# Ontario restricts use of neonicotinoids



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Manitoba farmers hang on to your seed! I sense a run on sales...


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Looks like grain prices will be going up next year. I truly feel for the farmers up there. They're to reduce neonic use by 80%, but they are also supposed to also have a 15% decrease in the amount of honeybee overwintering deaths by 2017. Honeybees as we know them aren't even native to the Americas.

Uh, what are the farmers supposed to spray on their crops... that will also reduce overwintering deaths of honeybees? It makes good political headlines for the uninformed but the devil is in the details.


----------



## SRatcliff (Mar 19, 2011)

"It strikes me odd that when people think of the impact of farming upon bees that they focus upon pesticides. In truth, the most destructive annihilator of natural ecosystems is the act of tillage—the mechanical preparation of land for the growing of crops" -Randy Oliver

I don't disagree that there are major issues with mainstream commercial agriculture, but pesticides aren't the root of the problem. We need more sustainability in our food production at a more local level.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

SRatcliff said:


> We need more sustainability in our food production at a more local level.


Usually sustainability means smaller and diversified. I think that would increase our honey bee foraging crops


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Here is what is being proposed - the overwintering goal is by 2020. 15% is a bit optimistic IMO. 

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/pollinator/discuss-paper.pdf


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

D Coates said:


> Uh, what are the farmers supposed to spray on their crops... that will also reduce overwintering deaths of honeybees?


Water would be good.


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

From the cbc article

"Limiting the number of honey bees that die during winter by 15 per cent by 2020"

I wish Manitoba would enact this type of legislation. I am sick and tired of the bees deciding to have higher death rates than that. Once the bees achieve the 85% rate, I think the government should require the bees to have yet higher survival rates. Bravo Ontario.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> what are the farmers supposed to spray on their crops ...


Acebird said:


> Water would be good.


Yeah, they could punch holes in some of those _infamous _*5 gallon buckets o'water* that Ace came up with and walk up and down the rows spraying the crop! 
:lpf:


:gh:


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Allen Martens said:


> From the cbc article
> 
> "Limiting the number of honey bees that die during winter by 15 per cent by 2020"
> 
> I wish Manitoba would enact this type of legislation. I am sick and tired of the bees deciding to have higher death rates than that. Once the bees achieve the 85% rate, I think the government should require the bees to have yet higher survival rates. Bravo Ontario.


What's the government going to do if the bees don't comply? Arrest them and throw them in jail?

Bravo Ontario, really? Legislating a mortality rate isn't waving a magic wand. They should also legislate that bees always make a 200-pound honey surplus. And that they never sting their keepers. Oh! And that they never swarm out of arm's reach.

Ridiculous.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

jwcarlson said:


> What's the government going to do if the bees don't comply? Arrest them and throw them in jail?
> 
> Bravo Ontario, really? Legislating a mortality rate isn't waving a magic wand. They should also legislate that bees always make a 200-pound honey surplus. And that they never sting their keepers. Oh! And that they never swarm out of arm's reach.
> 
> Ridiculous.


Take the the time to read the discussion paper I posted in post #6. Its always better to read the source and not some media interpretation.


----------



## rniles (Oct 10, 2012)

Good for Ontario and Canada.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Be interesting to see how quickly the winter losses lower. And how the crops do in Ontario.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I would rather tank mix herbicide insecticide rather than deal with the bureaucracy to enact this policy. I have and am participating in BMP management programs for the cattle industry and wow out of touch, slow and out to lunch. NOTHING like a bunch of suits suggesting better more efficient ways to manage cattle....

This is the wrong way to deal with an issue that is not there. But I guess beekeepers will find that one out the hard way...


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

Ian said:


> ...This is the wrong way to deal with an issue that is not there. But I guess beekeepers will find that one out the hard way...


Is it 'not there', Ian? What are they seeing in areas where they have been banned?

And I'm not saying this sarcastically or rhetorically. I respect your opinions very much. I just feel like there are a lot of passionate and intelligent people on both sides of this. Are they all just wrong?

I tend to feel like its probably somewhere in the middle. Which means all the the intelligent points hold some water.

Adam


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I tend to feel like its probably somewhere in the middle. Which means all the the intelligent points hold some water.


