# Are poisons, aka, insecticides, pesticides killing our bee population?



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

I have personally witnessed a very large die off of my honey bees. They engaged in a death spin turning round and round on the ground at the hive entrance as if you could hear them crying in pain and torment and as if poisoned.

If insecticides were banned would honey bees thrive again as they once did? Would we be exporting more honey than we are importing? Would such a ban improve the general health and welfare of most Americans?

Does Monsanto disallow research into the 'mystery,' paying off academic researchers, entomologists, to look the other way? Is Monsanto the new best friend of the bee researcher? Why?

Does the bee decline/honey shortage help those who survive enjoy a monopoly of sorts without lots of the previous competition they once had to compete against? Why do we not hear more outrage from the major beekeepers in this country concerning insecticides? 

Is the succumbing of honey bees to small hive beetles, Varroa mites, etc. simply a symptom of a poisoned honey bee?

If not poison, what is your explanation for why honey bees are in decline? Are you motivated by any financial reason to hold your current viewpoint?

If antagonistic to the foregoing and anonymous, why?


----------



## LeonardS (Mar 13, 2012)

How about giving us your positions on these questions, first? 

Sounds like you just want to argue??


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

LeonardS said:


> How about giving us your positions on these questions, first?


I pretty much have. I blame poison, aka insecticides for the demise of the honey bee.




LeonardS said:


> Sounds like you just want to argue??


Sounds like you just want to agree. Do you work for Monsanto?


----------



## LeonardS (Mar 13, 2012)

No connection to Monsanto.......but if you want to buy a Trailer or Bus, I can help you!

I don't feel I am knowledgeable enough in the beekeeping world to blame insecticides as the only cause of bee loss. I have my hives within 20 feet of a field that is planted to soybeans one year, and corn the next. I treat for mites in the Spring and Fall, and have not lost one hive.......maybe I'm just lucky, or the farmer next to me is careful when he sprays.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I have personally witnessed a very large die off of my honey bees. They engaged in a death spin turning round and round on the ground at the hive entrance as if you could hear them crying in pain and torment and as if poisoned.

This has been going on since DDT...

>If insecticides were banned would honey bees thrive again as they once did? 

There have been many changes in the past few decades. Farmers used to grow a lot of clover. There used to be a lot more pasture. There used to be a lot more weeds before round-up ready crops. Now every weed in the field is killed. There used to be more habitat for bees. They would definitely do better without pesticides, fungicides and herbicides (as would human beings) but there are other issues besides just insecticides.

>Would we be exporting more honey than we are importing?

Honey has been under price supports off and on since the depression. Apparently the price doesn't stay very stable nor profitable. Who knows?

> Would such a ban improve the general health and welfare of most Americans?

I'm sure it would. There is no shortage of data about what insecticides and herbacides do to humans...

>Does Monsanto disallow research into the 'mystery,' paying off academic researchers, entomologists, to look the other way?

Disallow? Of course they don't pay for that research... If you wonder how the EPA and the FDA and the USDA allow all of this, try a search on "revolving door" and Monsanto...

> Is Monsanto the new best friend of the bee researcher? Why?

Money.

>Does the bee decline/honey shortage help those who survive enjoy a monopoly of sorts without lots of the previous competition they once had to compete against?

Monsanto only cares about one thing and it's not bees or honey... but it rhymes with honey...

>Why do we not hear more outrage from the major beekeepers in this country concerning insecticides? 

Beekeepers have been complaining about insecticides since they came out.

>Is the succumbing of honey bees to small hive beetles, Varroa mites, etc. simply a symptom of a poisoned honey bee?

No. We tracked those pests as they spread across the world. They were introduced.

>If not poison, what is your explanation for why honey bees are in decline?

Well, habitat, introduced pests, viruses spread by those pests and, of course, poison...

> Are you motivated by any financial reason to hold your current viewpoint?

Everyone is motivated by financial reasons...

>If antagonistic to the foregoing and anonymous, why? 

Anonymous? I don't follow the question.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

From a different thread.....where all of this started....just to get it off on the right foot.
My take on Jim's view is that varroa have infested our bees for a long time but have only become a problem recently. 


Jim Giles said:


> Interesting, but even accepting 1987, the mystery began only recently circa 1996, right?


 Nope...the problem in North America started in 1987.



Jim Giles said:


> Honeybees were commonplace when I was growing up. I also recall a holly tree they loved and pollinated every spring in our front yard. Circa 1970.


 Pre varroa.....



Jim Giles said:


> I never see feral bees today. Never. None.


 That's what varroa do.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

Jim Giles said:


> Would such a ban improve the general health and welfare of most Americans?


sure would we would all be a lot thinner.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Jim, if you base your thinking in these matters on television 'documentaries' you are sure to discover that many facts are missing.
The early European colonists brought with them honey bees and those feral bees you saw in the 1970s were surely descended from those imported at that time or over the next several hundred years. European honey bees.....that had never been exposed to varroa. In the late 1980s, somehow, varroa were brought to North America and the result was catastrophic. I am sorry if this doesn't jibe with your beliefs....but then again, depending on where you've gotten your information....some important details are evidently lacking.
Do pesticides take a toll on honey bees? Sure. Do the parasitic effects of varroa make those bees even more sensitive to pesticide poisoning? Of course.
Just don't forget.... in the 1970s when you remember seeing those feral bees thriving, people were using many tremendously toxic pesticides.


----------



## TalonRedding (Jul 19, 2013)

Post #5 does a pretty good job of summing it up for me as well. I am not thoroughly keen on the pesticides and their effects, but I certainly agree that they have negative consequences, especially long term.
What I do know is the issue of habitat, at least in my region. The old family farms used to have fields that would go into rest (field rotation). These were called "fallow" fields or "old farm" fields. Clover was definitely present along with native flowers and grasses that we now call weeds. The family farm has now been sown in tall fescue, glyphosate has killed the "weeds", and insecticide is sprayed on anything that is not considered a "weed". That's just the farmland.
Then there is the issue of timber management. Once the timber reaches a minimum of 16" diameter at breast height, folks tend to start salivating after them. The timber is not allowed to get much larger, thus preventing shelter for bees in the form of hollows, not because of money, but short sighted management and possibly greed. 
Ironically, many of the folks that practice this style of management then wonder why they don't hear the Bobwhite Quail anymore, they miss seeing the wildflowers, or why honeybees aren't as prevalent as they were years ago. 
The most troubling aspect of this post to me is that many people I come across do not realize that their management practice is to blame. The ones that do see it cannot afford to reverse their actions and lose the investment they have made.


----------



## merince (Jul 19, 2011)

Our world has changed significantly over the past century or so - as a society we moved away from family farms that grew the majority of their food to large scale farming. This changed the landscape for the bees - before they could find a variety of crops within their flight range. Now, the little farms are consolidated and are converted into mono-cultures as a single farmer is trying to feed ever increasing number of people and seeks to improve their own lifestyle.

Pesticides make crops more dependable. Banning them would increase food costs and take us back into the boom/bust cycle of food production. The bust part is usually known as famine. Banning them will also probably increase GMO crops (and help Monsanto big time) as those will be the crops that will be most equipped to withstand increase insect pressure. Increasing food costs will also negatively impact the poor.

Bees have a lot of challenges in front of them. The solution needs to work both for them and for us, humans. The issue is very complex and pesticides are just part of the puzzle. Check out Randy Oliver's article Sick Bees – Part 18F2: Colony Collapse Revisited – Keeping A Leaky Boat Afloat and especially the part about hormesis. Very low pesticide concentrations actually increase bee fecundity.

That is why more research, especially about LD50 levels and pesticide interactions is very important and unfortunately, still very scarce.

I don't work for Monsanto and btw Bayer is the big pesticide producer (I don't work for them either). Monsanto tries to make plants that produce their own insecticides by messing with their genes. My name is on my blog.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

A little background is probably in order here. 

Randy Oliver (as usual) sums it up best with some historical perspective on pesticide usage in the US. Interestingly enough I can add a little data to his report from my own memory. The large anonymous payment that he references (in today's dollars over $1 million) was actually paid to a P.A. Yelverton owner and operator at the time of Stover Apiaries....... in Mississippi no less! His hives were devastated while on cotton. His receipt of by far the largest payment ruffled a lot of feathers in the industry particularly among those who felt they had valid claims denied. As Randy states the inequality of payouts is what ended the program. I can certainly add a lot of stories of my own fron the late 1970's and 1980's having had whole yards devastated on Sunflowers in North Dakota and on alfalfa seed in South Dakota.

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18f-colony-collapse-revisited-pesticides/

Pesticides have been the bane of beekeepers since the late 1940's. I know it's popular to dump on Monsanto but I also think its noteworthy that aside from some licensing agreements with some of the major players like Bayer and Syngenta, Monsanto isn't even really in the insecticide business. Save your Monsanto wrath for their genetic ownership of specific seed traits. 
Jim, not saying that what you are seeing isn't insecticide damage, it may well be. If so you need to find out what it was and where it was applied, it strike me as being a bit early in the season but in Mississippi perhaps not. If you have fresh "crawlers" you well be able to pick up a handful and actually smell an insecticide, a lawn applied insecticide would probably be the most likely.
You need to keep your mind open to a number of other possibilities as well. My guess, (assuming these arent winter dead hauled out the entrance), would be that the more likely culprit are varroa borne viruses, it's the only time I have seen significant numbers of unexplained dead bees in front of any of my hives in recent years.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

> Are poisons, aka, insecticides, pesticides killing our bee population?


