# Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense



## borderbeeman

*The Four Dog Defense*

The Pesticide Lobbyists use a well-recognized series of lies and delaying tactics to dominate the debate in the Press and on Radio and Television. See if you recognise these techniques being used by people on this Forum.

The classic strategies are: *Outright Denial; Smokescreen; Diversions; Sowing Doubt. *
Of these 'sowing doubt' is by far the most common and the most effective. Entire teams of university academics are paid large sums to sow doubt in their 'science' papers, all the time, year after year.

Public Relations Specialists are also employed to fill the newspapers, TV chat shows and online forums/ Social media with a daily drip feed of Propaganda. Again, mostly sowing doubt although diversion and denial are also used. Online Forums are by far the most cost effective way to do this - you can bet your bottom dollar that there are paid professionals monitoring this Forum right now, ready to heap scorn, sarcasm and ridicule on anyone who dares to oppose the Poison industry.

Well known public figures are paid or persuaded to make public pronouncements on TV and in the Press, praising the poisoners and condemning objectors as 'hippies', 'conspiracy theorists' and 'back to the Stone Age' green idiots.

These techniques of Pyschological Warfare were perfected decades ago, when the corporations challenged the Science about the human health hazards of :


 Lead,
 Tobacco,
 DDT
 Abestos
 Food additives like Aspartame, MSG, Bovine Growth Hormone etc.
 PCBs

This is now a $billion dollar industry in every country; in fact, the food industry, the drug industry and the chemical industry could not function without these propaganda experts.

These underhand tactics are known as *The Four Dog Defense.* 
The basic steps of the defence are:

*1. My dog does not bite. OUTRIGHT DENIAL - THE BIG LIE*








At first, the company denies that its product is harmful. This usually includes attempts to discredit scientific studies, or authors of studies, that show harm while the company generate its own fake-studies designed to show no harm.

NOTE: when Bayer license neonicotinoids in 1992 they stated that it could not possibly harm bees because the neonicotinoids NEVER emerged in pollen and nectar. That was an outright lie - 96% of peer-reviewed Science studies and 10,000,000 dead bee colonies prove the lie.


*2. My dog bites, . . . but it didn't bite you. SMOKESCREEN - OBFUSCATION*








Pesticide industry concedes that the chemical 'may' be 'potentially' harmful, but insists that bees are not actually exposed to it 'in the real world'.
This argument works best if only the industry carries out tests or monitors for the chemical (they do).
It works even better if you use a 1940s testing methodology, which can never reveal chronic, long term effects
Absence of data is often used to argue that there has been no toxic exposure.

NOTE: Bayer and Syngenta admit that neonics are hyper-toxic to bees, but claim that ' in the field' bees never receive a fatal dose. 

*3. My dog bit you, but it didn't really hurt you. SPREADING DOUBT*








The Pesticide Industry admits that people or wildlife are exposed to the poison, but denies that the exposure caused harm.
Industry concedes that the chemical is harmful, but only at very high doses.
It kills bees, or people, but only under unrealistic test conditions, but not at the lower levels or real-world scenarios to which people or wildlife are actually exposed.

They focus on differences between humans and laboratory animals, alleging that harm such as cancer seen in animal experiments is not relevant to people.


Bayer, Syngenta, Monsanto have all used this argument.
In America, the EPA and various high profile beekeepers are the main spreaders of doubt.


*4. My dog bit you, and hurt you, but it wasn't my fault. DIVERSION*








Industry admits the chemical is harming bees, but tries to shift the blame onto other people to avoid regulation and liability.

Possible culprits are

improper use by farmers,
out-of-date farming practices, defective planting machines, dry weather
blame other toxic chemicals, bee-medications, or poor bee health
in the case of bees, the culprits are varroa mites, viruses, poor nutrition, and poor beekeeping.


----------



## justusflynns

On the other end of the spectrum are the dogs that burn brown spots in the neighbors lawn by constantly peeing on them. Just sayin'.


----------



## JClark

Are you a paid anti-neonic advocate? Seems to be all you post about.

Are you familiar at all w/ keeping bees?

From what I've seen here these four dogs are the conspiracy theories people like to declare when they are caught w/ their pants down. Look up the Stromnessbees character here and the citations he pushes for science.


----------



## JClark

justusflynns said:


> On the other end of the spectrum are the dogs that burn brown spots in the neighbors lawn by constantly peeing on them. Just sayin'.


I'm sure the brown spots are due to neo-nics in the urine.


----------



## Dave Burrup

Border bee man are you anything other than a fear monger?


----------



## David LaFerney

JClark said:


> Are you a paid anti-neonic advocate? Seems to be all you post about.


 Maybe he is - I don't know. But almost for sure both sides have their own astroturfers on here. It would be pretty dumb of them to not wouldn't it? Take it all with a grain of salt IMHO.

Anyway Europe is graciously supplying us with a very large scale demonstration/experiment. Whatever the results are the scales should fall from our eyes within a year or two.


----------



## borderbeeman

Dave Burrup said:


> Border bee man are you anything other than a fear monger?


Ad hominem attack - shoot the messenger rather than deal with the facts.
I thought the 'rules' of this forum precluded personal attacks? Is the Moderator going to caution you about this insult?
Or is it only anyone who raises a genuine issue who gets warned to refrain from personal insults?

FYI I am a writer, broadcaster, teacher and author of books on conservation and the environment. I spent 20 years as an Environmental Educator (teacher) and Outdoor Education instructor; I have also kept bees as a hobby since 1994.

I had no problems with my bees from 1994 - 1998, I don't think I lost one hive to winter losses in that period, despite some cold winters; varroa arrived in 1998 and I treated it and controlled it with Bayer's pyrethroid strips. The bees did not die. I continued to get reasonable honey crops, even with varroa, from 1998 until around 2004 when neonics came in around here.
Since 2004 I began to lose colonies in winter and queens began to be superseded early in their first season, despite the fact that they laid good brood patterns. This reflects what has happened all over the UK in areas dominated by neonic treated canola. My bees are well looked after. They are well insulated in winter and always moved to sheltered, south facing slopes where they are protected from North, West and East winds. They are not genetically isolated and I deliberately move them to new areas where different stocks of drones are flying. I have also bought in queens from the Isle of Islay - 200 miles away in the Scottish Hebrides - an area unaffected by varroa.

I have never received a penny from any bee-campaign organisation; in fact there is no 'bee campaign organisation' with any paid staff as far as I know, neither in the UK nor in the USA. 

I am old enough to have lived through four phases of the 'Pesticide Cycle' and I resent being lied to by big Chem and big AG.

