# More ... > Beekeeping and the environment >  UK Parliament submissions on pesticides

## Jon

Some familiar names.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8/contents.htm

Edit. Just posted the link which includes all the submissions as opposed to just the facebook one.

----------


## prakel

Wonder how many people that have clicked onto this facebook petition have the least understanding of foulbrood spores? Being of an increasingly cynical nature I also wonder why that issue has been tacked onto the pesticide campaign?

----------


## Jon

The facebook petition also claims that the bbka endorsed neonicotinoid pesticides until recently and cites our old friend Michael McCarthy of the Independent as the source. The BBKA, until recently, endorsed several pesticides as bee friendly but none of them were in the neonicotinoid family.

Submissions from people like Dave Goulson and Robert Paxton are worth reading as they are researchers and know the science and the pitfalls. Dave Goulson is certainly worried about neonicotinoids and he is a bumblebee specialist.

The submissions from the campaign groups are riddled with innuendo and conspiracy theory and are short on evidence. No surprise there.

----------


## prakel

The submissions page didn't load for me initially -just got the page of waffle about neonicotinoids being bad and foulbrood spores being imported in honey; now I can't find that page!

certainly some worthwhile reading here but nothing that explains how it is that people who holding large numbers of well managed hives in areas where there's usage of neonicotinoids are still reporting that they're not suffering mysterious (otherwise unexplainable) large scale losses.

----------


## Jon

Could be that other pollinators are more susceptible to neonicotinoids than honeybees.
The large size of a honeybee colony means that it can take a hit and recover relatively quickly.

The work by Dave Goulson at Stirling has suggested problems with bumblebees at dosages which do not seem to be a problem for honeybees.

----------


## prakel

Those thoughts did cross my mind. May possibly have been a better place for the protestors to concentrate in the first place rather than trying to force a connection between CCD and pesticides irrespective of what practice in the field is showing.

I doubt that anyone questions that these pesticides are designed to kill things but what I dislike is the way in which certain factions have tacked their as yet unproven beliefs onto the beekeeping fraternity as if expecting us to back up their unsubstantiated claims. When people ask (no, TELL) me about all the bees dying I quickly try to snuff the conversation by pointing out that niether myself or anyone that I personally know (who's management I rate) have suffered from these huge die offs; I'm sure that the majority of people assume that I'm lying... because everyone knows all the bees are dying.

If there's valid ground for a suspension or total ban then fine, but let it be for genuine reasons and let's hope that eventually it's not the honeybees that suffer from being exposed to whatever substances fill the void.

----------


## Jon

If there are some problems, tighter management and control may well sort it out.
Pesticides are authorised for specific crops with specific application techniques.
The US beekeepers talk about the difference between various crops treated with neonicotinoids.
Some won't take on pumpkin pollination contracts as it exposes the bees to a more dangerous level of pesticide. I think the seedlings get a spray at some point.

It is these nuances that the ban the neonic/save the bee brigade completely ignore.
I imagine the submissions from the scientists will be taken seriously and the other conspiracy stuff will be ignored.

----------


## prakel

I have heard of pumpkin/neonic connections but in truth can't think of the exact context off the top of my head. I do seem to remember that the Hackenbergs were involved in pumpkin pollination.

However, I think the main issue with mass commercial pumpkin pollination is that it's a crop which is very hard nutritionally on the bees and can see colonies go down hill very fast.

----------


## prakel

> It is these nuances that the ban the neonic/save the bee brigade completely ignore.
> I imagine the submissions from the scientists will be taken seriously and the other conspiracy stuff will be ignored.


I wonder whether those submissions will, in the context of this petition, be given serious consideration or whether they'll be tarred by the rest of the presentation?

----------


## gavin

The oral sessions are online and they make interesting viewing.  Watching the afternoon session with James Cresswell, Dave Goulson, Lynn Dicks and Graham Stone.  A lot of interesting points on exposure, and on the data held by the regulators but not easily accessible (which James Cresswell says is of publication quality).

Odd choice of entertainment for my lunchtime, I know.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/insects-and-insecticides/insects-and-insecticides-further-information/

The decline of pollinators and wild bees talked about at the start largely pre-dates neonics, and from the Scottish perspective the apparent expansion of the range of some bumble bees (and other insects) and the colonisation of England and Wales by a new one gets no mention.

----------


## gavin

I see that Peter Melchett of the Soil Association believes that the fields of peas on his farm would need armies of manual labour to get pollinated should the bees all die.  The only bees I've ever seen on peas were pinching pollen from the edges shrivelling flowers, as they routinely self-pollinate and usually bees can't be bothered going in for pollen when there are better things to visit locally.  He then later talks about the 'catastrophic decline' in honeybees and other bees since the neonics came in, contrasting with massive habitat loss in the decades before that which caused earlier declines.  