Absolutely. 

When I spray my hives with Imidachloprid, my bees die 100 percent of the time.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Jim Giles said:


> If insecticides were banned would honey bees thrive again as they once did?
> No, probably not.
> Would we be exporting more honey than we are importing?
> No.
> ...


Hope that answers your questions.


----------



## RAK (May 2, 2010)

Jim Giles said:


> If not poison, what is your explanation for why honey bees are in decline?
> >>>>>*Varroa/virus*. and *poor nutrition*<<<<<


 ...


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Insecticides do kill bees. It's entirely possible that your bees suffered a pesticide kill, Jim. I've not personally suffered such a kill; but I've seen pictures and video of obviously-poisoned bees and it's hard to watch.

But pesticide kills are fairly obvious when you see them; they look a specific way and there's no mistaking them for any other disease or pest. I would say that if pesticides were responsible for massive die-offs nation- or world-wide, the cause would be known immediately and there wouldn't be very much of a "mystery" to it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Did Jim do anything to determine whether his bees were killed by insecticide poisoning or did he just observe their behavior? Did he take samples of bees and send them somewhere for analysis?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Jim Giles <<>>If insecticides were banned would honey bees thrive again as they once did? <<

Does that also include in hive products?


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

Monsanto chemicals are a big part of the bee die offs. It is in the pollen, it is in the corn syrup, it is the pollen substitutes. 

We are talking about one of the biggest companies in the world and a company that has husbands and wives in congress and the house of representitives. 

Farmers keep saying we have to have this stuff to feed the world ...bull crap same amount of people still are starving. It is so new (GMO's/neonics)...... how did we survive before it....the greatest generation thrived without it. Most of Europe does fine without it....Why can't we?

So instead of learning a better way.....we as farmers/beekeepers basically say, let us let those WHO DO NOT farm or beekeep tell us who do, how we should do things...... and we wonder how this nation got so weak.

These chemicals are causing our kids and grandkids to get more unhealthy than the previous generation. 

There is no such thing as a product that has NO effect on long term health. It is either positive or negetive.

Farmers, beekeepers and Americans need to take a stand against these chemicals or we will continue to have more problems.

I am not against chemicals.......... but I am only for those that are safe to use. 

If its a toxic to the bugs I dont want it on my corn, my canola oil, or in my hives.

There are those who can't, and those who can do what supposely can't be done.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

And I assume you have the evidence to back that up, Kamon?

What are the most commonly found chemicals found in pollen samples taken from hives?


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

Today Peter Borst did a good job explaining the economic reasons honeybee colony numbers and honey production numbers fluctuate over time: http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1401&L=BEE-L&D=1&O=D&P=141932


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

sqkcrk said:


> What are the most commonly found chemicals found in pollen samples taken from hives?


it wouldn't be beekeeper applied treatments, would it be??


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

If your looking for a spread sheet with a bunch of numbers that look official than no. 

What? The chemicals we stick in the hives? I dont know what the most commonly found is. Alot of one thing might not be as harmful as a few micro amounts of systemics and neonics. Apples and Oranges....... or better put nitrogen toxicity or mercury toxicity. Both are bad one is alot worse than the other and harder to cure.

I don't expect science to save the bee rather idividuals that work towards saving it. Alway has been that way in the past. The Earth is flat until the evidence is forced into peoples face. Chemicals are the easist to get rid of we control them, varroa is not so easy.

Sure I don't beleive that these chemicals are the only thing killing the bees but Mark you are playing devils advocate for a company that have been involved in some nasty stuff and scandals world wide. even if a 100TH is true they should be locked up. They are in it for the money not to help a famer. 

Let me ask a question. 

Those who are older can answer this better than I can. 

As a nation, and as bee industry are we in a better way than we were 50 years ago? 

Really what have we done except add some gadgets and create cheaper made cars that arent even made here. Sure we have better doctors but they are needed alot more aren't they.

Common sense and the world around me screams that these chemicals are destroying our soil, food quality, ecosystems, bees and more importantly our families health. 

We are a sick nation. It doesn't take scientific proof to see that.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

LeonardS said:


> No connection to Monsanto.......but if you want to buy a Trailer or Bus, I can help you!


And here I thought you had a bridge to sell.



LeonardS said:


> I don't feel I am knowledgeable enough in the beekeeping world to blame insecticides as the only cause of bee loss. I have my hives within 20 feet of a field that is planted to soybeans one year, and corn the next. I treat for mites in the Spring and Fall, and have not lost one hive.......maybe I'm just lucky, or the farmer next to me is careful when he sprays.


And yet you intervene as Pro-Poison.

Maybe . . .

Bees are flying vacuum cleaners that feed off poisoned crops, their food source. This ain't rocket science.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Really what have we done except add some gadgets<<

we kinda doubled our population in the last 50 years


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

The 'merchants of doubt' game only works for so long.

The PMRA made its findings and declarations, and there's no need to mull over of all the science or the EU.

What everyone needs to be concerned about is the environmental contamination issue.

That's going to be very difficult to hide or explain away.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

Ian said:


> >>Really what have we done except add some gadgets<<
> 
> we kinda doubled our population in the last 50 years


So the option are starve or use toxins? So the lesser of two evils. Come on really Thats the best we got? 

There is plenty of room to still grow things safely and/or (for lack of a better word) Organically.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Kamon Reynolds said:


> What? The chemicals we stick in the hives? I dont know what the most commonly found is.
> Then why do you assume that a certain chemical and a certain company are to blame, rather than coming up w/ proof? Could it be that feelings trump intellect?
> 
> Alot of one thing might not be as harmful as a few micro amounts of systemics and neonics.
> ...


It does take scientific proof to see that clearly and accurately.


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr (Feb 27, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> Hope that answers your questions.


Mark... You have eleven NO's, (or derivatives there of). Gonna have to work on that negative attitude.

cchoganjr


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Kamon Reynolds said:


> There is plenty of room to still grow things safely and/or (for lack of a better word) Organically.


Where is that room and is it available for me to put bees on? Will they make enough honey to pay the expenses of keeping bees there?


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> >I have personally witnessed a very large die off of my honey bees. They engaged in a death spin turning round and round on the ground at the hive entrance as if you could hear them crying in pain and torment and as if poisoned.
> 
> This has been going on since DDT...


I don't understand exactly what you are saying. Can you re-state to clarify?



> >If insecticides were banned would honey bees thrive again as they once did?
> 
> There have been many changes in the past few decades. Farmers used to grow a lot of clover. There used to be a lot more pasture. There used to be a lot more weeds before round-up ready crops. Now every weed in the field is killed. There used to be more habitat for bees. They would definitely do better without pesticides, fungicides and herbicides (as would human beings) but there are other issues besides just insecticides.


Aren't those other issues secondary to poison?



> >Would we be exporting more honey than we are importing?
> 
> Honey has been under price supports off and on since the depression. Apparently the price doesn't stay very stable nor profitable. Who knows?


You would agree that honey prices would go up if we stopped importing all that toxic fake foreign honey, wouldn't you?



> > Would such a ban improve the general health and welfare of most Americans?
> 
> I'm sure it would. There is no shortage of data about what insecticides and herbacides do to humans...


And yet . . .



> >Does Monsanto disallow research into the 'mystery,' paying off academic researchers, entomologists, to look the other way?
> 
> Disallow? Of course they don't pay for that research... If you wonder how the EPA and the FDA and the USDA allow all of this, try a search on "revolving door" and Monsanto...


De facto disallow. That is to say they pay off dishonorable entomologists. For example, Jeff Harris, right here in ole Missisip invited Monsanto to speak at the Mississippi Beekeepers Association annual convention. 



> > Is Monsanto the new best friend of the bee researcher? Why?
> 
> Money.


I'll take that as a yes.



> >Does the bee decline/honey shortage help those who survive enjoy a monopoly of sorts without lots of the previous competition they once had to compete against?
> 
> Monsanto only cares about one thing and it's not bees or honey... but it rhymes with honey...


Pretty women have a way of saying 'honey' down here that will just make you melt. 



> >Why do we not hear more outrage from the major beekeepers in this country concerning insecticides?
> 
> Beekeepers have been complaining about insecticides since they came out.


Their complaints seem woefully inadequate and rather muted to my ear.



> >Is the succumbing of honey bees to small hive beetles, Varroa mites, etc. simply a symptom of a poisoned honey bee?
> 
> No. We tracked those pests as they spread across the world. They were introduced.


Was anything else being spread simultaneously? Hint, it starts with P.



> >If not poison, what is your explanation for why honey bees are in decline?
> 
> Well, habitat, introduced pests, viruses spread by those pests and, of course, poison...


Poison, poison, poison. Nasty stuff. It should be banned. Commonsense dictates it.



> > Are you motivated by any financial reason to hold your current viewpoint?
> 
> Everyone is motivated by financial reasons...


A cliche and not necessarily true. There are some honorable people out there. There numbers are small but they do exist. I count you as such a man, honorable.



> >If antagonistic to the foregoing and anonymous, why?
> 
> Anonymous? I don't follow the question.