They (scientists, universities, regulators, pesticide companies) told us DDT was safe from 1945 to 1989; it wasn't, it killed everything and it caused cancer. They banned it 40 years late.

In the 60s and 70s the same liars told us organochlorines (dieldrin, aldrin etc) were 'safe''; they lied, the organochlorines killed everything in the landscape; they were highly persistent in soil, water, body fat. They caused cancer. They were banned.

In the 70s through the 90s the same liars told us Organophosphates were 'safe'. They weren't. Derived from WWII Nerve Gas weapons they killed bees, insects, birds, trout, otters, frogs . . .you name it. The otter almost went extinct in the UK and is only just returning to its old rivers. Tens of thousands of sheep farmers in this country were poisoned by OPs used in sheep-dip; their lives were ruined - many developed Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinsons, early Onset Dementia - all the things which OPs were designed to create - since they were nerve gas weapons. The scientists lied, the pesticide companies lied, the regulators lied; the politicians lied - but vast profits were made. Then the truth came out - they were banned in Europe and the UK.

In the early 90s the same lying swine who gave us DDT, Organochlorines and Organophosphates - slipped neonics onto the market. They lied about their toxicity to bees - Bayer claimed they were not even toxic to bees because: 'the poison never emerges in the pollen or nectar' - that was a lie. They lied about the persistence in soil and water. they lied about sub-lethal poisoning and chronic, long term effects on colonies. The only field study ever conducted - the Cutler Dupree field study, was dismissed by the EPAs own scientists as 'not valid science'. 

In the period that I have lived through, UK and European wildlife has been almost exterminated from most of our countryside. As a boy I fished for trout, sticklebacks, perch, roach, tench, pike in rivers, canals, ponds etc. All of that is gone. I lived in a big industrial town but even in the town centre we had flocks of sparrows, starlings, blackbirds; on the fringes we had skylarks, yellowhammers, linnets, black-caps - dozens of species of songbirds. Almost all of that is gone.

The same is true in America; many of you will know the writings of John Muir, Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold - they describe the same inexorable retreat of Nature under the sustained assault of industrial farming, blanket use of pesticides, prophylactic use of pesticides - the spreading of incredibly dangerous neurotoxic poisons coast to coast, on every crop, all of the time.

Bees are just the 'canary in the coalmine' - but they happen to be 'my' bees in 'my' coalmine 
I do not want to live in a countryside which is birdless, fishless, bee-less and butterfly-less. I campaign/ educate people about what is going on because I am lucky enough to have lived through a period when all that beauty still existed; it enriched our lives; it is worth fighting for.


Farming worked well for over a thousand years here in the UK without pesticides of any kind. Britain was the bread basket of the Roman Empire from AD 64 to AD 400 and after that it exported wheat and barley to the world for centuries. It is a fallacy that crops cannot be raised without pesticides. Organic farmers do it all the time. A world record yield of rice was achieved recently by an Indian farmer with no pesticides whatever- check out this article:

http://www.panna.org/blog/bumper-crops-india-no-ge-required

I am just someone who loves bees, loves Nature, loves to eat good food and drink good beer - I do not earn a penny from campaigning, I just want to be able to keep bees in a landscape which does not kill them, every year.


----------



## hpm08161947

borderbeeman said:


> I am just someone who loves bees, loves Nature, loves to eat good food and drink good beer - I do not earn a penny from campaigning, I just want to be able to keep bees in a landscape which does not kill them, every year.


So who are you? What is your real name? It would increase your credibility significantly to put this information forward. Where do you really live? I feel quite certain that most of the forum participants feel you are a paid lobbyist. It would enhance your message to be more forthcoming as to your real identity. Alas, I can anticipate your reply. Something to the effect that the neonics goons would come after you..... right?


----------



## David LaFerney

hpm08161947 said:


> So who are you? What is your real name? It would increase your credibility significantly to put this information forward....


I really and truly do agree with you hmp08161947.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Where do you really live?

According to info he posted in May 2012 on another Beekeeping site, _Borderbeeman _lives in "_the Scottish Borders - Coldstream, on the river Tweed_". You can read the rest here:
http://www.biobees.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=75419&highlight=#75419


More on Coldstream, Scotland here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coldstream


Unfortunately, we share a common first name, _Graham, _ but other than that we have no connection.


----------



## borderbeeman

Well, I have already told you that I live in the UK and that I am a retired teacher. This debate should not be about personalities; either people are telling the truth, backed by empirical science and real- eye-witness observation and experience - or they are selling propaganda. I truly wish someone would pay me because this takes up a lot of my time (not this forum but writing, giving interviews, making films etc) - all of which I do for the honor of resisting the chemical takeover of the world by the most poisonous corporations that have ever existed.

As I pointed out earlier, the ONLY people who stand to benefit from banning neonics are beekeepers - nobody else gives a ****. If you can show me ONE beekeeping organisation that is paying ONE person to campaign about neonics - I will be very grateful. The only legal suit brought against the EPA over the issue does feature 5 beekeepers who are suing for damages, but the case has been brought by the Centre for Food Safety. Nobody pays me one cent - I only wish they did. Still, I'll probably get a book out of it in a couple of years - not that p0ne makes money from books either - one merely gathers kudos.


Most of the people taking part here use a pseudonym for the simple reason that this Forum is just a small part of their life and they do not want the rest of their life invaded by what goes on here. Everytime I post here I am generally attacked personally by people who do not wish to debate facts, the science, the epidemiology or even the experience of beekeepers. They just attack the messenger. This is the classic 'ad hominem' strategy first noted by Aristotle.

*http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html*


> *Argumentum ad hominem* (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative ethnic action, ethnic minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is "not who makes the argument", but whether the argument is valid.


----------



## borderbeeman

*PLEASE NOTE THE RULES YOU AGREED TO WHEN YOU SIGNED UP TO THIS FORUM*
Does the Moderator actually enforce these rules?

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the Beesource Beekeeping Forums to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree to be civil and "observe with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy." You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by BeeSource.com.

Be civil. Personal attacks are never okay. We can disagree and debate a subject, which is fine. You'll find no "know-it-all's" here. No one on this forum is in a position where they can't be questioned or disagreed with in a civil manner.


----------



## borderbeeman

Rader Sidetrack said:


> > Where do you really live?
> 
> According to info he posted in May 2012 on another Beekeeping site, _Borderbeeman _lives in "_the Scottish Borders - Coldstream, on the river Tweed_". You can read the rest here:
> http://www.biobees.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=75419&highlight=#75419
> 
> 
> More on Coldstream, Scotland here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coldstream
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, we share a common first name, _Graham, _ but other than that we have no connection.