This is the truth. The science isn't in to conclusively prove that neonics are safe or unsafe. The argument is really over the precautionary principle. Do we restrict/ban neonics until the science is in or continue to use them. Of course in the minds of some on both sides there is no gray area at all.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Is it 'not there', Ian? What are they seeing in areas where they have been banned?
> 
> And I'm not saying this sarcastically or rhetorically. I respect your opinions very much. I just feel like there are a lot of passionate and intelligent people on both sides of this. Are they all just wrong?
> 
> ...


Its not there. You show me evidence this product is affecting the hive systemically, as the argument goes. We have been using this seed treatment since the mid 90's. 40% of my landscape has been covered with this product since the mid 90's. My bees feed primarily on plant grown with this seed treatment primarily through out the summer and continue to feed on its pollen into fall and the next spring. Corn, Soybean, Canola, Sunflowers; My hives live in Neonic city!!!



If you want to talk about something there, lets talk about the planter dust issue. Or the bucket full of newly disease in our hives, or the loss of foraging area and forage diversity. How about in hive chemical residues and their effect on the bees ability to handle any incoming toxin. Queens? Shal we get started on queen quality? How about the coldest winter the Canadian prairies including ONtario had for 125 or so year...? 
Variables fellas, variables.


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

95% of corn surfaces gain no yield benefit from treated seeds, because the pests are simply not in the soil to begin with.
Soybeans gain no yield from seed treatment, except in southern-most United States. It even kills 25% of beneficial predatory insects, leaving the plant more vulnerable to aphids later in the season.
In Canola, the cabbage flea beetle is lowering in importance, being replaced by the stripped flea beetle, against which neonics are not registered and do not provide adequate control of.

The science is sound, and incredibly incriminating. To state otherwise is to prove that one hasn't actually looked up the articles. Even the PMRA admits that, when they granted a temporary homologation, the makers had not provided all of the studies necessary. So they asked for more studies to be done. They then admit that the studies they received years later were crap, and again decided to give them more time.

Neonics were found in all rivers that were tested in Québec. It's found in fields where it was not applied. In all of the wetlands. It's in our wells. Do you go fishing? It's in your fish. Do you go hunting? Someone told me about a friend who shot a turkey, and when cleaning it, accidentally pierced the stomach. What spilled out? Treated corn. Had he not accidentally done that, he'd have eaten contaminated turkey meat.

Prophylactic use of these systemic water-soluble and persistent pesticides is not in the favor of farmers. Not only does it favor the appearance of resistance, but it leaves no sanctuary for beneficial predatory insects. A single treated seed kills a bird. Seed treatment increases crop vulnerability and farmer's dependance on phytosanitary products. It forces them to pay for useless seed treatment, and then again to kill the pests that would otherwise have been controlled.

Ontario's measures won't come into effect next year, and 80% is less than what could be achieved through proper IPM. It's a very reasonable measure.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/pollinator/discuss-paper.pdf

"The PMRA has stated that there is a strong link between
contaminated dust from planting NNI-treated corn and
soybean seeds with vacuum planters and acute bee deaths
in Ontario. We also know that globally, scientific research is
indicating that widespread use of NNI insecticides, leading
to sub-lethal levels of exposure, may be contributing to a
decline in pollinator health.
There is also some evidence, such as the Task Force on
Systemic Pesticides review of 800 peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles, to suggest that NNIs have the potential to
have broader environmental impacts beyond acute and
chronic effects on bees and other pollinators, and may be
affecting a number of different organisms including birds,
earthworms and aquatic invertebrates."

Of all that neonic use, and all those 800 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, the use "and may be" to justify these opinions? Not facts. The only fact they are using is the planter dust event, in which is used to justify these opinions.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Dominic said:


> In Canola, the cabbage flea beetle is lowering in importance, being replaced by the stripped flea beetle, against which neonics are not registered and do not provide adequate control of.


Yes there is, and we are using it


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

Ian said:


> If you want to talk about something there, lets talk about the planter dust issue. Or the bucket full of newly disease in our hives, or the loss of foraging area and forage diversity. How about in hive chemical residues and their effect on the bees ability to handle any incoming toxin. Queens? Shal we get started on queen quality? How about the coldest winter the Canadian prairies including ONtario had for 125 or so year...?
> Variables fellas, variables.


Disease? Studies prove neonics increase susceptibility to disease.

Queens? Studies show neonics decrease fertility. Plus, studies show that queen quality can be dramatically decreased by exposure to nosema early in their lives... which brings us back to the point above: neonics favor nosema.