I mean to say slick professional replies that are Pro-Poison and posted anonymously are suspicious to my mind and I ask why would someone post anonymously concerning such a profound issue as the food supply.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Cleo C. Hogan Jr said:


> Mark... You have eleven NO's, (or derivatives there of). Gonna have to work on that negative attitude.
> 
> cchoganjr


Yes, I know. Here's something positive. Got finished going through all of my hives today. Most of them are looking really good. I brought 526 colonies down here last November and since then 85% are alive and well and have good weight. I got a protein patty into each one. I am looking forward to growth in my apiary this spring.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> Yes, I know. Here's something positive. Got finished going through all of my hives today. Most of them are looking really good. I brought 526 colonies down here last November and since then 85% are alive and well and have good weight. I got a protein patty into each one. I am looking forward to growth in my apiary this Spring.


Spring is not capitalized. I'm sure you have made other errors as well from the posts I've seen from you.

There's just something fundamentally unpatriotic and backwards about Pro-Poison beekeepers.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Kamon Reynolds said:


> So the option are starve or use toxins? So the lesser of two evils. Come on really Thats the best we got?
> 
> There is plenty of room to still grow things safely and/or (for lack of a better word) Organically.


Im just wondering if the beekeeping industry would be in shape to be able to supply the almonds if the entire industry simply went chemical and treatment free?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Jim Giles said:


> There's just something fundamentally unpatriotic and backwards about Pro-Poison beekeepers.


Is Jim another one of these fly by "anti chemical" guest that show up here every once and a while and post strong for about a week then disappears ?


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Ian said:


> Is Jim another one of these fly by "anti chemical" guest that show up here every once and a while and post strong for about a week then disappears ?


I promise not to disappear. But I've yet to survive the most radical forums from being banned. It seems one of my posts has been deleted.

Is you Pro-Poison Ian?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Jim Giles said:


> Is you Pro-Poison Ian?


what a ridiculous question


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr (Feb 27, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> I am looking forward to growth in my apiary this Spring.


NOW, that is being positive. Good Luck to you.

cchoganjr


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

Ian said:


> Im just wondering if the beekeeping industry would be in shape to be able to supply the almonds if the entire industry simply went chemical and treatment free?


Maybe we could not supply the almonds at this point.. so maybe it would be better to not grow almonds the way they do in the acreage they do. Pushing big productions is biting people in the butt. Not everyone but it hurts to be that person with Ccd. No its not just chemicals but it is the best place to start better than sitting around waiting for te next mite or disease and all the while we have used a crutch this whole time and the next onpushes us over the edge.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> Yes, I know. Here's something positive. Got finished going through all of my hives today. Most of them are looking really good. I brought 526 colonies down here last November and since then 85% are alive and well and have good weight. I got a protein patty into each one. I am looking forward to growth in my apiary this Spring.


Good for you Mark. Seeing your bees springing into Spring must surely put a spring in your step.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Kamon Reynolds said:


> Maybe we could not supply the almonds at this point..


And thats the point. Maybe we could stop supplying food at this point, and let the demand thing sort itself out so that the food industry can sort thing out.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Jim Giles said:


> Spring is not capitalized. I'm sure you have made other errors as well from the posts I've seen from you.
> 
> There's just something fundamentally unpatriotic and backwards about Pro-Poison beekeepers.


Spring is not capitalized? Looks like it is when I read what I Posted. Mistakes? Sure. I'm fallible, just like you.

Wait a minute. Am I in the wrong Forum? Are you and Kamon Treatment Free Beekeepers? Is this the Treatment Free Forum? No, I didn't think so.

I hope you grow all of your own food and don't buy anything from grocery stores, or else then you are just as unpatriotic as anyone at whom you point fingers.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Jim Giles said:


> Is you Pro-Poison Ian?


"Is"?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> Good for you Mark. Seeing your bees springing into Spring must surely put a spring in your step.


Let's not jump to any conclusions or count any chicks before they hatch, but, yes, I'm optimistic. Isn't that the definition of a farmer? It'll be better next year or season?


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> Spring is not capitalized? Looks like it is when I read what I Posted. Mistakes? Sure. I'm fallible, just like you.
> 
> Wait a minute. Am I in the wrong Forum? Are you and Kamon Treatment Free Beekeepers? Is this the Treatment Free Forum? No, I didn't think so.
> 
> I hope you grow all of your own food and don't buy anything from grocery stores, or else then you are just as unpatriotic as anyone at whom you point fingers.


A weak reply from a strong poster on a very important issue. We should expect more from someone as yourself. You can do better and should.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Kamon Reynolds said:


> Maybe we could not supply the almonds at this point.. so maybe it would be better to not grow almonds the way they do in the acreage they do.


How far do you want to take this idea? Why stop w/ almonds? What about oranges, blueberries, corn and canola and soy beans? Make it mandatory that farms can't be any larger than 200 acres each. That two families live on them. That they grow corn, oats, soy beans, hay, pigs, chickens, and beef cattle like my Grandfather did in Iowa in the 1920s through the 1970s. Then, instead of sending all of his children, boys and girls, off to College he makes them all buy land and tend to their own 200 acre farms.

But don't give them any choices. Don't let them grow up to be Bankers, Agway VPs, Insurance Salesmen, Wives of Chemists and Oceanographers. Keep them down on the farm. Against their will.

That would be patriotic and forward, now wouldn't it?


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm (Mar 24, 2010)

Jim Giles said:


> A weak reply from a strong poster on a very important issue. We should expect more from someone as yourself. You can do better and should.


And tell me again what it is that YOU are doing about the problem?

Rusty


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Jim Giles said:


> A weak reply from a strong poster on a very important issue. We should expect more from someone as yourself. You can do better and should.


I don't know what you want from me. When referring to the season of the year, Spring is capitalized, isn't it? So is Summer, Fall, and Winter.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Jim Giles said:


> Vernacular 'boy' for effect. I employ it knowingly whereas you are ignorant that spring should not be capitalized.
> 
> Moving on, what a tiny muted reply from such a huge board.
> 
> Is Monsanto here?


I guess we went to different schools. Learned different things.

I don't know if Monsanto is here or not. I'm sure Monsanto has better things to do. But Jerry Hayes and I did go to the same school and studied Beekeeping under the same Professor, though at different times. As if that has anything to do w/ anything.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> And tell me again what it is that YOU are doing about the problem?
> 
> Rusty


Well, I ran for congress multiple times, endured multiple malicious criminal prosecutions, invested lots and lots of money in hives and bees and I'm here trying to raise Holy Hell but I'm sure that I can do more.

I accept your challenge and I will try harder.

Thank you.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> I guess we went to different schools. Learned different things.
> 
> I don't know if Monsanto is here or not. I'm sure Monsanto has better things to do. But Jerry Hayes and I did go to the same school and studied Beekeeping under the same Professor, though at different times. As if that has anything to do w/ anything.


That you will not admit that Monsanto IS here is disturbing given the stakes.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

opcorn:


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

The farmers here can tell you all about how these pesticides save them but this article goes to show what using them can do. Hope Ian reads this what will you do when the weeds win?

http://news.yahoo.com/us-39-superweeds-39-epidemic-shines-spotlight-gmos-021125425.html


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

You are telling a Canadian to buy American?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

oh the weeds always win... 

but then they have to deal with the deep tiller

it will be one thing on to the next, like it always is. the ones who shift and adapt with technology are the ones who are able to continue this battle


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> You are telling a Canadian to buy American?


That's my Sig Mark..I believe in everything my country offers me.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

sqkcrk said:


> You are telling a Canadian to buy American?


I dont mind buying American, when I get the chance. I just bought a spinner from the fine fellows in Nebraska. 
I love when Americans buy Canadian  Premium honey for sale!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Well sure, but wouldn't it be just as much in Ian's best interest to feel the same about where he comes from and act accordingly? Following your logic?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Ian said:


> I love when Americans buy Canadian


Yeah, my wife and son are North of Toronto contributing to your Nations' economy right now. Don't anybody get any ideas though. The dog is still home and he'll jump all over you and lick you silly if you break in.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

sqkcrk said:


> Yeah, my wife and son are North of Toronto contributing to your Nations' economy right now.


the dollar is well positioned for that!


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Is poison killing our bees or not?


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

Mark

Anyone who believes so deeply in their country, their product and their people have my deepest regards. That's why I believe in American Made!


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Jim Giles said:


> Is poison killing our bees or not?


again, a ridiculous question.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Ian said:


> again, a ridiculous question.


I agree. It's ridiculous to even have to ask the question. But what's even more ridiculous is the lack of outrage.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I spray my crops, are you outraged?


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Ian said:


> I spray my crops, are you outraged?


Corporate farmer. Assumed.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

we had a calf born the other day, it came down with an infected navel today. We treated it. Are you outraged about that also?


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

I am still learning beekeeping and kill bees all the time. Are newish keeps poison? Poison will kill that's not a good question and in Ian's defense although I don't always agree with him he's alright in my book. 

I would love to know how to live in "sparks' perfect world myself!


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Ian said:


> we had a calf born the other day, it came down with an infected navel today. We treated it. Are you outraged about that also?


I've got two Jersey calves that I bottle feed. They've required no treatment whatsoever.

Again, a Pro-Poison beekeeper is unnatural.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Spark said:


> in Ian's defense although I don't always agree with him he's alright in my book.
> 
> I would love to know how to live in "sparks' perfect world myself!


cheers Spark!
You see Jim, Spark doesn't like all this treatment stuff either, but at least he is willing to admit there aint no perfect answer.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Spark said:


> Mark
> 
> Anyone who believes so deeply in their country, their product and their people have my deepest regards. That's why I believe in American Made!