Murray McG on the Beekeeping Forum the other day was mentioning the best estimates of Giles Budge of the NBU showing that since the 1980s honeybee numbers are up maybe 20%, but with large error bars.  Even that modest increase was probably quite dramatic in recent years as numbers of beekeepers continued to fall in the 1980s and 1990s.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Could be that other pollinators are more susceptible to neonicotinoids than honeybees.
> The large size of a honeybee colony means that it can take a hit and recover relatively quickly.
> 
> The work by Dave Goulson at Stirling has suggested problems with bumblebees at dosages which do not seem to be a problem for honeybees.


    So, Jon , you are maybe reluctantly accepting that neonics may be seriously harmful to, say, bumblebees.

     There have been well over 30 trials now showing deleterious effects on honeybees.

    Why are you not campaiging for the ban?

    The argument that farmers will only revert to far worse insecticide treatments is defeatist.

     Far better to argue for a positive way forward.

----------


## Jon

Tell me about those 30 trials John if you have read them and tell me if they used field realistic doses and if not, why not. I have read a lot of them so would be quite happy to discuss some of the issues.

The alternative to neonicotinoid seed dressings is unlikely to be permaculture.
What do you propose to protect oil seed rape from pests such as pollen beetle?

I have an open mind and assess evidence as it comes in.
I could change my views tomorrow and it would not take a drop out of me.

Are you like that as well?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Tell me about those 30 trials John if you have read them and tell me if they used field realistic doses and if not, why not. I have read a lot of them so would be quite happy to discuss some of the issues.
> 
> The alternative to neonicotinoid seed dressings is unlikely to be permaculture.
> What do you propose to protect oil seed rape from pests such as pollen beetle?
> 
> I have an open mind and assess evidence as it comes in.
> I could change my views tomorrow and it would not take a drop out of me.
> 
> Are you like that as well?


  Believe it or not, I do not really have a crusade against neonics as my main agenda.

   I mistrust the motives of companies producing lucrative products which may well have harmful effects to admit to them. I also think that so much money is often at stake that they will resort to all kinds of shenanigans to defend their products. Makes business sense.    Is that a conspiracy theory?

   As for the 30+ trials. You probably know them better than I do. Reduction in navigational skills, reduced proboscis control, lack of grooming ability, lowered immunity to various infections, dying foragers requiring job swaps within the colony etc(you fill in). What you might expect of a neurotoxin.

    The question of dosages and duration is a difficult one for me to answer convincingly. Still, if a short, low-funded trial finds bad effects using rather high dosages because low doses would be harder to find a result with, is that sufficient to dismiss their findings? Maybe.

   I think the onus should be on the companies to fund clearly independent reseach to demonstrate the effects of their multimillion dollar products on the environment.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

By the way, SSE want to take 120 acres of my land to build a marine energy substation. This land is one of the few remaining habitats for the Great Yellow Bumblebee. What should I do about it?

----------


## Black Comb

Surprised you even have to think abut it John.
the answer is obvious.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

tell me

----------


## Jon

> Believe it or not, I do not really have a crusade against neonics as my main agenda.


Glad to hear it as it is often presented as the only show in town with regard to bee problems.




> I mistrust the motives of companies producing lucrative products which may well have harmful effects to admit to them. I also think that so much money is often at stake that they will resort to all kinds of shenanigans to defend their products. Makes business sense. Is that a conspiracy theory?


Probably fair comment. The mobile phone manufacturers all challenge each other over so called patent infringements. You can ask someone closer to home about the conspiracy theories/shills/contrails etc.




> As for the 30+ trials. You probably know them better than I do. Reduction in navigational skills, reduced proboscis control, lack of grooming ability, lowered immunity to various infections, dying foragers requiring job swaps within the colony etc(you fill in). What you might expect of a neurotoxin.
> The question of dosages and duration is a difficult one for me to answer convincingly. Still, if a short, low-funded trial finds bad effects using rather high dosages because low doses would be harder to find a result with, is that sufficient to dismiss their findings? Maybe.


Yes, a non field realistic dose is sufficient to dismiss any claims. If you use a high enough dose you get a kill or a measurable effect such as disorientation. Everything has an LD50, even water.




> I think the onus should be on the companies to fund clearly independent reseach to demonstrate the effects of their multimillion dollar products on the environment.


