# General beekeeping > Everything and anything >  For readers of Beesource following Stromnessbees outburst

## gavin

http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...ekeeping-Forum

Folks, we at SBAi don't quite know what to say.  Some of us know Doris  (Stromnessbees) personally and wish her no harm.  However her accusation  of regular posters here being 'shills' (paid propagandists) in favour  of the pesticide industry is hurtful.  We don't really think that people  are likely to believe her, but her behaviour has been outrageous -  first spamming SBAi with the accusations above and now repeating this on  the biggest beekeeping forum globally.

Last night she copied a defamatory post across 8 sub-fora here, now she  is making the same accusations on Beesource. So, 24 hrs ago, I removed  her duplicate posts and left one copy here:

http://www.sbai.org.uk/sbai_forum/sh...cussions/page4 (post #36)

The start of the argument was in this thread but yesterday I removed the off-thread discussion to the thread above:

http://www.sbai.org.uk/sbai_forum/sh...11-2012/page12

Nothing has been censored here and nothing ever has.  Sometimes for the  health of the forum I will move discussions to more appropriate areas as  people generally come here for beekeeping discussion rather than to  pick an argument.

As for Doris?  We wish her well and hope that she comes to her senses soon. 

Gavin

----------


## Stromnessbees

I just want to clarify that by using the term _shill_ I was refering to a distinctive, coordinated way of driving a discussion, for whatever motives.

I have no way of knowing if any persons involved were benefiting in a financial way from their activities and was not trying to imply that they did.

----------


## Jon

Doris. None of us were speaking off the forum that night.
The lines you think are private communication are just jokes in the posts which went right over your head.
I exchange e-mails with Gavin and Neil on a regular basis but we were not in any private off forum discussion that night. That's the truth. No coordination at all. last week I was in touch with neil about the possibility of sharing a hire car from Edinburgh to Stirling for the Scottish centenary event. No crime in that.
Your crime is failing to understand Neil's sense of humour and mine. I guess you are not the only one with that problem.
Go and reread the thread.

Good job I have a think skin. Your paranoid chum borderbeeman posts all over the internet that I am really Julian Little, some guy who works for Bayer!
I think these issues need to be debated in an informed way without name calling, paranoia or invoking a conspiracy every 5 minutes. If you believe strongly in something like you do, you need to get informed and make your case properly as opposed to throwing the toys out of the pram. I have spent a lot of time reading and assimilating papers to do with bees and pesticide risk and I suggest you do the same without cherrypicking bits which suit your preconceptions.

And for the record Doris, As you well know, I work for a learning disability charity for a minimum wage, so posting all over the internet that I am a 'pro pesticide shill' whatever that may be exactly is not a very nice thing to do. But like I said, I have a thick skin. I was just surprised that you would do this.

----------


## Rosie

All this reminds me of a run-in I once had with Borderbeeman.  He accused me in the end of being a member of the BBKA exec because I dared to defend their policy of advising farmers on which of the insecticides were the least harmful to bees.  The truth was that I was not even a member of the BBKA, let alone an executive.  He didn't exactly call me a shill but he said I walked like a duck, talked like a duck and therefor must be a duck.  He did not quite go as far as posting our "discussion" on other sites though.  Doris, I'm afraid you have out-done the master.

Rosie

----------


## Jon

Did I see some ducks in that polytunnel ark of yours or were they undercover agents on a reconnaissance mission?
The pygmy goat could well be a double agent.
You have reminded me of that Duck scene which exists in the fertile mind of borderbeeman but not in Dr Strangelove.
Possibly the greatest highlight of the old bbka forum. Just before he got BANNED for *lunacy* he posted the same message in about 20 subsections and he also copied over a tirade on to beekeeping forum which was lost on the majority as I don't post there.
I guess it is a serious misdemeanour to point out the holes in an argument when it is a faith based argument.
Nowt as odd as folk.

----------


## Neils

Well, as we're being up front and all.

I've nothing to do with Agriculture or indeed beekeeping when it comes to making a living, I write software and design databases.

The "misuse" of science and disingenuous debate, however is something I find fascinating and that I've followed with interest for a number of years, whether wrapping up creation in a pseudo-scientific wrapper as Intelligent Design or the media running with incomplete and inaccurate data such as with the MMR scare a few years ago in the case of science or shouting down objections to Afghanistan/Iraq wars with "why do you hate our troops?".  

The Anti-Bayer/big business campaign, which at it's heart I think that it is, campaign shares elements of all of the above neatly wrapped up as "save the bees"/Ban those nasty pesticides. Every other campaign desperate for support has tried it on, the anti-Phone mast brigade, the anti-Powerline lot. Pesticides lucked out, only a fool would fail to make the connection between an insecticide and a bee so it's gone full speed ahead in beekeeping circles and draws a few comments from time to time from the BumbleBee guys. But we're a tetchy lot and there's been all those shenanigans with the BBKA so we're particularly touchy around pesticides in particular. 

I'm a member of several other wildlife charities aside from beekeeping associations and it's interesting, even with others that are interested in Insects that this "debate" isn't even being had as far as I can see.  So you can take my "why do you hate otters" as an attempt to move the goal posts, debate in bad faith or whatever but, in fact, it's something that I'm very interested in.

That aside I think that this is a discussion that should be had, but when the Pro-Ban/Anti-Bayer campaigners want to continually attack anyone who doesn't agree with them or attempt to paint them as in the employ of Bayer then I don't think it does anyone any favours.

There will come a point when someone in the media will ask the BBKA just how many colonies we're down to now and how many were lost last year, and the year before. Or question why colonies are being lost in Germany, but numbers are increasing in Spain. Somewhere there's bee paradise that is not only masking massive losses down to pesticides but allowing many countries to show large increases in kept colonies so even before you start looking at the "science" that's being bandied around something doesn't add up. If you want to argue that the raw data is flawed, that's fine by me too, but produce something that backs up that argument.

When you then factor in the wider environmental impacts (Otters!) I think you have to question again, what is the actual benefit of banning neonicotinoids, Just in case? And, more importantly, what will replace them?

Again, if you ask the pro-ban campaigners what happens when they succeed you get attacked, called pro-pesticide, an employee of Bayer or just a hater of bees. But it's an important question. Will the fields be tended by herds of aphid munching unicorns or will previous classes of pesticides that we know are both harmful to bees, fish, birds, mammals and probably everything else, come back into widespread use?

It's all very well calling records showing bee poisonings as a result of pesticide spraying having dropped to near zero in recent years as "deceitful", but it's there, in black and white and in return we're supposed to accept "in quantities we can't detect" or the Harvard study as credible ammunition for banning neonicotinoids "just in case" and don't dare argue that or we'll try and trash you not only on this forum, but on others too?  I've been called worse and been more directly threatened for daring to asking questions of the ban campaign so this little episode is more amusing than anything else.

----------


## Jon

> The Anti-Bayer/big business campaign, which at it's heart I think that it is, campaign shares elements of all of the above neatly wrapped up as "save the bees"/Ban those nasty pesticides.


Neil I think that is absolutely true for a lot of them. I remember some guy taking on allcomers on the bbka forum about pesticides several years ago and he had never kept bees. His detractors obviously asked him why he was spending so much of his time on a beekeeping forum when he was not a beekeeper. About a year later he got himself a top bar hive and someone put a swarm in it for him which took the bad look off the situation but he never comments on it other than to mention it is still alive.
The dead give away is posters who make hundreds of posts about pesticides but none or very few about bees and beekeeping. That cannot be said about Doris as I know she is a passionate beekeeper with a particular interest in the native bee, same as myself. Just a bad case of conspiracy fever. My bees are hardy and do well and if I had to rank challenges they face I would put varroa number one, Nosema at two and pesticides quite a way down the list. I base that on personal experience rather than internet petitions against Bayer or any of the rest of the misinformation posted. Look at the facts folks. UK colony numbers have tripled in 3 years. That is a success story rather than a crisis.

[edit] removed some guy's forum nickname, he doesn't post here so I don't think it's fair to single him out, especially in this thread  :Smile:

----------


## Neils

> I just want to clarify that by using the term _shill_ I was refering to a distinctive, coordinated way of driving a discussion, for whatever motives.
> 
> I have no way of knowing if any persons involved were benefiting in a financial way from their activities and was not trying to imply that they did.


I'll also add that, for what it's worth there was no co-ordination, going on. We do talk outside this forum and we tend to agree on a lot of things, unusual in beekeeping circles I know.