Amen. One reason I drive a Ford. Even though my Transit Connect was built in Turkey and Spain. Still says FORD on it.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Jim Giles said:


> I've got two Jersey calves that I bottle feed. They've required no treatment whatsoever.


and if they did require a treatment, would you stand by and watch them suffer and die, or would you treat them so that they can recover


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

Your wrong again Jim there are those here who live by providing organic sustenance to their bees like my friend fatbeeman and as Ole SP would state that is treating.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Ian said:


> and if they did require a treatment, would you stand by and watch them suffer and die, or would you treat them so that they can recover


I would treat them.

Again this is the difference between me and you and the other Pro-Poison beekeepers.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

okay then Jim, good luck on your ventures.


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

Jim

If you want people to listen to what you have to offer caps lock calling them pro-poison isn't gonna get anyone to listen.


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

Ian did you read the article BTW??? Going organic this spring for me


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

thats good Spark, going organic is a hard strategy to accomplish though, but as long as all the documentation paperwork is behind you the only other thing is to keep those bees alive and pulling honey! I have organic farmer neighbours that have been in the business for years. They take alot of pride in their work. Just make sure you find that market that pays for your time and effort, customers are out there screaming for organic, but to find one that wants to pay for it is a different matter....


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Spark said:


> Jim
> 
> If you want people to listen to what you have to offer caps lock calling them pro-poison isn't gonna get anyone to listen.


Caps lock would be PRO-POISON. Tres unchic. I employ Pro-Poison. Tres apropos.


----------



## Spark (Feb 24, 2011)

Jim

Got your attention though. Ian is a good guy if you want to give your side don't use caps he will answer and politely he always does ... try it


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Ian said:


> Is Jim another one of these fly by "anti chemical" guest that show up here every once and a while and post strong for about a week then disappears ?


You could be right. Two days ago JG was insisting that we'd had varroa all along and they only became a problem around 1996.


Jim Giles said:


> I wonder how long the mite has been in existence and why all of sudden it has become such a problem?
> 
> In the beginning, didn't bees and mites coexist?





Jim Giles said:


> Moreover, those European babes have been here for a very long time, exposed to mites and yet no problem until very recently.


When asked how long he believed varroa had been in North America he replied


Jim Giles said:


> Pre-mite problem.


And he was a bit confused about where the feral bees came from.


Jim Giles said:


> Forget the European Italians, I grew up in the woods and honey bees were commonplace. No more.





sqkcrk said:


> You are telling a Canadian to buy American?


A decade ago Canada and the US were one another's biggest trading partners. No fanfare...just good business. It could still be the case although China may have entered the contest.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

I know it is when I use it. Often shooting myself in the foot.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Now now, Leonard. Language.


----------



## LeonardS (Mar 13, 2012)

Mark, sometimes the shoe fits.......he would be a perfect case for that statement. If he is such an expert, he should be able to solve all of the worlds chemical problems.........oh, I know the problem, he is just a self proclaimed expert. His bee's die.....mine are still alive.......yep, he is the expert.


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

Jim Giles said:


> Well, I ran for congress multiple times, endured multiple malicious criminal prosecutions, invested lots and lots of money in hives and bees and I'm here trying to raise Holy Hell but I'm sure that I can do more.
> 
> I accept your challenge and I will try harder.
> 
> Thank you.


 That could be the problem.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

My philosophical two cents for the day:
When one builds their life philosophy and understanding of the world from the comfort of an armchair in front of a television set.....and then seeks to engage in a debate at a forum with otherwise informed people....that spoon-fed education will come up wanting every time.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Well said, Beemandan.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Well said, Beemandan.


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr (Feb 27, 2010)

This thread has been all over the place. Perhaps I can spread it some more.

While I am not a big fan of chemicals, I have not practiced chemical free bee operations either. I have no connection with Monsanto, Bayer, or any of the other large companies producing pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides. But, I dislike the fact that some people attempt to blame the manufacturers for all the problems. What I am saying is, if no one bought their products, those products would sit in the warehouses and never be used. Therefore no problem to the bee population. Isn't a part of this argument really with the irresponsible use of these products, failure to follow labeling, and failure to see, and appreciate, the plight of the bees . I dare say there are thousands of farmers who don't understand or appreciate how their use of chemicals affect not only the bee, but humans as well. Blaming the manufacturers is not going to solve this problem.

You can't blame farmers for trying to protect their interests in producing products, no more than you can blame bee keepers for protecting their interest in saving bees. Attempting to solely blame the manufacturers is ill advised. There needs to be far more cooperation between farmers and beekeepers, with each side appreciating the plight the other has in producing their products.

Since everyone has an interest in saving the bee population of the World, everyone needs to respect the others position, and work together. We are not doomed. Farmers can continue to practice responsible chemical applications to fit their needs, and working with beekeepers, help save the bee population. That is how we need to go forward with this problem.

cchoganjr


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

beemandan said:


> You could be right. Two days ago JG was insisting that we'd had varroa all along and they only became a problem around 1996.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Multi-tasking rapid replies sometimes result in misunderstandings. I was not understanding what you were asking. Too much confusion to sort out. Suffice is to say the issue remains poisons not mites as you would have it be.

Man-made poisons destroy nature's balance. Poisons, insecticides and herbicides, have flooded the environment. Our food supply and that of the honey bee is infected with multiple poisons from multiple sources and all man-made.

The honey bee is a flying vacuum cleaner in this sea of poison and no sustained outrage from the very people who should be leading the attack against chemical companies rather than defending them and deflecting the blame onto mites. The mite is your scapegoat and canard confusing the issue with irrelevant slick minutiae as if written by a professional lobbyist.

But poison is poison and it kills the honey bee and threatens our food supply. There is no confusion or doubt about that regardless of how much you want to talk about other tertiary issues.

Of all places, one would expect the majority opinion to be Anti-Poison rather than Pro-Poison here amongst beekeepers.

Dan, do you support banning all insecticides and herbicides?


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

It's very important to understand that man-made poisons kill plant and animal life that existed in balance with one another in nature. Poisons have disturbed nature's balance.

An analogy would be that when a predator in the food chain becomes extinct, its prey proliferates.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

...and here's my analogy and .02 worth (or maybe less) . If someone pours some gasoline on the ground, the fun thing to do is throw a match on it. The more prudent course is to stay away and let it evaporate. Some people love seeing the carnage of a raging fire as opposed to the intelligent discourse of a controlled burn.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

ha ha ha, so true Jim Lyon. and there are some that throw more fuel to that fire!


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Jim Giles said:


> Dan, do you support banning all insecticides and herbicides?


All is a pretty big word Jim. I do not support banning ALL insecticides and herbicides. Do you?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> Some people love seeing the carnage of a raging fire as opposed to the intelligent discourse of a controlled burn.


Uh oh. I think my feelings have been hurt.


----------



## merince (Jul 19, 2011)

Cleo C. Hogan Jr said:


> This thread has been all over the place. Perhaps I can spread it some more.
> 
> While I am not a big fan of chemicals, I have not practiced chemical free bee operations either. I have no connection with Monsanto, Bayer, or any of the other large companies producing pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides. But, I dislike the fact that some people attempt to blame the manufacturers for all the problems. What I am saying is, if no one bought their products, those products would sit in the warehouses and never be used. Therefore no problem to the bee population. Isn't a part of this argument really with the irresponsible use of these products, failure to follow labeling, and failure to see, and appreciate, the plight of the bees . I dare say there are thousands of farmers who don't understand or appreciate how their use of chemicals affect not only the bee, but humans as well. Blaming the manufacturers is not going to solve this problem.
> 
> ...


Great post, Cleo C. Hogan Jr!

In my locality in particular, a lot more damage to bees and pollinators is done by the non-farming homeowners who spray their lawn/rose bushes/the weeds on the ditch bank indiscriminately even while in bloom than the "corporate" farmers with the tractor sprayers.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

jim lyon said:


> ...and here's my analogy and .02 worth (or maybe less) . If someone pours some gasoline on the ground, the fun thing to do is throw a match on it. The more prudent course is to stay away and let it evaporate. Some people love seeing the carnage of a raging fire as opposed to the intelligent discourse of a controlled burn.


Someone has poured a 'gasoline/poison' onto the ground and there is a 'raging fire/contamination' of our bee population/food supply, chemical companies like Monsanto.

I recoil from the tainted food that is now being grown by corporate farmers. 

I'm Anti-Poison and would ban it all just to be on the safe side. I hope my sentiments pass for intelligent discourse. If not, what must one do? Turn a blind's eye to poison? 

Who is the good guy here anyway? Me or Monsanto? 

Jimbo, you wouldn't be trying to cast me as the villain, now would you?

One thing is for sure, that poison ain't gonna evaporate or go away nor will Monsanto and the demise of the honey bee. I recognize that I'm in the distinct minority here and I shouldn't be.

As for prudent courses, ban all poisons.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

beemandan said:


> All is a pretty big word Jim. I do not support banning ALL insecticides and herbicides. Do you?


I didn't think so. I do support banning all poisons because it ends up in your belly.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Kamon Reynolds said:


> I don't expect science to save the bee rather idividuals that work towards saving it. Alway has been that way in the past.


This doesn't make sense. 

Science is a method for observing the world and discovery of new things. When there is a problem to which the answer isn't immediately obvious, you use science to find the answer. Of course then it's up to individuals (or groups) to put the science to use. It's difficult because a lot of people prefer to ignore the findings of science on the uncommon occasion that it clashes with a deeply held political position.



Kamon Reynolds said:


> The Earth is flat until the evidence is forced into peoples face.


Wrong. You are likely holding to the outdated myth that Columbus proved or was trying to prove that the world was round when he discovered America. That is incorrect; he was trying to find a western route to India, because he already knew the world was round. It had been proven centuries earlier (by scientists, coincidentally).



Kamon Reynolds said:


> Sure I don't beleive that these chemicals are the only thing killing the bees but Mark you are playing devils advocate for a company that have been involved in some nasty stuff and scandals world wide. even if a 100TH is true they should be locked up. They are in it for the money not to help a famer.


Monsanto's executives could all collectively rob their grandmothers and walk down the street daily kicking children and eating kittens while shouting "Bah humbug"; that would make them despicable, unethical bastards, but it doesn't make "Monsanto chemicals are killing bees" true unless Monsanto chemicals are, in fact, provably killing bees. You're talking about "forcing evidence into peoples faces", but Kamon you can't even say _which_ "Monsanto chemical", by name, is supposed to be causing all the havoc to bees. You get asked and then you have to guess...maybe mercury? Nitrogen? Neonics? And the guesses you've come up with - those things aren't even "Monsanto chemicals".



Kamon Reynolds said:


> Let me ask a question.
> 
> Those who are older can answer this better than I can.
> 
> ...


The fact that doctors are "needed a lot more" is a statistical illusion, created by the fact that modern medicine is able to keep many people alive who require regular medical care, when 50 years and more ago before that care/technology/medicine was invented these people simply died, probably quite young.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

beemandan said:


> My philosophical two cents for the day:
> When one builds their life philosophy and understanding of the world from the comfort of an armchair in front of a television set.....and then seeks to engage in a debate at a forum with otherwise informed people....that spoon-fed education will come up wanting every time.


Oh great one, I haven't watched TV for about a decade now. But I do agree there is a lot of spoon feeding going on including here and by you. This grasshopper just doesn't agree with your diet.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

beemandan said:


> Uh oh. I think my feelings have been hurt.


Ha ha. I always love your posts Dan, pro poison though you may be.  In most threads your posts would be considered quite benign. However Smokey the Bear would probably rate the current fire danger in the extreme category. 
Let's all give Cleo a pat on the back, though, for a great post and showing he's got more "game" than just being the best woodworker on the forum.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Jim Giles said:


> Again, a Pro-Poison beekeeper is unnatural.


A _beekeeper_ is unnatural.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> However Smokey the Bear would probably rate the current fire danger in the extreme category.


Breeze is blowin' and the forest floor dry. Ok....I'll put my matches away.


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

With the freezing temp at night in Jackson, I would think that the need for insecticide's would be quit low. You may want to look for a different problem.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

jim lyon said:


> If someone pours some gasoline on the ground, the fun thing to do is throw a match on it. The more prudent course is to stay away and let it evaporate. Some people love seeing the carnage of a raging fire as opposed to the intelligent discourse of a controlled burn.


It doesn’t all evaporate once it soaks into the ground. You have to excavate soil until you remove it all, or until state regulatory maximum levels are achieved. Then you try to remediate the soil by placing it in windrows that are periodically turned to promote evaporation and aerobic degradation. 

We have also used rotary kilns to “cook” the soil to release the hydrocarbons (thermal desorption). The vapors are then passed though activated carbon for capture.

Then there is in-situ biodegrading by injecting an oxygen release compound, and even direct oxidation using permanganate (in-situ chemical oxidation – called ISCO, or ChemOx). I have a guy in the field injecting potassium permanganate at a site in Wichita today. He just sent me a picture from his iPhone (note the purple staining from the permanganate). 

I wish I could just light it on fire, but my job doesn’t permit it. 

You should see what we do to pesticides. 


Jim G., How much pesticide have you remediated or removed from the environment in the course of your career?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> Then there is in-situ biodegrading by injecting an oxygen release compound


I worked on a major remediation project where we injected molasses, and planted cottonwood saplings. The combination supported an ecology of bacteria that chewed through an enormous "diluent" leak (450,000 barrels, or about equal to Exxon Valdez ). 

Could have used honey instead of molasses, but price was a concern.


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr (Feb 27, 2010)

Jim Giles;1045932. I'm Anti-Poison and would ban it all just to be on the safe side. As for prudent courses said:


> The world can no more logically survive if all poisons are banned, than can bees survive if we continue blindly on our course of actions.
> 
> I have survived right nicely without the dinosauer, and we will survive with chemicals.
> 
> ...


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> Ha ha. I always love your posts Dan, pro poison though you may be.


Indeed....putting my matches away is costly. Monsanto gives me $2/post, Bayer $3 and the North American Poison Purveyors Assn $1. 
Now....must I file for unemployment?


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr (Feb 27, 2010)

beemandan said:


> Monsanto gives me $2/post, Bayer $3 and the North American Poison Purveyors Assn $1.
> Now....must I file for unemployment?


No, just keep posting.

cchoganjr


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Nabber86 said:


> I wish I could just light it on fire, but my job doesn’t permit it.


Wow, sucks to be you. I'm not fire-obsessed, but it seems to me that a small brief fire is at least more entertaining to watch than a few pounds of dirt tumbling around in a clothes dryer all day.

JWChestnut, I hope you made sure that's the same guy before posting some potentially defamatory information like that...


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

*Re: Caution: Leave the Troll alone*

Insulting how? By not towing the party line here of all places that poison is not the principle problem confronting beekeepers today in America.

My only platform here is opposing poison as hurtful to honey bees and our food supply. Yours is an ad hominem attack and diverts the focus and attention away from this thread's topic, poison. You are the troll not me. I believe that poison disturbs natures balance. We see problems today that were nonexistent in the past when poison was not used.

All the focus is on the mite when it should be on poison. Who is it that lobbies in Washington for the honey bee anyway?

I do agree that illegality and unconstitutionality are afoot but it's not on my part. It's on the part of government employees, namely entomologists who ignore poison and our congress and of course Monsanto, et al.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> It had been proven centuries earlier (by scientists, coincidentally).

Actually it was a librarian from Alexandria who proved it first. Certainly a man of learning, but they didn't have degrees and, while I would consider him a scientist, he would not fit the current usage of the word which is usually describing someone with a PHD who works for some research facility...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> I worked on a major remediation project where we injected molasses, and planted cottonwood saplings. The combination supported an ecology of bacteria that chewed through an enormous "diluent" leak (450,000 barrels, or about equal to Exxon Valdez ).
> Could have used honey instead of molasses, but price was a concern.


Sounds like a nice project.



Kamon Reynolds said:


> If Let me ask a question.
> As a nation, and as bee industry are we in a better way than we were 50 years ago?


Based on the amount of environmental messes that I (and other like JWChesnut) have cleaned up in the last 25 years, I would say that we are a lot better off than 50 years ago when the common practice was to dump everything in the river, burn it in a pit, or just bury it in an un-controlled fashion. Just a guess but the amount of pesticides, chlorinated solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, explosives (even UXO), that I have cleaned up 10 tons, or more. I have worked everywhere from Hanford to Savanna River, to ORNAL. Several military bases (McConnell, Ft. Riley), airports to clean up jet fuel (SFO, TUL, MCI), and refineries in Indiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.

What have you done to improve the environment Kamon? How about you Jim Giles? Besides sit behind a keyboard and rant?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Spring is not capitalized.

Days of the week always are. Seasons are sometimes depending on the situation, so we often get confused on the matter. Same with directions, north, south, east and west. Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not depending on how they are being used... who can keep them straight?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

melliferal said:


> Wow, sucks to be you. I'm not fire-obsessed, but it seems to me that a small brief fire is at least more entertaining to watch than a few pounds of dirt tumbling around in a clothes dryer all day.


Dont worry, I know alot about chemicals. You should see my back yard on the 4th of July. I got a sample of permanganate yesterday and was experimenting by mixing it with glycerin last night. Fun stuff.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> > It had been proven centuries earlier (by scientists, coincidentally).
> 
> Actually it was a librarian from Alexandria who proved it first. Certainly a man of learning, but they didn't have degrees and, while I would consider him a scientist, he would not fit the current usage of the word which is usually describing someone with a PHD who works for some research facility...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes


Under that definition, I suppose he doesn't qualify as a "scientist". I am used to using the term to refer to people who spend a large portion of their time doing science.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Jim Giles said:


> All the focus is on the mite when it should be on poison. Who is it that lobbies in Washington for the honey bee anyway?


Also wrong; there's a significant amount of attention on the "poison". You just say there isn't, because despite the attention, the scientific community hasn't yet agreed with you that the "poison" is the be-all, end-all of the problem.

There is a larger amount of attention on the mite, because significant bee losses were temporally correlated with the introduction of _v. destructor_ to US colonies in the 80's; whereas chemically-enhanced agriculture had been in use for some time prior. Now, that doesn't prove chemicals aren't having some kind of delayed or cumulative effect that we're only lately noticing; but, the fact is that varroa is an already-proven colony killer and deserves the focus it's getting.


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr (Feb 27, 2010)

Jim Giles said:


> All the focus is on the mite when it should be on poison. .


All of the focus is not on the mite. There are many variables, and mites and poisons are just two of them.

If you only look at the trees, you may miss seeing the forest.

cchoganjr


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

*Re: Caution: Leave the Troll alone*



melliferal said:


> Also wrong; there's a significant amount of attention on the "poison".


Please provide references to that 'significant attention on the poison.



melliferal said:


> You just say there isn't, because despite the attention, the scientific community hasn't yet agreed with you that the "poison" is the be-all, end-all of the problem.


