# More ... > Beekeeping and the environment >  Bayer: Low level neonicotinoids kill colonies by interference with grooming behaviour

## gavin

The following message was posted by Stromnessbees in the Blog area.  The Blog is generally used for posting diaries of personal experiences rather than cut-and-paste diatribes.  I have moved Stromnessbees post here, deleted it from the Blog area, and withdrawn her permission to post in the Blog area. G.

Termites are closely related to bees and like bees they live in highly  organised colonies which rely on grooming behaviour to keep out  infections and parasites.

In the 1990s Bayer developed a method of killing termite colonies with* low* levels of Imidacloprid that stop this grooming behaviour, they called this 'Premise Plus Nature' (TM)

Did it not occur to them that the same would happen to colonies of  bees which collect nectar and pollen contaminated with these  neurotoxins?

Did they fail to test it on bees, or did they test it and ignore the results?

Here an article about their termite killing strategy from 1997:


*Premise Plus Nature Equals Value Added Termite Control*

|              March 1, 1997 |

Countless weapons  have been  created over the years in attempts to win the war against  termites. Some  kill on contact, others repel termites, but all share  the goal of  structural protection. Throughout the search to find the  perfect weapon  even nature has been unsuccessful, until now. 

  Premise®  Insecticide, introduced by Bayer  Corporation in 1996, works  synergistically with nature to provide  value-added termite control.  Premise Plus Nature,TM the term  the manufacturer uses to describe the  product's unique mode of action,  affects termites by making them  susceptible to infection, disease and  death by naturally occurring  organisms. 

*HOW IT WORKS. 
*
With Premise there are  two modes of action at work. At moderate to high  exposure levels,  Premise causes termites to stop feeding, stop  grooming, become  disoriented and die. Premise Plus Nature takes over at  lower exposure  levels. Unlike contact mortality and repellent barrier  termiticides,  this unique mode of action puts Premise in a category all  its own.

Like germs that cause illness and disease in humans,  microorganisms,  especially fungi naturally present in the soil, cause  disease in  termites. Fungal spores attach themselves to the termite  cuticle,  germinate, penetrate and eventually cause death. But thanks to  Mother  Nature, termites have found ways to survive in this hostile soil   environment. 

The termites' habit of grooming themselves and other  termites in the  colony is a principle part of their defense systems.  This instinctive  habit enables termites to virtually eliminate the  threat of the fungi;  termites remove the spores before they can  germinate and cause disease.  

Premise Plus Nature disrupts this natural defense  process. After  exposure to Premise, termites no longer groom themselves  or take care  of each other. Premise interferes with their methods of  combating fungi  and, in the end, they will succumb to disease and death.  
  "Grooming offers termites a shield to protect  themselves. But when  grooming stops and the shield is down, infection  takes over," said  David Price, a biologist at Bayer Corporation's Vero  Beach, Fla.,  laboratory. "With Premise, termites don't get the chance to  fight  back." 

*SEEING IS BELIEVING.* 

Visitors to the  Bayer booth at the National Pest Control Association's  convention and  trade show in San Diego in October had the opportunity  to witness  Premise Plus Nature in action. Live demonstrations showed  the one-day,  two-day and five-day effects Premise has on termites. 

"With the demonstrations you can see how Premise Plus  Nature works,"  said Price. "You can see that the exposed ter-mites no  longer feed or  groom. You can even watch the termites die." 

Research has been conducted at the University of  Florida to examine the  synergy between Premise and nature, specifically  the termite's natural  defense system. In one specific study, glass cover  slips were sprayed  with fungal spores and placed in the feeding and  tunneling areas of  laboratory termite colonies. In the control colony  where Premise was  not applied, the spores were removed by termite  activity in a few  hours. This scenario mimics what happens with termites  in the soil on a  day-to-day basis; termites destroy fungi by grooming  themselves and  each other which keeps their soil environment clean. 