The discussion is there to be had from my point of view. If spamming this and other forums about what a git I am is the worst that I can expect then I'm doing better than elsewhere  :Smile:  but I still don't think that it does much to drive the discussion. For the most part I enjoy your input to the forum. I don't agree with everything you say (obviously) and especially not around this subject, if you're going to cite the Harvard study seemingly because it appears to confirm what you want to believe while dismissing completely numbers you don't want to see or subjects you aren't interested in then I think you're out of luck.

I raised Otters specifically because a) I'm interested in them and b) the Environment Agency specifically cited reduction in pesticides use as the primary cause for their return (with general reduction in pollution and improvement in habitat also cited as important).  I left out the qualifier that the major blamed pesticides in question were banned in the 70's and ignored your, perfectly valid in some respects, points simply to use your own line of reasoning against you, i.e. if it doesn't fit what I want to hear then I'm going to discount it.

----------


## Adam

Hmmm.
Interesting.

Doris, I just looked at your posts on the US site and didn't understand them until I read the whole thread on this site. I honestly think you have taken two and two and made a consiracy out of it. (And yes their sense of humour IS a bit strange!).

I too have exchanged the odd private message with those accused and I have no doubt that they do not work for a pesticide company.
I can only write as an Engineer and a bloke that keeps bees in Norfolk. My colonies are surrounded by farmland including OSR in some years (not this one). I have never had maize near me but plenty is grown in Norfolk. My colonies have been doing fine as have other colonies in Norfolk as far as I am aware. In fact I have too many colonies - they breed and grow very well. (Ask my Wife!).

Some of the science is poor (giving 200 - 400x the dose is one example) and some studies in the past may have been sponsored by the pesticide manufacturers which would give cause to doubt _them_ if we consider the tobacco companies were in public denial for years and years despite knowing that smoking kills. The Sterling University article is definitely concerning, as I recall Jon has pointed out. 
We don't seem to get a pesticide (neonic) problem here despite, I assume, the same pesticides being used throught Europe. If pesticides are the problem we would all love to know why; the differences in application, practices, weather, whatever in France to Spain to Austria to the UK. I WANT the scientists to find out.

I am delighted that I am allowed to join in with the Scottish Forum as I'm 'slightly' out of foraging range; Doris, I have read your posts with interest over the time we've been members and hope that they continue.

I hope I've put the message across as intended. Engineers are rubbish at this sort of thing; I work with 35 of them and they drive me crackers!

----------


## Rosie

Oi Adam!  Who have you been conspiring with to besmirch us Engineers?  Is Trog with his gippy tum coming on next to land the next blow?

Rosie

----------


## Jon

Trog is a she, irrespective of any bellyache. Dodgy lot engineers.

The funny thing is, in my innocence when I explained to Doris that she had misinterpreted banter as conspiracy, probably not for the first or even the second time in her life, I thought she would apologize we would all forget about it, but even when the situation was clarified she went on to post the same conspiracy nonsense on the biobees site and god knows where else on the internet. Maybe it is just attention seeking. Sad really. Still time for an apology.

----------


## Calum

I feel I have to come cleam here, I am an engineer in the auto supply industry too.
I have been for 12 years now. 
My wife tells friends I am a tax collector, and my family in scotland tell people I work as a sauna attendant on a cruise ship in south america. 

I also have shares in Rolls Royce, BT, D-Telecom, and  british and swiss banks. - Glad I have bees, they help forget the shame of my existance..

----------


## Adam

Calum. No shame.

Last year I couldn't spell engineer. Now I are one.
At least I don't hug donkeys.  :Smile:

----------


## Jon

I hug neither donkeys nor dolphins nor Doris until she apologizes! Anyway, that is not a hug. It is a push. And it is not my donkey - nor are those my bees.
That was a public spirited action to avoid a diplomatic incident and possible tabloid headlines involving dead donkeys and killer bees.




> auto supply industry





> cruise ship





> tax collector


Secret code assimilated and understood.

In response I say 'capybara'

Wink wink nudge nudge. And you work in Germany you say. For a big multinational I bet.

----------


## GRIZZLY

Some of us engineers are quite good with the bees.At least we understand the nuts and bolts of the subject.As for pesticides,I can only recall one incidence of poisoning  and that was in the 1970's when much more virulent poisons were sloshed on the land.Lets keep the discussion going and not degenerate into the meaningless and misinformed mumblings such as I read on other so called forums.

----------


## Jon

My word, all those engineers coming out of the woodwork!
Need to be careful or Roger Patterson will be back talking about his 'engineer's logic'

grizzly, the pesticide risk is difficult to calculate due to the language used in the published papers.
I was thinking about this the other day as those who fail to understand, or in some cases willfully misinterpret - present as evidence studies using concentrations 100 times greater than field realistic.

In my non engineers way, (Bsc Hons psychology, I hold my hand up to a wafflers degree) these are the factors I think you have to get your head around when reading a study about pesticides.

1. What is the dosage used in the study and is it field realistic? This will be measured in ppb (parts per billion) or  µg/kg if fed to bees in sugar syrup. During the Harvard study 400 µg/kg was the upper limit, equivalent to 400 ppb. The lower limit they looked at after changing plans half way through the study was 20 µg/kg. The concentration of Imidacloprid in pollen and nectar has been typically measured as 1-5 ppb and it is usually at the lower end of that, ie 1-2 ppb. To use the drinking analogy suggested by Doris, a man can drink from 1-5 pints without serious harm, maybe a hangover the next day at the 5 pint level. Field realistic dosage. We then set up a study where student volunteers are forced to drink from 20 to 400 pints in a day and they all die. Maybe the odd hardy soul survives at the 20 pint level. We then present this as evidence that alcohol is so harmful it should be banned. In the Goulson bumblebee study, they looked at a field realistic level of pollen and sugar water containing 6μg kg–1 and 0.7μg kg–1 imidacloprid, representing the level found in seed-treated rape. That is why this study deserves to be taken seriously and the Harvard one does not.

2. What product is being tested? Imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam or others. The ppb which is dangerous to bees differs in each case so you need to relate that to the dosage used in the study as well. Clothianidin is much more toxic to bees than Imidacloprid for example.

3. How is the product applied? Is it applied as a seed dressing, a foliar drench or soil injection. Of these three, seed coating is the least risky to bees which is probably why we do not see problems with bees on oil seed rape. Some US beekeepers have reported problems with pumpkin pollination contracts as the plants receive a foliar drench before being planted out in the field.

4. Is the design of the study coherent? ie is it likely to relate to how bees forage in the field. Girolami's guttation water experiments involved  firstly dehydrating bees in the lab then offering them water laced with pesticide via a pipette. The bees died. For this to be a valid model you need to demonstrate that bees will take water from guttation droplets in the field which are very toxic even though they have alternate clean water sources. Bees avoid toxins such as Imidacloprid when the concentration makes them easily detectable.

5. Are we talking lab studies or field studies? Lab studies often involve individual bees trapped inside glass tubes which are then fed different doses of toxin. Jurgen Tautz claims that to understand the honeybee you have to consider it as a superorganism rather than an individual bee. The colony has multiple individuals with a hugely differentiated series of tasks to undertake which change throughout an individual bee's lifetime. If studies look at honeybees at anything less than colony level are they valid?

----------


## Calum

Jon, put everything after I am a Bsc Hons psychology, I hold my hand up to a wafflers degree, on another thread far away before it all kicks of again  :Smile: .
Yes the south of Germany, very close to Austria. A big (american) international (not Monsanto before you ask).

I make 50% beekeeking income from selling colonies to beekeepers that can't keep their own alive.
In one specific area where one beekeeper looses 90% and another looses only 10% - you have to look at putting some blame on the beekeeper. Shifting or projecting the blame on pesticide producers is far far to easy.

----------


## Jon

I see that here too. Some people have huge losses every year and have to scrounge or purchase more colonies in spring. Some of them are people who consider themselves big cheeses in the local beekeeping world as well.
I hate giving bees or selling bees to anyone I think will not look after them properly.
The good beekeepers end up with extra colonies or nucs and poor beekeepers are always looking for more bees.
We all make mistakes from time to time but there are people who seem to make the same mistakes year in year out.