The scientific community is only interested in manufacturing poison. They are bought and paid for. Don't expect any basic research into how poison has destroyed nature's balance.



melliferal said:


> There is a larger amount of attention on the mite, because significant bee losses were temporally correlated with the introduction of _v. destructor_ to US colonies in the 80's; whereas chemically-enhanced agriculture had been in use for some time prior. Now, that doesn't prove chemicals aren't having some kind of delayed or cumulative effect that we're only lately noticing; but, the fact is that varroa is an already-proven colony killer and deserves the focus it's getting.


There is a larger amount of attention on the mite because it serves as the scapegoat and canard.

Poison has killed something in the ecosystem that once kept the mite at bay.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Cleo C. Hogan Jr said:


> All of the focus is not on the mite. There are many variables, and mites and poisons are just two of them.
> 
> If you only look at the trees, you may miss seeing the forest.
> 
> cchoganjr


Can you refer me to where the focus is on poison?


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

I think many of the "Im ok with harsh chemical guys" are thinking that I think shouldn't spray ever. That is not what I am proposing. 

Instead of using Bayer/Monsanto which impacts the quality of our water, bees and food products.

Why not spray hydrolized fish, kelp, mineralize the soil to reduce plant pressures, increase yeilds and tillage. 

The fungi, earthworms, and bacteria are the ones that digest the mineral and matter in the soil and deposit it in available forms in the soil. When these chemicals are sprayed it kills these guys as well as damages bees. Then you have low yeilds or become dependant on fertilizer due to the lack of properally available minerals. It has to be in the correct forms for utilization.

The average Ag. has been and is teaching farmers to become dependant on the system. You get a soil test and it tells your calcium is sufficient at 1700lbs per acre is does not tell you how much is optimuim which is 4000lbs per acre for canola, corn and soybeans, 6000 pounds for grapefruit orchards and it greatly helps you not need as much fertilizer or chemical control.

Blueberries can and have been grown in 6.0 ph soil. It is not the acidity they need rather it is the available Iron which is naturally more availble at more acidic levels. Increasing the available iron and you will be able to grow blueberries at a higher PH.

With the right tools the plants are able to fight back. Sick, Weaklings cant. 

The standard AG. also does not tell you that phosphate is more important than phosphorous. When phosphorus becomes a compound p2o5 it then becomes the trucker to the plant all minerals go into the plant (any plant) in the phosphate form save for the element Nitrogen. It can take years for phosphorous to switch to phosphate.

Low phosphate means low production unless you can boost it with man made fertilizers.

Which will produce a lower quality product because it didn't bring in the other minerals with it.


For pest control. The first line of defence is the plant itself. 

Quantities of available copper control fungus only a really vibrant plants has the ability to absorb large quantities because of coppers atomic weight.

Also the higher the sugar content in a plants sap the less desirable it is to the pests..... the excess sugars build in their gut and they cannot digest it properly so the flee and eat sicker plants. This will not elimate but keep pests with a profitable control.

We have gotten away from true scientific farming and we are not applying the minerals in the quantities or balances that nature left us long ago before we began ravaging it.

Ray Archuleta of the NRCS has a method that is reducing sprays and elimating them on a large commercial scale. The farmers are producing the same yeilds for less imputs and expense. (and less risk to the public health)

We need safer sprays for our bees. It very possible and it is being done.

Take a look at this and tell me this does not have significant impacts on your health and your childrens.

http://www.highbrixgardens.com/nutrient-dense-foods.html

this is a sub site of International Ag Labs. The USDA results and the garden results were drastic on the health in the crop. and you are what you eat.....

People who are older than me should understand best how much more disease and obesity is being caused due to our poor food system.

Yes the current way might line are pockets but the legacy "I" leave behind will be not how much money I made but what I did for my family, for others, the bee industry and this nation. 

If you truly have an open mind you will read the differences in nutrition on that link.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

*Re: Caution: Leave the Troll alone*



Jim Giles said:


> Please provide references to that 'significant attention on the poison.


Here's a project at the University of Minnesota. Its department leader recently gave a TEDtalk explaining the effects of pesticides on honey bees, among other problems they face. 

Here's a federal project.

And another.

And another.

Here's a local newspaper article describing a new project by the local university bee lab to study the effects of specific pesticides on bees.

That's just from the first page of a Google search.



Jim Giles said:


> The scientific community is only interested in manufacturing poison. They are bought and paid for. Don't expect any basic research into how poison has destroyed nature's balance.


The scientific community doesn't manufacture anything. Manufacturing is the job of the industrial sector. They employ some scientists. They do not employ _all_ scientists, by any stretch of the imagination.



Jim Giles said:


> There is a larger amount of attention on the mite because it serves as the scapegoat and canard.
> 
> Poison has killed something in the ecosystem that once kept the mite at bay.


This again is just so wrong it's not even right. There was nothing in the ecosystem that "kept the mite at bay"; there couldn't have been even in theory, because the mite _did not even exist in the US until it was brought here in the 1980's_. What "kept the mite at bay" was a few thousand miles of open ocean.


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

What killed your bee's? 
You said as if poisoned but your not sure they were poisoned. Have you had them tested?
If so what poison killed them? 
What was your mite count last fall?
What did you use for mite control? 
What pesticide is being used with freezing temp at night?
Your in the south, how are the shb? 
Are the hive's completely dead or just dead bee's in front?


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr (Feb 27, 2010)

Jim Giles said:


> Can you refer me to where the focus is on poison?


Just open you eyes and read. 

Google, honeybee colony loss. Read 500 articles. The overwhelming suspect, is pesticides, herbicides, or insecticides, followed by mites, loss of habitat, Global warming, loss of beekeepers, ingrown toenails, and male pattern balding.

cchoganjr


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

Kamon Reynolds said:


> People who are older than me should understand best how much more disease and obesity is being caused due to our poor food system.


Kamon,

I'm not sure you can blame disease and obesity on our food system. While I am a little overweight it is only my fault, I eat too much of the wrong foods. 

As someone posted earlier, many more people survive diseases that in the past killed people. Availability to food, quality, healthy food is much greater now than during my childhood.

The problem beekeepers have is they are at the mercy on how others take care of their land. Very few of us control all the land our bees forage on. That said, this thread is ignoring or minimizing two fo the biggest threats to honey bees, varroa and reduction in forage throughout the growing season. Certainly exposure to insecticides kills bees. But, current agricultural practices has reduced the exposure of honey bees to insecticides. Not eliminated but reduced.

This is still the USA and landowners are still free to use their land as they see fit. Everyone may not agree with it. But, unless they are breaking a law they are free to do as they please. Just as we are free to do as we please.

It is easy to blame farmers or infer that they are heartless money grubbers. That is far from the truth. I have never come across farmers who would intentionally do things that would damage someone else. Their main interest is in trying to support themselves and their family. There are a wide range of what a farmers expectations are. Some felt they measured a good year by their ability to buy a brand new pickup each year, others by paying all their bills and having a little money in the bank. Both were right.

Tom


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr (Feb 27, 2010)

Jim Giles said:


> Poison has killed something in the ecosystem that once kept the mite at bay.


 Where is the data on that.

Something killed the dinosauers, but somehow, I doubt that it was Monsanto.

This discussion reminds me of a hearing I attended that wanted to place the Mammoth Cave Blind Shrimp on the endangered species list. The speaker said, "Wouldn't it be a shame if we allowed the blind shrimp to become extinct, and then 10 years later find that the blind shrimp secreted an enzyme that would have cured cancer." I responded, "wouldn't it be a shame if we artificially kept them vibrant and 10 years later found that the Mammoth Cave Blind Shrimp is the sucker responsible for cancer"

I don't see any new ground being broken here in this thread.

cchoganjr


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2014 Feb;20(2):566-591. Epub 2013 Nov 25.
*A Causal Analysis of Observed Declines in Managed Honey Bees (Apis mellifera).*

Staveley JP[SUP]1[/SUP], Law SA[SUP]1[/SUP], Fairbrother A[SUP]2[/SUP], Menzie CA[SUP]1[/SUP].
*Author information *


*Abstract*

The European honey bee (_Apis mellifera_) is a highly valuable, semi-free-ranging managed agricultural species. While the number of managed hives has been increasing, declines in overwinter survival, and the onset of colony collapse disorder in 2006, precipitated a large amount of research on bees' health in an effort to isolate the causative factors. A workshop was convened during which bee experts were introduced to a formal causal analysis approach to compare 39 candidate causes against specified criteria to evaluate their relationship to the reduced overwinter survivability observed since 2006 of commercial bees used in the California almond industry. Candidate causes were categorized as probable, possible, or unlikely; several candidate causes were categorized as indeterminate due to lack of information. Due to time limitations, a full causal analysis was not completed at the workshop. In this article, examples are provided to illustrate the process and provide preliminary findings, using three candidate causes. _Varroa_ mites plus viruses were judged to be a "probable cause" of the reduced survival, while nutrient deficiency was judged to be a "possible cause." Neonicotinoid pesticides were judged to be "unlikely" as the sole cause of this reduced survival, although they could possibly be a contributing factor.


*KEYWORDS:*

Varroa, causal analysis, honey bees, neonicotinoids

And it appears to depend on which neonic you're talking about:


Environ Toxicol Chem. 2009 Jan;28(1):113-22. doi: 10.1897/08-110.1.
*Subchronic exposure of honeybees to sublethal doses of pesticides: effects on behavior.*

Aliouane Y, El Hassani AK, Gary V, Armengaud C, Lambin M, Gauthier M.
*Author information *


*Abstract*

Laboratory bioassays were conducted to evaluate the effects on honeybee behavior of sublethal doses of insecticides chronically administered orally or by contact. Emergent honeybees received a daily dose of insecticide ranging from one-fifth to one-five-hundredth of the median lethal dose (LD50) during 11 d. After exposure to fipronil (0.1 and 0.01 ng/bee), acetamiprid (1 and 0.1 microg/bee), or thiamethoxam (1 and 0.1 ng/bee), behavioral functions of honeybees were tested on day 12. Fipronil, used at the dose of 0.1 ng/bee, induced mortality of all honeybees after one week of treatment. As a result of contact treatment at 0.01 ng/bee, honeybees spent significantly more time immobile in an open-field apparatus and ingested significantly more water. In the olfactory conditioning paradigm, fipronil-treated honeybees failed to discriminate between a known and an unknown odorant. Thiamethoxam by contact induced either a significant decrease of olfactory memory 24 h after learning at 0.1 ng/bee or a significant impairment of learning performance with no effect on memory at 1 ng/bee. Responsiveness to antennal sucrose stimulation was significantly decreased for high sucrose concentrations in honeybees treated orally with thiamethoxam (1 ng/bee). The only significant effect of acetamiprid (administered orally, 0.1 microg/bee) was an increase in responsiveness to water. The neonicotinoids acetamiprid and thiamethoxam tested at the highest dose (one-tenth and one-fifth of their oral LD50, respectively) and fipronil at one-five-hundredth of LD50 have limited effects on the motor, sensory, and cognitive functions of the honeybee. Our data on the intrinsic toxicity of the compounds after chronic exposure have to be taken into account for evaluation of risk to honeybees in field conditions.


PMID:18700810 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Obesity is caused by LOTS of things. Improper diet is definitely one. I don't know if toxins in food would make people get fat, the way as has been claimed, though. I think there are far more important factors - like increasingly sedentary lifestyles, and the fact that we eat, a LOT. My own theory of the cause of that last part is a combination of 1) being trained by our parents that it is misbehavior to ever not eat every single thing on our plate, and 2) slowly but continually-increasing portion sizes at restaurants, which are reflected in slowly-increasing portion sizes at home. Have you seen a potato side recently at a full-service restaurant? Except for those who order a baked potato where you can clearly see it's just one, I could swear there's at least two potatoes' worth per plate. At least! We eat a lot of food because it's so cheap, those of us that have it usually have plenty of it.

Highly-fattening or carb-rich foods are not evil if you eat them once in a while; but there's no question they become problematic if that's all in the world you eat, day in and day out.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Where is the Pro-Poison lobby's evidence and data that poison is not killing honey bees? But wait, that data undoubtedly has been manufactured while the march on the mite continues and poison pours profusely pontificating pounds of pure polluted punditry. 

Y'all are starting to convince me that poison might be tasty after-all. Sweet as honey even? What was I thinking? Wait, I was thinking while you regurgitate corporate crap.

We all have our Gods and faith and are blind to any sacrilege.

I don't worship poison and have absolutely no faith in it whatsoever. It's the Devil!


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

You going to continue charging $15 dollars a pound for honey made by bees that you are convinced have brought poisons back to the hive? Do you feel an obligation to warn your customers? 
Sorry folks I feel like Roger Rabbit who couldn't resist yelling "2 bits" in response to the ole shave and a haircut knock. 
Outta here.


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

I have never seen that many P's in on sentence before. But what about the questions I ask earlier in post 129? Looks like if you were going to fight big chemical company's you would need some ammo. Do you know what a honey bee look's like. Show me the proof that poison killed your bee's


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

You haven't lived until you've driven through the Mississippi delta in the summertime with the windows down or up. The sweet aroma of scientifically researched poison lofts and waffles and finds its way to your olfactory engulfing your brain.

I wonder about the brain damage poison is inflicting on humans as well, especially Pro-Poison beekeepers.

It's a good thing we live under a representative government which I'm sure is on the cusp of restoring our honey bee population. Who would stand in the way of a ban on poison anyway?


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

jim lyon said:


> You going to continue charging $15 dollars a pound for honey made by bees that you are convinced have brought poisons back to the hive? Do you feel an obligation to warn your customers?
> Sorry folks I feel like Roger Rabbit who couldn't resist yelling "2 bits" in response to the ole shave and a haircut knock.
> Outta here.


Jimbo, Given the quantity of poison in the environment today, our entire food supply is poisoned more or less. It's just a matter of degree. You never did answer my question as to whether your honey retains its pollen or not like mine does.

I remain proud of my local raw honey.


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

Can I get an answer to the question's I ask in post 129?


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Jim Giles said:


> Where is the Pro-Poison lobby's evidence and data that poison is not killing honey bees?


Firstly, that's not how things work. The burden of proof is on people who claim a thing is harmful to demonstrate that it is. It's not even really possible to "prove that poison is not killing honey bees".

Secondly, I don't see anyone here saying that it's impossible that chemicals used in agriculture could be responsible for massive bee deaths. I can't speak for anyone else, but my own opinion is that I need some actual solid evidence before before getting all ax-crazy about chemical companies.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Birdman said:


> Can I get an answer to the question's I ask in post 129?


Just as soon as someone answers my questions in regard to poison destroying nature's balance. Your product is a killer. And remarkably the killer has accomplices in this forum. Who'd thunk it?

We need to turn our attention to the amount of poison being dumped into the environment today. Where to find such data? I'm looking for it now.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

melliferal said:


> Firstly, that's not how things work. The burden of proof is on people who claim a thing is harmful to demonstrate that it is. It's not even really possible to "prove that poison is not killing honey bees".
> 
> Secondly, I don't see anyone here saying that it's impossible that chemicals used in agriculture could be responsible for massive bee deaths. I can't speak for anyone else, but my own opinion is that I need some actual solid evidence before before getting all ax-crazy about chemical companies.


Simply remarkable as to the proponents of poison. As if poison needed any more help. 

As to how things work, I'm prosecuting poison which is guilty until proven innocent. Better to be safe than sorry, right? It's not like anyone is profiting from the manufacture of poison.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

jim lyon said:


> ...and here's my analogy and .02 worth (or maybe less) . If someone pours some gasoline on the ground, the fun thing to do is throw a match on it. The more prudent course is to stay away and let it evaporate. Some people love seeing the carnage of a raging fire as opposed to the intelligent discourse of a controlled burn.


Looking for another moderator, you available for controlling the raging fires?!


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

Do you have some proof of all these things you claim. If you have some proof that big chem has every one on the pay role PLEASE share with the rest of us. Man a Ford running 60 mph down the road can kill or cripple you, let's go after the auto industry too.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> you available for controlling the raging fires?

Just get out the firehose, and apply some *foam*!* 



*Disclosure: foam has surfactants:


> The surfactants used must produce foam in concentration of less than 1%. Other components of fire-retardant foams are organic solvents (e.g., trimethyltrimethylene glycol andhexylene glycol), foam stabilizers (e.g., lauryl alcohol), and corrosion inhibitors.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_fighting_foam


  :lpf:

opcorn:


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Jim Giles said:


> I hope my sentiments pass for intelligent discourse. If not, what must one do?


Be more intelligent?



> Who is the good guy here anyway? Me or Monsanto?


Neither



> As for prudent courses, ban all poisons.


Now that's intelligent? Sounds like in your world you ban anything that has the potential for harm; chlorinated water, automobiles, drugs, etc.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

The emotional grabs and rhetoric do appeal to some people, but most critical thinking people would immediately sense they were being worked on. Personally I find hype and spin to be insulting as it seems to assume I would be too stupid to see the importance of an idea stated in neutral terms. Such is the language of tabloid reporting IMHO.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Birdman said:


> Do you have some proof of all these things you claim. If you have some proof that big chem has every one on the pay role PLEASE share with the rest of us. Man a Ford running 60 mph down the road can kill or cripple you, let's go after the auto industry too.


The heart of the issue to which the Pro-Poison lobby is mute is the fact that poison destroys nature's balance. Commonsense deductions dictate poison is killing off the bee population in this country. Given poison's lobbying power it's to be expected it would deflect, distract and deceive.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

crofter said:


> The emotional grabs and rhetoric do appeal to some people, but most critical thinking people would immediately sense they were being worked on. Personally I find hype and spin to be insulting as it seems to assume I would be too stupid to see the importance of an idea stated in neutral terms. Such is the language of tabloid reporting IMHO.


Critical thinking versus hype, spin, rhetoric, emotional grabs and being worked. Which rules this country, the former or the latter?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Barry said:


> Looking for another moderator, you available for controlling the raging fires?!


Dunno, Nabber knows lots more about this sort of thing than me and he claims my metaphor is wrong, better to let her burn. I'm not so sure.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

*Re: Caution: Leave the Troll alone*



Jim Giles said:


> There is a larger amount of attention on the mite because it serves as the scapegoat and canard.
> 
> Poison has killed something in the ecosystem that once kept the mite at bay.


You do know that varroa is a non-native invasive pest that was introduced to the US in 1987? There was nothing keeping the mites at bay except the ocean.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Jim Giles said:


> I do support banning all poisons because it ends up in your belly.


You would have been dead from Black Death along with the other 25 million in the 14th century had you convinced your fellow man to go along with a ban. I'd take a little poison in my belly any day over dying from the bubonic plague.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Jim Giles said:


> You haven't lived until you've driven through the Mississippi delta in the summertime with the windows down or up. The sweet aroma of scientifically researched poison lofts and waffles and finds its way to your olfactory engulfing your brain.
> 
> I wonder about the brain damage poison is inflicting on humans as well, especially Pro-Poison beekeepers.


