Termites/ bees

[Johnthefarmer]

My quick reply to all this is that the concept of annually-repeated, systemic,highly-residual,broad-spectrum insecticides only sounds good to an ignorant farmer. How it can appeal to a thoughtful ,
intelligent bunch of beekeepers?

[Neils]

Because it currently appears to be slightly less worse than annually repeated, indiscriminate, highly residual, broad spectrum, multi-application insecticides that are also very toxic to other non target species as well as insects and most definitely including bees. Do we need to put that colony poisoning chart up again?

It's not a case of it 'appealing', but you know that already because we've been saying it for years.

[edit]Lets try it simple:

Would I prefer to have my hand smashed with a hammer or my head cut off?
I take getting my hand smashed.

Does either choice appeal to me?
No.

Why am I choosing to get my hand smashed?
Because it's the least worst option of the two on the table.

Chris did some digging in another thread, what happened in 'Brave' France when they banned Neonics? They went back to using Pyrethoids and other classes of insecticide, all lethal to bees and much else besides.

[Johnthefarmer]

[QUOTE=Nellie;12032]Because it currently appears to be slightly less worse than annually repeated, indiscriminate, highly residual, broad spectrum, multi-application insecticides that are also very toxic to other non target species as well as insects and most definitely including bees. Do we need to put that colony poisoning chart up again?

It's not a case of it 'appealing', but you know that already because we've been saying it for years.




Please try to think outside of what multinationals offer us . Farmers don't have to kill off everything on their land except their cashcrop. I have produced good yields of food for many years from my land without resorting to any such measures. Lambs,tatties,eggs,calves,etc.I am not living in cloud cuckoo land or relying on unicorn manure.
Edit....Sorry about your hand.

[Neils]

You're preaching to the choir here.

I live in Bristol, sandal wearing, organic buying capital of the UK, also somewhat ironically one of the biggest markets for 4x4s too.

Thymol, Organic Slug pellets (not got any to hand to list what's in them) and Sugar are the limit of what goes on my allotment and in my beehives, not necessarily in combination on both. But I can always go to the co-op when the onions fail.

Do I think that banning neonicotinoids here will turn every farmer into a JohntheFarmer getting decent yields from Organic measures or are they going to go the way of the French?

Because what it ultimately boils down to is: Can you produce a bag of potatoes that costs the same as a bag of potatoes from the local Greengrocer let alone what the supermarkets sell them for using your methods? If you can, fine, but why then is the campaign only against Neonicotinoids and not about legislating that every farm must be organic instead? If you can get the same yields at the same price why do farmers even bother using the stuff?

[Johnthefarmer]

You're preaching to the choir here.

I live in Bristol, sandal wearing, organic buying capital of the UK, also somewhat ironically one of the biggest markets for 4x4s too.

Thymol, Organic Slug pellets (not got any to hand to list what's in them) and Sugar are the limit of what goes on my allotment and in my beehives, not necessarily in combination on both. But I can always go to the co-op when the onions fail.

Do I think that banning neonicotinoids here will turn every farmer into a JohntheFarmer getting decent yields from Organic measures or are they going to go the way of the French?

Because what it ultimately boils down to is: Can you produce a bag of potatoes that costs the same as a bag of potatoes from the local Greengrocer let alone what the supermarkets sell them for using your methods? If you can, fine, but why then is the campaign only against Neonicotinoids and not about legislating that every farm must be organic instead? If you can get the same yields at the same price why do farmers even bother using the stuff?

Let me try it simple:
If a farmer kills off most or all of the 'bugs' on his land he's working in a sterile environment and relying on external inputs. These soil communities have evolved over millenia.To dispense with them and substitiute chemical remedies is a nonsense.
I was taught agricultural science in the 60s/70s, as were many of the current advisors and company reps. We were taught high input,full control,maximisation techniques..without looking at the environmental and planetary costs. It's taken me some time to find a better way.
You may think I'm naive in my approach to things, I can't believe that you, Jon, Gavin, Callum etc. are paid-for Bayer shills........
No, I don't really think you are paid-for, but your mindsets sometimes fit the bill....
P.S. All my lambs, for the last 8 years, have gone fat to Tesco's.

[prakel]

Let me try it simple:


.... I was taught agricultural science in the 60s/70s, as were many of the current advisors and company reps. We were taught high input,full control,maximisation techniques..without looking at the environmental and planetary costs. It's taken me some time to find a better way.

I think that you've finally scratched the surface re what could be seen as being wrong with a lot of todays agriculture. Out of interest where else are you pushing this debate? -Outside of the beekeeping community that is..... I'm sure that your peers from the 60s/70s are probably the ones you should really be converting if you want these issues wound up in your working life but could it be that a lot of those (now) advisors and company reps won't listen to you?