PLEASE NOTE THE RULES YOU AGREED TO WHEN YOU SIGNED UP TO THIS FORUM
Does the Moderator actually enforce these rules?

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the Beesource Beekeeping Forums to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree to be civil and "observe with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy." You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by BeeSource.com.

Be civil. Personal attacks are never okay. We can disagree and debate a subject, which is fine. You'll find no "know-it-all's" here. No one on this forum is in a position where they can't be questioned or disagreed with in a civil manner.


----------



## buckbee

Rader Sidetrack said:


> > Where do you really live?
> 
> According to info he posted in May 2012 on another Beekeeping site, _Borderbeeman _lives in "_the Scottish Borders - Coldstream, on the river Tweed_". You can read the rest here:
> (deleted)
> 
> More on Coldstream, Scotland here:
> (deleted)
> 
> Unfortunately, we share a common first name, _Graham, _ but other than that we have no connection.


I haven't been here for a while, but once upon a time there was a decent level of debate. Now - here, at least - it seems to have degenerated into unwarranted, personal attacks with no serious discussion of the real issues. 

What has a contributor's location, occupation or interests to do with you? And what have they to do with his cogent and incisive post about the obnoxious behaviour of corporations?

Unless you want someone poking around in your private life, I suggest discussing the argument, not the person.


----------



## buckbee

hpm08161947 said:


> So who are you? What is your real name?


This from someone who signs themselves hpm08161947....


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Regarding Beesource rules, I simply linked to information _Borderbeeman _posted elsewhere on the internet. If he finds that information offensive or defamatory, one has to wonder _why he posted it on the net in the first place_!

If you post information on a *public forum*, it is _foolish _to expect that Google won't find it! 

UPDATE: I see that Borderbeeman has gone back and edited his original post at Biobees to remove certain information. Anyone familiar with the expression about "closing the barn door after the horses have left"? Apparently he is not familiar with "archive.org", whose mission is to _archive everything_ on the net.

Toodle pip!

:gh:


----------



## buckbee

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Regarding Beesource rules, I simply linked to information _Borderbeeman _posted elsewhere on the internet. If he finds that information offensive or defamatory, one has to wonder _why he posted it on the net in the first place_!
> 
> If you post information on a *public forum*, it is _foolish _to expect that Google won't find it!


And the point you so widely missed was - what have his location or interests to do with the subject of the post?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

buckbee said:


> And the point you so widely missed was - what have *his location* or interests to do with the subject of the post?


Gee, if you are a beekeeper, you should understand that LOCATION is _everything _when it comes to keeping bees! Why do you think every Beesource post shows *location *information for the member making the post? Maybe because _location _is relevant? 
:lpf:

Note that I did not re-post any other information from Borderbeeman's original post on Biobees. I simply posted his *location*, as he publicly and voluntarily posted!

Toodle pip!


----------



## buckbee

Well gee, I am a beekeeper and I understand that perfectly - but his location has NOTHING to do with the post at the top of this thread, which NOBODY has come close to engaging with.


----------



## LSPender

Thank you Borderbeeman for the post, as you stated in the 4 methods, they seem to bee people here on beesourse, whom I've never heard of before questioning the information, usually that means you hit out of the park, baseball term, for people from across the pond.

I find it facinating when someone post info on here, which are standard tactics for many organizations, some come out questioning and saying "fear mongering" no I just see it as info to help disimination the stuff people do.

So Thanks


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

buckbee said:


> Well gee, I am a beekeeper and I understand that perfectly - but his location has NOTHING to do with the post at the top of this thread, which NOBODY has come close to engaging with.


The thread title is "Neonicotinoids *The Four Dog *Defense" and the original post is liberally illustrated with *dogs*! What do *dogs *have to do with neonicotinoids, bees, or beekeeping? :scratch:


Perhaps you would be happier if I posted a photo of a *rabid dog*? Do you really think dogs are more relevant to beekeeping than *LOCATION*? Or is it that this thread is not really about beekeeping in the first place?

:ws:


----------



## jbignell

I started to read this post cause I am interested in "Neonicotinoids". So why is everyone talking about forum rules, personal details, lobbyist? Can we get back to the topic at hand?


----------



## justusflynns

Regarding DDT:
http://www.wnd.com/2005/06/31095/

And, on another note, when you come here and slander a whole group of people (those who develop neo-nics) by accusing them of lying etc., you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when you complain about the moderation of the forum. I'm all for people being held accountable, and I still have an open mind in regard to the safety of neo-nics, but I'm certainly no fan of reactionary, crusading sensationalizing.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Those of you interested in the writings of a beekeeper located in Coldstream, Scotland regarding neonicotinoids may like to review this link:
http://pierreterre.com/blog/very-go...-mccarthy-independent-link-above-graham-white

I am not endorsing the views presented above, merely providing a link for those who may be interested. 

Toodle pip


----------



## hpm08161947

buckbee said:


> This from someone who signs themselves hpm08161947....


Regular readers will know my name.... Herb McIntyre, Garland, NC. It has been on many posts.... used to be my signature. You may also check my Profile.


----------



## D Semple

More boring drivel. Wish I had the 10 minutes back I spent on this thread.


Don


----------



## Daniel Y

The 4 dog defense claim does not hold water for me. it is defense. and you could put any response fro,m an innocent person being accused of something within it's framework. IN other words how woudl it look if someone "Defended" from a false accusation.

Denial- so what is an honest response if you didn't do it?
Obfuscation- simply out of being offended from being accused.
Spreading doubt- simply offering other ideas of what might have caused it
Diversion- same as above just being suspected as a lie for other reasons. You can confuse them or put the blame on others either way suspicion is removed form you. but either would be used as helping investigate the cause by an innocent parson.

Now the 4 dog defense is specifically intended to look at the responses of a guilty person trying to avoid blame.

There is much more that is evident beyond their defense in a guilty party. Yes these are methods a person will deny what they are guilty of. but they alone are not evidence of deceit by a far cry.


----------



## borderbeeman

The Four Dog Defense is relevant because it is what Big Ag, Big Chem and Big Tobacco have been using since WWII. Bayer and Syngenta may call their trade 'crop protection' but the truth is that they are in the poison business. They design deadly toxins derived from nerve gas and manipulate the regulatory system and tests to get them on the market. They then employ every lie in the Playbook to keep them on the market for 20 years - and then reality catches up and they are banned (DDT, Dieldrin, Aldrin, Organophosphates, Endosulfan ,. . .)

This is not some academic, teatime debate. This is what these people do:

*Slovenia bans neonicotinoids after massive bee deaths in Pomurje region*








CLICK ON IMAGE TO SEE LARGE SIZE

_*Slovenian beehives in Pomurje after exposure to the neonicotinoid clothianidin applied as seed coating in corn, April 2011. The new EU prescription to put deflectors on pneumatic sowing machines to avoid dust drift of the poison did not protect these bees. The use of clothianidin is also allowed in the Netherlands under the names Poncho Rood for corn and Poncho Beta for sugar beet*. _

*Treated Corn Seed and Pesticide Banned as Bee Deaths Continue*
Ljubljana, 28 April 2011 (STA) - The government of Slovenia issued a temporary ban Thursday on seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides which have caused massive bee deaths in the north-eastern Pomurje region in the recent weeks. The use of Biscay, a pesticide, will also be limited.

The decision comes after beekeepers in the heavily agricultural region Pomurje reported massive bee deaths. About 2,500 beehives kept by 45 beekeepers in Pomurje have been affected, Agriculture Minister Gregor Zidan told the press after the cabinet session.

Lab analyses showed that in at least seven cases the most likely culprit was clothianidin, an insecticide used to treat corn seed. Samples of the treated corn have been sent to German labs to verify whether the corn had been treated properly.

Clothianidin had been banned by the previous government in 2008 following a similar outbreak of bee deaths, but the ban was revoked by Zidan's predecessor Milan Pogacnik based on an analysis by the Chemistry Institute.

Zidan said he would demand explanations on why the ban was revoked and then decide whether to take action against his predecessor.

There is no data on how much seed corn has been treated with clothianidin. Joze Ilersic, the head of the Phytosanitary Administration, said than in 2008 a third of the seed corn had been treated with insecticide.

Aside from a temporary ban on corn seed treated with neonicotinoids, the government decided to disallow the use of Biscay (based on thiacloprid - another neonicotinoid) for the treatment of canola during blooming due to its possible synergy effects with other pesticides.

Both clothianidin and thiacloprid are produced by Bayer Cropscience whose best selling product is the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, also linked to honeybee decline.


----------



## RiodeLobo

Thank you, I was inspired. I now know how to use my Ignore feature. 

Good Day


----------



## borderbeeman

RiodeLobo said:


> Thank you, I was inspired. I now know how to use my Ignore feature.
> 
> Good Day


Thanks, I guess you have been 'ignoring' things for a long time - for 20 years in fact, in relation to bee deaths and neonics.


----------



## btmurph

Why oh why am I doing this to myself? inch:



borderbeeman said:


> About 2,500 beehives kept by 45 beekeepers in Pomurje have been affected, Agriculture Minister Gregor Zidan told the press after the cabinet session.
> 
> Lab analyses showed that in at least seven cases the most likely culprit was clothianidin


So in 0.28% of cases the likely culprit was clothianidin?

borderbee, have you read Randy Oliver's site at all? http://scientificbeekeeping.com/

he visited the heart of the U.S. corn and soybean growing area looking for bee kills and health issues from planting dust: http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-extinction-of-the-honey-bee/


----------



## JClark

btmurph said:


> Why oh why am I doing this to myself? inch:
> 
> 
> 
> So in 0.28% of cases the likely culprit was clothianidin?


This is why you can't rationally discuss these topics. If you really don't dig into the studies then you can find data to support any point of view. Bees die so it must be the evil corporation's fault. NOTE: I am not suggesting that these chemicals don't have long-term adverse effects, only, that I have not seen any study that conclusively isolated a CCD culprit. Why? Because the cause is an interaction of many things--some of which I'm sure we are not even aware of yet. Obviously, if they come in contact w/ neonics it will cause issues--that's the point of an insecticide. The problem w/ these kinds of things, whether insecticides or new meds, is that long-term effects require long term data in the real world (is that a doggy defense?) which is only achieved by, well, using them.

I simply replied to this because it seemed the site was being spammed by the neonic stuff recently (usually I only have time to look at the homepage).

Unfortunately the education system today is more about pushing dogma than teaching critical thinking. One of the dogmatic views pushed: corporations are nothing but evil money grubbing capitalist monsters. And those erudite types love to profess this via their twitter and facebook accounts on their iPhones while they watch the latest blockbuster on their laptop in a Starbucks.


----------



## Daniel Y

borderbeeman said:


> The Four Dog Defense is relevant because it is what Big Ag, Big Chem and Big Tobacco have been using since WWII. B


So you say. I say they are defending themselves from your lies and accusations as well as others. so how would their response be any different if I am right?

I will tell you what I see that tells me they are deceitful. They will not stay on the issue of CCD. they make a great argument for how Nics are not responsible for EFB AFB. SHB or even wax moths. but they will not present one bit of defense that their product does not contribute to CCD. I believe I have even seen statements by Bayer that present a claim that their products are not responsible for freezing and or starvation in bees. yet they will not comment on how their products are not any part of bees vanishing. and that is what I see is blatantly suspicious. I do not consider it suspicions if a person defends themselves from accusations. And I am not impressed with how much you can decorate the name of defense.


----------



## squarepeg

RiodeLobo said:


> Thank you, I was inspired. I now know how to use my Ignore feature.
> 
> Good Day


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Barry

borderbeeman said:


> Thanks, I guess you have been 'ignoring' things for a long time -


What concerns me is how you ignore firsthand experience from others that fly in the face of all your claims. If you want to be taken seriously, then I'd expect a dialog from you that takes into account opposing experience and show an interest in trying to figure out why there isn't a uniform outcome with all bees.


----------



## Beeslave

Barry said:


> What concerns me is how you ignore firsthand experience from others that fly in the face of all your claims.


This statement "rings true" for both sides. When hands on experience reveals to you the same outcome season after season those who never experience it themselves will call you out as a liar. Even when they have no proof you're wrong.....the only proof they have is they haven't had the same experience themselves.


----------



## gmcharlie

JClark said:


> Are you a paid anti-neonic advocate? Seems to be all you post about.
> 
> Are you familiar at all w/ keeping bees?
> 
> From what I've seen here these four dogs are the conspiracy theories people like to declare when they are caught w/ their pants down. Look up the Stromnessbees character here and the citations he pushes for science.


There have been several observations that Stromness and borderman are one in the same.... no proof just studies that show....


----------



## JClark

gmcharlie said:


> There have been several observations that Stromness and borderman are one in the same.... no proof just studies that show....


That was what I was thinking when I wrote the comment. Didn't want to push conspiracy theories though.


----------



## gmcharlie

Barry said:


> What concerns me is how you ignore firsthand experience from others that fly in the face of all your claims. If you want to be taken seriously, then I'd expect a dialog from you that takes into account opposing experience and show an interest in trying to figure out why there isn't a uniform outcome with all bees.


