For readers of Beesource following Stromnessbees outburst

[Jon]

Nevertheless, I share her lack of trust in the benevolence of multinational companies

Hi John.
Me too. I think we all understand that a conflict of interest can arise, but that should not automatically lead to bizarre conspiracy theories.

and in the problematic analysis of scientific trials, given the funding sources and non-publication of 'unhelpful results'.

Trials have to be funded. If they are not funded by the companies themselves the burden on the taxpayer would be enormous. I don't think it is fair to insinuate that the leading researchers are in the pocket of companies like Bayer. Most decent researchers have a great deal of integrity and personal pride in the research they carry out. I read with interest papers by Pettis, Engelsdorp, Bromenshenk, Higes, Alaux and others who are investigating the relationship between pesticides, pathogens and bee health. I ignore the press and the internet forum warriors who deal in sensationalism or propaganda rather than facts.

I agree with you that organic production is an important part of the picture and that is what I do myself on a small scale but a one dimensional analysis of a complex situation with regard to pesticide use is not helpful. Some crops are easy to do without chemical fertilizer or pesticide input. Others are difficult. It also gets tricky in a tropical climate where crop pests can reproduce at an alarming rate.

P.S. Having corncrakes is impressive. A friend of mine did a big corncrake survey in Ireland in the 1990s and we have precious few left due to management practice of when the first cut is made in hay meadows. There were concrakes near Belfast in the River Lagan bog meadows in the early 1990s but I think they are all gone now.

[Johnthefarmer]

Hi John

I'm very glad to hear from you and delighted to hear more of your farming practices. I don't think that anyone on here - me included - would do anything other than applaud what you are doing to preserve the biodiversity around you.

What you are seeing here is a clash between cultures. As a scientist, I'm wedded to the idea that to arrive at a true understanding of any such issue, you need to free your mind from biases and take an impartial look at all the evidence. Doris isn't doing that, and - to repeat a phrase used here before - cherry-picking to support an argument she wants to make. Perhaps that's unfair. It seems more likely that she has just picked up on other people's cherry-picking. It doesn't matter whether or not you distrust multinationals. Neither does it matter whether or not you distrust scientists like Dr Lu who seem to be out to prove that multinationals and regulators got it wrong. To make sense in this morass of technical confusion you need to take a step back, to look at the data, consider whether or not realistic situations are being described, and come to a sensible conclusion. Doris hasn't been doing this. She is capable of doing so, and really ought to try again. Why not encourage her to look at the link Jon just posted to the Bee-L review by Randy Oliver on the Harvard research she'd been mentioning lately?

Some of us involved in this spat have met Doris and like her. I think that I'm probably speaking for everyone when I say that her internet outbursts in the middle of last week were wrong and inappropriate, but we are still willing to forgive her for it. I certainly am.

best wishes

Gavin

PS Oh, do tell her that bees do actually metabolise these compounds and in a fairly short timescale of a few hours.

To clarify,
Would you say that your position (and probably Jon's and Nellie's and the BBKA's ) is that neonics are the least evil option,given the state of mainstream global agriculture?

[gavin]

Hi John

Yes, more or less. I don't speak for Jon and Nellie and I haven't a scoobie what the BBKA think but that is my position.

I'm horrified by what we are doing to the planet in so many ways, but these insecticides are not the evil that is often portrayed. Older insecticides were much worse. When over-used, neonics may pollute waterways, groundwater and soil, so minimal use when necessary for the protection of food production is something I support. I don't like the injection into trees and drenching of the soil that takes place in the US (and not as far as I can tell the UK). Nor their deliberate use in irrigation water (ditto). But used as seed dressing for oilseed rape and other crops means that sprays are not required on young plants (flea beetle and aphids are the main pests controlled I understand) and the levels seen in flowers (nectar and pollen) of 1-2 ppb are, apparently, and according to nearly all studies, harmless to bees.

Honeybees don't seem to be suffering from their use (according to most of the studies done) but instead suffer from Varroa, sub-optimal management (I'm as guilty as anyone), and various lurgies, known and unknown. The common bumble bees are abundant in areas where arable agriculture uses these compounds, such as around here. The rare bumble bees continue to be in trouble, largely because of the destruction of their habitat, something I'm delighted to see that you are doing something about.

That probably sums up my attitude - I'm pro-environment, pro-honeybee, pro-wild bee, partly suspicious of multinationals but aware that there are good people employed by them, and utterly fed up by the propaganda that continues to be fed to beekeepers to swing their opinions against things the campaigners wish. As a crop researcher I'm also acutely aware that the world is running out of options to feed all the mouths on the planet. To pick our way through *that* one needs care and it needs people to make all the right decisions based on good evidence, everything from food production strategies to dealing with and slowing climate change.

best wishes

Gavin

[Johnthefarmer]

Hi John.
Me too. I think we all understand that a conflict of interest can arise, but that should not automatically lead to bizarre conspiracy theories.



Trials have to be funded. If they are not funded by the companies themselves the burden on the taxpayer would be enormous. I don't think it is fair to insinuate that the leading researchers are in the pocket of companies like Bayer. Most decent researchers have a great deal of integrity and personal pride in the research they carry out. I read with interest papers by Pettis, Engelsdorp, Bromenshenk, Higes, Alaux and others who are investigating the relationship between pesticides, pathogens and bee health. I ignore the press and the internet forum warriors who deal in sensationalism or propaganda rather than facts.