And viral replication. Proven with DWV, which is also the virus that is linked to higher mortality when linked with varroa.

And lower winter survival. Which is also obvious correlated to above factors.

You don't see the incidence of neonics because you don't want to. It's easy to blame diseases, queens, and winter, and completely disregard the proven effect neonics have on amplifying them.

You are lucky to live in a canola region. It doesn't mean your bees aren't affected by neonics, but it does mean that they are exposed to significantly lower concentrations of it, because canola pollen is highly nutritious and the bees don't need to consume large quantities of it to satisfy their needs, unlike with corn pollen which is nutritionally poor. That doesn't mean that they aren't harmed at the same time, however.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Ian said:


> We have been using this seed treatment since the mid 90's.


This is a false statement. Clothianidin wasn't registered until 2003 and didn't go into wide usage until well after that. Stick to the facts.



Ian said:


> If you want to talk about something there, lets talk about the planter dust issue. Or the bucket full of newly disease in our hives, or the loss of foraging area and forage diversity. How about in hive chemical residues and their effect on the bees ability to handle any incoming toxin. Queens? Shal we get started on queen quality? How about the coldest winter the Canadian prairies including ONtario had for 125 or so year...?
> Variables fellas, variables.


Sure all those things are a factor across Canada, but I guess Ontario beekeepers just don't know what they are doing. That's why they have been experiencing higher average year on year losses than the rest of Canada.

No point in rehashing the last thread on this. I guess we'll see in 2020. I can't see overwintering loss falling to 15%, but its not hard to see it falling back inline with losses in the rest of the country.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Dominic said:


> You are lucky to live in a canola region. It doesn't mean your bees aren't affected by neonics, but it does mean that they are exposed to significantly lower concentrations of it, because canola pollen is highly nutritious and the bees don't need to consume large quantities of it to satisfy their needs, unlike with corn pollen which is nutritionally poor. That doesn't mean that they aren't harmed at the same time, however.


right,... corn pollen is nutritionally poor. Hint hint; if your bees are desperate enough to have to scavange on corn pollen, then perhaps the hive is in a state of mal nourishment which just may cause the colony some health issues...



zhiv9 said:


> This is a false statement. Clothianidin wasn't registered until 2003 and didn't go into wide usage until well after that. Stick to the facts.


Thiamethoxam


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Ian said:


> Thiamethoxam


Approved for corn in 2002


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

zhiv9 said:


> Approved for corn in 2002


so pull the Clothianidin and leave the Thiamethoxam alone 

Anybody want to give a chemistry lesson on these two compounds?


We have the same corn, and the same treatments. The only difference is we have higher planting densities of corn soybean canola and sunflower than Ontario.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Ian said:


> so pull the Clothianidin and leave the Thiamethoxam alone
> 
> Anybody want to give a chemistry lesson on these two compounds?


Both went into widespread use in the mid-2000s not the mid-90s. One breaks down into the other.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I use to mix the stuff


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Well the good news is that there will be no more bees dying in ontario with the neonics being phased out. Or not.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

http://live.ezezine.com/ezine/archives/1636/1636-2014.11.26.20.59.archive.html


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

I stated this in the last thread but for the record

All my hives are within a couple of hundred metres of corn planting in spring.
Almost all my hives are monoculture fields of mostly canola, soybeans, corn and sunflowers. No natural habitat.
About a third of hives stay in this intensely farmed area for fall.

My winter losses are consistently between 5 - 10%. This is in line with many other beekeepers in my area. If neonics are causing problems for bees mine should be a prime candidate. If the hypothesis that is neonics severely affects bee health and winter survival, then every time bees are exposed to significant levels of neonics, bee health should adversely affected and winter survival rates should be low. If this is not always the case, then other issues need to be investigate. Granted synergistic effects may come into play but that is true for many substances bees are exposed.

As I have stated before, I believe spraying of insecticides will increase dramatically. If grain farmers see the beekeeping community as one of the reasons for the banning of neonics, much of the goodwill between the two groups will be lost. I fear grain farmers will not be nearly as accommodating. Day time applications, residue insecticides, restricted access, etc. Law of unintended consequences. 