Thanks Barry!


----------



## gmcharlie

JClark said:


> That was what I was thinking when I wrote the comment. Didn't want to push conspiracy theories though.


What do yo want to bet he comes back with the 4 dogs defense??
First he will deny it.....


----------



## jonathan

gmcharlie said:


> There have been several observations that Stromness and borderman are one in the same.... no proof just studies that show....


They think the same but they are not even the same gender!
They do know each other though.

That 4 dog defense is a laugh.
No matter what way you chose to disagree with borderbeeman he can shoe-horn it into one of the categories and shout 'told you so'

It is beyond his comprehension that people disagree with him simply because a lot of what he posts is inaccurate, exaggerated and spun.

Everyone knows that insecticide kills insects but as Barry says why are millions of colonies exposed to neonicotinoids not in difficulties.
Canada and Australia are two places which spring to mind - and yes I am sure he can come up with some data which shows some losses in both places but Barry's point is still the crux of the matter.


----------



## Barry

jonathan said:


> They think the same but they are not even the same gender!
> They do know each other though.


I think they share the same roof.


----------



## hpm08161947

Barry said:


> I think they share the same roof.


Very similar IP numbers? Would not surprise me.


----------



## borderbeeman

Rader Sidetrack said:


> > Where do you really live?
> 
> According to info he posted in May 2012 on another Beekeeping site, _Borderbeeman _lives in "_the Scottish Borders - Coldstream, on the river Tweed_". You can read the rest here:
> http://www.biobees.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=75419&highlight=#75419
> 
> 
> More on Coldstream, Scotland here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coldstream
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, we share a common first name, _Graham, _ but other than that we have no connection.



Regardless of its content, this posting obviously breaks the RULES set by Barry Birkey at the head of this Forum. Those rules clearly state:

No harassment
No bullying
No invasion of privacy
No abuse or hatred
No threatening behavior
Be civil at all times

I have written to Barry Birkey twice - reporting this poster as breaking every one of those rules.
Mr Birkey has done nothing. He has not removed this offensive post which is clearly intended to threaten, harass and intimidate. It is also a deliberate invasion of privacy.

So what does one do when the Moderator refuses to Moderate?
What does one do when the Moderator refuses to honor the code of decency which he himself set?
what does one do when the Moderator appears to enjoy joining in with the abuse?


----------



## borderbeeman

it is quite clear from the tone and stance that you take that:

You have NO interest in discussing or debating these issues in a civil manner
Your only role here is to attack, intimidate, harass, threaten and abuse
Your posts do not address the CONTENT of the argument

The only conclusion, from your appalling behaviour is that you are the lead attack dog representing the industry on here, and your role is to:

Suppress reasonable discussion and debate
Threaten, harass and bully anyone who takes an anti-neonics position
Drive them from the arena of debate by persistent personal attacks

It is also clear that you have the support of Mr Barry Birkey, since he has done nothing about correcting your behavior and has refused to take down your offensive posts.

What does that tell you about Mr Birkey's loyalties?
what does that tell you about WHO is controlling this Forum?


----------



## borderbeeman

So the 'Moderator' - the alleged 'creator' of this Forum chooses to join in the personal attacks and intimidation as well?

No attempt to discuss the issues
No attempt to discuss the facts
No attempt to set an example for other users in terms of decent behavior and reasonable debate

Your posting says more about you and the moral tone (or lack of it) which you are responsible for on this Forum than I could ever say.

No point in REPORTING this to the 'Moderator' is there Mr Birkey?

what does one do when those who are supposedly 'The Rule Makers' - refuse to conform to the rules which they themselves are happy to break?

Don't worry, its a rhetorical question. 

I don't expect an answer from you.
or reasonable debate
or fairness
or even a sense of honor


----------



## borderbeeman

. .


----------



## borderbeeman

hpm08161947 said:


> Very similar IP numbers? Would not surprise me.


Have you ever thought about addressing the subject under discussion?
Have you ever thought about sticking to the content of the debate>
Have you ever thought . . . . . . 
I thought not.


----------



## borderbeeman

Jonathan, you are not paying attention. 
The four Dog Defense is now The Five Dog Defense.
It was decided that a FIFTH strategy of the poison manufacturers and industry trolls was:

SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT

It's odd that you forgot that because that is your primary role in the various Forums where you ply your trade.

As usual, you make no attempt to engage in real discussion.
You make no attempt to address the many peer-reviewed science studies which prove to anyone with a free mind (i.e. a mind uncontaminated by pesticide dollars) that neonics are a primary cause of bee deaths.
Your veiled slur on my friendship, or not with Stromness Bees merely highlights the fact that your techniques, which you have used for years on the Scottish Beekeeping Forum, are:

Defamation
Innuendo
Slurs and personal attacks
Distraction
Smokescreen

However, your main role is undoubtedly SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH.
That is what you are paid to do.
So I expect nothing better from you.

By the way, you are failing.
Truth will out.
Truth IS out.
27 countries just banned your favourite poisons, despite all your efforts.
I hope you don't get paid by results, because European Science just crushed your gonads in a vice.


----------



## Barry

borderbeeman said:


> What does that tell you about Mr Birkey's loyalties?
> what does that tell you about WHO is controlling this Forum?


A shill, through and through! Yes, Bayer owns this forum. I sold it to them 2 years ago. Does it all fall into place now?


----------



## jonathan

Barry said:


> A shill, through and through! Yes, Bayer owns this forum. I sold it to them 2 years ago. Does it all fall into place now?


He has no sense of humour. That will get quoted as fact now!
So Bayer outbid Syngenta and Monsanto then?


----------



## WLC

I'm a proponent of the 3D's: deflect, delay, deny.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to design an experiment that proves cause and effect in field trials because you can't control for all of the other possible environmental factors.

So while we all pretty much know that insecticides kill insects, we also understand that you need proof to force a ban on a product.

It would be 'unjust' to do otherwise.

However, you can prove translocation in field trials!

So, we know that neonic contaminated talc is blowing across fields and the product is going off target.

Yes, you can ban a product for going off-target...

Eventhough you were never able to prove that it killed bees.


----------



## jonathan

No argument about the planter dust talc. That kills bees and has been responsible for many incidents in several different jurisdictions. Germany imposed a temporary ban after several thousand colonies were killed in 2008 during maize drilling.


----------



## borderbeeman

A key defense used by the Pesticide Lobbyists on this Forum is that: 
"The science is not convincing; the science does not prove anything"

The European decision came only after the European Science Agency had considered the issue for over a year, and then after the Expert Science Panel of the European Food Safety Agency had analysed over a hundred peer-reviewed scientific studies. These people are at the top of their game, globally.
Take a look at the Expert Panel that advised the European Commission to ban neonics.