You should listen to James Cresswell's comments in the oral evidence link Gavin posted above. Re, his funding from Syngenta, he insisted on a clause which allowed him to publish what he wanted even if the results were unfavourable to the funder.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Yes, a non field realistic dose is sufficient to dismiss any claims. If you use a high enough dose you get a kill or a measurable effect such as disorientation. Everything has an LD50, even water.
> 
> 
> 
> .



 Could you let me know of any 'field realistic' trials published that have not been funded by Bayer, et al?

----------


## Jon

> By the way, SSE want to take 120 acres of my land to build a marine energy substation. This land is one of the few remaining habitats for the Great Yellow Bumblebee. What should I do about it?


What do you mean they want to take it? Do you mean they want to buy it from you or have they power to vest it from you whether you want to sell or not.

If you hold the cards it is up to you whether bumblebee habitat is more important than hard cash. Your call.
personally I never give a sh1t about money so would not be tempted to sell something I was happy to keep for a sum of money.
Being honest I suppose my head could be turned if it were silly money I could invest elsewhere, but I would also be thinking of what my neighbours would like on their doorstep for the next 50 years or so.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

:EEK!:  :EEK!: 


> Surprised you even have to think abut it John.
> the answer is obvious.



 Tell me.

----------


## Jon

Whitehorn et al 2012

Schneider et al 2012

and loads more in various countries and jurisdictions

Most studies looking at 1-5 ppb in pollen and nectar find no effect at all for honey bees although the Whitehorn et al study noted the reduced queen production for Bumbles. Goulson discussed his study if you take the time to watch the parliamentary evidence.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> What do you mean they want to take it? Do you mean they want to buy it from you or have they power to vest it from you whether you want to sell or not.
> 
> If you hold the cards it is up to you whether bumblebee habitat is more important than hard cash. Your call.
> personally I never give a sh1t about money so would not be tempted to sell something I was happy to keep for a sum of money.
> Being honest I suppose my head could be turned if it were silly money I could invest elsewhere, but I would also be thinking of what my neighbours would like on their doorstep for the next 50 years or so.


   They could go for compulsory purchase, if I refuse to settle. They would win, but it would delay things.

   So my current plan is to sell my land to the Orkney Island Council, who could then lease the site at a rate reflecting the profits of SSE.

   Still, what about the Great Yellows?

    I have had about 30 surveys on my land- archaeology,cultural history, botany,geology,seaweed(at least one very rare type),geophys,ecology,birds,etc. but no clear mention of the Great Yellow Bumblebee, to my knowledge.  

 If I am right, I'm pretty sure I am , that this land is one the the best remaining habitats for them (I have sometimes been able to see over half a dozen at one time on our outrun) what would you,SBA, recommend I do about this?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Whitehorn et al 2012
> 
> Schneider et al 2012
> 
> and loads more in various countries and jurisdictions
> 
> Most studies looking at 1-5 ppb in pollen and nectar find no effect at all for honey bees although the Whitehorn et al study noted the reduced queen production for Bumbles. Goulson discussed his study if you take the time to watch the parliamentary evidence.



   I will check them out.

   If Bumble queen production is affected noticeably at these levels do you really think there are no, more subtle, effects on Honeys?

----------


## Jon

Get in touch with an independent environmental consultant , especially one with an interest in bumbles or pollinators.
I have friends who do this sort of stuff for a living but you would need to get a guy who knows the Scotland and Orkney situation.
There is legislation which stops inappropriate land development if an endangered species is disadvantaged.

----------


## Jon

> If Bumble queen production is affected noticeably at these levels do you really think there are no, more subtle, effects on Honeys?


Listen to the panel of scientists who submitted oral evidence to Parliament. Goulson, Cresswell and the other two.
They discuss all of these issues.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Whitehorn et al 2012
> 
> Schneider et al 2012
> 
> and loads more in various countries and jurisdictions
> 
> Most studies looking at 1-5 ppb in pollen and nectar find no effect at all for honey bees although the Whitehorn et al study noted the reduced queen production for Bumbles. Goulson discussed his study if you take the time to watch the parliamentary evidence.


Even this one found that honey bee foraging behaviour was upset by doses at and over 5 ppb!  (0.5ng/bee- clothianidin)

----------


## Jon

> With this experimental approach we monitored the acute effects of sublethal doses of the neonicotinoids imidacloprid (0.15–6 ng/bee) and clothianidin (0.05–2 ng/bee) under field-like circumstances. At field-relevant doses for nectar and pollen no adverse effects were observed for either substance.


http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0030023

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0030023


  This is the next bit...quote

   '' Both substances led to a significant reduction of foraging activity and to longer foraging flights at doses of ≥0.5 ng/bee (clothianidin) and ≥1.5 ng/bee (imidacloprid) during the first three hours after treatment.''

 I take it you'll tell me this is X10 'field realistic'. Nevertheless, it was Schneider's next sentence....

Edit-you've not told me it's X10 field realistic- because it's not.So the trial you quoted to me contains evidence of field realistic doses of neonics significantly impairing foraging behaviour.

----------


## Jon

That is no surprise at the higher non field realistic doses.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

are you not at the nitpicking stage?



or am i?

precautionary principle?

----------


## Jon

Nope. It is field realistic or it isn't.
If you want to test safety you have to do it under field realistic conditions.

----------


## gavin

Who picks nits these days?  Just get those neonics on them!   :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Who picks nits these days?  Just get those neonics on them!


 Glad to see you're  keeping your eye on things.


  If a trial is reported to show no ill effects of neonics, then says it found impaired foraging behaviour at ,possibly, X10 dose is that relevant, or not?

  If not, why mention it?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Nope. It is field realistic or it isn't.
> If you want to test safety you have to do it under field realistic conditions.


Or maybe slightly over.....

----------


## Jon

Would you ban cars if it could be proven that exhaust fumes took on average a few days from the average lifespan of every human?

You need to get real about risk. It is all around us and can never be eliminated 100%

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Would you ban cars if it could be proven that exhaust fumes took on average a few days from the average lifespan of every human?
> 
> You need to get real about risk. It is all around us and can never be eliminated 100%


 Answers to the above might be to introduce catalytic converters, cleaner engines,electric cars etc. but we're talking pesticides and insects here, and we really don't need to treat every seed, every year with systemic poisons.

----------


## Jon

> we really don't need to treat every seed, every year with systemic poisons


I don't disagree with that, but you need to have a viable alternative for things like pollen beetle on oil seed rape, preferably one which is not more harmful to bees and other pollinators than the neonicotinoid seed treatment.

What do you suggest?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

We've stopped growing OSR in Orkney because it's such a rubbish crop.

----------


## Jon

It is profitable elsewhere though or farmers would not grow it. Orkney is marginal for a lot of crops.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> It is profitable elsewhere though or farmers would not grow it. Orkney is marginal for a lot of crops.


As you said earlier, money's not everything...

----------


## Jon

> As you said earlier, money's not everything...


Sort that out with the farmers.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Sort that out with the farmers.


You sort it out with the beekeepers.


 vote for a ban.

----------


## Jon

The beekeepers are fine. UK and Irish bees are doing very well.
I more than doubled colony numbers this Year and got 400lbs of honey and 50 mated queens.
How did your neonic free Orkney bees do this year?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

My understanding is that there is really no reliable system for assessing the numbers or health status of UK or Irish bees. The data have no sound basis. So many colonies have never been included and there's no accounting system for feral bees, or bumbles etc.How can you assert that 'bees are doing very well'?

  I hope they are , but how you know that, I don't know.

  Here in Orkney it's been a very poor year as far as sunshine, warmth, blossoms etc are concerned.

  Again, I cannot offer any certain statistics other than to guess that bee yields are likely to have been as reduced as silage, hay, barley, beef and lamb.

----------


## Jon

You mean you don't even know how the bees on your own land produced this year - honey, queens, nucs?
Easy metrics to get your head around.

The stats for the Uk are quite clear. Colony numbers are increasing and have been for a few years now.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> You mean you don't even know how the bees on your own land produced this year - honey, queens, nucs?
> Easy metrics to get your head around.
> 
> The stats for the Uk are quite clear. Colony numbers are increasing and have been for a few years now.


   That's not the question you first asked.

    I would have to check with Doris for a full anaysis of all our colonies. I do know that the hives on my farm produced a suprisingly good honey yield and we have more colonies now than in Spring.

 Still, I can't see how you're so sure about increasing UK colonies. There are probably more notified,accounted for colonies than previously, but what does that really mean?

----------


## Jon

> but what does that really mean?


It means that these stories put in the press about carnage and bee Armageddon are not accurate.

The National Bee Unit (NBU) estimate that honey bee Colony numbers for England and Wales are 250,000 and 272,000 for the UK as a whole. They do not have records for other types of bees and bumbles as far as I know.

----------


## gavin

Which equates to roughly a 20% rise since the 1980, despite a probably continuing fall through the 1980s and 1990s.  What this means is that Lord Melchett of the Soil Association was 'at it' in front of the UK Parliament Environmental Audit Committee last week.  He talked about a catastrophic decline in bees since neonics came in, continuing the decline caused by habitat loss up to that point which apparently then stopped, and that is la-la land stuff.  Fabricated, wishful thinking, makey-up, thing I-first-thought-of stuff.  Invented.  With bees, you can make stuff up and tell it to our MPs and somehow that is all OK because you represent the Soil Association.  Its all there for all to see in the video.

They were also told later about the unequivocal decline in bumble bees, especially in parts of England, and the two or three species that have gone extinct.  One may have been rediscovered I believe.  The finger was pointed at pesticides, and the habitat loss and climate change contributing to those losses not mentioned by that speaker.  No mention of the range expansions of some of the common bumble bees further north, and no mention of the new species that has colonised England and Wales right through the period of the neonic holocaust.  This was the guy talking who discovered the new species.  

Today the industry representatives and Dr Connolly of Dundee step up to the plate.  Should be interesting viewing.

----------


## Jimbo

Can't wait for part 3. Got my popcorn ready!
From a local perspective our association who have recorded the number of colonies in the association for about the past 5 years have recorded increases in colonies every year over the 5 years. If I can get the numbers I will calculate the % increase to see if it compares with the national average. There is certainly no bee armaggeden in our area

----------


## Jon

> There is certainly no bee armaggedon in our area


Nor in my area. 
The better beekeepers make increase or sell a few nucs every year and the same guys lose their bees every winter.
The losers often have strange ideas about varroa control, ie none at all or use of quack non approved products.




> Can't wait for part 3. Got my popcorn ready!


Check if I make a post while Julian Little is speaking. Our old friend borderbeeman has spread it all over the internet that this jon character is really Julian little of Bayer. Someone should tell my mother.

----------


## Jimbo

Hi Jon,

LOL!
Had a look at Julian Little while he was speaking. When did you get contact lens and start to use Grecian 2000 plus you have shrunk a bit since I met you in Stirling.

----------


## Jon

Good head of hair even if he is a bit of a lightweight.

Live now

----------


## Black Comb

I've only just caught up with this thread.
John, if you value nature in general and bees in particular, you should not even have to think about your reply to SSE, the answer is no.
IMO your proposed sale to the council is a get out to make you feel better about the whole thing.
Fight it man, it's something positive you can do for pollinators.

----------


## madasafish

Our local BBKA has trained about 20 beginners a year for the past 4 years. (I was one and now assist).. Some of them have progressed from 2 to 20 hives plus in that time). 
Given that monthly meetings are attended by 60-80 members, that is one big increase in active membership - even if you allow for a 50% dropout rate after a couple of years.

Not the sign of a decline in bee numbers.. or of beekeepers..

As for bumble bees, there is no arable land within a five mile radius and judging by visitors to the garden numbers are increasing..

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> I've only just caught up with this thread.
> John, if you value nature in general and bees in particular, you should not even have to think about your reply to SSE, the answer is no.
> IMO your proposed sale to the council is a get out to make you feel better about the whole thing.
> Fight it man, it's something positive you can do for pollinators.


   Yes, I agree that I should defend this important Great Yellow Bumblebee habitat. It is also one of the most recent areas where Artic Terns have bred successfully--but they haven't done that anywhere for several years.

    The numerous ecologocical surveys certainly should pick up the GYB connection, but haven't done so yet, as far as I know. We do have a bumble expert, John Crossland, resident here, and I know he is fully aware of the special nature of this land as a rare pocket of GYB populations. I will speak with him.

----------


## Jon

The RSPB have various projects on Orkney as well. I listened to a programme yesterday evening on Radio 4 about hen harriers on Orkney. 
The RSPB guy said that numbers had been hammered by overgrazing by sheep affecting the habitat of their prey but they are now recovering strongly with 115 chicks raised this year from 102 breeding females.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> The RSPB have various projects on Orkney as well. I listened to a programme yesterday evening on Radio 4 about hen harriers on Orkney. 
> The RSPB guy said that numbers had been hammered by overgrazing by sheep affecting the habitat of their prey but they are now recovering strongly with 115 chicks raised this year from 102 breeding females.


Yes,and my daughter was 'the corncrake wife' this summer making sure us farmers don't mow them all away.

----------


## greengumbo

> The RSPB have various projects on Orkney as well. I listened to a programme yesterday evening on Radio 4 about hen harriers on Orkney. 
> The RSPB guy said that numbers had been hammered by overgrazing by sheep affecting the habitat of their prey but they are now recovering strongly with 115 chicks raised this year from 102 breeding females.


That is fantastic and just shows what a traversty it is compared to on the mainland upland moors where they raised absolutely sod all young. Hmmmm I wonder why.

Charlie, Wills and Harrys pals on the grouse estates.

----------