[gavin]

I don't accept John's them and us approach. These days a lot of farming is moving to somewhere in the middle and that is a good thing.

Dogmatic rejection of any kind of chemical tool is just that - dogmatic. Be smarter and minimise their use. However when people start making up or exaggerating the issues that come from using farm chemicals I have a real problem with that.

We have some very big problems to solve. If we're going to let unfounded dogma rule big decisions then as a species we're in big trouble. We *have* to be more sensible. So, we now have a class of pesticides that are better than previous ones in terms of toxicity to mammals. Overuse them and you poison ecosystems. Use them sensibly in a properly regulated way and they will come with little collateral damage. Ban them because some noisy folk don't like them and the companies that market them, and because there *have* been mistakes made, then I'm afraid it looks like mob rule to me. Science, evidence, impartial decision-making for the greater benefit. That's what matters. Gut-feeling stuff with an agenda, highly selective use of science to make a point, sorry, wrong way.

[chris]

Gut-feeling stuff with an agenda, highly selective use of science to make a point, sorry, wrong way.

To quote Pierre Besse, “ without founding or forming a homogeneous movement, even less so a unified political structure, they [the various founders of the organic movements] represent, each in his own way, a permanent current of intellectual resistance to the dominant way of thinking”

What is not said, is that this intellectual resistance is most often the fruit of an extreme right wing engagement, known and proclaimed by these pioneers of organic production.

Ironic to hear certain of their intellectual descendants bringing up Bayer’s past involvement with fascist Germany as an argument against their present activities.

Best not to talk politics, I think.

[Jon]

I can't believe that you, Jon, Gavin, Callum etc. are paid-for Bayer shills........
No, I don't really think you are paid-for, but your mindsets sometimes fit the bill....
P.S. All my lambs, for the last 8 years, have gone fat to Tesco's.

John you are naive off the scale, trying to extrapolate your experience on Orkney which has marginal farming conditions on to the rest of the planet.
And that shill nonsense was offensive and is still offensive. Grow up and accept that people who disagree with you have a right to do so. If you want to convince people of the merit in your argument, try and develop a better thought out and more convincing position. Doris and your self may see life as an anti corporate anti multinational 'war' to quote her on beekeeping forum, but the rest of us are looking for the best way forward based on that dreaded concept 'evidence' which is also part of your fantasy football shill strategy list.
I imagine there are no maize or wheat fields in Orkney and the range of crops grown there must be quite limited.
If it is like marginal conditions in Ireland I imagine there are a lot of rugged sheep and rugged cattle hunkering down against stone walls in windswept fields.
Are you in a position to advise on pest control of other crops, tropical agriculture, stuff like that.
Have you ever tried to grow a field of courgette without control of whitefly?
I have grown my vegetables and fruit totally chemical free all my life. It is simple on a small scale.
I use less chemicals than you do in your farming as I only use the fungicide bordeaux mix sprayed once or twice on my spuds
The challenge is to do farming on a large scale and produce enough food to feed people.

And returning to the fact that pesticides tend to produce a sterile environment and reduce the complexity of the soil, that is clearly not good for the environment, but singling out neonicotinoid pesticides is daft. They are not worse than some of their predecessors. I would agree with the others who want to work towards pesticide reduction and elimination of the more dangerous pesticides. NB. sometimes know as a real world position as opposed to a quasi religious theoretical position.

[Stromnessbees]

I would agree with the others who want to work towards pesticide reduction and elimination of the more dangerous pesticides. NB. sometimes know as a real world position as opposed to a quasi religious theoretical position.

Neonicotinoids are by far the more dangerous pesticides.

They are a thousand times more toxic than DDT.
And they have a half life of nearly 20 years in the soil (Imidacloprid).
When used in seed dressings they are not used as needed but as prophylaxis, the result is that nothing can live on that field, you create a deadzone.

Due to the longevity of the toxin this field remains dead for a long time, propably until the next treated seeds are planted, thereby continuing the problem.

There's also the effect of accumulation, if treated seeds are planted before the previous toxins have disappeared - remember that half life of nearly 20 years - you get an accumulation of toxin in the soil which can be picked up by whatever plants are on the field. This can be a crop that's attractive to bees, and they get contaminated despite no obvious treatment being applied that year.


If pesticides have to be used they should be as short-lived as possible, so that they can be directed at a target species at a time of real challenge to the crop without doing extended damage.

Preventative crop treatment with neonics is akin to people taking antibiotics on a daily basis, which would destroy the gut flora and create resistance in the organisms they are meant to kill - a very bad approach indeed!