Hey! You mean that there is good debate to be had on *this* forum surely!
Hey! You mean that there is good debate to be had on *this* forum surely!
Is there good debate? Can we get past the notion that people must be "pro" or "anti" pesticides and actually debate this, perhaps acknowledging that this isn't currently a black and White discussion?
I'm apparently pro pesticide at the moment for daring to ask what happens if neonicotinoids are banned.
In the meantime I'm trying to come to an informed descision but, as yet, I've not seen anything that backs up the "ban them tomorrow" point of view which surprises me given the urgency with which it's being promoted in some quarters and raising questions around it simply gets you shouted at and called names which immediately makes me suspicious that the good intentions of Beekeepers and the wider public are simply being used.
You and me both Nellie, and I have been a vegetarian for 30 years and grow quite a bit of the food I consume without the use of pesticides or chemical fertilizers.Originally Posted by Nellie
It is exemplified by comments like this:
Who is pro pesticide? There are several who are calling for evidence, and but one who is calling for a ban irrespective of the evidence.
That does not make the rational posters 'pro pesticide'
Borderbeeman suggested I must work for Bayer when I pointed out some of the gaps and contradictions in his argument. I notice Eric uses exactly the same tactics - cut and paste combined with personal slur, against both the individual and science in general. It's a bit sad really, either your argument holds water or it doesn't.
Last edited by Jon; 28-02-2011 at 06:03 PM.
This is exactly what happened in France. Media campaigns that moved further and further from the truth until the banning had little to do with bees.
BUT, we still have to keep bees. I am* lucky* because there is no intensive agriculture nearby, so I don't have to make a decision. If there was a neonicotinoid being used near my hives, I'm not sure that I'd feel relaxed about it, in spite of all I've read about the lack of field trial evidence. That of course has nothing to do with science, just one of my preconceived ideas left over from the days when insecticides definitely killed the bees.With an open mind it's not too hard to adjust intellectually.But emotionally............................
I felt exactly the same when approval was given to use Chinook (imidacloprid) seed dressing on OSR in the UK. I was angry. The French experience showed us that there were probably damaging effects of imidacloprid and I was angry that the UK authorities were going ahead without being worried about bees. Many years down the line my bees do the same as they did before - sometimes there is a good flow from the rape, sometimes not, but they always build up well on it. Then the research starting coming out that seemed to try hard to link bee problems to neonicotinoids in the field, but couldn't. And finally I read the report of the small part of the French research effort that took a broader view of the problems of bees (thanks Chris). Time to reappraise ....
G.
Hi Gavin, could you please post the link from post 8 again, at the moment it's not working.
If we are now discussing where we all stand when it comes to peticides I would love to say that we should get rid of them all. But I can't say that as even I use them:
1. On our organic farm we give one drench of sheep wormer to the ewes at lambing time before they are moved to 'clean grazing'. Also, if lambs fail to thrive we can do a worm-egg-count and dose them if the numbers are high.
2. My cat also gets the occasional treatment with a pesticide against fleas.
3. And then there's of course my indirect use when buying food etc.
I try to minimise negative effects though by buying organic foods when I can, and the cat has to live with the occasional flea.
On the farm the choice of pesticide is very important though. Our prefered wormers for the sheep are old fashioned non-systemic ones which (as far as I could find out) do not persist in the dung and therefore won't disrupt the breakdown of the dung in the field and negatively affect wildlife.
However, the newer wormers (Avermectins) are used by many livestock farmers routinely and can have detrimental effects on arthropod numbers and therefore for example lead to a decline in bird numbers in otherwise pristine looking landscapes.
To allow farmers to make the right decisions the facts presented about pesticides need to be correct and easily available, and this is where we seem to have a major shortfall. Especially the persistency of a pesticide should be a very critical element in its evaluation.
I am also wondering why neonics wouldn't be harmful to mammals if they block receptors in synapses which are very similar in arthropods and mammals. Any explanations?
Hello Doris, I don't have the necessary scientific knowledge to answer that question, but before being allowed on the market a pesticide must undergo many tests for its possible effects on mammals. In the case of the active element fipronil, the following may be helpful ?
http://www.affaire-gaucho-regent.com...sa_summery.pdf
Regards.
Sorry Doris, I boobed. The link is fixed now in post 8 and is also here.
Thanks for posting the link again, Gavin.
I had a quick glance at it re. reversibility of effects of imidacloprid.
Here some quotes from that paper, indicating that it can't be washed out that easily:
Janine Kievits wrote an interesting article in Pesticides News: http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue...n76%20p3-5.pdfp 2687: For longer applications (>3 min), and for the highest concentration used (100 mmol l-1), reversibility was poor even after prolonged wash-out.
p 2689: Recovery of the responses to Imidacloprid was rarely observed even after a wash-out in normal saline of more than 20 min.
p 2690: However, it must be noted that the irreversible decline in the amplitude of responses to Imidacloprid suggests that this compound may have diverse and complex actions, additional to the activation of AChRs, that may also contribute to its insecticidal action.
