibly.

Lets say the approval of all neonicotinoids is revoked pending further studies. What takes their place? How do their replacements compare to what is currently known about neonics when it comes to the affects on Honey Bees? What are the wider implications of those pesticides evironmentally?

As one of the criticisms often cited about neonicontinoids is their persistence in the environment, are there any implications of having two, presumably very different, pesticides effectivey mixing with each other?

[Calum]

I read Die Biene.

I just reread the full thread, Gavin I recommend you just delete it.
Both sides have good and valid point but this discussion is now just people provoking each other and is not in the spirit of this forum.
Noone is covering themselves in glory and noone is looking good here.
Noone is going to change anything on this issue in this thread so it is pretty pointless.

There is quite case for independent UK scientific institutes studying the impact of these pesticides. In many countries (USA and European) studies are ongoing, as are lawsuits. They will have worked it out before the UK has its boots on.

This site should bring beekeepers together and be a positive force for beekeeping IMHO.

[lindsay s]

Another two links to keep Eric happy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...g-2189267.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...s-2190321.html

[Jon]

Hi Lindsay
Graham White, et al are the sources of these stories. They hardly need the link to their own press releases.

They are to be found at cut and paste central otherwise known as moraybeedinosaurs.co.uk

[Eric McArthur]

Hi Nellie
There is nothing cut and pasted here!
Eric

Combinations of pesticides only lead to more combinations of pesticides.
Many of the world’s most dangerous chemicals used as pesticides were banned by the Stockholm Conference some years ago. Codex Alimentarius, which is ostensibly understood to be for consumer protection, which it actually is not, has ruled that nine of the most dangerous to human life chemicals, be reinstated because the organisations behind Codex are the multis which need access to these substances to create ever more toxic poisons, which incidentally makes them a lot of money.
The Monsanto’s pesticide Roundup (glypohosate) was designed to kill weeds threatening the development of Monsanto’s GM crops, without affecting the crop. The target weeds quickly became tolerant of Roundup and Monsanto decided to supplement their wonder pesticide with atrazine (banned in Europe) to make it more effective. The same weed scenario repeated and at this present time Monsanto is actually encouraging farmers to use a competitor’s weed killer compound.
SmartStax corn is a relatively new “kid on the block” – it kills virtually everything that lives in the soil!
Smarstax corn uses Acceleron seed treatment products. These contain a combination of fungicides including ipconazole, metalaxyl and trifloxystrobin for protection against primary seed-borne and soil-borne diseases, along with clothianidin, an insecticide, to reduce damage caused by secondary pests.
The pesticide scenario is not really working and agricultural use of these substances is the proverbial “road to hell”. Nature (not God!) always finds a way for her ‘creations’ to survive and all the most powerful poisons on the planet will not change that in the long term, except to destroy life on the planet as we know it. We have to learn to live with Nature not against it. Pesticides properly applied and properly regulated in conjuction with a return to crop rotation in agriculture will go a long way to reducing the weed and predator burden on our food sources. Do your own homework on glypohosate and atrazine and the fungicides – you already know what clothianidin does!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;