Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 420
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    Quote Originally Posted by gmcharlie View Post
    Neonics have all but stopped random spraying of pesticides, Thats a GOOD thing, not bad. Of course neonics are bad for bees, so is too much water, or too much cold, or gasoline... The key is application. I live in the middle the most hevily Noenics in the world... My hives are in good shape.... No uneplained losees, and yeilds that are well withing normal.
    Wow

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,531

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    Quote Originally Posted by drmanhadan View Post
    Wow
    have you seen this one doc?

    http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick...pse-revisited/
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    DFW area, TX, USA
    Posts
    1,060

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    I suspect the whole plight of pollinators in general is more complicated than a single insecticide or single vector. Be careful of the fallacy in reasoning called the 'fallacy of the single cause.'

    I do, however, advocate proper use of neonics according to the label.
    LeeB
    I try to learn from my mistakes, and from yours when you give me a heads up :)

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand
    Posts
    5,994

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    CCD seems to have largely burned itself out for now.
    One reason "CCD" has burned itself out, was media fizz.

    The coming bee apocalypse was hyped up to such proportions it could not be maintained.

    Figures of 30%, 50%, and higher losses each year were bandied around, we were told we were on the edge of a crevasse, the impression was given that bees were on the brink of extinction. When public expectations were raised so high ( I hardly know any non beekeeper who did not think bees were about to go extinct), but the reality is that year after year bee numbers have been increasing, it becomes impossible to maintain the illusion.

    Pesticides kill bees, yes. The reason the EPA continuously approves them is because pesticides are a fact of life in the modern world. The planet could not be fed without them, it's that simple. That neonicitiniods, used correctly, are more harmful to bees than the insecticides of the past, may yet turn out to be one of the biggest urban myths of the early 21st century.

    Or, might not. But basing it's decisions on current main stream research not media hype, the EPA is doing what it believes is the best option. The recent banning of some use of neonicitiniods in Europe, was based primarily on public hysteria and pressure groups, rather than proper research.
    Last edited by Oldtimer; 12-27-2013 at 11:32 AM.
    44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly).

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Flora,IL
    Posts
    2,644

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    One might add that we will have proof one way or the other very shortly The EU has banned them so we should see european losses disappear.

    What will probably happen is no real change, then they will claim its the Neonics still in the soil.

    A quick look at teh map of applied pesticides compared to anual losses should show you answers real quick. Areas that have little to no farming should show up as refuges for bees, and areas like mine should be wastelands.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Washington County, Maine
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    The neonics make a convenient target. Unfortunately, science showing neonics are worse for bees than other pesticides isn't there. I worry that if the populace rallies to ban the neonics one of the following will occur: 1) a substitute for the neonics will be found that is bad for bees too; 2) the population that thought they were saving bees by participating in the drive to ban neonics will become disappointed and lose interest in bee and other environmental issues; or 3) if the bans do work as advertised, victory will be declared despite numerous other issues effecting honey bees and native pollinators.

    The planter dust issue needs to be solved, yesterday!

    But I think the focus on neonics ignores the elephant in the room which I see as an increasing human population. And a lack of personal responsibility for demanding perfection at all costs in the products we buy. "but these flowers came from the local big box store - they're gorgeous - what do you mean they're bad for my bees?"
    Master Beekeeper (EAS) and Master Gardener (U Maine CE) www.beeberrywoods.com

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    One of the issues that has come up with how the EPA tests and approves new pesticides is that Honeybees do not make an ideal proxy for native pollinators in pesticide testing.

    It seems that Honeybees can detoxify pesticides more readily than other native pollinators, and as a result, while the application doses might not harm Honeybees, they may exceed the LD50 for other native bees/pollinators.

    Strangely, in a recent study by di Prisco, et al., neonics resulted in a higher viral load than the organophosphates that were tested. So, there is evidence that neonics can be more harmful than another pesticide class.
    Last edited by WLC; 12-27-2013 at 06:01 PM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    27,092

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    Quote Originally Posted by gmcharlie View Post
    One might add that we will have proof one way or the other very shortly The EU has banned them so we should see european losses disappear.
    There's Legislation in the works in the US Congress to follow Europe's lead and put a 2 year ban on neonic in the US too.
    Mark Berninghausen #youmatter

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Flora,IL
    Posts
    2,644

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    Thats going to be a huge problem, the data will be worthless, as they will go back to random spraying which kills more bees so our losses will be higher

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,531

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    like so many issues of this nature there are two sides or more with competing interests.

    it's for these type problems and more that really need capable legislators.
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  11. #31
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chardon, Ohio
    Posts
    86

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    It is real easy to blame farmers for pesticide use. So maybe it just might be of interest to see figures on who actually uses a few pesticides.

    2,4 D -Ag use is 19% of the total use in the US.
    Carbaryl -Ag use is 0% of the total use in the US.
    Pendimethalin -Ag use is 54% of the total use in the US.
    Trifluralin -Ag use is 75% of the total use in the US.
    Malathion -Ag use is 0% of the total use in the US.
    Roundup -Ag use is 90% of the total use in the US.