She points out major flaws in the testing and approval procedures for pesticides:
andp 4/5: Flaws in the process
Analysis of the reports shows that the current process is insufficient to credibly test the potential toxicity of insecticides used in seed treatments. The present scheme does not take into account the chronic toxicity of the products, despite the fact they are present in the plant throughout its period of blooming...
p 5:Two major failings
There are two major failings in the current review process. Firstly, it relies on studies
supplied solely by the company putting the substance forward for review (the ‘notifier’,
often the manufacturer). And no review of the scientific literature is required. For example...
The second major failing is that the whole assessment process takes place without any
overview by civil society...
Hi All
Is there a debate here?
Hi All
I am with Gavin on this one: “Hey! You mean that there is good debate to be had on *this* forum surely”!
His cynicism is well placed. Everyone in this thread is cherry picking, as usual – either trying to discredit opposing opinions by resorting to sarcasm, which is a sure indication somebody’s comfort zone has been penetrated or implying name calling and injured pride – Pass the smelling salts Mabel!
Jon’s astonishing statement; attributed to a government initiative:
“A recent UK Government discussion document looked at ways of increasing food production without bringing more land into general agricultural production and reducing habitat even further”.
In the not so recent past the UK government has been encouraging farmers to remove arable land from cultivation – converting to caravan sites and other non productive strategies. Scotland is well placed to increase food production and is in the enviable position that with a NON- GM/ MINIMALIST PESTICIDE agricutural policy the Nation is capable of feeding the population and even exporting our surplus.
Gavin must be aware of the latent potential of Scottish agriculture.
For hundreds of years the farming community has supplied the nation with its daily bread, meat, vegetables, milk and not forgetting our beer and whisky! These comodities were produced without the input of massive quantities of chemicals – the 2nd World War proved that a well organised agricultural regime could supply the need.
A well tried and proven system of crop rotation and ploughing which maintained disease and parasites worked. The land was fertile and well managed and highly productive. Fields were left fallow on a cyclic periodic and livestock was moved around to different grazing to maintain ground parasites at below lethal levels.
There were enormous flocks of lapwings, an abundance of pipits, chaffinches, buntings, skylarks, blackbirds, thrushes, moorhens and great numbers of migrant species like the corncrake, fieldfare, redwings the list was endless.
What happened? Again Gavin could put a precise date on the “Doomsday Scenario” which ensued to destroy those halcyon years.
I hear the cynics mumbling – “What about soil fertility”? “What about soil pests”? What about???
Crop rotation, green fertiliser, clover as a nitrogen fixer, chemical FERTILISER used sparingly and wisely, constant animal welfare and health checks would all take care of the sustainability of the land.
I stumbled on this piece of prose recently – perhaps it might yield some opinions good, bad or indifferent.
Eric
Soil Degradation
Much has been written about the woes and ills of apiculture and agriculture in recent years. There is little doubt that we are fast approaching a ‘watershed’ in our ability as humans to sustain the high living standards of some and simultaneously improve the quality of life of the many at present well below the accepted poverty level in the developed industrial societies. The world human population, according to the best estimates will reach a burgeoning 8.3 billion souls by 2030. There is a school of thought which advocates that GM crops will supply the necessary sustenance for such a population: There is a polemic to this rationale which states just the opposite; each protagonist group insisting that they have the moral high ground. Another parameter associated with the foregoing is the issue of agricultural chemicals in the form of fertilisers and pesticides; again there is a great gulf of opinion: The organic lobby visualises a future without chemicals or at least with minimal application: The present vociferous pro- chemical lobby opines that without the agro-chemicals the world population will face starvation. These foregoing entrenched attitudes however valid are a long way off the true mark in their philosophies for human survival in the medium to long term.
The food production dilemma; GM or not GM; chemical or non chemical agriculture will pale into insignificance when the looming real issue, soil degradation has to be addressed in the not too far distant future.
There is a band of farsighted people, members of the worldwide “Soil Association Movement” who have elevated themselves above the squabble about fragments such as those mentioned and who have focused on the real issue facing sustainability for the human race. Namely, where are the food crops which are so necessary for our survival going to be grown?
The indifference shown by world government to the soil degradation problem, ranks on the same level as the indifference to the need to sustain the honey bee population level to secure effective pollination of our important food crops. In our headlong rush for high efficiency a basic rule has been forgotten – when a problem is solved by experts versed only in the particular discipline ‘on the table’, the result usually spawns a host of other problems, some extremely serious. History is littered with examples of man’s deliberate or otherwise folly; rabbits in Oz, cane toads in Oz, Varroa world wide, anthrax on Grunaird – to say nothing of the pigs, goats and rats inadvertently introduced to the Galapagos over the centuries.
We need to look at projects designed to effect change on an objective, multi- disciplinarian level in order to arrive at a well researched beneficial end result.
At this present time more than six billion people depend on food produced on just 11% of the planet’s land surface: Worse only 3% of this surface comprises productive fertile soil. Soil degradation is steadily transforming productive land into deserts of one kind or other at mind numbing speed.
A statement attributed to U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned: “The history of every nation is written in the way in which it cares for its soil”. Wise words!
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks