. . . . . . "those who want to see, can see". - - [Oldtimer - 2016]
Who does? Anybody?
Rader, name one beekeeper who doesn't want the EPA process reformed.
If you were ask me which pesticide technology is most likely to replace neonicotinoid chemistry, I would say RNAi.
I've followed Monsanto's acquisition of some leading biotechnology companies, and some key scientists.
However, I don't have a crystal ball, and Monsanto is notoriously unpredictable.
OK, well at least it's an answer.
I have no idea if you are informed.
What I can tell you, is genetic modification may be a way forward. But it will likely attract just as many or more detractors, as neonicitiniods. The public opinion problem will not go away.
GM crops are, well, already genetically modified.
Some might see the advantage of uncoated seeds, since their pesticide is already built in like Bt, as a clear improvement on coated seed technology.
There are too many linkages in this world to sit back and say "It's not my job, man!".
Although I have no problems suggesting planting pollinator friendly crop varieties with pollinator friendly field edges/margins and hedge rows.
That might just take up some of the 'yield' slack.
But the thread is not about crop rotation. The issue was you were advancing an argument but did not consider it your job to support it or take it to a logical conclusion.
Anyhow, you since have, with a suggestion of genetic modification. Which is a viable option although likely just as controversial.
When it comes to the continuous use of various neonic coated seeds and Honeybee losses (aka CCD), then of course IPM, crop rotation, and sustainable permaculture, enter the argument.
Remember, you asked for the alternatives, not me.
<<When it comes to the continuous use of various neonic coated seeds and Honeybee losses (aka CCD), then of course IPM, crop rotation, and sustainable permaculture, enter the argument.
The market will decide what alternatives, if any, are viable. The question is what will be the new costs (aka prices) and will the incremental benefits outweigh the incremental costs. Hopefully these impacts from the European experiment will be factored into any decision.
Yet, Charlie, they keep planting the same crops, over and over again, with the same set of neonic coats.
That's just greed. No real IPM in sight.
It's just a business model.
And, continuously planting neonic coated seeds, year after year, is the issue at hand.
You can't claim the moral high ground with that.
Likewise they don't deserve to be ran through the dirt either and calling them "greedy" does that.
Farmers prices are set by the market and the market won't pay them more for using non-neonic coated seeds. They make what they make by lowering their cost. If they don't match every other competitor's cost structure they go out of business. It's capitalism.
http://www.exmoorbeesandbeehives.co.uk/ Buckfast UK.