----------


## Calum

This is how I combat that. Will have to put my prices up though - going rate in my area is now 105 pounds for ten frames in March - April

----------


## Jon

Same Here Calum. I always have spare queens in apideas. I still have two spare in apideas which overwintered.
We have about 20 members in a queen rearing group I started last year which is run on a not profit basis.
group members chip in ten quid each at the first meeting to cover the cost of cell cups and the rest. For that you get as many queen cells as you want for your apideas, grafted off the best two or three queens. Just posted a bit about the new association apiary in the blog section.

----------


## beeanne

Bsc Psychology is absolutely practical and useful.... I've an MA in Philosophy....
Anyhow, agree that some beeks blame losses on anything at all, so long as it isn't them. And some do have an inordinate number of losses each year when face a similar circumstance to others w.r.t weather/ pesticides/forage. But unless you've kept a few colonies / for a few years then tallying a % loss is meaningless.

----------


## Stromnessbees

Ok. Let's try again.

I will admit that I had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction after noticing messages popping up out of order, and maybe I shouldn't have posted my suspicions on other fora.

But I will insist that the forum etiquette here is very poor and if people here decide to behave as if they were shills they should not be surprised if somebody eventually does call them shills

- or in the terms it was discussed here previously:

  If you don't want to be mistaken for a duck, then don't quack like a duck!

Just to be clear what type of behaviour I am talking about - here's a list of typical strategies that internet shills would apply (eg on the topics of pesticides and GM):


 Strategy No. 1: They write nonsensical or distractive posts in order to make a thread that is critical about pesticides or GM boring and uninteresting to any genuine beekeeper. - Please notice that shills usually work as a team, boosting each other and driving the thread away from its original intention.

A second strategy is to make the pesticide or GM sceptic look ridiculous, foolish, fanatical, an outsider or - a favourite - calling him a conspiracy theorist. They will also try to associate him with unpopular persons or movements.

A third strategy is to baffle the genuine reader with science: they claim that if you haven't read certain scientific papers from beginning to end you can't take part in the discussion, they make you feel inferior. - Not-so-subtle psychology being used here in order to frustrate you and to scare you away from the real issues.

Typically, posts sent by shills appear very quickly after any concerns about pesticides or GM are raised as  they are using the search facility all the time just to track these topics!

If I notice this kind of behaviour here again I will not hesitate to point it out and initiate steps to curtail it. 


I am very interested to continue our debate about pesticides, but it has to be done in a civil way. I will start a new thread shortly, to which all concerned beekeepers will be encouraged to contribute.

Best wishes, Doris

----------


## Stromnessbees

As everybody seems to be laying out their qualifications I maybe should own up, too.

I studied Biology at Innsbruck University, specializing in ecology and entomology.
I did a 2 year research project on amphibians and took part in a pollination study and a study on black redstarts.

For a short time I worked for WWF, and after coming to Orkney I started running my own organic sheep farm. Since then I have helped my partner to improve the productivity of his organic farm by learning about various agricultural concepts and improving the soil and plant communities.

I started beekeeping in Austria at age 20, but stopped for several years while my children were young. Bees have helped me a great deal to understand Biology and I am glad that I had the opportunity to learn in great depth about them.

----------


## Stromnessbees

One more recommendation about trying to make this forum a fairer place:

Gavin, I think you have to decide whether you want to be main contributor or administrator.

It's not good if the administrator of a forum takes part in discussions as often as you do, especially as you have certain topics where your opinion is completely one-sided.

Please make up your mind.

Doris

----------


## gavin

Hi Doris

I'm going to be frank:

- your accusations of people here being 'shills' is outrageous and you need to apologise properly.  The term usually comes with the implication of taking the 'Kings Shilling'.

- you *definitely* should not have behaved in the way you did, not 'maybe'.  It was childish, counter-productive (for you) and utterly mistaken.  The reception you received on Beesource was appropriate and I would define it as ridicule.

- your 'quack like a duck' comment comes from Borderbeeman on other fora.  He comes across as an angry, humourless character with a complete inability to have an open mind.  Linking yourself with him will do yourself no favours whatsoever.

- your accusations of connivance and conspiracy ('strategy no. 1') are ridiculous.  You are dealing with individuals who are thinking independently and have read the science for themselves

- if people look ridiculous (your 'strategy no.2') they are doing it for themselves

- science is at the heart of this.  There is a large amount out there, and the highly selective quoting and propagating of the small amount of it that backs up a particular case is misleading.  If you are prepared to be open minded and pay attention to the detail, and to debate in a curteous way without insulting people, you will learn from the experience.  I have.  Again, it is insulting to imply that there are people here trying to baffle you with science.  No-one here has tried to do so, instead people have shared with you a broader vision of what the science is saying.  That broader view is hidden from most beekeepers because of the one-sided reporting going on.  The science should not be hard for someone with your background - you have no excuse for being baffled by it.

- 'typically posts sent by shills ... search facility ... track these topics'  Doris!  Get real!  There is NO conspiracy, just individuals posting their views on an internet forum!




> If I notice this kind of behaviour here again I will not hesitate to point it out and initiate steps to curtail it.


You threaten to 'initiate steps to curtail' the behaviour of people on  here?!  I'm sorry Doris, if that is the way you are thinking you will  very quickly be the second person to receive a ban on this forum.  You  were close to it when you spammed across the forum at 4 in the morning  the other day (see below) and you are very close to it now with that threat.  I  doubt that any other forum would have tolerated you this far - and I'm  only doing so because you have been a valued contributor in the past.   To remain welcome here you *have* to change that attitude, issue any  more threats or spam across the sub-fora as you did before, or post any  more of your ridiculous conspiracy theory rubbish about this forum  elsewhere, and you'll be history.

Gavin

This was the scene at breakfast time last Thursday or Friday (OK, it was Wednesday) after Doris' posting spree at 4 in the morning when the forum was accused of harbouring shills, conspiracies, and the other things she claimed.  One copy of that post survives in the 'Beekeeping and the Environment' area.

----------


## mbc

> One more recommendation about trying to make this forum a fairer place:
> 
> Gavin, I think you have to decide whether you want to be main contributor or administrator.
> 
> It's not good if the administrator of a forum takes part in discussions as often as you do, especially as you have certain topics where your opinion is completely one-sided.
> 
> Please make up your mind.
> 
> Doris


Wow there, lets hear everybody's side of things is my opinion.  I dont think Gavin tries to steer threads in any undue way, and even if you dissagree with some of what he posts, the disscusions would lose something without the posts.

----------


## gavin

> One more recommendation about trying to make this forum a fairer place:
> 
> Gavin, I think you have to decide whether you want to be main contributor or administrator.
> 
> It's not good if the administrator of a forum takes part in discussions as often as you do, especially as you have certain topics where your opinion is completely one-sided.
> 
> Please make up your mind.
> 
> Doris


That's unacceptable Doris.  To claim one-sidedness you have to have a reasonably dispassionate view in the first place.  I pride myself on broad views, open-mindedness and the ability to reassess the evidence.  That is why I have stopped believing (as I once did) that bees were dying in large numbers in France due to pesticides, or that pesticides have much of a role in Amercian CCD.  

This forum is a very fair place and is valued for being open-minded and tolerant.  I also value the humour brought to the debate by some of the participants.  If you don't understand that I'm sorry - but it is one of the great things about this forum.  Its humour and its reputation for perceptive debate.

If you want unquestioning acceptance of propaganda, you'll have to go elsewhere.

----------


## Jon

Hi Doris. You were out of order for making false allegations which you compounded by posting all over the internet.
You maybe need to apologize on Beesource and Biobees as well for the slur on the character of people who were not in any conspiracy and were merely taking a different point of view from your own. Throwing mud then running away is not a very winningb strategy.
I think this says more about stuff going on inside your own head than anything else.
Did you notice on your biobees conspiracy thread Phil Chandler inferred that he was banned on this forum yet when he was challenged about that there was a deafening silence.
I for one do not hold grudges and I am glad to see you back.
You have possibly been misled by the tone of some of the most vocal anti pesticide campaigners who prefer to shout and sling mud rather than enter into intelligent debate.
Most of this stuff is crude propaganda and the people who post it frequently seem to misunderstand what they are posting.
Someone with third level education like yourself should not be stooping to the level of some of those who are extremely vocal but quite ignorant.
The arguments are not black and white and need careful consideration.
I would have no problem accepting a ban of certain pesticides on certain crops under certain conditions if the science demonstrates a genuine risk. Not all the products carry equal risks.