I agree with you that organic production is an important part of the picture and that is what I do myself on a small scale but a one dimensional analysis of a complex situation with regard to pesticide use is not helpful. Some crops are easy to do without chemical fertilizer or pesticide input. Others are difficult. It also gets tricky in a tropical climate where crop pests can reproduce at an alarming rate.

P.S. Having corncrakes is impressive. A friend of mine did a big corncrake survey in Ireland in the 1990s and we have precious few left due to management practice of when the first cut is made in hay meadows. There were concrakes near Belfast in the River Lagan bog meadows in the early 1990s but I think they are all gone now.

My daughter, Amy, has just got the job of Orkney's corncrake tzar.I'll let you know how things go!

[Jon]

To clarify,
Would you say that your position (and probably Jon's and Nellie's and the BBKA's ) is that neonics are the least evil option,given the state of mainstream global agriculture?

In my case, probably yes, as the older pesticides have been responsible for some major bee problems and they are also far more toxic with regard to human health. My gut feeling is to be anti pesticide, but being pragmatic, I know that we have to live with them so electing for the least worst option is my position. personally I run an allotment and a garden without pesticides or chemical fertilizer and I grow a reasonable amount of the food I eat myself. Clearly no pesticides are without risk to wildlife, (Nellie's otter comments), people or the wider environment. I think there is a strong case for restricting the use of pesticides in gardens where the main use is the protection of lawns or ornamental plants.
In the real world, there is a need to be careful about feeding the ever burgeoning population of the planet. It is far more complicated when you are growing vegetables and fruit rather than grasses or cereals.

No idea what the bbka position is. They are all over the place with regard to pesticides and bees although it is good news that they have decided that the sponsorship deal was unwise to say the least.

If I remember correctly, my friend who used to work for the RSPB said that most of our corncrakes fly in from Zimbabwe.

[Neils]

My "position" is that the current scientific evidence on neonicotinoids does not support the claims made of it by those leading the campaigns to have them banned on the basis that they are to blame specifically for CCD or widespread honeybee deaths. They are certainly less harmful to mammals and birds than the classes of pesticides that they replaced which, lacking any plan from the ban campaign as to what happens if they succeed, I have to assume will come back into widespread use.

Where neonicotinoids sit in the grand scheme of things remains to be seen but I don't currently believe that replacing a class of pesticide that is far less toxic to the wider environment with ones that are very toxic to much else besides insects including honeybees on the basis that neonicotinoids might be harmful specfically to honeybees and ignoring the rest of the environment makes a great deal of sense.

You'll have to ask the BBKA what their position is, if it's any help I think they devoted the front page of their news letter to a statement outlining exactly that.

[Johnthefarmer]

In my case, probably yes, as the older pesticides have been responsible for some major bee problems and they are also far more toxic with regard to human health. My gut feeling is to be anti pesticide, but being pragmatic, I know that we have to live with them so electing for the least worst option is my position. personally I run an allotment and a garden without pesticides or chemical fertilizer and I grow a reasonable amount of the food I eat myself. Clearly no pesticides are without risk to wildlife, (Nellie's otter comments), people or the wider environment. I think there is a strong case for restricting the use of pesticides in gardens where the main use is the protection of lawns or ornamental plants.
In the real world, there is a need to be careful about feeding the ever burgeoning population of the planet. It is far more complicated when you are growing vegetables and fruit rather than grasses or cereals.

No idea what the bbka position is. They are all over the place with regard to pesticides and bees although it is good news that they have decided that the sponsorship deal was unwise to say the least.

If I remember correctly, my friend who used to work for the RSPB said that most of our corncrakes fly in from Zimbabwe.

Apparently, most Orcadians used to believe that Corncrakes couldn't fly. They usually just trot about. It must have been quite a suprise to find out they spend their winters in Africa!

[Johnthefarmer]

I think Doris's suggestion that the neonic effect may be less immediate to the individual, but more impinging on their offspring may have something to it,but that's probably above my paygrade.

[gavin]

Nobody is getting paid here (!) .... just teasing!

It is theoretically possible of course, and might explain the delayed losses shown in the University of Stirling study with bumble bees (albeit with levels of neonics top of the range). Maybe more likely is a small reduction of vigour of the colony then later knock-on effects of that.

We've been told that neonics cause CCD, they promote Nosema (gut parasite), affect the ability to cope with Varroa, cause bees in the field to become disorientated and probably several other things, but the truth is that several field studies looked for and failed to find an association between neonic exposure and bad effects including winter losses.

Nice hearing from you John

Gavin

[Johnthefarmer]

Nobody is getting paid here (!) .... just teasing!

It is theoretically possible of course, and might explain the delayed losses shown in the University of Stirling study with bumble bees (albeit with levels of neonics top of the range). Maybe more likely is a small reduction of vigour of the colony then later knock-on effects of that.

We've been told that neonics cause CCD, they promote Nosema (gut parasite), affect the ability to cope with Varroa, cause bees in the field to become disorientated and probably several other things, but the truth is that several field studies looked for and failed to find an association between neonic exposure and bad effects including winter losses.

Nice hearing from you John

Gavin

If you even think the above are possibiities, as a beekeeper, how can you work so hard,after midnight,to defend their worldwide use?