In the environment where Premise was present, the  fungi began  developing in just one day. The termites did not re-move the  spores. In  an outside environment, these spores would proceed to attach   themselves to the termites, germinate and cause death. 

Research illustrates how Premise interferes with  feeding, grooming and  colony maintenance in such a way that termites  can't protect themselves  from pathogenic fungi. 

"Premise Plus Nature means value-added termite  control," said Dr. Mike  Ruizzo, pest control research product manager  for Bayer Corporation.  "Premise allows nature to take over and destroy  the termites." 

http://www.pctonline.com/Article.aspx?article_id=39807

----------


## Stromnessbees

> The following message was posted by Stromnessbees in the Blog area.  The Blog is supposed to be for posting diaries of personal experiences rather than cut-and-paste diatribes.  I have moved Stromnessbees post here, deleted it from the Blog area, and withdrawn her permission to post in the Blog area. G.


Gavin, you yourself cut and pasted a whole article onto the front page of the forum yesterday: Honeybee Problems Explained ...

We ordinary forum members are not allowed to post there, but we can (in my case 'could') use the blog facility. 
Forgive me if I didn't know that we weren't allowed to do in our blogs what you take for granted on the front page.  


The document I posted was deliberately unaltered and contains verbatim statements from Bayer experts. 
I am surprised that you call this a 'diatribe', I am sure that these statements were meant perfectly seriously.

----------


## gavin

I do forgive you, Doris.

The front page, the Home area, is used to provide news relevant to beekeeping, and sometimes particularly interesting posts have been elevated to articles on there too.  We should have been updating it more often but, hey, we're all busy people.  Members can post on the forums and (almost all of them anyway!) in their own blogs.  The Home page is for me and the Moderators to update.  The new work on DWV is indeed newsworthy.  The amplification of the virus when Varroa is present has been known for a long time, but the dynamics of different strains of the virus and in particular the dominance of a single type of the virus is something new.  The researchers clearly indicated that this pest-pathogen combination is at the heart of much of the bee losses worldwide.  That isn't controversial.  There are many who even believe that Dave Hackenberg's problems (he initiated concerns about CCD) were down to Varroa and the viruses it amplifies.

The blogs are essentially online personal diaries published for all to see.  It isn't hard to get the idea if you read a few of them.  Give it a couple of months and, if you wish to keep one on here and if you can avoid overt campaigning, then ask nicely and we may let you post blogs again.

Arguments about pesticides (or GM crops) often get heated and are a real turn-off for many forum members.  So we are doing our best to restrict such debates to the one area.  You might think that pesticides are so important that discussion of them should be everywhere on SBAi but for the good of the forum they will take place only in this section.

Gavin

----------


## prakel

> Arguments about pesticides (or GM crops) often get heated and are a real turn-off for many forum members.


I think that the main turn off is that a few people (on which ever bee forum we're looking at) have such polarized views that they're simply prepared to neither listen to the other side of the debate or to let the argument lie until further evidence presents itself, it's a constant rehash of the same (dare I say posts) views over and over but without any forward progress. I'm as interested as the next beekeeper in these subjects but I'm still waiting (and open minded enough to accept) for concrete, unquestionable proof one way or the other with regards to pesticides; something which I truly doubt will materialize as I believe that ultimately the key will be found in better husbandry. Sure pesticides kill things, but so does lack of care and attention.

----------


## voytech104

> I think that the main turn off is that a few people (on which ever bee forum we're looking at) have such polarized views that they're simply prepared to neither listen to the other side of the debate or to let the argument lie until further evidence presents itself, it's a constant rehash of the same (dare I say posts) views over and over but without any forward progress. I'm as interested as the next beekeeper in these subjects but I'm still waiting (and open minded enough to accept) for concrete, unquestionable proof one way or the other with regards to pesticides; something which I truly doubt will materialize as I believe that ultimately the key will be found in better husandry. Sure pesticides kill things, but so does lack of care and attention.


Agree in 100%...


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?m3a1gy

----------


## drumgerry

Gavin with reference to the SBAi blogs is it overtly said somewhere that they are only to be used as personal diaries?  I know that's what people on here use them for but blogs can and tbh *are* used to cover much more than that.  They don't just have to be a "what I did today" type thing but can cover other stuff the blogger likes - videos, images and yes, cut and pasted text.  So, to me, Doris didn't do anything wrong here.  Unless of course there's somewhere it says you can't use the blog as an actual blog.

----------


## gavin

Hi Gerry

No, and I hope that you don't take my comments as instruction to use them only as personal diaries.  I did have a 'supposed to be used' which I've changed for a 'generally used for'.   People can use them for a variety of purposes, but the practice on here and on the other bee fora I've looked at is to use the blogs in that way.  If you or the other members want to use them for other purposes I doubt that the Admin/Moderator team would have much difficulty with that.  I wasn't issuing an instruction on how to use them, just pointing out that they are essentially used for that purpose here.

My issue with Doris' action was that she is trying to spread a message as conspicuously on this site as she can get away with.  The heated debates she aroused earlier changed the character of the forum for a while from a friendly, helpful place to a place of bickering and long-winded posts.  Several people expressed their unhappiness at the direction things were taking and hinted that they were thinking of withdrawing.  Also, Doris revealed that she is unwilling to be truly open to debate and anyone who doesn't follow her particular line of thinking will be labelled as biased somehow and have that interpretation posted on other places on the internet.  On the Beekeeping Forum the other day she was unrepentent on that.

So Doris is now the only forum member with less privileges than others here.  That is for the good of the forum and the people who use it.  Debate on pesticides is still allowed here, but any attempt to spread it into other areas is not.  That way the overall character of the forum can continue as before.  It isn't easy to get all this right, and I feel certain that if Doris had behaved like this on any other forum her posting rights would have been history ages ago.

Gavin

----------


## drumgerry

Hi Gavin

I'm in no way defending the actions of Doris in, among other things, maligning the members of this forum here and elsewhere and, indeed, I took her to task for it a while back on the Irish list.  

Maybe the heading needs to be changed from the word "blog" which has come to have a reasonably specific meaning to something like diary.  It seems clear that you don't really intend that section to be used as a blog in the general meaning of the word.  I don't have a problem with that at all but it's not very clear to users at the moment.

For myself I'd be happy to see the blog section used in the fullest sense of the word.  And if Doris chose to post whatever there at least it would be easier to avoid than if it's in the main forum and no-one would feel pressured to engage in a dialogue with her.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Termites are closely related to bees and like bees they live in highly  organised colonies which rely on grooming behaviour to keep out  infections and parasites.
> 
> In the 1990s Bayer developed a method of killing termite colonies with* low* levels of Imidacloprid that stop this grooming behaviour, they called this 'Premise Plus Nature' (TM)
> 
> Did it not occur to them that the same would happen to colonies of  bees which collect nectar and pollen contaminated with these  neurotoxins?
> 
> Did they fail to test it on bees, or did they test it and ignore the results?
> 
> Here an article about their termite killing strategy from 1997:
> ...


        Question 1.
                        If this is the patented method of irradicating termites;  by low- level introduction of neonics into their colonies and thereby reducing their resistance to all their natural challenges, how could the same thing not happen to their close cousins - bees?

        Question 2.
                        As for scientific evidence, should we believe Suchail et al. who confirmed Bayer's claims of the remarkable toxicity of Imidacloprid; or Schmuck et al. who found no deleterious effects of chronic low-level poisoning by neonics on bee colonies ?(Schmuck is Bayer's in-house scientist.)

         Question 3.
                        Why has nobody on this forum, so far, commented on how a pesticide, lethal to termites, has little or no effect on bees?

----------


## Neils

> Hi Gavin
> 
> I'm in no way defending the actions of Doris in, among other things, maligning the members of this forum here and elsewhere and, indeed, I took her to task for it a while back on the Irish list.  
> 
> Maybe the heading needs to be changed from the word "blog" which has come to have a reasonably specific meaning to something like diary.  It seems clear that you don't really intend that section to be used as a blog in the general meaning of the word.  I don't have a problem with that at all but it's not very clear to users at the moment.
> 
> For myself I'd be happy to see the blog section used in the fullest sense of the word.  And if Doris chose to post whatever there at least it would be easier to avoid than if it's in the main forum and no-one would feel pressured to engage in a dialogue with her.


I think there is a question here around what is wanted from this site.

Should we also allow the anti mobile phone and anti power line crew who've also tried to expand into "Dying bees!!!!!" Evangelise unchallenged on here?  have a look on another forum where new beekeepers asking sensible questions are being told that pesticides are the root cause of whatever problem it is they're asking about and seeing their question disintegrate into the standard argument as a result. Should we accept that "Let your bees swarm" is a valid position to hold as a responsible beekeeper? What about non treatment?  Where's the line to be drawn on what is supposed to be a sensible beekeeping forum?

Should SBAi be synonymous with whatever cause du jour is currently doing the rounds because we'll just sit back and let people claim any old tosh? Is it acceptable to slander, insult and belittle anyone who dares challenge those views?

And as I know someone shouting "What about free speech" can't be far behind, here's a little secret, every single forum on the internet except one has rules about what you can and can't post, whether about general conduct, being work suitable, being nice to each other etc. and this one is no different. The rules have always been generally lax and as a member I'd really like them to stay that way and _unwritten_. Sadly I think the views expressed that aren't agreed with _have_ to be challenged, because to ignore them is to passively agree their validity. It remains a constant source of annoyance that to challenge the view is to constantly put yourself in the firing line.

----------


## tonybloke

> Question 1.
>                         If this is the patented method of irradicating termites;  by low- level introduction of neonics into their colonies and thereby reducing their resistance to all their natural challenges, how could the same thing not happen to their close cousins - bees?
> 
>         Question 2.
>                         As for scientific evidence, should we believe Suchail et al. who confirmed Bayer's claims of the remarkable toxicity of Imidacloprid; or Schmuck et al. who found no deleterious effects of chronic low-level poisoning by neonics on bee colonies ?(Schmuck is Bayer's in-house scientist.)
> 
>          Question 3.
>                         Why has nobody on this forum, so far, commented on how a pesticide, lethal to termites, has little or no effect on bees?


1, bees are not close cousins of termites, no more than you are.
2, believe who you will.
3, you answered your own question, with your comment.

----------


## Calum

> I think there is a question here around what is wanted from this site.
> 
> Should we also allow the anti mobile phone and anti power line crew who've also tried to expand into "Dying bees!!!!!" Evangelise unchallenged on here?  have a look on another forum where new beekeepers asking sensible questions are being told that pesticides are the root cause of whatever problem it is they're asking about and seeing their question disintegrate into the standard argument as a result. Should we accept that "Let your bees swarm" is a valid position to hold as a responsible beekeeper? What about non treatment?  Where's the line to be drawn on what is supposed to be a sensible beekeeping forum? Should SBAi be synonymous with whatever cause du jour is currently doing the rounds because we'll just sit back and let people claim any old tosh?


The line is drawn where there is no data/studies/logic to support the argument. I think that it is ok to talk about any flaky ideas - better to debunk them than ban the idea of discussing ideas. 





> Is it acceptable to slander, insult and belittle anyone who dares challenge those views?


No as a group we should talk to each other and treat each other with the respect and politeness we would like others to treats us with. If someone chooses to slander insult or belittle other people, thats the way they would like to be treated themselves. 




> And as I know someone shouting "What about free speech" can't be far behind, here's a little secret, every single forum on the internet except one has rules about what you can and can't post, whether about general conduct, being work suitable, being nice to each other etc. and this one is no different. The rules have always been generally lax and as a member I'd really like them to stay that way and _unwritten_. Sadly I think the views expressed that aren't agreed with _have_ to be challenged, because to ignore them is to passively agree their validity. It remains a constant source of annoyance that to challenge the view is to constantly put yourself in the firing line.


The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. 
~Edmund Burke

----------


## Bumble

> I think there is a question here around what is wanted from this site.


I'm fairly new to this site, not an SBA member, but I hope you don't mind me adding what I think - which is that I think it should be SBA-related, and a place where poeple can discuss their bee-keeping problems and successes as well as having a bit of a chuckle or a moan now and then.




> Should we also allow the anti mobile phone and anti power line crew who've also tried to expand into "Dying bees!!!!!" Evangelise unchallenged on here?  have a look on another forum where new beekeepers asking sensible questions are being told that pesticides are the root cause of whatever problem it is they're asking about and seeing their question disintegrate into the standard argument as a result. Should we accept that "Let your bees swarm" is a valid position to hold as a responsible beekeeper? What about non treatment?  Where's the line to be drawn on what is supposed to be a sensible beekeeping forum?


I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing any, or all, of those things. Discussion and freely exchanging ideas being the key. People don't always agree with each other, but there's always something to be learned if things are presented rationally, without rancour, and without belittling those who disagree with whatever the current new idea might be.




> Is it acceptable to slander, insult and belittle anyone who dares challenge those views?


It's never reasonable to do that. There's also the 'if you disagree with me you're wrong, or an idiot, or in the pay of x-company'. There's no answer to that sort of discussion-killing stuff.




> here's a little secret, every single forum on the internet except one has rules about what you can and can't post, whether about general conduct, being work suitable, being nice to each other etc. and this one is no different.


Some internet forums just disappear unwelcome 'guests'. No discussion, no debate. They, and their posts, just vanish if the site owners and moderators don't want them there. The piper and the tune, sort of thing - the one who pays the bills and runs the site has the right to choose what happens on their site.




> And as I know someone shouting "What about free speech"


Nobody should think they can use somebody else's site as a personal soapbox and expect to be able to do, or say, whatever they want without being challenged. It's bad manners. The only way that can happen is to have your own site, where you set your own rules and the parameters of any discussion and do your own work to raise the search engine rankings. Blogger, for example, is free and it's dead easy to use.

----------


## gavin

Thanks everyone.

Just to be clear - don't expect any real change in the way the forum operates.  We're still friendly, open folk who appreciate that a light touch is the best way to manage a forum like this one.

But you've all seen what has been happening here, and I hope that you appreciate that some moving of posts and a little restricting here and there will make it a better place.

----------


## Jon

I think that within this unreferenced, speculative, stream of consciousness garbage which is being posted, perhaps the most ridiculous assertion is this one, and I quote:




> Shills use mainly the following strategies...
> 
> A third strategy is to continually ask for proof.....


Let me get that straight then, asking someone to back up their claims with proof is part of a strategy to derail the argument and makes you a shill and part of the 'Big Ag' lickspittle 50 cent army.

The problem here is we have two diametrically opposed ways of thinking. 
It is a mirror of science vs religion. 
One camp is interested in sifting through all the available evidence and taking a position based upon that evidence. The other camp has had a 'calling' and will use science when it appears to support the preconceived notion about pesticide carnage, but will accuse genuine researchers of being fully paid up members of team Bayer when the results suggest otherwise.
I think Calum hit the nail on the head twice, once with the flow chart and a second time with the talk about chess strategies.

----------


## Neils

> I'm fairly new to this site, not an SBA member, but I hope you don't mind me adding what I think - which is that I think it should be SBA-related, and a place where poeple can discuss their bee-keeping problems and successes as well as having a bit of a chuckle or a moan now and then.


I certainly don't mind, you post here, you're a member of this community, your opinions are as welcome as anyone else's. 

I think we're largely in agreement over the rest  :Smile:

----------


## Bumble

> I certainly don't mind, you post here, you're a member of this community, your opinions are as welcome as anyone else's. 
> 
> I think we're largely in agreement over the rest


Thank you, and thanks Gavin for removing the thumb.

----------


## Calum

> I think Calum hit the nail on the head twice, once with the flow chart and a second time with the talk about chess strategies.


oooh thanks, that was like a big electronic hug. 
So we are all in agreement. Rosie works for Bayer, pesticides are responsible for global warming and (as they were invented by Bayer in Germany) through release in drinking water caused the personality cult in Germany and Austria that lead to the second world war. (there I did it, finally the final defense in any online argument). Oh and some forum members have been touched, presumably by Jesus or any other deity of your choice.
All those in agreement say 'bovine flatulence on a stick'

----------


## gavin

Bovine flatulence on a stick.

The agreement was particularly with the big electronic hug.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> 1, bees are not close cousins of termites, no more than you are.
> 2, believe who you will.
> 3, you answered your own question, with your comment.


 1.     I'm fairly confident, even without a qualification in taxonomy, that termites are 'closer' to bees than me, but yes,closer to cockroaches than bees.O.K.

  2.    I have looked at several of R.Schmuck's papers, and not one is critical of his employer's products.

  3.    When Bayer launched' Premise+Nature' Tm. on the grounds that its most effective mode of action was not high-toxicity/ kill on contact, which would only kill the individual termite, but instead the lower,chronic effects on termites returning to their colony who then were unable to do grooming , thereby allowing parasitic dominance, did they (Bayer) make sure ,by trials, research etc that the same thing would not happen to bees?

----------


## Jon

JTF.
If you trawl through the literature there are dozens of studies which have looked at field realistic (1-5ppb) sub lethal effects of neonicotinoids and they are not causing problems for bees. The studies which are finding problems are looking at levels much higher than this, sometimes 200-400 ppb as in the Harvard study.
If you take a deep breath and look at the available science as a neutral it largely supports the idea that the levels of neonicotinoid found in pollen and nectar are not causing problems for bees.

Where we have problems with these products is:
1. planter dust which is highly toxic and an issue which seriously needs to be addressed. There is now quite a history of bee poisoning incidents building up worldwide from Bavaria to Canada to parts of the US.
2. soil injection or foliar drenches, which is why crops such as pumpkins are causing problems. The ppb bees are exposed to is much higher in these cases and there may well be a case for regulation or prohibition of these methods if bees and other pollinators are put at risk.

None of this is happening in the uk which is presumably why our bees are doing well and colony numbers have recently tripled.
The idea that oil seed rape is bad for bees in the uk is risible as beekeepers take their colonies to this crop and report that they build up well on it.

And re. Schmuck, are you suggesting that his research is flawed in some way other than he has an association with Bayer. In what way has this skewed his results? It is better to give detail rather than leave innuendo.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

Jon,  thankyou for your well-measured reply.

Nevertheless, Bayer chose not to research the possible effects on bee grooming. (Julian Little/  Bayer)
 I believe some reseachers have since shown that grooming, navigation, and other behaviours are affected.
  Am I right on that?

----------


## AlexJ

> Jon,  thankyou for your well-measured reply.
> 
> Nevertheless, Bayer chose not to research the possible effects on bee grooming. (Julian Little/  Bayer)
>  I believe some reseachers have since shown that grooming, navigation, and other behaviours are affected.
>   Am I right on that?


JTF, yes there is evidence which normally gets hidden in the polarized views that instantly mask any real debate.

GLOBAL HONEY BEE COLONY DISORDERS AND OTHER THREATS TO INSECT POLLINATORS, United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) 2010 gives a quick overview of many of the issues with some references.  

Also from part of a post I entered some time ago:

Studies to date have not identified lethal affects on honeybees (trace dietary imidacloprid at field-realistic levels in nectar) but have noted reduced performance of between 6 and 20%. This includes effects similar to intoxication and lack of foraging performance.

A meta-analysis of experiments testing the effects of a neonicotinoid insecticide (imidacloprid) on honey bees. James E. Cresswell, Ecotoxicology Nov 2010

Alex

----------


## Jon

This report, Xerces Society, which I posted a link to a couple of weeks ago is bang up to date ie includes 2012 literature.

It by no means exonerates neonicotinoid pesticides, in fact, this organization is highly skeptical,  but certainly dispels a lot of the claptrap which has been posted recently such as the assertion that neonicotinoids are the cause of ccd.

----------


## Jon

> Jon,  thankyou for your well-measured reply.
> 
> Nevertheless, Bayer chose not to research the possible effects on bee grooming. (Julian Little/  Bayer)
>  I believe some reseachers have since shown that grooming, navigation, and other behaviours are affected.
>   Am I right on that?



Yes, at higher doses rather than field realistic doses.

----------


## gavin

All things are possible.  However the bottom line is current experience.  In rape growing areas bees still build up well on the crop and bring in a honey crop as long as the weather cooperates.  Commercial beekeepers who watch the performance of their bees more closely than any of us find that the crop is still good for large harvests of honey and healthy colonies.  Winter survival is variable but the beekeepers with the best practices have very low levels of winter loss.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> All things are possible.  However the bottom line is current experience.  In rape growing areas bees still build up well on the crop and bring in a honey crop as long as the weather cooperates.  Commercial beekeepers who watch the performance of their bees more closely than any of us find that the crop is still good for large harvests of honey and healthy colonies.  Winter survival is variable but the beekeepers with the best practices have very low levels of winter loss.


 Well, that's the answer to my questions, then. Imidacloprid kills Termites at very low levels of ingestion, but Bees are only seriously affected if field realistic levels are exceeded by operator errors.


      CLOSE THREAD?
 P.S. For over twenty years I dipped my sheep in organophosphates, sometimes checked by a policeman.
 P.P.S. Neonics, like many other biocides have a residual, persistent presence in the soil (5 yrs. or more),also, the same amount is usually applied annually on the same land when repeated monoculture, non- rotation is the norm. Is this a productive,benign, sustainable system that should be defended, even supported by beekeepers?There are better methods to promote.

----------


## Neils

Again, what's with the false equivalence that not wanting a ban on something means that you support it?

I don't want the BNP, robbie Williams or Manchester United banned either but I can assure you I'm no supporter of any of them.

If "ban pesticides" wants to turn into "ban pesticides and introduce accompanying legislation to force the change in agriculture that farmers inexplicably won't do of their own choice whilst ensuring that yields are maintained, food prices aren't adversely affected and the wider environment is maintained". Then that's something I might be able to get behind, but it's not about that. It's ban product Z. That's it.

It's not through lack of trying to find a smoking gun either, the Harvard study isn't the first to actively try and pin problems in beekeeping to pesticides and yet, to date, they can't without wandering off into situations and dosages that shouldn't occur.  Do cockups occur? Sure, "pro-pesticide" Gavin linked a story into here from Canada a couple of days ago which is strikingly similar to infamous poisoning in Germany years ago.

I think it is quite telling that most centres of apiculture aren't looking to pesticides as a major cause either, the conspiracists want me to believe that they're all paid hush money to look the other way and I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. I'm really supposed to believe that every single scientist involved in bee research is corrupt because they don't agree with some doofus in Dorset?

So I'm sorry we don't just fall into line and pin all the troubles in beekeeping on Bayer, there is a forum where you can do that if you want, they'll love another disciple to the cause I'm sure.

----------


## Calum

JTF one question:

----------


## gavin

> I don't want the BNP, robbie Williams or Manchester United banned either but I can assure you I'm no supporter of any of them.


Can I just say that I'd be happy if Rangers were banned?   :Stick Out Tongue:

----------