That explains a lot. Maybe you should have kept your windows rolled up.


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

You are looking for people to join your fight. When I try to get people to support me and help, I answer their questions to the best of my ability. If I were to fight a battle like this I would get all the **it I could. 
1. have my bee's tested
2. post this info for all to see
3. water sample's 
4. soil sample's
You said you ran for congress, Then you should know to get this done you will need a stack of papers 10 feet tall. 
How much paper work have you got?
What did the test on your bee's show?


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

Jim Giles said:


> Simply remarkable as to the proponents of poison. As if poison needed any more help.


You are clearly unable to see the issue in anything other than a "with us or with the poison" light.



Jim Giles said:


> As to how things work, I'm prosecuting poison which is guilty until proven innocent. Better to be safe than sorry, right? It's not like anyone is profiting from the manufacture of poison. Everyone in the know are honest ******, right?


You're not prosecuting anyone; this is an internet message board and not a courtroom; and _things_ cannot be "guilty" or "innocent" of anything.

You are making nebulous claims about nonspecific "poisons" being "the Devil", and emphasizing that there is "proof" which you then refuse to provide.

Many people have given you reasoned arguments, and links and sources upon your request; you've given nothing in return except thinly-veiled accusations about people who disagree with you being shills. This is what you protest to be "intelligent discourse"? What is the incentive for people of differing points of view to engage you if the only reward is a label as a "Pro-Poison" collaborator?


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Nabber86, you dont seem to be absorbing the mans message; are you perhaps a bit refractory to spin, hype and emotional grabs?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

It's the process by which pesticides are approved that needs to change, and the EPA itself needs to be reformed. The EPA can't even keep track of provisionally approved pesticides at this point.

I don't blame the farmer for liking a product that's effective and easy to use. But, something definitely needs to be fixed.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

WLC said:


> I don't blame the farmer for liking a product that's effective and easy to use. But, something definitely needs to be fixed.


I agree, I don't think anyone would argue that point. 
But fixed doesn't necesarly equil ban


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I tend to think that concepts like IPM, and custom seed coats/stacked traits, as a universal standard should be the direction that the industry will head.

Personally, I would favor a newer technology like RNAi instead of chemicals.


----------



## jredburn (Feb 25, 2012)

Who paid for the Borst study?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

WLC said:


> Personally, I would favor a newer technology like RNAi instead of chemicals.


Yes me too. Huge potential on the horizon


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Kamon Reynolds said:


> The Earth is flat until the evidence is forced into peoples face.


The Earth never was flat. Like spontaneous generation it was a popularly held belief. Explained away by knowledge.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Birdman said:


> Can I get an answer to the question's I ask in post 129?


There's nothing in it for him.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

WLC said:


> Personally, I would favor a newer technology like RNAi instead of chemicals.


Many believe thats where the next generation of pesticides is headed. Apparently your not completely sold on RNAi technology (jumping genes) for everything though. Post #'s 5, 29, and 65?

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...nsanto-buys-Beeologics!/page2&highlight=Hayes


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

As far as RNAI and Honeybees, no.

As a pesticide, I think it's better than chemicals.

The funny thing is that I'm currently reading a Jarosch study on thelytoky, but he also demonstrated that RNAi can have 'off target' effects on Honeybees, although it wasn't a Honeybee health issue.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

melliferal said:


> You are clearly unable to see the issue in anything other than a "with us or with the poison" light.


Do u think he cares about what u say or cares to see things differently? That's not why he is here. He is getting what he wants. A stage, a platform, and someone to yell at.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> Apparently your not completely sold on RNAi technology (jumping genes) for everything though.


Playing with matches?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Don't laugh just yet. I've located my favorite 'jumping gene' primers, and I am mulling over if I want to 'take a peek'.

Some folks, like myself, don't think it's the best option for Honeybees (they do their own RNAi thing), but it makes sense for a new type of 'stacked' pesticide for crops.

It doesn't behave like a water soluble pesticide.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> That's not why he is here. He is getting what he wants.


I'm finding it extremely difficult to understand why anyone continues to engage him. ........it exceeds my ability to comprehend.


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Pesticide use in the United States was 1.1 billion pounds in 2007

Triclosan, a widely-used antibacterial pesticide found in products from countertops to toothpaste, is found in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with higher levels in people in their third decade of life and among people with the highest household income. Triclosan is shown to alter thyroid function, is linked to bacterial and compounded antibiotic resistance, dioxin contamination and contamination of surface waters and sewage sludge. Other studies have found that due to its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites are present in, fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk.

Pesticides like synthetic pyrethroids were included for the second time. The report finds that exposure continues to be widespread, specifically for permethrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, and/or their metabolites which were all found in greater than 50% of the subjects tested. Exposure to synthetic pyrethroids has been reported to trigger asthma, lead to headaches, dizziness and nausea. There are also serious chronic health concerns related to synthetic pyrethroids. EPA classifies both permethrin and cypermethrin as possible human carcinogens, based on evidence of lung tumors in lab animals exposed to these chemicals. Many synthetic pyrethroids have been linked to disruption of the endocrine system, which can adversely affect reproduction and sexual development, interfere with the immune system, and increase chances of breast cancer.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=2844

Poison is some nasty stuff.

See also http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/index.html


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

sqkcrk said:


> opcorn:


Good answer!


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)




----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

Leaked document shows EPA allowed bee-toxic pesticide despite own scientists’ red flags


----------



## Jim Giles (Mar 26, 2010)

The pesticide, called clothianidin, is manufactured by German agrochemical company Bayer, though it’s actually banned in Germany. It’s also banned in France, Italy and Slovenia. Those countries fear that clothianidin, which is designed to be absorbed by plant tissue and released in pollen and nectar to kill pests, is also dangerous to pollen- and nectar-eating bees that are critical to some plants’ reproductive success.


In 2003, the EPA approved clothianidin for use in the United States. Since then, it’s become widely used, with farmers purchasing $262 million worth of clothianidin last year. It’s used on used on sugar beets, canola, soy, sunflowers, wheat and corn, the last a pollen-rich crop planted more widely than any other in the United States, and a dietary favorite of honeybees.
During this time, after several decades of gradual decline, honeybee colonies in the United States underwent widespread, massive collapses.


Up to one-third have now vanished, troubling farmers who rely on bees to fertilize $15 billion worth of U.S. crops and citizens who simply like bees. Though colony collapse disorder likely has many causes — from mites to bacteria to fungus to the physiological stresses and epidemiological risks of industrial beekeeping — pesticides are prime suspects, and the EPA’s leaked documents (.pdf) are troubling.

See the EPA's leaked memo here: http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/Memo_Nov2010_Clothianidin_0.pdf

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), clothianidin's major risk concern is to nontarget insects (honey bees). Information from standard tests and field studies, as well as incident reports involving other neonicotinoid insecticides (e.g., imidacloprid) suggest the potential for long term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects.[SUP][4][/SUP] In January 2013, the European Food Safety Authority stated that neonicotinoids including clothianidin pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, concluding, "A high acute risk to honey bees was identified from exposure via dust drift for the seed treatment uses in maize, oilseed rape and cereals. A high acute risk was also identified from exposure via residues in nectar and/or pollen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothianidin


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

beemandan said:


> And to watch beekeepers attempt to engage this same person in a meaningful dialog......I simply don't get it.


 Best to simply view it as a form of forum entertainment, Dan.

And sometimes these kind of threads can throw up some interesting little nuggets of information, not often but it can happen.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Oh WLC  , remember what your mother said, if you just ignor them....


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

beemandan said:


> I'm finding it extremely difficult to understand why anyone continues to engage him. ........it exceeds my ability to comprehend.


For my part, it's not to try and convince him; it's so that new people who haven't before encountered the ideas he is promoting in this thread, can see why they are wrong. They need to realize that those of us disagreeing with Jim Giles's opinions in this thread aren't just being big mean stodgy closed-minded "old-schoolers".


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

beekuk said:


> Best to simply view it as a form of forum entertainment, Dan.


I suppose you are right Pete. All the same....it causes me to view some of my contemporaries in a different light........


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

melliferal said:


> For my part, it's not to try and convince him; it's so that new people who haven't before encountered the ideas he is promoting in this thread, can see why they are wrong.


Maybe....and yet the ridiculousness of some of his assertions are so obvious that continuing to engage him only allows him greater exposure to those might be easily influenced.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

beemandan said:


> Maybe....and yet the ridiculousness of some of his assertions are so obvious that continuing to engage him only allows him greater exposure to those might be easily influenced.


The ideas are out there, though. Jim Giles isn't the first or only person to promote them, they're all over the web. Better people be exposed to them here, where the truth can conveniently be found alongside.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Jim Giles said:


> As I recall Monsanto sells seeds coated with neonicotinoid insecticide which is secreted throughout the plant's life.


What seeds are those Jim?


----------



## RAK (May 2, 2010)

Jim, would you agree ccd is caused by pesticides?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

If there is one more reference to JG other than what he says in his posts, I'm gonna start putting people in time out.
If there is one more reference to WLC other than WLC, I'm gonna start putting people in time out.

Sheesh, I can't even step away to have dinner.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WLC said:


> As for pesticides, we all use them.


Whether we all use them or not we all benefit from their existence and use and have for thousands of years.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

No surprise here.


----------