> A third strategy is to baffle the genuine reader with science


But you quoted two recent studies to me and I was replying, The Henry et al and the Harvard study which has not been published yet. I had read them both carefully and I gave you my opinion regarding why I think they are poor studies. If you quote science in support of your argument am I not allowed to highlight areas where I think the design of the study is weak. From my point of view that is healthy debate.

Posts did not appear out of order on the thread you took offense at. Give people some credit for being able to think for themselves.
The sheep here are those who blindly accept that bee problems and ccd are mainly caused by pesticides. That is the tabloid position but the science at the moment tends not to support that view. All the non beekeepers I know ask me why the bees are dying and I have to explain that in the UK they are doing very well and that my own bees are also very healthy. This always causes surprise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After this point Doris returned the argument to her concerns over pesticides and the continuation of the thread can be found here.  G.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Gavin, bees don't metabolise it, the effects are long term, as proven in the study.
> 
> 
> What you need to know is that once bees are finished nursing there is very little metabolising going on. They are not like mammals which replace more or less all their cells within a certain amount of time. They are more like little robots whose parts cannot be renewed. 
> 
> If the pesticide isn't in rather high concentrations, as it was in Britain and France when the big die-offs happened, the adult bee is not really affected. 
> 
> It's the developing brood that is affected, resultung in adult bees with damaged nerve system (unable to ward off varroa), immune system (susceptibility to nosema), hormonal system (Roger's queen problems) and reduced lifespan (CCD).
> 
> ...


  I am hardly a beekeeper at all. There are currently 2 colonies on my west coast farm and I have made a couple of top-bar hives....
  In thirtyodd years farming here I have never used a pesticide.
  Most of my neighbours use them against 'grub'-leatherjackets, as advised by 'the college '- S.A.C. Over that time I have had some damage to 1/4 acre of barley.  
   There are management practices that work better than spraying:rotational cropping and grazing management.etc.
  We have the Great Yellow Bumblebee here,also Orkney Voles, Hen Harriers and Corncrakes.
   Our cereal yields are equal to most, and sheep and cattle performance better than almost anybody's.

   My partner and advisor can be over-zealous in her mission to clean up the world, and occasionally misinterprets the odd bit of blether. Nevertheless, I share her lack of trust in the benevolence of multinational companies and in the problematic analysis of scientific trials, given the funding souces and non-publication of 'unhelpful results'. 
   I trust that most members on this forum support the sharing of well-intended thoughts and careful observations to do with bees and their environment.


















we

----------


## gavin

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.  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## 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
> ...


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?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

You lot have a hell of a stamina!  Cheers.

----------


## Neils

Because legislation based on hunches, guesswork, knee jerk reactions and lies hasn't got a great track record to date?

Even if you exclude direct government legislation I'm still reminded of the great job the media and public did, on their own, about the scare that never was with MMR.

If an organisation like the co-op wants to not use neonicotinoids ats fine by me, lots of beekeeping forums applauded for them. No many asked what they're using in their place though.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Because legislation based on hunches, guesswork, knee jerk reactions and lies hasn't got a great track record to date?


 If that's the case,  I applaud you all. If it's not, may you all rot in your illuminati bunker before you are resurrected to the galactic domination which you crave!!!!!

----------


## Johnthefarmer

The caddies are both fine. No new lambs. Sorry about my last little outburst-maybe a touch of a virus I picked up...

----------


## Johnthefarmer

It seems shepherds have even more stamina than shills. Must be the euro subsidies. night night.......

----------


## Johnthefarmer

A fine night/ dawn. Great big moon, sun to the north. Don't need the torch. Couldn't think of a better place to be.The bees should be kicking off fairly soon, so long as it doesn't start snowing again. I don't really have a big point to this post, except to say that with great music on Spotify, a nearly- watertight caravan on the west coast of Orkney,only a few to go on lambing and the Highlands about to start calving, what could be nicer? Any answers?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

A long time ago, I used to breed pedigree Suffolk sheep. We fed them muesli and alfafa, wormed them every 3 weeks, as recommended, gave them all multivaccines, saved every last lamb.I became a Suffolk judge. The breed altered over time. Females became more like the males we were trying to sell. Lambing time was awful: very few ewes were able to give birth and rear their young without assistance.
     This may not seem apposite; but if you have a persistent pressure on an animal, like Cruft's dogs, something unnatural is bound to result. If every seed and plant is treated with even low-level poison,there's going to be an effect.It's not likely to be good.
  With my sheep, I now work with a more resilient breed, try and provide clean grazing,only give pharma stuff when absolutely required (FEC testing etc).
  For several years now my flock is doing well. It takes care and thought.
 Please give the same attention to your bees.

----------


## Neils

Maybe I need to start using chandler's approach and start threatening libel/defamation suits around the continued use of "shill" in this thread, it's both a lie and insulting.

You might get away with it on biobees where a good conspiracy won't be held back by simple things like facts, but I don't expect its adding any weight to your position here.

I'm starting to get a little tired of being told what I think and that I'm paid to think that way.

----------


## gavin

> With my sheep, I now work with a more resilient breed, try and provide clean grazing,only give pharma stuff when absolutely required (FEC testing etc).
>   For several years now my flock is doing well. It takes care and thought.
>  Please give the same attention to your bees.


John - that is almost identical to the line I take with my beekeeping.  For my own bees, I've gone back to a regular winter Varroa treatment with oxalic for now (is that organic?  I don't care!) but tried and will return to a no-treatment or low-treatment approach.  Selecting resilient stock appropriate for the locality is one of the main reasons I set up our local association apiary - and even setting up this forum was something I was driven to do after seeing poor advice to a Wester Ross beekeeper on an English forum to buy imported stock.  I took the suggestion to the SBA Executive to set this up and they agreed.  Now I see it being used by Doris to push a line without her properly stepping back to assess the truth of the situation, and I'm never going to let that pass without challenge.  

Your analogy with crops treated with insecticides doesn't hold - the varieties grown by the farmer are not going to evolve in his (or her) hands. 

Good luck with the lambing.

Gavin

----------


## Neils

> So another topic, top bar hives - ignoring more than a hundred years of progress in beekeeping, or the future ?


Neither. They're a box that bees live in, they have their advantages and disadvantages same as any other box that bees live in.

Next  :Big Grin:

----------


## AlexJ

Doris,
While I agree with others that the shill terminology was inappropriate it should be taken in context of the language used on all sides in this debate.  As for posting across sites and threads - not a good idea.  However, perhaps those who regularly resort to heavy handed undergraduate humour to knock any sensible debate out of a thread, while wrapping it up in their own perception of their knowledge of the subject matter, should also reflect on the language in their own posts.  Until all concerned can park their egos and be prepared to debate the subject in a calm and reflective manner we will go round in circles, with regular eruptions of emotion, to the detriment of all who use the forum.

Don't be too hard on yourself, there will be others who don't agree with your opinions or manner of delivery but will acknowledge your efforts to develop the debate.

Good luck,

Alex

----------


## Calum

> Neither. They're a box that bees live in, they have their advantages and disadvantages same as any other box that bees live in.
> 
> Next


I'll name two for the moveable frame for every one you list ! Might as well use kelps....

----------


## Neils

What's the point? the Majority of them are subjective however you look at them. The two basic advantages of a TBH are what they were designed to be to begin with, cheap and not needing any specialist parts or knowledge to build.

The majority of other selling points tend to be management choices rather than inherent "features" of the design, likewise disadvantages.

I've got no stake in this particular fight, use whatever hive floats your boat.

----------


## Rosie

Some years ago I decided to test lots of hive designs to make up my own mind about them.  I built 2 Dartingtons, 8 14x12s and I already had a large number of modified nationals.  The next on the list was to be top bar hives.  However I quickly found out that my bees just hated the Dartingtons unless I closed off most of the hive and used them as shortened 14x12s - even then they did not thrive in them like they did in my other hives.  I  persevered for about 6 years until I finally gave up on long hives.  The bees just were not interested in building sideways, preferring to store honey overhead.  I finally decided that I had tortured enough colonies in long hives and gave up on the thought altogether.  I never got as far as testing Kenyan top bar hives because I have no doubt that my bees don't thrive in long hives.  They are only interested in building vertically, presumably so that the honey storage area can take advantage of warm convection currents from the nest.  To be generous to people who push long hives I think they have not tested them in enough conditions to support all the claims they make for them.

I would disagree with Nellie that advantages and disadvantages "tend to be management choices rather than inherent "features" of the design".  In my opinion the inherent design makes them only suitable for hot climates.  On top of that the difficulty in making proper inspections makes them unsuitable for use in our culture due to the moral obligation that we should all feel to remain vigilant regarding reportable diseases.

Rosie

----------


## Calum

> What's the point? the Majority of them are subjective however you look at them. The two basic advantages of a TBH are what they were designed to be to begin with, cheap and not needing any specialist parts or knowledge to build.
> 
> The majority of other selling points tend to be management choices rather than inherent "features" of the design, likewise disadvantages.
> 
> I've got no stake in this particular fight, use whatever hive floats your boat.


awwwwwww come on...  :Wink:

----------


## Neils

Rosie might play  :Big Grin: 

To be honest I can't get that hot under the collar over hive choices.  I got it in the neck (good natured) again yesterday because I like 14x12s rather than double brood, the crux of that argument seemed to be that you can't stick a 14x12 frame in most extractors and a 14x12 still might not be big enough.  They work for me, I like them so I use them. I might get a commercial or try double brood again just to see what I'm missing out on, but I'm in no rush to get my own top bar hive. 

Semantic arguments around what's a feature and what's a management style aside, I agree with most of Rosie's objections and they're a large part of why I won't be bothering with them plus they don't offer me, or my bees for that matter, anything I can't achieve in frame hive and have a lot more restrictions besides.

I looked into starting out with top bar hives and there are several good reasons why I didn't. Since then I'm happy with how I manage my bees and have discounted a lot of the dogma that accompanies TBHs, in this country at least (on both sides), for the twaddle that it is.  I know current TBH users who think they're the best thing since sliced bread, I know a few more that hate they very ground they stand on and can't wait to get rid of the things.  I suspect that all getting one would confirm is that I'm still in the latter camp. If they work for you though, good luck with them, but they aren't for me.

----------


## Ptarmigan

Quote Originally Posted by Calum "
So another topic, top bar hives - ignoring more than a hundred years of progress in beekeeping, or the future ? "



> Neither. They're a box that bees live in, they have their advantages and disadvantages same as any other box that bees live in.
> Next


Hello everybody, just signed up after a few days of reading to say thankyou for some very interesting reading on the pesticide debate (aka WW3  :Smile:  ! ) here on this thread and some very educational reading on other aspects of beeking elsewhere on the forum.
The upside of the Stromness outburst all over the internet was that until then I was not aware of this most interesting ( and tolerant) forum !  :Smile: 

I am not yet a beginner, no bees, still reading up, :-
over the past few years I have become aware of a silence round my flowering shrubs, and after lots of reading about varrroa, ccd, etc wondered if I should have a go and "do my bit" ,,,,
So, being just a wee fella with a bad back I am attracted to the hTBH design but willing to learn about other boxes.
However after a hundred years it seems that we have not yet decided if bees want to go sideways or up -traditional hives- or down -warre- but both of those seem to require heavy lifting (not to mention the Peron which may need a forklift truck or an Antonov ??)

Now how to manage a split of this into a better place  :Smile:  admin !?

----------


## Calum

Hi Ptarmigan 
if you have a bad back maybe think about something like this. Most of the advantages of both systems. 

Maybe someone can link to a uk supplier.
Or a Warré Hive has probably less heavy lifting involved...

----------


## Jon

You can let the bees draw natural comb in any shape of hive so you could use Nationals. there are some good photos on this site.
The main problems with TBHs, imho are 1. not ideal shape, 2. cross combing issues, 3. might need a trailer if you have to move difficult bees to another site in a hurry, 4. new comb very easily broken from the top bars during inspections, assuming there are inspections. The ability to make your own for nothing is a big advantage. Those who buy a TBH from Thorne are missing the main point. Cross combing and broken comb comes up over and over again on biobees.com.
We have a member of our BKA who has had a tbh bait hive out for two years and has had no luck.

----------


## Calum

plus big waste not being able to reuse drawn out frames, less efficient honey extraction,,,

----------


## gavin

> Now how to manage a split of this into a better place  admin !?


I'm afraid that Admin has thrown in the towel on that.  As it is, it tells a story.  Splitting into bits might make sense in terms of archiving but we'd lose the continuity. 

Thanks for the comments - appreciated.  We even seem to be tolerant of those who have a humour bypass, although I have to say that my fingers were itching there.

Nice summary of the different hive types - sideways, upwards or downwards.  Its up, up and away for me if I don't get sufficient chances to inspect for queen cells in this poor weather we're having!

In fact I've done it now.  Wish I hadn't - very hard to separate out the overlapping threads and for it all still to flow.

----------


## Calum

thought discussion of TBH would bring out more emotional fans..
Its the only way, short of hollowing out a tree to naturally keep bees  :Wink:  ..
Oh well, I suppose there is still the drone brood in the freezer or in the solar wax melter debate, but in Scotland it's probably the same box  :Smile:  !

----------


## madasafish

Well I have 5 colonies in Top Bar Hives and I seem to have few problems with them.. And my beekeeping supplies cost very little. And I rarely have problems with cross comb, or breaking combs (handling!)  . I do inspections usually weekly  - not at present due to the abysmally cold weather etc.

I have used Nationals at our Association Apiary and I like the ease of use and hate the extra equipment... 

I am not an evangelical user but a pragmatist.

----------


## Neils

I agree on the pragmatism and it's why I don't get too worked up about hive choices. End of the day you've got to work with them so pick what suits your management style and your bees the best. 

Understand the advantages and disadvantages of hive x over hive y in relation to how you're going to keep bees and be prepared to adapt if necessary.

I weighed up between nationals and TBH when I started, found out that a TBH had some very practical downsides in relation to my circumstances so opted for nationals, not least because I was inheriting a load of national kit.  I tried double brood, didn't like it and switched to 14x12s which I like. They aren't perfect by any means but they suit my bees and my management style.

Evangelists worry me more than the box they're banging on about and I reckon if you're thinking that a top bar hive might suit you that madasafish would be someone worth firing some questions at as someone who strikes me as a pragmatic user of them. Most of the rest of us, as is probably clear, aren't great fans of them for various reasons.

By and large the bees won't care what you put them in, they just want to be bees so your choice of hive as more for your benefit as theirs.

----------


## Jon

Same here. Hard to get worked up about it. Working with decent bees is the main issue for me.
The vast majority in my area use nationals although there are a few using commercials which give something like 15-20% more space than a national.
Most of my equipment is Thorne seconds bought in flatpack at around £18 for a brood and £12 for a super. Not as cheap as a top bar but reasonable enough. I make the floors from scrap timber and a square of mesh, about £1 each and the lids from Correx. You can do things on the cheap if you have a will.

----------


## Rosie

> By and large the bees won't care what you put them in, they just want to be bees so your choice of hive as more for your benefit as theirs.


This is the only part of your post I would take issue with Nellie.  I am fairly certain that my bees would not like top bar hives.  The only doubt I have is that I have not tried long hives with solid floors. They might not be so objectionable as mesh floor long hives but with solid floors I would expect a greater problem with varroa.

Rosie

----------


## Adam

Good God, I've just waded through this thread. I kept thinking that I _must_ be on the last page and then there was another one. I am pleased that there has been a debate about the science in the harvard study.  :Smile: 

With regard to hives: "A hive is just a box. Something for our own convenience that the bees rather like." I made a couple of 16 frame Nationals 3(?) years back thinking they would work. They didn't and they were awkward to handle and heavy (plywood). The bees never got much past about 8 frames of brood and never got as far as filling the whole box. The box shape never really worked.  I now have some 8 frame Nationals instead! They seem to work better. Good for lifting too.

----------


## Jon

My correx boxes take 7. I was thinking of making a double decker to see how they do on 14. That would be enough brood space for the bees I keep.

----------


## Neils

> This is the only part of your post I would take issue with Nellie.  I am fairly certain that my bees would not like top bar hives.  The only doubt I have is that I have not tried long hives with solid floors. They might not be so objectionable as mesh floor long hives but with solid floors I would expect a greater problem with varroa.
> 
> Rosie





> With regard to hives: "A hive is just a box. Something for our own convenience that the bees rather like." I made a couple of 16 frame Nationals 3(?) years back thinking they would work. They didn't and they were awkward to handle and heavy (plywood). The bees never got much past about 8 frames of brood and never got as far as filling the whole box. The box shape never really worked.  I now have some 8 frame Nationals instead! They seem to work better. Good for lifting too.


Talking in generalisations I stand by what I said  :Smile:   Whether the bees [re-]act within that environment in a manner that suits the beekeeper is an entirely different matter altogether!

The point around Long Hives is, however, valid. Many people find that while bees are quite happy building up and up and up; in our rather cooler climes, they aren't as eager to build outwards to the same extent. Does that mean they're "unhappy"? I'm not sure.

----------


## Calum

Nellie, do you have a study you can quote on that?  :Wink:

----------


## Rosie

I doubt it but I don't have study that I can quote regarding my next statement but I'm going to make it regardless.

When wild bees choose a colony that does not suit them then it's their own fault and Darwin will punish them.  However, when we pick a hive for them we are duty bound to find one that they can thrive in.  My bees simply don't thrive in long hives regardless of my own convenience.

Come on Nellie, meet me half way :Wink: 

Rosie

----------


## chris

I've just sobered up after presidential election celebrations and read right through this thread. Think I'll go and find another bottle :Frown: 

Nellie, hive size corresponding to winter cluster size could be a positive hive design element.
First thought on pesticides- if we ban neonicotinoids, why should older more lethal ones be used? The bottom line is, can an acre of organically farmed land be as productive as an acre of pesticide laden land?

----------


## Adam

> The bottom dollar is, can an acre of organically farmed land be as productive as an acre of pesticide laden land?


I didn't think it could (and farmers would not spend out on chemical fertilisers for fun) but would love to be proved wrong.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> I've just sobered up after presidential election celebrations and read right through this thread. Think I'll go and find another bottle
> 
> Nellie, hive size corresponding to winter cluster size could be a positive hive design element.
> First thought on pesticides- if we ban neonicotinoids, why should older more lethal ones be used? The bottom dollar is, can an acre of organically farmed land be as productive as an acre of pesticide laden land?


 Yes, it can be as productive, even here in Orkney. Often, in terms of yield/ hectare; nearly always in quality; and always in the overall effects on the land,the farmer,wildlife etc.

----------


## Jon

> can an acre of organically farmed land be as productive as an acre of pesticide laden land?


No, but it can get close for certain crops, certain soils and certain climates.
I think organic had a big part to play but for certain crops it is extremely difficult.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11069.html
http://www.nature.com/news/organic-f...enough-1.10519

Agree with JTF re benefits to the land and wildlife.

Chris, when I was a student we held a bit of a party when Mitterrand got elected. Heartening news that France has a left leaning president again. I am assuming you were not drowning your sorrows in sympathy with the jug-eared incumbent.

----------


## chris

You assume correctly Jon. I'm even a card carrier.
Farms get bigger, having larger fields, full of one crop (usually with a European subvention), and are machine intensive.Running these farms cannot be done without pesticides. This is obviously the result of a political direction taken after ww2. In France, the atomic energy situation is the result of decisions taken a long time ago. It is taking a mountain to move them. It will be the same for environment friendly farming. But I think it is a question of what we want, and not necessarily what is *true*. If it is left to scientists to find out what is happening then I think we'll still be reading their papers in 50 years time and nothing will have evolved (except perhaps BBM's teeth will have fallen out).
Anyway, must the political decisions be based on the science?Only if the science has the answer. So I'm going to say let's use the precautionary principle until we do know.And before someone tells me that if we did that we'd still be thinking the world is flat, I'll just say,if someone wants to risk falling off the edge of the earth to prove it's not flat then that's fine. As long as he doesn't try to drag the rest of us with him.
Finally, feeding the world. Some will say it's irresponsible to not use conventional farming methods because it will prevent us from being able to feed the world in Xty years. I think it's irresponsible to try to feed that many people.

----------


## Neils

> I doubt it but I don't have study that I can quote regarding my next statement but I'm going to make it regardless.
> 
> When wild bees choose a colony that does not suit them then it's their own fault and Darwin will punish them.  However, when we pick a hive for them we are duty bound to find one that they can thrive in.  My bees simply don't thrive in long hives regardless of my own convenience.
> 
> Come on Nellie, meet me half way
> 
> Rosie


Sure, but I think "thrive" is a relative assessment as well unless you're saying that if you don't plonk the bees out of a long hive that you think they'll abscond/die.

If you're suggesting that you get a smaller brood nest and not much honey then fine, but are the bees actually "unhappy" with that situation or are they just managing within the limits of their environment? Ignoring other external factors (varroa, our desire for some honey at the end of the season), are they able to survive perfectly well?

----------


## Neils

> I've just sobered up after presidential election celebrations and read right through this thread. Think I'll go and find another bottle
> 
> Nellie, hive size corresponding to winter cluster size could be a positive hive design element.
> First thought on pesticides- if we ban neonicotinoids, why should older more lethal ones be used? The bottom line is, can an acre of organically farmed land be as productive as an acre of pesticide laden land?


The supposition is that farmers are not chucking money away on stuff to spray on crops for the sake of it. 

So if we just imagine that neonicotinoids are banned tomorrow, what happens?  This is the government we're talking about, so any after thought, planning or sensible shenanigans can't be assumed, they simply say "This stuff can't be sold anymore starting now. Anyone using or selling it gets a fine big enough to hurt".  What happens next?

----------


## Calum

> Yes, it can be as productive, even here in Orkney. Often, in terms of yield/ hectare; nearly always in quality; and always in the overall effects on the land,the farmer,wildlife etc.


aaah yes pick your crop there boyo.

----------


## Rosie

> are they able to survive perfectly well?


Mine weren't.  The ones in long hives were the only ones that died from PMS and were the only ones that were unable to provide a surplus.  I kept putting new bees or swarms in and they constantly succumbed.  There is no doubt in mind that they were not happy and healthy in there.

I persevered for many years before finally concluding that they were bad for bees.  I was keen to use long hives as the idea seemed sound.

Rosie

----------


## Neils

> The anti pesticide campaigners move on to target the next product, as most of them want all pesticides banned, without taking the time to consider the consequences or put viable alternatives in place. Neonicotinoids today, something else tomorrow.
> Often with a ban you are allowed to use up existing stock, as with Fumidil B
> A ban can be partial as well, ie approval is withdrawn for a specific product used in a specific situation such as almonds. the same product could still be used for maize or oil seed rape. This is where the regulatory process comes into play, assessing the level of risk for specific situations.


Still doesn't shed much light on what those who feel that a reversion to previous classes of pesticides is an overly pessimistic outcome of a ban feel will happen.

Ignore the an campaign just moving to the next one or hoarded stocks of coated seeds or whatever. Standard knee jerk government legislation though so its a blanket ban on selling Neonicotinoid based seeds and products starting tomorrow, anything already sold can be used then that's your lot.

Is the expectation that every farmer just "sees the light" and goes organic? If that does happen is the expectation that yields remain basically the same across the board? What about prices? Is the expectation that with domestic production mow organic as standard that the current premium organic produce attracts will go?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> aaah yes pick your crop there boyo.


This thread has become quite schizophrenic (nothing against them) -hives/neonics. Still we must work with what we have.
Yes,you must pick your crop.This year's includes lambs, calves,grasses, clovers, herbs, eggs,chicks, ducklings,foals. Previous years'-tatties,carrots, neaps, kids,pups,kittens,rape,piglets..But that's Orkney for you...As Professor Pennington said a while ago on telly,'Organic farming could never feed the world-Just look at ,say, Orkney. They could never farm organically up there.For a start it's too far north for clover to grow.'
At the time he said that, I had fields that were half way up my wellies in red and white clover!
I've worked on thousand acre tattie farms in the prairies, run by two men and the odd student, and massive estates in England.They certainly weren't organic, they had certain 'efficiencies of scale' - very low staffing, massive machinery,batch processing even of animals. There were unemployed youths in the neighbouring villages. The earthworm counts on the places plummet, the soil moisture retention drops,droughts follow floods,and run-off carries away surface nitrates and the finer soil.
  I was told at college in the early seventies this was the way to go.It took me nearly twenty years to work out the flaws in much of what I was taught.
I could go on.
.

----------


## gavin

> Finally, feeding the world. Some will say it's irresponsible to not use conventional farming methods because it will prevent us from being able to feed the world in Xty years. I think it's irresponsible to try to feed that many people.


I can't say that I disagree with you on that last point, however ..... as some of the discussion here has been on the ability of organic farming to feed the planet, here is part of a recent Nature paper:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture
Verena Seufert1, Navin Ramankutty1 & Jonathan A. Foley2

Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable).

----------


## Jon

Beat you to it in post 103!

----------


## gavin

Ah, it is hard to keep up sometimes.  A bit more detail anyway.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

How did the good hive/ bad hive topic infilltrate this thread,anyhow? Was it the Men in Black, or ...

----------


## Neils

A new member of the forum asked for advice on beehives, keen to actually talk about bees for a bit we all latched on it.

I don't think we asked if he made his suit look good.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> A new member of the forum asked for advice on beehives, keen to actually talk about bees for a bit we all latched on it.
> 
> I don't think we asked if he made his suit look good.


 So why on this particular thread concerning pesticides, organics,commercial pressures etc?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

By the way,just watching over my last 4 ewes due to lamb.We're at about 175% so far, but short of grass due to slow spring, winter gales etc,

----------


## Johnthefarmer

Is the expectation that every farmer just "sees the light" and goes organic? If that does happen is the expectation that yields remain basically the same across the board? What about prices? Is the expectation that with domestic production mow organic as standard that the current premium organic produce attracts will go?[/QUOTE]
 No, It always takes several years to turn around a farm that has been used to quick acting fertilizers, blanket prophilactics for the stock, herbicides etc.
The grasses and crops have to develop deeper roots, there has to be much thought given to rotations, soil structure needs improving, soil microbes encouraged, range of species and varieties increased,suitable breeds of stock taken on or bred up, acceptance of seasons such as this,without trying to force short term boosts with the resulting weakend animals and crops.
  If this were to happen universally,simultaneously things would be very tight for a few years. I wouldn't recommend that, and it's not likely. Still, it is the best way to go.

----------


## Calum

> How did the good hive/ bad hive topic infilltrate this thread,anyhow? Was it the Men in Black, or ...


Post #70 it was me. Thornes probably paid me to try to change the subject. Or was it Holterman? Am I a double agent?

So talking to an employee of the agriculture ministry yesterday about sience deniors, he compaired them to the Taliban.
There is no point in discussing with them they will never accept there are different sides to the argument...
Its ideological for them. 

Almost as bad as those TBH fanatics.

----------


## chris

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture
> Verena Seufert1, Navin Ramankutty1 & Jonathan A. Foley2
> 
> Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields.


So, we cut down populations to fit the potential production. Not tomorrow , nor by lining them up against the wall with Calum's Talibans. But, an organised, long term, worldwide project.None of the important decisions for our planet can be implemented immediately, but a direction and logical timetable can. If of course,as a planet, we want this.Yeah, I know, totally unrealistic. So let's stick with the present sh*ù .Perhaps I should have had porridge for breakfast.

----------


## madasafish

> This is the only part of your post I would take issue with Nellie.  I am fairly certain that my bees would not like top bar hives.  The only doubt I have is that I have not tried long hives with solid floors. They might not be so objectionable as mesh floor long hives but with solid floors I would expect a greater problem with varroa.
> 
> Rosie



I would add that I insulate my topbar hive roofs, and in winter put extra insulation above the topbars.. And although I use mesh floors, I close them up  underneath the hive to restrict airflow as I found colonies so treated flourished better than those not. so I am not perhaps a typical user...

(But then I live in Staffordshire Moorlands: 200 metres above sea level and cold and windy.. 

I note many proponents of TBHs live in warmer deepest darkest Southern England where conditions are less harsh in winter.

----------


## Neils

Certainly not discounting that, there are enough beekeepers I know who cull queens on the same spot as a swarm lure.

----------


## prakel

> As I moved out the filled nuc, I always put another in its place, and this was always the one that was chosen.


Some time back Murray McGreggor made a post on the beekeeping forum where he advized to do just that -his reasoning (as far as I remember) was that once a colony had found a good site later casts would be likely to check it out too, so if the occupied box is moved away asap and replaced with a new bait hive there's a good chance that you'll pick up another swarm.

----------


## Jon

> I'm working on my apology btw, will try to have time for it tonight.


Have I missed this somewhere? it would need to be posted on Beesource and Biobees.com as well where the false allegations were repeated.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Have I missed this somewhere? it would need to be posted on Beesource and Biobees.com as well where the false allegations were repeated.


No you haven't missed it. I had the draft for it on my old computer which had to go for repairs, hence the delay. 


*Apology:

  I am very sorry if my posts of Tue May 2nd have caused offence by my inappropriate use of the term shill. 
  I am not a native English speaker and was not aware of the full meaning and implications of the term.
* *I apologize wholeheartedly for using the term under those circumstances and dont intend to use it again inappropriately.* 


Please let me know if it's enough to post this on this thread or if you want it on every thread where I posted the offending term. 
I will post the same on Beesource now.

----------


## Jon

Doris. That's fine by me. We can all get a bit over enthusiastic at times. 
I think there is some good honest debate on this forum.

----------


## gavin

With the emphasis on honest.  Thanks Doris.

----------


## Jon

Doris, out of curiosity, where did you first come across that word shill?
English is my first language and I have a wide and varied range of obscure words and phrases stuck in the nether regions of my hind brain but I had never heard that word in my life before. I don't think anyone else posting here had heard of it either.
It is not a word in common use and I doubt if the Orcadians bandy it about.

----------


## Neils

It's not uncommon if you reside on other forums, especially ones where "heated debate" takes place. It's more an insult than necessarily being meant to seriously imply that guy is actually being paid.

Proper shills are far more likely to be found on community review sites like Trip Advisor or even Amazon than a discussion forum. That one five star review when all the rest are rubbish or non existent? That's  likely a shill posting, although its not entirely impossible that someone did just genuinely enjoy it that much.

----------


## chris

> Doris, out of curiosity, where did you first come across that word shill?


I think a lot of the problem has arisen from a misunderstanding of the word.I never use online dictionaries and think that Google translator will be the cause of world war three. I found shill in an old English/French dictionary and from there looked up the exact meaning of its French equivalent, *compère*. It is of American origin, and was used at fairgrounds to describe somebody who,undercover, worked in league with another to trick people. Nothing was mentioned about being paid, however in modern, neoliberal societies, it would seem that everyone is getting paid........................8-(((((

I think Doris's use of the word was accurate for what she thought was happening.

----------


## gavin

It doesn't really matter whether or not she thought people were being paid.  The accusation was there of connivance and conspiracies to reach a desired end by various means.  She has said elsewhere on this forum that she no longer believes that to be true, so I'll take that together with her apology.  However, an apology for using a term inappropriately isn't really a full apology.  Do remember that she spammed her accusations across this forum and on two other beekeeping fora.  That was unacceptable and hasn't been apologised for, but never mind - we all moved on some time ago.  I'm not wanting more or expecting more (well, apart from her repeating the apology on biobees ... ), and am happy for Doris to continue posting here.

----------


## Neils

The last thing I want is Doris to stop posting here. A late night splurge, even across forums, isnt the end of the world.

As for biobees, let it go, posting anything more on there with relation to this will only prove how Bayer or the illuminati or the bullingdon club, maybe the Vatican got to Doris. It achieves nothing. Uncle Phil can proclaim from the sanctimony of his own forum how he's banned from everywhere else and life will go on.

----------


## gavin

Fair enough.

----------


## Jon

Warning: The giant lizards have taken possession of nellie's mind. *Ignore his posts.* We are in peril.

EDIT:
Hey, I made that post entirely  in CAPSLOCK and the software corrected it to lower case. Proves my point!

----------


## gavin

At least you remembered to hit the send button this time   :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## Jon

Yeah, they are messing with my mind as well. Life or death struggle.

-and I did really make that post entirely in CAPSLOCK. You must have some anti nutter option set up in the software to stop the ranters.

----------


## gavin

Well i never knew that - or if i did i've forgotten.  Is that why borderbeeman never posts here - the software somehow automatically deletes his posts with no human intervention?

PS How weird.  So it does.  Clever forum.  Not that clever though, it also converted my upper case 'I' to lower case.

----------


## Jon

It must be emasculating to lose control of the CAPSLOCK key when you want to howl at the moon.

Maybe the Phorid flies have got into the database and the forum will end up a hollow shell with sporadic twitching threads and inane comments which make no sense. Oops!

----------


## gavin

Yeah, we're already there.  If we're not careful the colony may collapse.

WILL IT ACCEPT CAPSLOCK EDITS i WONDER?

aHA ..... HOWLING AT THE MOON IS POSSIBLE IF YOU KNOW HOW.

----------


## Jon

To *boldly* go where no forum has gone before, I canny hold back the dilithium crystals any more captain. She's gonna blow.

----------


## lindsay s

> I see that she posted the sugar conspiracy one at 3:24am, maybe there is a pattern emerging here?


Wrong time Gavin you must have eaten some beet sugar and it's making you paranoid.

----------


## Jon

Maybe you folk on Orkney are in another time zone.
Or in some cases a parallel universe where danger lurks around every corner.

----------


## Neils

Sorry folks, this isn't fair.

Doris posted an apology for the shenanigans and bringing in unrelated posts made elsewhere onto this forum to poke fun at isn't right.

Doris is entitled to her opinions and is entitled to express them, if she chooses to discuss them here that's fair enough. I think dragging unrelated discussions made on other groups and forums into this one, specifically to have a go at a member of this forum is out of line.

I've not checked Biobees but I can see that Doris also posted in the thread on Beesource. Doris has done what was requested and that should be taken with good grace, i don't believe part of that was conditional on her changing her opinions, merely that she retract what was said/implied about us on other internet forums outside this one.

----------


## Jon

Ok. No harm intended. Just the usual banter. Sleep tight Doris.

----------


## prakel

> Sorry folks, this isn't fair.
> 
> Doris posted an apology.....
> 
> .....Doris has done what was requested and that should be taken with good grace, i don't believe part of that was conditional on her changing her opinions, merely that she retract what was said/implied about us on other internet forums outside this one.


Just the sort of attitude (along with Gavin's earlier post) which makes me think that I made a good choice in joining this forum.

----------


## Mellifera Crofter

> Sorry folks, this isn't fair.
> 
> Doris posted an apology for the shenanigans and bringing in unrelated posts made elsewhere onto this forum to poke fun at isn't right.
>  ...


Isn't that the nature of publishing, Nellie?  If you publish - written, audio, or visual - you are open to be quoted, admired, referred to, poked fun with.  We all do it all the time.  Is Doris now exempt because she apologised (kind of) and because we generally appreciate her contributions to this forum?

As Jon said, it was 'banter' and good natured, as far as I can see (but English is my second language - I might have misunderstood something ...).

----------


## Neils

I'm not going to argue this to be perfectly honest. But I will say this

The other thread, made on another board was quoted in here specifically to poke fun at Doris. If you want to say that's fair game then you want a different forum environment than I do and that's fair enough.

Are there ways that thread could have been quoted into here, in a relevant discussion, in an appropriate area? Yes, I dare say it could.

But this thread has run its course and it is starting to resemble a dog pile and that is not what this forum is supposed to be about. Take a look at some threads from about a year ago and have a look at the general atmosphere that results when people use the forum to air their personal grievances at each other. 

I am done in this thread, I will keep an eye on it but I will not be posting anything else.

----------


## Mellifera Crofter

Sorry - I just thought you were hard on the others who only bantered.  I've not contributed to this thread at all until now.  Yes, I agree - time to lock it up.
Kitta

----------


## Jon

We can all have a big punch up in Stirling!
I'll forgive Neil for adopting his Woodrow Wyatt (the voice of Reason!) persona as I might have to share a car with him to Stirling.
Definitely time to treat this thread with Glyphosate.

----------


## lindsay s

OK it was my fault and Ill put my hands up and plead guilty as charged, but before the judge (Nellie) puts on his black cap may I say a few things in my defence.
First of all theres a permanent link to the Orkney Beekeepers Association on this forum, so its quite easy to find Doriss posts. 
Secondly there are quite a few inexperienced beekeepers that use the Orkney forum so Doriss posts usually go unchallenged. I thought by linking her post to the SBAI forum it would let her see that she cant just print what she likes and expect everyone to believe it.  
Thirdly yes I intended to poke fun at Doris but I hold no personal grievances.
Finally sorry Doris

----------


## Neils

Having said I wouldn't post any more in here...




> Nellie worried that we were ganging up on Doris and taking it too far. Maybe, not sure. But I am sure that no-one posting was doing it to be unpleasant to Doris.


Yep, that's more or less what it was starting to look like, why I made the post and made it as a member of this forum rather than hypocritically trying to moderate or close the thread.  I felt that we'd, all, started to cross that line from banter into something more unpleasant.

If the topic of beet vs cane sugar had been posted into a new thread I wouldn't have had a problem with it but I felt that it was linked into here specifically to poke fun at and I didn't think that was fair.

Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, if so my apologies

I've had a few PMs with people earlier on to clarify my position which is more or less what I've just put now.

I'm not trying to stifle debate, steer it in any direction (other than through expressing my own opinion on a matter) or wrap anyone in cotton wool and, yes, I do agree to a point that you reap what you sow.

As for borderbeeman, he's a spammer, nothing more. If he posted links to indian software websites rather than bad journalism around pesticides he'd have been banned on every forum long ago.

----------


## Jon

> Nellie worried that we were ganging up on Doris and taking it too far.


One of the things I most detest in life is bullying or intimidation. I don't go down that route.

When Doris first started to post again a couple of weeks back we exchanged a PM or two and I explained that I probably would be taking a different perspective but that it was a debate, no more no less, and it was nothing personal. I know Doris, I like her, I think some of her views are daft and driven by conspiracy theory, but I don't see how any of that is a problem. If you take a position , you have to be prepared to defend it.

----------


## Neils

> Maybe you want to explain yourself, rather than just gagging me because I point things out that are maybe a bit uncomfortable?
> 
> There are also lots of good discussions to come yet, on the Harvard study and others, which I'll not do on this forum if my posts need to be approved first. 
> 
> The choice is yours, but gagging me won't look good!


This is not about gagging, this is about the level of abuse and insults that you have resorted to recently and the negative effect that this is having on the forum as a whole, I'll chuck in the deliberate "vandalism" of the forum too if you like.  I'm well aware that getting yourself banned is probably part of the aim and that it's a "win" for you so I'm no longer prepared to discuss anything with you except as a moderator of this forum. If necessary I will edit out insults or close threads and that goes for *everybody*, not just you. 

It also goes for the Environment sub forum, that's traditionally been more lax in the moderation and what's been let slide given the differences of opinion around many of the topics but not now, I'm holding it to the same standard as the rest of the forum. Quoting/linking closed threads into a new one to attempt to continue the discussion on here also wont get very far, the thread was closed for a reason and discussion on it is closed.

If you want to post within the rules of this forum that's fine by me, I happen to believe that having different opinions and discussing them is a good thing on a forum, simply insulting anyone who dares question the Gospel According to Doris though is no longer going to be tolerated. You can't have it both ways, if you treat people as you claim to expect to be treated yourself then you might find that it's reciprocated.

Argue whatever position you want but I'm no longer going to allow belitting, insults and downright rudeness to continue. People can assert what they want, but you'd better believe that no matter how strongly someone believes it to be true, an assertion that Jam is an effective varroa treatment, for example, is going to be pretty robustly challenged on a forum such as this.  If you want people to just agree with you, you're on the wrong forum. 

You can copy and paste articles to your heart's content as far as I'm concerned, eventually you'll just see a similar situation to what happens to the guy who does it on other forums; they get ignored; unread and unreplied to because everyone realises that you're not posting for a discussion, you're posting to spread _the Message_ plain and simple. 

If you want to continue as you are currently with your discussion on IPM, that'd actually be nice, that's a discussion and it's a shame that I feel that I have to take this approach because there are actually things there I'd like to discuss. 

This has always been a moderated forum and there have always been pretty loose and lax rules about what can be discussed and how, 'Be polite to each other' is largely it. If you *really* want to push that just so you can complain elsewhere that you were 'gagged' then I'll agree with you, it won't look good. I will point out the level of sympathy given elsewhere to the last and only guy who decided to get himself banned, the resulting ire pointed in this direction and the amount of concern expressed by anyone here after it happened: None.

Right now, slate's clean from my point of view. I'm not interested in what someone said two weeks ago or half an hour ago for that matter. Move forward from here how you wish.

I may yet consider trying to unravel this unholy mess of a thread but I am far more inclined at the moment to simply close and sticky it so anyone who wants to see the trainwreck of the past month or so can still do it but that we can hopefully draw a line under this now and move on.

Quite frankly I'd much rather be talking about bees.

----------

