dsRNA ingested by bees is transferred to the Varroa mite and from mite on to a parasi

[Ian]

nope, property rights is a real thing. Beekeepers cant tell property owners what to grow and not to grow.
Government on the other hand can, as the government holds all property.
So if something happening on that property is a violation of government law, then that property owner is liable
beekeepers hold no right over property owners.

ever wonder why beekeepers cant claim liability for pesticide kills?

[Ian]

As far as the beekeepers earning any privilege ... well, erm ... just WOW what can I say, your a beekeeper right?

I hope you get permission to place bees on properties . I run 30 yards, many yards on my own land. The rest of the yards I get access to the property. And for the rest of the property around me I work with the farmers to prevent any pesticide damages from occurring. My hives are foraging on their land.

[Ian]

beekeepers bees going on your property is a right, not a privelage. otherwise it would be an incredible abuse of the concept of property rights. you might as well say someone else looking at your property is a privelage, not a right

so if I were to put up a 12 foot fence to stop people from looking at what was on my property, could those people claim a right to view my property and have the fence taken down? . . .

[Lburou]

I sure hope this works out for beekeepers around the world!

I use their product. It has advanced our ability to grow food. It has made me money hand over fist. It has allowed us to practice more sustainable farming practices. It has allowed us to minimize out tillage, saving fuel, saving the soil structure, and it has cut our pesticide bill in half, it has also cut our pesticide usage by 1/3...snip...

I use Monsanto (M.) products and have no problem with my concience using them. I think what Spark is concerned about (and I share that concern) is the way M. has sued and bankrupted farmers with crops adjacent to Monsanto GMO soybean crops. Pollen from GMO crops has drifted to adjacent plots and produced seed stocks containing Geneticall Modified Genes (in fields not using M's seeds)....M. sent their goons to sample and then sue the poor farmers who did not buy the GMO seeds but had the pollen blow into their fields. M. acted like a giant bully in those cases. What is to keep them from bullying you when they find the patented dsRNA in your beeyard? M. has shown a pattern of action. That is his concern, and mine too.

[Ian]

I know of one case M has sued a farmer for infringement, and the farmer lost
funny how the farmer was using the technology of the plant, but did not know it was in his field , wink wink

[jim lyon]

Lee the concern about wind drift is a legitimate one. The concern about getting sued by Monsanto for such wind drifted seed production is not. The Percy Schmeister case is the only one I have ever heard of where wind blown pollen was claimed to be the source of replanted seed. All courts ruled thatMr. Schmeister's claims were not believable. Genetically modified seeds are patented. You may not save seed and replant it. The only other cases that I am aware of were cases where it was proven that the farmers did exactly that and they were all decided by the courts in favor of Monsanto. I understand how Monsanto controls much of the seed business in the US and I would agree that it isn't an ideal situation to say the least but lets not forget that this technology also makes farmers a lot of money.

[wildbranch2007]

Dont forget the rights of the land owners. Beekeepers dont own the rights to the use of others land. Beekeepers earn the privilege to collect the bounty from others land.

perfectly said

[wildbranch2007]

but lets not forget that this technology also makes farmers a lot of money.

then could we please send this information to our reps and do away with the farm subsidies, so we can pay what the crops are really worth then maybe our bees would be able to work something other than corn and soybeans. had to get bees in there somewhere else I would be moved to tailgater

[Ian]

isnt that the truth. but that is a more complicated issue than it appears,...

[johng]

How far out do you think a product like this is?

[Ian]

when I sat in on a meeting a couple or few years back, they were still in the development stage,
They said at that point of time, the cost per treatment was $1000 per dose.
They said the next step was to develop the facility to bring the costs down to a feasible cost for commercial use
I would think that is where Monsanto come in to play

[Scott Klein]

"Argue all you want about the ethics of big business but don't deny that without the technological advances in agriculture there is no way we could produce the food needed to feed 7 billion people."

Jim, you say that, but I hear this... http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...6BE0VJ20101215

Do you think that 7 billion people are adequately fed? Americans placed something like 14th in health of rich countries, while dietary related diseases and poor nutrition remains a persistent problem in many parts of the world. If enough nutritious food is being produced, why all the health issues?

Concerning the (ag) advances over the last 50-100 years; Ian, do you think that we can continue to see similar increases in commercial crop yield in the next 50 - 100 years (to keep up with population growth)? Can we simultaneously preserve and even increase native habitat while doing so?

In my opinion, this statement ignores the innovation that could have occurred in localized, small scale agriculture as opposed to large scale monoculture production and as such, I don't think it's a good argument to follow it with "I used less gas, made more money and worked less". These values of the past were enabled by commercialized sense that cheap, easy and disposable is good. - "I do not prize the word cheap. It is not a word of inspiration. It is the badge of poverty, the signal of distress. Cheap merchandise means cheap men and cheap men mean a cheap country."
-William McKinley

Trespass issues were created to keep humans from entering or destroying property, not all genetic material. A whole new framework of what trespass is should have been developed before novel genetic material was released (obviously didn't happen). To me, the concept of 'genetic property' is flawed... like you taxing your children (via. chores) and expecting that the family he or she marries into is then also in debt to you and that they are obligated legally to perform tasks or pay you for your (drifting) genetic property (i.e dowery?). Also, I appreciate ownership of private property, but not at the expense of those who will use it after (you know, you lease from your children...). To believe that you OWN land and can destroy it or any organism on it that you choose is simply selfish. It is clear to me that we are in debt to those that follow, not just those that come before.

The tides are turning though, people don't want to settle for cheap when it's no longer inexpensive, convenient, healthy, tasty and natural, all of which you can attain in your own back yard or with a CSA to a much greater degree than we have in the past 50 years. Bees, chickens and produce are all back on the backyard menu and people feel great about local, heirloom, non-industrialized foods. Growing even a few basic green and roots can transform us in huge ways. Not only is the exercise healthy, but growing food puts us back in touch with nature and our connection to the soil, while reducing pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, transportation fuel, packaging, rot and unhealthy, flavorless foods,... or supporting companies we don't trust for whatever reason.

[Gypsi]

I think we should go free market. No more farm subsidies. I am WILLING to pay $8 a gallon for milk, especially since I own my own milk goat, and I think that our farm subsidies are making Monsanto richer and meaner. But that's just my uninformed opinion.

[Rader Sidetrack]

Wow!

Regarding post #52, I eat as much as I can out of my garden. But no garden or even a "typical" CSA is capable of producing some common foods within reasonable effort. Anyone who has tried to consistently bake bread or other flour-based baked goods knows that while you might be able to grow grains, harvesting grains by hand is very difficult, hence very costly.

[Gypsi]

I've got Hopi Amaranth seeds on order. I eat very few grains, although I'd be hard-pressed to grow oatmeal or rice. I do like Quinoa but it won't grow here. I do need enough grain to feed my chickens, so I guess I will be planting non-monsanto corn.

I probably don't eat 3 lbs worth of wheat flour a year, but then my weight is normal for a 20 year old, as is my BP, etc. My sugar bill for bee-feeding is exhorbitant though, or has been, with the drought..

[D Semple]

What about the BEE.

I applaud the efforts of all the bee breeders who work to develop bees that can deal with or handle mites on their own, this technology is just another stop gap measure that kicks the can further down the road and will continue to weaken our bees.

[Ian]

Concerning the (ag) advances over the last 50-100 years; Ian, do you think that we can continue to see similar increases in commercial crop yield in the next 50 - 100 years (to keep up with population growth)? Can we simultaneously preserve and even increase native habitat while doing so?

Yes! we are getting better at controling disease, and when we can fully protect our crops from disease we will have higher predictable yields. Quality is a big concern, as alot of food gets down graded from disease damages and can not be consumed by humans, to which is salvaged into livestock feed.
Utilization of our lands are becoming more efficient, turning sour land or wet lands into productive agricultural land.

As in regards to beekeeping,
If we can integrate a disease control method to eliminate diseases like nosema, our bees will be healthier and much better off. practicing disease control measures without treating with pesticides and antibiotics

[Kieck]

To bring this thread back to the topic of the original post, the research makes me wonder if/how such a technology would be profitable for a company. Every thing I've heard about bees suggests that bees and mites drift pretty freely under a number of circumstances. That means, I think, that a small initial inoculation with a dsRNA product would quickly spread from bee to bee and from hive to hive.

It's one thing when a biotech company sells hybrid seed for crops with specific genetic traits, and another entirely when they sell a replicating gene for use in living organisms. Most growers do not produce their own hybrid seed for growing crops, and the technology is comparatively protected. If a transgenic trait against aphids, for example, was also being vectored from plant to plant by the aphids, such a "product" would tend to escape into the general landscape pretty quickly.

This research does make you wonder how many bits of DNA and RNA are being moved from bee to bee through parasitism by mites without humans noticing, doesn't it?

[squarepeg]

yes, and the technology requires feeding the bees, which isn't always necessary or desirable, (and would be even less useful if the effect is transient).

[Kieck]

Initially, the technology is administered to the bees by feeding, but then it can be spread from one bee to another through Varroa mites feeding on the bees. I suppose it could go something like this:

One bees eats feed containing dsRNA for a particular effect. A mite feeds on that bee, then moves to another bee. The second bee now has the gene. Mite 2 feeds on bee 2, and then moves to bee 3. Bee 3 drifts to another hive, and picks up mite 3. Mite 3 moves to bee 4, and mite 4 feeds on bee 4. Mite 4 ends up on bee 5, and so on.

Of course, I'd be interested to know if the dsRNA traits are passed from mother to daughter directly (no mite vector) in bees, and if the dsRNA is passed from mother mite to her offspring. If so, such dsRNA technology could spread like wildfire through bees.

Pretty hard to convince people to buy such a thing if they're likely to get it without purchasing it anyway, I think.