    Soooo, if Ag uses are far from the total US use of pesticides who else uses them? The non Ag uses are split nearly dead equally between home owners and non Ag businesses or government. Home owner uses are primarily lawn and garden. The non Ag business and government uses range from golf courses to lawn care at business sites to railroad and public road right of ways, cities spraying mosquitos, etc.

    You might notice I included roundup on this list and that is one case where most of the use is Ag use. Roundup is by far the safest chemical on this list and the most environmentally friendly chemical on this list. The surfactants in the roundup formulation are more toxic than the active ingredient glyphosate. If you do not know what a surfactant is think dishwashing liquid. Glyphosate is also, for practical purposes, instantly bound by soil particles thus preventing migration of this chemical. It is then rapidly degraded to carbon dioxide and phosphate fertilizer by the microbes in the soil. Thus there is zero concern about contamination of aquifers or streams unless you spray directly into the stream.

    Anyone who thinks the US EPA is not doing a diligent job of protecting the consumer and environment from pesticides obviously has zero clue about what the pesticide registration process involves. Here is a link to a very abbreviated list of the registration requirements:

    http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulati...quirements.htm

    When I left the field in 1986 it was estimated to take about $100 million worth of lab studies to obtain a provisional registration for any new pesticide molecule. Once you have a provisional registration you can expect to spend at least $10 million per year for the life of the pesticide. That kind of expense buys a lot of lab studies. Many hundreds of them. It has not gotten cheaper since 1986. Also, periodically the EPA requires reregistration of all pesticides. During that reregistration process a fair number of original studies are thrown out by the agency and must be repeated because science and understanding of the environment has progressed since the original registration.

    You are far, far more likely to suffer adverse health effects from pills you get from your doctor than from any pesticide exposure providing the label directions on that pesticide are followed. The potential fines and jail time for not following label directions are enough to keep the Ag users very honest. Homeowners on the other hand cheat all the time. Even bee keepers cheat. I see repeated talk in here about use of oxalic acid for instance. That is illegal in the US and could result in either massive fines or jail time or even both.

    The neonic lawsuit against EPA was mentioned earlier. Anyone who knows the registration process and US law knows that this law suit is going no place including I would hope those who filed the suit. Such suits are filed fairly often and never win. So why do they get filed? Simple. There is no intent to win them. They are simply part of the propaganda needed to help with fund raising. They cost very little to file and are very effective at inducing people to donate lots of money.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    Refusing a problem is never the way to solve it

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    27,092

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    Admitting that one has a problem is the first step towards addressing that problem. Misdiagnosis isn't something a Doctor aught to be doing, is it?

    When a patient comes to you w/ a problem, what's the first step? Or maybe you aren't that kind of Doctor.
    Mark Berninghausen #youmatter

  14. #34
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Flora,IL
    Posts
    2,644

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    It really makes me smile to see post like these. A year ago it was all negative and ban this and that... in a short time I have actually seen people standing up for common sense instead of jumping on the evil corporation bandwagon without really thinking it out. Makes me realize chicken little may get his butt kicked...

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    Sqkcrk- its just a username, don't think much of it.

    What is the issue?
    Do you find that my acceptance of CCD is ignorant?
    Should the ban produce explicit results, we would have an improved direction for better beekeeping, and the beek community would gain the recognition it deserves. Understandably, the ban could have averse effects on US agriculture, so the situation must be considered in the scope of its range of consequences.
    What's your take on the ban?

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    27,092

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    I don't see you as any more ignorant than any other person who has been reading what the Media has been putting out there for consumption. Your green, that's all. Your Profile says you don't have any bees yet. So you don't know from keeping bees what to expect or hope for. Seems like it might be a bit early to be discussing this topic. But that doesn't mean it won't get discussed. You will learn something here.

    I don't know what a ban will do for anyone. It hasn't gotten out of committee as far as I know. Chances are it won't go anywhere. What happens in Europe will be interesting.
    Mark Berninghausen #youmatter

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    I've got a hive, and its a hell of a hive for education. I'm not gonna get any mites but Ive learned the on hand ins and outs of keeping, but admittedly Im not a major player in the field.
    What do you think about the hype? Good or bad for not just the beeks, but the neonic sprayers considered as well?

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    27,092

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    The attention we beekeepers have gotten these last years has been good for our pocketbooks.
    Mark Berninghausen #youmatter

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,531

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    Quote Originally Posted by drmanhadan View Post
    What do you think about the hype? Good or bad for not just the beeks, but the neonic sprayers considered as well?


    so what is your understanding of ccd? and how it relates to pesticides? what do you think about the hype?
    Last edited by squarepeg; 12-27-2013 at 08:38 PM. Reason: removed link to drmanhadan's photobucket
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    jackson county, alabama, usa
    Posts
    4,531

    Default Re: Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

    Quote Originally Posted by sqkcrk View Post
    The attention we beekeepers have gotten these last years has been good for our pocketbooks.
    true that.
    journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives

Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads