You should consider a career in politics Eric.
You've got the magic of internet powers to ban neonicotinoids tomorrow. What happens now? Seriously. You want me to write to my MP and ask, nay demand, that Neonicotiniod based pesticides are taken off the market [until they're proved "safe"]. What's the outcome of achieving that aim?
+Eric you old scoundrel,shame on you again,stirring up the goodfolks-I'm just off to my workshop to make you an authentic hobbyhorse.You can collect it when you come down here to buy me the pint you promised-then gallop off back to Glasgow on it.
Chandler* is chipping in to the Neonicotinoid hate-fest he's helped generate thusly:Originally Posted by lindsay s
<< This is a real opportunity to help make a substantial and important change and to collectively stick a finger in the eyes of the corporate criminals who are intent on profiting from the destruction of wildlike, while balming it on 'global warming'. >>
Is he really a climate change denier too??
Apparently not, according to a comment in his blog.
Eric, how come you've jumped into bed with these 'natural beekeeping' no-chemical-treatment folk when you yourself are famed for endless interference with the bees including risky Heath Robinson devices for fumigating them with oxalic? Is this really all about attacking big corporations and nothing else? Your own beekeeping seems to be almost the diametric opposite of Chandler's largely leave-alone stance.
* What I mean is that he's joined the moaners adding comments to the Independent's article online.
Last edited by gavin; 23-01-2011 at 10:41 AM. Reason: Googling and clarifying
bbHi Calum
I know what you mean, but there are two reasons not to.
One is that it would be seen by some (and Eric in particular) as censorship. I'm trying to keep this forum free from that accusation. So far we haven't pulled any threads or posts and the only 'users' banned were hackers with no interest in beekeeping. Eric has been getting close to being placed under moderation sometimes but so far has avoided it.
The other is that healthy debate is good, especially when those making accusations can be directly and quickly challenged in public. In Eric's case he has had an easy ride from far too many bee magazine editors (including, for many years, himself) who don't seem to question the distorted and poorly argued pieces he sends them. Now, the internet offers a chance for his views to be challenged and debated much more effectively. As we saw over inbreeding, after a lot of debate involving many people Eric finally saw reason (I think!), and we couldn't have done that in a magazine. In the process many more had the chance to see that his grasp on such technical matters is weak. It is pretty clear that his understanding of the real impact of farm pesticides is also weak, yet he has been regaling Scottish beekeepers with his characteristic certainty about this for many years.
So in future I'll try to catch these threads involving ranting about agrochemicals, GM and corporate power earlier and shift them to the ranter's corner down below where people can go or not, according to their wishes, leaving a more peaceable and productive discussion in this area. I've been distracted lately by heavy work pressure.
So I think that by allowing such debate, even though tempers may get frayed, it is still a positive force for beekeeping.
G.
Calum wrote:
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.
.................................................. .....................
Hi Calum
Good objective observation!
Eric
Hi Grizzly
I look forward to that! Work a Saltire into the paint job! You got any snowdrops /crocus blooming down there?
Eric
Hi Gavin
Each to his own! Beekeepers are an inventive bunch. Ask Ian Craig and many other progressives about the effectiveness of oxalic acid fumigation.
Eric
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.
Gavin Wrote:
My colonies guzzle oilseed rape in spring and they have no detectable Nosema. I know, I've looked.
.............................................
Eric wrote:
Seems if imidacloprid and Nosema act synegistically - that is when the trouble starts. Well done keeping your colones Nosema free!
Gavin wrote:
As we saw over inbreeding, after a lot of debate involving many people Eric finally saw reason (I think!), and we couldn't have done that in a magazine.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Hi Gavin
I wondered when inbreeding would surface again! Many thanks!
Eric
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;
In my original much (maligned) postulation, I submitted 10 unrelated colonies, the queen in each colony having been mated 16 times. Thus there was the potential of 160 drone fathers in that population.
Cruel fate being what it is and in line with a, not quite, worst case present day scenario. I proposed that 50% of these colonies would not make it through to the spring. Thus exit 5 colonies (80 potential drone fathers!).
To deviate slightly from the original postulation: Consider the affected beekeeper having to deal with a less than optimum Scottish summer and being unable to obtain ten replacement queens: obtaining only 5 successful matings.
He is now in the position where he will be over-wintering only 5 colonies, Cruel fate again intervenes and the following spring he loses, to be kind, two of his 5. He enters the summer with only 3 colonies (Gavin wrote: If you have three colonies fully isolated from all other apiaries then it will be hard to maintain 6 alleles in the long term!).
It would appear that even if the beekeeper in question manages to rear a number of queens, that his gene pool is now fatally weakened.
Returning to the original postulation, after reinstating colony numbers to 10 each year, still constitutes a reduction genetic diversity. Since each of the replacement queens from each colony will be sisters Gavin wrote: (...the workers and queens, each queen makes can be more diverse as they are fertilised with stored sperm, but over time this strong filtering when queens make drones will reduce the diversity in such small isolated populations).
When reducing drone numbers are considered rather than reducing alleles the postulation as presented is much simplified. However I am greatly indebted to my peers for the exhaustive discourse on csd and the limiting factor of allele numbers, be it 16 or 20.
Gavin - regarding the rubbish I have been contributing to the bee press over the last 40 years, I would be pleased to enter a discussion and constructive critiscism the merits and demerits of the material.
Best Regards
Eric
Well the debunking of your conception of the genetics of inbreeding was at least a start.
It looks like your erroneous logic re. neonicotinoid pesticides would be a good place to continue.
You are arguing for a ban on neonicotinoids based on their perceived danger to bees.
Fair enough.
What that amounts to is a vote for the return of the pesticides which were used in the 70s and 80s, the ones Gavin mentioned in a previous post, organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids.
I would be curious to know why you prefer these pesticides to neonicotinoid pesticides.
By all accounts these products represent quite a danger to bees and other pollinating insects.
You have to vote Eric, as banning neonicotinoids will not stop farmers and growers from spraying/protecting their crops against pests and disease.
Banning one is a vote for the other. We live in the real world.
I am curious as to why you prefer these older products.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks