# NEONICATOIDS ..........And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free



## Adrian Quiney WI (Sep 14, 2007)

Are these waterholes also the primary source of water for bees in the canola regions?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

San Antonio must have been interesting.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

snip
>>Her research has found the chemical is commonly showing up in wetlands in concentrations at least three to four times higher than what has been deemed habitable for insects.<<

from her studdy, id be interested in knowing where these wetlands are as compared to the farming practices around them. 
I found her site, http://homepage.usask.ca/~cam202/index.html
maybe I missed this studdy in the list of previous studdies sited but I cant find how she has determined these findings


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Our farm consists of many wetlands to which we simply farm around them, pasture or hay. Our farm uses neonic seed treatments, these wetlands are full of life. At least they seem to be...

It would be interesting to see this studdy


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

unfortunately this is the same story posted before, totally devoid of facts and information. just a writers take on a study that is no where near completed.


----------



## babybee (Mar 23, 2012)

What evidence would it take to make you change your farming practices? I am curious.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

I will tell you straight up that I am not changing my farm practices. That is what puts the food on the table. If I have evidence that my bees are in danger of dying, I move the bees. It's that simple.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Haraga said:


> I will tell you straight up that I am not changing my farm practices. That is what puts the food on the table. If I have evidence that my bees are in danger of dying, I move the bees. It's that simple.


Haraga, your post seems to be very reasonable to me, very well said.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

babybee said:


> What evidence would it take to make you change your farming practices? I am curious.


That's just it, I need evidence. To change our farming practices would require a tremendous shift, which would mean we would need alternative options. Right now that alternative option would be generalized blanket spraying, twice. We have not done that for 20 years and really enjoy this seed treatment option because as far as we can tell, it is allowing natural animals to survive within our crop canopy throughout the year. We did not have that with Furadan .

Furadan, any Beekeepers who experienced that name brand would of just got shivers down their spine ...


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Haraga said:


> If I have evidence that my bees are in daknger of dying, I move the bees. It's that simple.


It's not that simple Haraga, 99.5% of the canola planted is treated with a neonic, you might find hiding spots away during planting, if you buy into the suggested planting concerns. If neonic has further effects within the environment as is sited in this article, you will not get the hives away from it period. Then, if this suggested problem follows further to the pollen and nectar... There goes your honey crop. 
When beekeeping slap dab in the centre of it all, there is no moving away from it .
Like you say, we need evidence before making such decisions. And frankly a CBC story does not cut it.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>There were,are reasons WHY neonic's were banned in Europe<<

Irwin, have you the study on hand which helped you form that opinion? I can't find any studdy which the article refers to. Perhaps I'm just missing it ?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

http://www.producer.com/2013/12/sierra-club-joins-chorus-calling-to-ban-neonicotinoid-use/


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

<http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/10/neonicotinoids-let-virus-thrive-bees-colony-collapse-disorder>By
Simon Hadlington*

[image: Honey_Bee]<http://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Honey_Bee.jpg>Scientists
in Italy believe they have found a molecular trigger by which neonicotinoid
pesticides may harm colonies of
honeybees<http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314923110>.
The team's experiments suggest that exposure to neonicotinoids results in
increased levels of a particular protein in bees that inhibits a key
molecule involved in the immune response, making the insects more
susceptible to attack by harmful viruses.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

A provincial agency is in contact with Morrissey.

http://www2.canada.com/saskatoonsta....html?id=553ccda6-76fc-4be1-b2d0-b7b8dd01127c


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Ian, they must have special canola seed over here as my bees have never had a problem with it.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Morrissey is an Ecotoxicologist and she has given the 'heads up' on neonic contamination in wetlands.

The whole issue is that those neonics shouldn't show up in fresh water at those concentrations with that kind of frequency.

So, something's gone wrong.


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

Haraga said:


> I will tell you straight up that I am not changing my farm practices. That is what puts the food on the table. If I have evidence that my bees are in danger of dying, I move the bees. It's that simple.


Studies in Québec have shown that the systematic use of neonic-coated seeds yield no gain to farmers. They used a number of test fields, and decided to stop using the treated seeds in some test fields. On the following year, they still didn't have the bugs the neonics were meant to fight and no production loss. On the second year, the bugs started appearing, but still no production loss. There is simply no agronomic justification to prophylactic neonic use.

Why would you persist in buying a poison that yields no benefits to your crops, poisons your bees, and has an unknown effect on your produce? The government here decided to heavily subsidize soil samples to help farmers determine if they should use neonics or not. In most cases, they didn't need to.

Also, some tests have resulted in neonic residues being found in honey from the HONEY SUPERS, and not just the brood boxes.

The study cited showed that a huge number of wetlands were affected. There simply is no "moving the bees". It is not "that simple". You can't escape neonics. They stay in the soil, they stay in the water, they go in the pollen, in the nectar, in the honey. They disorient the bees, they poison the brood, they lower the immune system's capabilities, they promote viral replication... the list goes on. The studies keep piling on, both in labs and in the field.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Like I said, it must be special canola seed out west because we don't have any problems.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Haraga said:


> Like I said, it must be special canola seed out west because we don't have any problems.


You would be using Helix on your canola seed. It's in the neonic seed treatment class. And I agree, we are not seeing these same problems on our farm. 
It's easy for Beekeepers make bold statements, but beekeeper who also farm seem to need to find middle ground. 

Still, I must be missing where she is taking her wetland samples from. Excuse me if you pointed it out to me already, can you provide that link again for me?


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Ian said:


> To change our farming practices would require a tremendous shift, which would mean we would need alternative options.


This is the problem with most 'activist' causes. They make lots of noise regarding 'we want change', or 'this must stop', but bring no viable alternatives forward. It's all based on the squeaky wheel principle, the wheel that squeaks loudest (in the press) will get the political attention, and politicians are a completely reactive breed, reacting only the the stimulus that comes from headlines and/or ballot boxes.

The real sad part of some of this, a 'celebrity endorsement' will go MUCH MUCH farther in affecting opinion, than any amount of scientific study on the subject. This is another detail that has not been lost on many activist groups.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

She's in the middle of a four year study, so I doubt that she'll make the sample locations public just yet.

There's always the danger that someone will deliberately contaminate the site.

If she's using the same area from a previous study, it's west of Saskatoon and north of Regina.

http://www.traceorganic.com/2013/presentations/JBailey 2013_WCTOW.pdf


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

WLC , is that link the work she is referring too?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

It must be, her name is cited within the credits


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

It's a presentation on one of her previous studies.

By the way, please edit your post to read 'WLC'.

Let's try to maintain some etiquette here.


----------



## babybee (Mar 23, 2012)

I didn't go to the ahpa meeting but johnathan lundgren was in the list of speakers. I saw him speak at the south dakota meeting and was super interested in his take on pesticides. He said that these pest insects adapt so quick that after a few years ddt didn't even kill mosquitoes.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I am interested to hear the findings in her study, if it falls along this presentation WLC  provided the study of wildlife between wetlands contaminated and not contaminated should help paint this picture


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Ian, she may have changed her sample locations.

However, once she made a public announcement that she had found contamination, it's far more likely that the WSA and even the pesticide/seed companies involved will want to do their own sampling for corroboration.

It has to be done.


----------



## KevinR (Apr 30, 2010)

Haraga said:


> I will tell you straight up that I am not changing my farm practices. That is what puts the food on the table. If I have evidence that my bees are in danger of dying, I move the bees. It's that simple.


Did the farmers using DDT say the same thing? Somethings are more important than an extra ??% harvest...


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

WLC said:


> Ian, she may have changed her sample locations.
> 
> However, once she made a public announcement that she had found contamination, it's far more likely that the WSA and even the pesticide/seed companies involved will want to do their own sampling for corroboration.
> 
> It has to be done.


absolutely it has to be done. 
objectively... I hope so


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

the system remains flawed in its recordkeeping 

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Envi...cordkeeping-in-pesticide-registration-system/
and more "bee protection" courtroom activity is coming in 2014

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=75d137a0-db87-4a29-badb-c2e833e835b5


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

oh if there are flaws, I think we can all be certain that there are groups that will not rest til they are acted on


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

here is a snip from a conversation I had with a neighbour about this story; 

>>>To the best of my knowledge their study involved nutrient loading, so I don't believe there would be any herbicide samples taken. I think I still have their emails so I can ask, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no. 

The Morrisey story strikes me as very odd for a couple reasons. It's a 4 yr study and she's only 1 1/2 yrs in, which means only one sampling season. Usually before any of our results are publicized the study is completed, reports are finalized and peer reviewed for errors. With only one year of data, I would be very surprised to see anything other than a very preliminary report, and I doubt there has been any time for much of a peer review. We're still waiting on lab analysis from last yr's samples. It makes me wonder if she is jumping on the current anti-neonicotinoid bandwagon to increase her funding for the next 3 yrs.<<<

this is the exact reaction I had when I first heard it broadcaster by our national broadcaster. They seem to be jumping the gun, for what reason exactly? funding?

The first sentence is about an on going study of wetlands currently taking part partly on my farmland. I asked him if this studdy was related to the Morrisey study as they are both from the same school


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

I have to admit I haven't looked for any of her other work, as when I first read this one, when I read the following statement.

Morrissey said preliminary data suggests just what she suspected: an apparent decline in mosquito and midge populations, which could have serious ramifications for birds.

doing a study they shouldn't bee looking to support what they suspect.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I've thought about the 'going public' issue.

There's a chain of command in academia which includes the institution and the source of the grant.

If I were in that position, I would have started with my department chairman, and then further up in the institution.

The right government agency to contact would be the WSA.

However, I don't know why she went public, or if she has institutional support for doing so.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

Morrissey told the reporter: "We all want to have food that we consume and enjoy. But at what cost?" Morrissey wonders. "Is that at the cost of having no more birds around? Of having no more butterflies? Having no bees? People are thinking about that now."

That's typical alarmist talk we have seen over and over again from young academics. It works well too because if you follow the career paths of young alarmists, many of them advance to associate and full professor positions within 5-10 years.

The neonic seed treatments are used at a rate of about 5 gallons per square mile = 640 ounces per 640 acres = 1 ounce per acre = a laughably tiny amount.


----------



## LSPender (Nov 16, 2004)

Then BlueDiamond , maybe you should try it in your food at that rate, maybe then you wouldn't make an uninformed asinine comment!

Ca dept of pesticides did a well know test on 5 trees on a golf course in Sacremento area about 5 years ago, a one time use of neonics delivered systemicly, 5 yrs later, each blooming season since, most all insects that visit tree during bloom die.

One of challenges with neonics is the residuals stay around for years.

And my biggest concern outside my bees is what's in the food we eat!

I posed that question to the CA pesticide dept. at the CSBA in November at Tahoe meeting, Their quote , its outside there scope to test for residual toxicity in the fruit we eat.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

BlueDiamond said:


> The neonic seed treatments are used at a rate of about 5 gallons per square mile = 640 ounces per 640 acres = 1 ounce per acre = a laughably tiny amount.


Sure seems implasuable. I seem to recall that neonics have a pretty short half-life (like 30 days) in water, which would seem to suggest that accumulation wouldn't be much of an issue. Where would it be coming from prior to planting season? I sure hope that we can get some real definitive answers.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

The chemical companies do not want residuals in their product. They want you to keep applying their product year after year. Chemicals that kept killing weeds or bugs season after season would save the farmers a lot of money.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

LSPender said:


> Ca dept of pesticides did a well know test on 5 trees on a golf course in Sacremento area about 5 years ago, a one time use of neonics delivered systemicly, 5 yrs later, each blooming season since, most all insects that visit tree during bloom die.


and they found the level of neonics in the tree leaves to be? since golf courses are the highest user of pesticides in the USA per acre, I also would guess that they tested for the other pesticides also? if I remember bluediamond is from CA some he may have some information on the test.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

From http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=10858


Dr. Goulson’s study provides the public with its first look at Bayer’s own data on the persistence of neonicotinoids in soil. Shockingly, this information shows that the soil half-life of the most commonly used seed treatments can range from 200- 1000 days. In the case of clothianidin, a chemical that Beyond Pesticides and other organizations are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend, it is revealed that the chemical has the potential to remain in soil for 6,931 days (nearly 19 years!) before degrading. One study referenced by Dr. Goulson shows that thiamethoxam can persist for nearly 3,000 days. A breakdown product of thiamethoxam is clothianidin; thus, even when these chemicals do begin to degrade, their breakdown products have the potential to be just as toxic as the parent chemical.


I'm thinking,wondering about of the build up after years of use


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

WLC said:


> I've thought about the 'going public' issue.
> 
> There's a chain of command in academia which includes the institution and the source of the grant.
> 
> ...


WLC claims degrees "to numerous to list" yet clearly shows he has no comprehension of how academic research works.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Irwin:

I've pointed out that there's another DT50 number from Table 1 in Goulson (2013) that's even worse than the 19 year number (a lab sample).

It was a field sample of silty clay loam from Saskatchewan that showed negligible dissipation in 25 months, and therefore didn't have a reported half life because the clothiadinin wasn't breaking down.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Richard, Morrissey may be working under a Canadian federal grant which has its own rules of conduct that differ from our own.

She is NOT a full professor. She's not even an associate professor. She is just an assistant professor without tenure (on probation) who can be terminated without cause. If she's wrong, the institution may be liable.

It's WLC at all times on the forum.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>I'm thinking,wondering about of the build up after years of use<<

and after years of continual use of neonic, those background residual levels should be building in our soils and waters.

sounds like a very easy study to perform, select random fields across the country and test for the residual neonic levels.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

"I don't know why she went public, or if she has institutional support for doing so."

She may not care about the consequences, she may only care about getting the info, truth out.
She has decided what's important here


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Irwin:

That's true, she may be an idealist.

However, I wouldn't count on the Saskatchewan WSA corroborating here findings.

I don't have the 'Playbill' for the actors involved in the drama that's playing out in Saskatchewan, let alone Canada.

But, I do know that an academic institution will gladly throw an untenured faculty member 'under the bus' if they can gain from it.

Morrissey may have made it too easy for them to do. Sorry, but that's my opinion of what's likely to happen at this point.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

In the Netherlands Dr. Tennekes has done just that and he also found widespread contamination of ground water and surface water with neonics. Sometimes with very high residues. He also showed the decline of insect eating birds.

So basicly she found what he found on the other side of the big pond.

Doesn't surprise me anyway, since neonics are water soluble. And are long lasting in the soil. If it is used year after year, the soil is saturated and cannot take anymore, so it washes off. 

Some of the results Tennekes found are described in his book: A disaster in the making.


----------



## babybee (Mar 23, 2012)

One of my friends has a former classmate that is a corn breeder with syngenta, so my friend told him about how it has been tougher to keep his bees alive. So he said that there is enough pesticide on one kernel of corn to kill around 1000 bees.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid, I see the total value of sale of neo nic's was $2632 million in 2009, probably up a little since then, eh , lol. No IPM required,easier and better than using spray's, lasts for years , better for the farmer not me . I know one farmer who had problems with treated canola seed not working this spring,flea beetles were devouring his crop and he had to spray and I had to move bees.
WLC, who who are you?, no need to hide....don't be shy, pm me


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Irwin, it's WLC on the forum at all times.

I'm sorry to hear you had to move your bees.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>know one farmer who had problems with treated canola seed not working this spring,flea beetles were devouring his crop and he had to spray and I had to move bees.<<

Tell that farmer he had the stripped flea beetle move in, Helix controls the crusifer. We got caught by the same infestation and had to broadcast many of our acres as well. There is another seed treatment available to control both, guess what it is...

We have actually considered dropping the seed treatment to broadcast but we are very hesitant as we shutter about the days of blanket spraying. Like I had mentioned, it's a shift. Which way do you want it? It's one way or the other, can't be neither...


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

WLC ,

my farm is involved with a small dam nutrient water loading study done by a couple graduates from the UofS. They know Christy and I will not relay the conversation with one of them, they did provide a link to preliminary results from her group. 
www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/toxins/Neonic_FINAL.pdf
This is preliminary and is what she probably used to go public. They had to dig this up though, as the media provided zero references to this story
here is one small quote from the email,

"these are some very good researchers working on the topic…. so I have trust in their science. "

so ya, I also believe these are good researchers, but how can anyone stand behind their science before the science goes through it course? Are we talking blind trust here? 

Irwin, I totally understand the situation, as I am also a beekeeper. What is going to happen when everyone is broadcasting? How many hiding spots can we find out there. Better get our hands on them now, record canola acres going in this year and the next after that. Take that seed treatment away and look out... that beetle is going to die one way or another

Im not trying to criticize your stand on the issue, next time you see me at a meeting dont throw your chair at me... just which bad is worst for us?


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

In plain English can someone summarize what WLC is saying? Thanks


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

What he is saying, I think, is these studies are supposed to be finalized and peer reviewed before they go public,... or is that just in picky gov't circles...


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

Ian, I take no offence, no harm done....farmers must protect their crop in the best way possible.
The farmer at least told me he was going to spray, some don't, 

As for moving that yard, I think they benefitted from the change in scenery and when moved back got right to work


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

So what if she didn't finish her trials? Her findings are interesting as-is. The fact that she plans to collect more data does not make it any less serious that in this season, so many samples turned out positive for high amounts of neonics.



grozzie2 said:


> This is the problem with most 'activist' causes. They make lots of noise regarding 'we want change', or 'this must stop', but bring no viable alternatives forward. It's all based on the squeaky wheel principle, the wheel that squeaks loudest (in the press) will get the political attention, and politicians are a completely reactive breed, reacting only the the stimulus that comes from headlines and/or ballot boxes.
> 
> The real sad part of some of this, a 'celebrity endorsement' will go MUCH MUCH farther in affecting opinion, than any amount of scientific study on the subject. This is another detail that has not been lost on many activist groups.


A good start would be only using it when needed. Trials showed that in most cases, the use of neonic treatment on seeds provided no yield gains.



AstroBee said:


> Sure seems implasuable. I seem to recall that neonics have a pretty short half-life (like 30 days) in water, which would seem to suggest that accumulation wouldn't be much of an issue. Where would it be coming from prior to planting season? I sure hope that we can get some real definitive answers.


When exposed to sunlight, they are said to have an extremely short half-life (I heard 1 day). Out of the sun's reach, however, is a completely different story.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Ian: 

Morrisey (2010) was reporting a maximum value for clothiadinin of 2.3 ug/L. It's close to background.

But acute toxicity for Daphnia (a common test species for pesticides) is 109,523 ug/L.

It's just a detection, nothing more.

We still don't know what new values she is reporting though.

Try to remember until her data is published in a peer reviewed journal, it isn't officially part of the scientific 'record'.

Don't panic just yet. Let the WSA do their job first.


----------



## babybee (Mar 23, 2012)

Have any of the farmers on here ever hear of Dr William Albrecht? My brother is interested in soil fertility and has told me lots about him. I wonder if many of the pest problems are related to poor soil fertility or out of balance soil nutrition.


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

Yes the soil is out of balance. Thats what happens when you don't rotate your crops and give it a rest. Thats why it takes anhydrous ammonia to get anything to grow.


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

And anhydrous ammonia is good for you. Half of the people that use it farm the other half make crystal meth out of it. But when you plant corn then soybeans, corn then soybeans year after year what do you expect to attract? Naturally in large quantities of the same crop over and over pests are going to show up and you are going to have a problem. It's pretty logical to me. I would think the large concentration of the same crop is more attractant to pests than poor soil. At the same time you are killing the beneficial insects along with the pests. I would think the more sensible approach would be to balance the system and not be so greedy as to try to squeeze that extra bushell out of an acre.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

I agree with you about the importance of crop rotations. Josh, what are your crop rotations? Do you ever seed back to back?


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

Pesticides are the band-aid to the problem. Do the same pests target corn, hay crop, soybeans? I'm not into traditional crops of my area anymore. I don't agree in the way crops are planted. The old timers used crop rotation and did not need any of the stuff we use now, to a degree. I am into fruit now, but you won't see me grow large fields of it together. I think spreading it out over a larger area will lead to less of a pest problem. Essentially I think that if one 5 acre orchad gets wiped out I lost some crop, oh well, I will try harder next year. But 10 miles down the road in each direction my other fields will survive. I understand that large quantities will be grown because thats the way things are now. But it does not have to be the same thing year after year.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>But when you plant corn then soybeans, corn then soybeans year after year what do you expect<<

if that rotation was corn, canola, corn canola, very few beekeepers would even comment on crop rotation problems


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

I always thought that cultivating some summer fallow was good for pest control but that type of old school farming is rapidly disappearing.


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

North America is the only country that uses HFCS in everything we consume. Plus we burn the crap in our gas engines. I cannot remember the last time I talked to a mechanic and he said that dumping water in my gas tank was good for the engine. Our diet is not healthy which IMO has driven the need for the crop along with global warming pushing green fuels which I would like to personally thank Al Gore for the -40 we had in south central Indiana a week ago.


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

Ian, why not throw clover in there? Its a great crop to add nitrogen, plus green manure has never been proven to hurt your soil.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

ya, not much of that seen here anymore. Better weed control has pretty much eliminated summer fallow tillage practices.

I just finished watching a documentary on the Dust Bowl. Tree rows were brought in to help manage the wind. Today, Im talking to farmers who are taking them all out down there, all of them. Its happening here too. 
There is going to be no place to hide anymore...


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Josh Rollins said:


> Ian, why not throw clover in there? Its a great crop to add nitrogen, plus green manure has never been proven to hurt your soil.


I love that idea!
try to sell that to a grain farmer, who takes the land and manipulates it to perform at it highest function across the entire property. They are geared for one thing and one thing only, and that is big tractors and big combines.


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

By better weed control you mean round-up. They can keep using the chemicals until their land is deemed a hazmat zone and all of their off spring dies from birth defects. Worms are natural aerators what happens when they are gone from the pesticides? Like I said it takes large amounts of chemicals for most farmers to get a crop to grow. Greed will turn their land back into a dust bowl. Short term gains cannot account for long term damage.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

What agriculture needs is one thing, and one thing only, diversity. We need trees, we need sloughs, we need pastures and hay land, we need smaller crops and more of them. 

I guess Im wrong, thats not JUST what agriculture needs, its also what honeybees need


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

But your not wrong. Diversity is the best way to prevent our problems and the farmers problems.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>land is deemed a hazmat zone<<

I farm too Josh, we farm like the rest of them, except we are also cattle producers so we manage our lands as it presents itself. 
our lands are healthy, we have life growing though out our fields. Insects everywhere, worms, beetles , the whole bit. 
We use every bit of pesticide your making your generalized comments on and its being done in a sustainable fashion. Proof? Come take a look at the overall health of our farmland, stock and crops. 

DIVERSITY is the key


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

GLYPHOSATE: DESTRUCTOR OF HUMAN HEALTH AND BIODIVERSITY

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/glyphosate/glyphosate_report_by_RosemaryMason.pdf


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

Find me a manufacturer that makes a tractor cab that is going to protect you and I will show you a liar.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

A beekeeper telling a grain farmer how bad Round up is. There is no end to that fight...

I am both, and the merits of roundup and the advantages it has provided our farm trumps the in crop weed foraging beekeepers would of benefited from. 

Where beekeepers make it isnt in dirty farmer fields, its in a healthy productive diverse land scape. Roundup has nothing to do with cropping diversity, it only adds to it. Clean fields make it easier to manage bigger NECTAR producing crops


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

LOL! A healthy productive diverse landscape and a modern day farm, oxymoron? Roundup has nothing to do with crop diversity, you are correct. It is the difference between no-till and a plow and disc. Yes, there are plenty of farmers around me that plow and disc. You won't find round-up in their inventory. Guess its the fine line between greed and land preservation. IMO, we were not meant to farm hundreds or thousands of acres of the same crop, it use to be survival of your family. Things have changed. Keep doing what works best for you.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>IMO, we were not meant to farm hundreds or thousands of acres of the same crop<<

yup, that is exactly it. even if we were able to fit in two more crops into that rotation. And for god sakes, make it a nectar producing crop. Get them scattered among the corn fields and wheat. Here we have the canola, but its cost of production is higher than soy, and guess what, soy is taking over where ever it can grow here.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>LOL! A healthy productive diverse landscape and a modern day farm, oxymoron?<<

take a gander at the link in my signature. Bunch of pics and you will find a link to our facebook page lots of pics there. 
Our farm is not an oxymoron...

And as far as I can gather we have been using these neonic seed treatments for nearly 20 years, does anyone remember Counter5G? Any beekeepers wanting to reminis about those good old days?


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

I'd rather lose all of my crop and learn something than use chemicals. I'd rather lose all of my bees and learn something than use chemicals. I put junk into my ground in the past thinking it was the "best" way of handling situations. I look back and wish I had not knowing now what I did not know then. I prefer to find a solution and lose some crop than put a band-aid on it. I am happy being chemical free and not getting a full yield from my crop but at the same time I'm not farming hundreds of acres. I'd rather hand a forgotten practice to my kids to carry on.


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

I'm not saying your farm does not look great. Its your land God gave it to you to manage. If it works for you keep doing it. We all have our own ways, ideas, and theories. Mine is chemical free and loss of crop. Yours is not. No hard feelings my bees will never reach your property and your chemicals will never find mine.


----------



## Josh Rollins (Jan 2, 2014)

I actually like you Ian, we are polar opposites, you don't get offended and you take care of your family. Obviously you are a good man. Good luck with your farming, hope your yeilds are high.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Josh Rollins said:


> I actually like you Ian, we are polar opposites, you don't get offended and you take care of your family. Obviously you are a good man. Good luck with your farming, hope your yeilds are high.


>>I actually like you Ian<<

LOL, people who get offended are people who can not listen to others view points. That does not mean we all have to agree, but mutual _meaningful_ exchange and direct comments is KEY to any sustainable conversation,... lol

take care Josh,


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Ian said:


> KEY to any sustainable conversation,...


And democracy.



Ian said:


> Which way do you want it? It's one way or the other, can't be neither...


At first it would be useful, that neonics aren't be allowed to be sprayed. In about 70 % of applications over here the stuff is sprayed. Second the label shouldn't say: harmless to bees. Which it does here. The farmer over here tend to read the three words and immediately stop reading and thinking any further. All they read is: harmless to bees. "So I can spray as I like to." 

Neonics are not harmless to bees, even not in the way it is applicated. Which we know by today very well.

As a farmer I wouldn't use neonics because of it's immunosuppressive nature. So my choice would be anything else. 

Rotating crops would be a good farming practice, but in fact this has been dropped in some regions here. Corn follows corn follows corn. And more and more monoculture. Because people can't farm for food, as it is not profitable anymore, they start producing stuff to feed the biogas plants.

There are positive examples, though, and I reckon this is the future. Because such an industry wrecks itself by wrecking the soil.


----------



## rhaldridge (Dec 17, 2012)

Ian said:


> A beekeeper telling a grain farmer how bad Round up is. There is no end to that fight...


Ian, as a wanna-be very small farmer, I go to all the seminars on farming that the local or semi-local extension agents put on, (but the best ones are in Baldwin County, AL, about 90 miles from here. They serve a free lunch, too.) The last one I went to there, which was about vegetable production, the agents were complaining bitterly about RoundUp resistant pigweed-- it was becoming such a problem that farmers were using excessive amounts of RoundUp, and the problem was, of course, getting even worse, with other weeds developing resistance.

When the extension agents are worried about something, there's probably something worth worrying about going on. These guys are not artisanal hipster exotic kale farmers.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

rhaldridge said:


> the agents were complaining bitterly about RoundUp resistant pigweed-- it was becoming such a problem that farmers were using excessive amounts of RoundUp, and the problem was, of course, getting even worse, with other weeds developing resistance.


Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto have teamed up to develop this solution to Roundup resistant pigweed, waterhemp and others: http://www.enlist.com/pdf/Enlist_efficacy_field_trial.pdf


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>When the extension agents are worried about something<<

Hence the comment on diversity...


----------