THE SCIENTISTS WHO BANNED NEONICS IN EUROPE

EFSA's expert panel considered all the peer-reviewed evidence on bee deaths and neonicotinoid pesticides: over 50 peer-reviewed studies. they issued three Risk Assessments on Imidacloprid, Clothianidin and Thiamethoxam. They advised the Commission that there were unacceptable data gaps in the risk assessments; there was strong evidence that neonicotinoids affect bees and pollinators, and there is a high degree of 'scientific uncertainty'. They concluded: the Precautionary Principle must be invoked, for a moratorium until the pesticide industry could prove its products do NOT harm bees - which it has so far failed to. 

This panel included leading European experts:
Dr. Alf Aagaard Denmark - Eco Toxicologist
Dr Theodorus C.M. Brock - Aquatic Ecology, University of Nijmegen,
Prof Ettore Capri : Chemistry, Biochemistry and Ecology, Milan 
Dr Sabine Duquesne Ecological risk assessment of pesticides 
Prof. Metka FILIPIČ Professor University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy
Prof. Antonio F. Hernández‐Jerez Epidemiology and Clinical Investigation
Dr. Karen Ildico Hirsch‐Ernst - Toxicology expert
Dr. Susanne Hougaard Bennekou Toxicology risk assessment of pesticides
Dr. Michael Klein - Pesticides & Environmental fate modelling 
Dr. Thomas Kuhl expert on risk assessment for pesticides 
Prof. Ryszard Laskowski Ecotoxicology & Risk Assessment
PD Dr. Matthias Lies Ecological systems & Environmental risk assessment of chemicals 
Dr. Alberto Mantovani risk assessment of endocrine active substances 
Prof. Colin Douglas Ockleford
Dr. Bernadette Christine Ossendorp pesticide residues
Dr. Daniel Pickford -ecotoxicology and endocrine disruption 
Prof Robert Smith Environmental risk assessment of pesticides
Prof. José Paulo SOUSA assessment of PPPs towards soil organism
Prof. Ingvar Sundh Microbial ecology research in natural and managed environments 
Dr Aaldrik Tiktak Mathematical models of pesticide fate 
Ir. Ton van der Linden soil chemistry, soil microbiology, toxicology

The Commission evidently trusts the Scientific competence.


----------



## WLC

jonathan:

I recently attended an online conference where representatives from the companies producing neonic coated seeds acknowledged that they are working on new formulations to fix the seed coat abrasion problem.

So, there's no denial by anyone of the contaminated talc problem.

There's no need for 4 or even five dogs here.

The translocation experimental design is the only dog needed, and it hunts!

Here's where it al started:

GREATTI M., SABATINI A. G., BARBATTINI R., ROSSI S., STRAVISI
A., 2003.- Risk of environmental contamination by the
active ingredient imidacloprid used for corn seed dressing.
Preliminary results.- Bulletin of Insectology, 56: 69-72.


----------



## borderbeeman

WLC said:


> jonathan:
> 
> I recently attended an online conference where representatives from the companies producing neonic coated seeds acknowledged that they are working on new formulations to fix the seed coat abrasion problem.
> 
> So, there's no denial by anyone of the contaminated talc problem.
> 
> There's no need for 4 or even five dogs here.
> 
> The translocation experimental design is the only dog needed, and it hunts!
> 
> Here's where it al started:
> 
> GREATTI M., SABATINI A. G., BARBATTINI R., ROSSI S., STRAVISI
> A., 2003.- Risk of environmental contamination by the
> active ingredient imidacloprid used for corn seed dressing.
> Preliminary results.- Bulletin of Insectology, 56: 69-72.


Fixing the planter dust issue will not stop neonics killing bees. The planter dust is full of very high concentrations of the raw poison - it is many thousands of times above the lethal dose by ingestion - so it kills on direct contact. If there is NO planter dust, that poison will be absorbed into the living structure of the entire plant and will emerge in the flowers, pollen and nectar. Dozens of studies have proven that the level at which canola and corn are contaminated - in the nectar and pollen (corn relevance is pollen only) - that dose is way above what kills bees in the lab.

So, a 'good' planting of corn or canola, in which there is no mass bee-kill at time of planting, merely sets the scene for colony deaths later in the year - usually in the winter, when the bees have collected and stored pollen and nectar that is poisoned by minute amounts of neonics in the ppb range.

The planter dust issue is a distraction. 

How would you like your bees killed?

10,000 hives in a single day - as happened with planter dust in the Rhineland in 2010

or

1 million colonies dying over the winter after exposure to sunflower pollen and nectar (France 1994)

You could possibly opt for one or the other, but the result is exactly the same - fast death or slow death - the colonies end up dead.


----------



## jonathan

Yes, I have read that paper.
There is certainly room for improvement with regard to the escape of planter dust and beekeepers should be compensated for that.
As far as I know this issue is largely confined to corn/maize drilling.

The Krupke et al paper (2012) discussed this.

Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields


----------



## gmcharlie

jonathan said:


> Yes, I have read that paper.
> There is certainly room for improvement with regard to the escape of planter dust and beekeepers should be compensated for that.
> As far as I know this issue is largely confined to corn/maize drilling.
> 
> The Krupke et al paper (2012) discussed this.
> 
> Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields



Did you read Randy Olivers article, where he points out it only seems to be an issue under high humidity??? My hives are next to corn, and i have never noticed a problem, but in fairness most of it is no till, which has much less planter dust.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

borderbeeman said:


> The only conclusion, from your appalling behaviour is that you are the lead attack dog representing the industry on here ....


Apparently this diatribe is directed at me.

All I want to know is when am I going to get my payoff/bribe check from the Monsanto / Bayer evil empire? :scratch: 


Perhaps you could provide a contact name I could speak to when the check does not arrive in a timely manner ....

:ws:


gee, and all I did was provide a link to a public forum, where *you posted your own information!*


----------



## Mr. C

<Farming worked well for over a thousand years here in the UK without pesticides of any kind. Britain was the bread basket of the Roman Empire from AD 64 to AD 400 and after that it exported wheat and barley to the world for centuries. It is a fallacy that crops cannot be raised without pesticides. Organic farmers do it all the time. A world record yield of rice was achieved recently by an Indian farmer with no pesticides whatever- check out this article:>

This always bothers me. Define "well" 
Yes there was farming, but you need a history lesson if you think that the farmers had it made back then, not to mention famine, brutal labor, spoilage and waste. The article is nice, yes if we can find chemical free ways to improve yield we should, but I wouldn't rule them out either. Bet you if those same farmers could increase their yield further with a chemical they would do it, or if they could mechanize the weeding process they would to that too. I spent enough time working/living on farms as a kid to know what is involved. I evn tried running a CSA last year and after factoring in my labor and input costs (chemical free) I probably made a good 2 dollars an hour. I wouldn't charge more because I was selling food and wanted to provide it at a resonable competitive price. The only people making a go of it that was are charging "yuppy prices"

Fact is though like it or not pesticides make farming cheaper and easier. And cheaper means more people get fed. I'm sure we could drop all pesiticides from crop production and after a billion or two people died we'd be able to feed everyone by plowing up even more lab to account for lower yields and increased spoilage due to pest damage. 

It reminds me of a couple of years ago after the earthquake in Haiti. Monsanto offered to donate a bunch of seed (hybrid seeds no GMs) to help get farmers back on their feet. the offer was refused and instead the farmers were given hoes. Here you go, please continue to farm the "old way" and eke out a meager existance while I buy cheap food at the giant supermarket. talk about a slap in the face.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

borderbeeman said:


> Jonathan, you are not paying attention.
> The four Dog Defense is now The Five Dog Defense.
> It was decided that a FIFTH strategy of the poison manufacturers and industry trolls was:
> 
> SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT


Hmmm, "_suppression of dissent_", sounds *evil*. I posted a _very civilized_ comment/question at _Borderbeeman_'s blog, here:

http://friendsofthebees.wordpress.com/

My comment is "Awaiting Moderation". Would anyone care to guess how long it might be before my comment actually get published?

I invite others to visit the link above.


----------



## D Coates

From 6:59 to 7:30 Borderbeeman apparently had too much coffee and free time. It ended with "European Science just crushed your gonads in a vice." Does that honestly pass for civil? Not sure what it takes to get banned or at least flagged on this site any more.

This is the same style study supported "science" that was used to justify all types of European governmental actions in the 30's and early 40's. Notice how Borderbeeman is already creating an out for not finding the results they need to justify banning "Big Ag" pesticides in the 2 years they've got? They need more time... more time... more time. In fact all they want to do is destroy some large argicultural suppliers, by any means neccesary. At this time it's with inuendos and public opinion, not repeatable scientifically accepted result based studies. They don't care, the end justify the means.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

D Coates said:


> [he] apparently had too much coffee and free time. It ended with "European Science just crushed your gonads in a vice." Does that honestly pass for civil? Not sure what it takes to get banned or at least flagged on this site any more.


The solution to that issue is to laugh as you would at a _court jester_!










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

Aside from being amusing, it will also get you branded as a "*lead attack dog*" and make you _eligible for a bribe/payoff check_ from the industry. What's not to like? _*Free money*_! Note that _Barry _has already cashed in and got his big buyout!

:lpf:


----------



## jonathan




----------



## Daniel Y

WLC said:


> jonathan:
> 
> I recently attended an online conference where representatives from the companies producing neonic coated seeds acknowledged that they are working on new formulations to fix the seed coat abrasion problem.
> 
> So, there's no denial by anyone of the contaminated talc problem.
> 
> There's no need for 4 or even five dogs here.
> 
> The translocation experimental design is the only dog needed, and it hunts!
> 
> Here's where it al started:
> 
> GREATTI M., SABATINI A. G., BARBATTINI R., ROSSI S., STRAVISI
> A., 2003.- Risk of environmental contamination by the
> active ingredient imidacloprid used for corn seed dressing.
> Preliminary results.- Bulletin of Insectology, 56: 69-72.


I did not see where anyone is saying there "Is" denial. I did see where it was claim there "Was" denial. It was also followed up with ow they then changed their toon to admitting their is a problem, that bees are exposed etc.

So is that outright blatant lying? I think so given who it is coming from. What the denial had originally been and what the past has revealed to us about contamination of the environment. I simply cannot believe that anyone can really think they will not contaminate the environment with a product that is coating seed. What I do find surprising is that there are still so many that will believe it. They knew without a doubt that anything and everything would end up exposed to this stuff and they don't care.


----------



## gmcharlie

Daniel, your in an area that has no crops how are your winter losses?? should be nirvana out there.......

No one has ever claimed they do not invade the enviorment, anymore than our breathing invades the environment. but as pointed out in many real studies, these are the better of the problems. seed coatings to stop cutworms and their friends, are much better for our world and the bees than the other Chemecials used. I realize your not in farming ground, but without these treatments our yields would be imediatly cut by 25% just by cutworms alone....... Cutting the worlds food by 25% is not realistic to most people ( I realize a few nutjobs are all for it) and in this case those seed coatings are the best way known right now to accomplish it. I posted a link to a very good article by Randy Oliver. I hope you read it... I know borderbee won't because it does not agree with his thoughts...

As Mark Twain said "its easier to fool the people, than convince them they have been fooled"


----------



## WLC

We should keep in mind that they have a ban on neonics in the EU starting at the end of December AND they won't grant any new GMO product approvals till 2014!

I can't imagine what the EU farmers are going to do to recover their margins.

I think that the reality of that is going shake them back out of any delusions they may have about how beneficial the decision to ban is, and the chain of repercussions it can have.

If you can't pay back your debts, you go broke. And, this is on top of a bad economy.

I think the commission may have some dogs of its own.


----------



## JClark

WLC said:


> I can't imagine what the EU farmers are going to do to recover their margins.
> 
> If you can't pay back your debts, you go broke. And, this is on top of a bad economy.
> 
> I think the commission may have some dogs of its own.


Sure. Government will pay for it. It's not like they already have some huge spending problems or something. 

There is a reason we split from Europe a few hundred years ago. Let's hope were smart enough to not go down that road--but I'm building my farm just in case and have means to defend it.


----------



## CentralPAguy

I found the articles/linksthat BorderBeeman provided to be insightful. Some of the comments that were placed on this thread and other threads that he/she created were useless to the discussion as it seemed that they really were bullying and ridicule. And I have a personal distaste when I see it. 

Having said that, I suffered large percentage of losses on my country beeyards but didn't suffer so much with my town beeyards and I really want to know what caused the differences.


----------



## Daniel Y

Charlie, I am sure you believe what it is you say you believe. But in regard to our missing agriculture. I know for a fact how wrong you are. I happen to come from Kansas where I grew up on a farm. With what I learned there I now grow Tobacco in Nevada where we don't grow anything. Just a few years ago it Was Nevada Hay that we do not grow that was saving Texas cattle. And we did it with less rainfall than they got. I wonder why they where not able to grow their own. I do not for one second think that mature suddenly went haywire. I think it is lazy dependent methods.


----------



## borderbeeman

WLC said:


> We should keep in mind that they have a ban on neonics in the EU starting at the end of December AND they won't grant any new GMO product approvals till 2014!
> 
> I can't imagine what the EU farmers are going to do to recover their margins.
> 
> I think that the reality of that is going shake them back out of any delusions they may have about how beneficial the decision to ban is, and the chain of repercussions it can have.
> 
> If you can't pay back your debts, you go broke. And, this is on top of a bad economy.
> .


France banned neonics 13 years ago - farmers moved to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) - they also re-discovered that the pesticide companies had been telling lies; they DIDNT have to treat every single seed they planted with deadly nerve-poisons in order to raise good crops. One official report quoted to me recently (I will try to get a reference) was that when they stopped treating corn with neonics - the decline in production was less than 1%. The cost of pesticides was about 5% - so the farmers made more money.

France is doing just fine. Even though the neonics were banned 13 years ago, I could not find a single reference to the French Farmers Union petitioning to have neonics brought back. And since the farmers wre the ones who were most likely to 'suffer' as a result of the neonics ban - this should tell you something.
You should treat yourself, go for a visit. France is the most beautiful farming country in Europe, wildflowers are chest high along every rural road, wildlife is everywhere and the wine, bread, cheese and beef are the best in the world.

Wikipedia - French Agriculture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_France#Agriculture
Agriculture

France is the world's second largest agricultural exporter, world's sixth-largest agricultural producer and European Union's leading agricultural power, accounting for about one-third of all agricultural land within the EU.

Northern France is characterized by large wheat farms. Dairy products, pork, poultry, and apple production are concentrated in the western region. Beef production is located in central France, while the production of fruits, vegetables, and wine ranges from central to southern France. France is a large producer of many agricultural products and is currently expanding its forestry and fishery industries. 

*As the world's second-largest agricultural exporter, France ranks just after the United States*.[21] 
The destination of 70% of its exports are other EU members states. France also provide agricultural exports to many poor African countries (including its former colonies) which face serious food shortage. Wheat, beef, pork, poultry, and dairy products are the principal exports.

Exports from the United States face stiff competition from domestic production, other EU member states, and third world countries in France. U.S. agricultural exports to France, totaling some $600 million annually, consist primarily of soybeans and soybean products, feeds and fodders, seafood, and consumer products, especially snack foods and nuts. French exports to the United States are much more high value products such as cheese, processed products and wine.


----------



## gmcharlie

I am betting that means you didn't/wont read the article........ learned to grow tobacco in Nevada??? Hmmm which hand would that be in? I am betting its left handed!(just kidding) Nevade doesn't even begin to show up on the neonic maps....... We both know that, and yet are your loses better than ours out here? you should be in Nirvana... all that virgin ag....


----------



## jonathan

borderbeeman said:


> France banned neonics 13 years ago - farmers moved to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) - they also re-discovered that the pesticide companies had been telling lies; they DIDNT have to treat every single seed they planted with deadly nerve-poisons in order to raise good crops.





> France
> One of the most extensive monitoring approaches is
> being conducted in France to survey the bee safety of the
> thiamethoxam seed treatment in maize. The implemented
> survey is aimed at evaluating the potential side-effects of the
> use of coated seeds on pollinating insects, and more particularly
> on the honey bee.
> This survey was implemented over 3 years, covered 3 to 6 regions and involved several monitoring sites
> for each region. Sites had intensive maize cultivation grown from either treated or non-treated maize
> seeds. Apiaries were settled before sowing and remained until overwintering. Final data indicated a very
> low exposure of bees to residues of thiamethoxam over the entire growth period, and highlighted no
> product-related effect on colonies, even after several years of cohabitation.





> A very extensive national long-term bee health monitoring project, the “Deutsche Bienenmonitoring”
> (German Bee Monitoring), is currently ongoing in Germany. In terms of the monitoring, more than
> 1,200 bee colonies from about 120 apiaries all over Germany are surveyed for their health and survival
> in connection with all environmental factors that may potentially affect bee health. Concurrently, the
> monitored hives were surveyed for pesticide residues.
> The project was started in 2003, results of the first years were published by Genersch et al. (2010).
> Factors that were found to be correlated with colony losses include
> V. destructo
> r infestation, certain
> virus diseases, age of the queen and weakness of the colony; no correlations were found with
> Nosema
> infestation and the exposure to pesticides.
> A similar study was conducted in the years 2002-2005 in France. In total 125 hives from 25 apiaries
> distributed over the country were surveyed over the study period regarding their health and their survival,
> and pesticide residues were measured in several relevant hive matrices like pollen, beeswax and honey.
> The results were published by Chauzat et al. (2006; 2009; 2011) and Chauzat and Faucon (2007). Although
> a relatively high number of pesticide residues were detected from a rather broad range of compounds,
> there was no correlation between pesticide residues in bee hives and colony mortality.


Pollinator.org P32, P35


----------



## JClark

CentralPAguy said:


> I found the articles/linksthat BorderBeeman provided to be insightful. Some of the comments that were placed on this thread and other threads that he/she created were useless to the discussion as it seemed that they really were bullying and ridicule.


Probably.



CentralPAguy said:


> said that, I suffered large percentage of losses on my country beeyards but didn't suffer so much with my town beeyards and I really want to know what caused the differences.


My first guess would be the more abundant nectar flow in towns due to landscaping and the artificial warming of towns due to retained solar radiation in paved surfaces--not neonics. The flow here in suburbialand is amazing and I'm curious how this will compare with my hives when I finally put a few on my property.

You should start taking detailed notes on honey stores, rates and timing of build up, and temps at the hive locations to see how different they are. Make notes of the landscaping in the town and talk to your neighboring farmers to see what they actually grow and how they grow it. Is it hayfield and dairy operations, no-till commodities w/ GMO products, organic market gardens (think there are a few in your area) etc. From there you could begin to probe reasons for the differences. Neonic use may be negligible in the area. Would take several years and then your data are still conjecture but at least you could form a semi-informed opinion on your particular situation. 

This is what I'd do since it seems you may really be curious as to the cause and not just anti-neonic for the simple reason that it is a chemical made by a corporation. Much harder than fingering a villain for sure. I, personally, grow all my own veggies in a suburban lot and would not use neonics in my production unless it was to combat something VERY severe where the benefits drastically outweighed the risks. Much easier to do when I don't rely on it as a matter of survival though. Can't sit here in my comfortable home and full belly and condemn those that rely on products to better their situation (whether it ultimately betters their situation for real is a whole other debate).


----------