It bothers me that grain farmers are often portrayed as knuckle dragging Neanderthals. They are running multimillion dollar business with very tight margins most years. Farmers are not going to use products in the long term that don't give them a return on investment. Some studies show no benefit but I would submit that real world evidence does not support this. Pest levels are not reaching economic thresholds nearly as often; far less spraying of insecticides.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Far less spraying and a tremendous amount more life within the field canopy.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Don't panic. The pesticide industry will produce a new cool tool to save the World. And again it'll need 10 years or so until that becomes banned. Kick back and relax.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Now that those pesticides have been banned, what will the tree huggers blame their bee losses on next?


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

Ian said:


> Yes there is, and we are using it


Really? You want to tell us what neonic you use for foliar application against flea beetles in canola?

Because I just double-checked what the lady said at the conference. And there isn't a neonic on the list. What I see is:

carbaryl
cyantraniliprole
cyperméthrine
lambda-cyhalothrine
malathion
perméthrine


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

Allen Martens said:


> It bothers me that grain farmers are often portrayed as knuckle dragging Neanderthals. They are running multimillion dollar business with very tight margins most years. Farmers are not going to use products in the long term that don't give them a return on investment. Some studies show no benefit but I would submit that real world evidence does not support this. Pest levels are not reaching economic thresholds nearly as often; far less spraying of insecticides.


Except they do. I've been to grain production conferences, and they were told that the seed treatments offer no yield gain. They were given subsidies to scout, but decided to funnel the funds to other ends for the most part, so barely anyone participated. And many of those who scouted used treated seeds anyways, even if they knew it was useless.

Now, it's not entirely their fault. The seed suppliers, in the last years, were systematically selling treated seeds, and many varieties were simply not available untreated. Then, under pressure, they started offering untreated seeds. Sometimes, they sold these for more than the treated seeds! Why would a farmer pay more for less protection? The offer is somewhat better now, but still not perfect, and untreated seeds only go for about 5$ less than treated seeds, which is far from the actual cost of the pesticide. So companies are pressuring the farmers to buy treated seeds, and skewing market dynamics in their favor, because when farmers want untreated seeds, they can't get them for the same price they used to, and thus essentially pay about the same price as treated seeds for less.

As farms grow, farmers are less and less aware of what goes on in their fields. They rely more and more on agronomists and the people who sell products to make the decisions for them. With agri-business, farmers cease being farmers, they become agricultural business managers. It's like the extended warranties stores sell. Do you buy them? A lot of people buy them. It offers peace of mind. Even if often, it offers no or little additional protection over basic legal warranties. But people pay for it anyways. Same goes with pesticides and farmers. Do they need to use as much? Maybe not. But the seller tells them they'll get a return on their investment. So why take the risk? 0.1% yield gain? But think about the bad years!

I do believe that farmers are under great pressure to do as they do, but I also do not believe anything can ever really absolve anyone of all responsibility. They still decide to go along. And the consequences of their decision affect much more than just their own farms.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

zhiv9 said:


> Here is what is being proposed - the overwintering goal is by 2020. 15% is a bit optimistic IMO.
> 
> http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/pollinator/discuss-paper.pdf


If they are banning neonics, why is 15% optimistic?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Dominic said:


> Really? You want to tell us what neonic you use for foliar application against flea beetles in canola?
> 
> Because I just double-checked what the lady said at the conference. And there isn't a neonic on the list. What I see is:


We do not have issues with flea beetles after the first true leaf appears as the plant can out grow the attack. These canola seed treatments only target the first two weeks of growth. 
The new neonic seed treatment for canola now covers cutworms, stripped and crusifer flea beetles. Dominic, I use the stuff, Im not making this up...



Dominic said:


> Except they do. I've been to grain production conferences, and they were told that the seed treatments offer no yield gain.


Of course it does not offer yield gain. Yield gain is the seed breeders business. The seed treatment, like any other chemical application protects the yield of the plant. Without that treatments foliage applications would be in the insect management plan.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Haraga said:


> If they are banning neonics, why is 15% optimistic?


Pre-neonics losses averaged above 15%, so it stands to reason that post-neonics losses would average above that as well. Neonics aren't being banned just restricted.


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

Dominic said:


> Except they do. I've been to grain production conferences, and they were told that the seed treatments offer no yield gain.


Yield gain is not the reason seed treatments are being used. They are used to reduce the probability of yield reduction due to insects. They are used because the are cost effective when compared to conventional insect control.


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

Ian said:


> We do not have issues with flea beetles after the first true leaf appears as the plant can out grow the attack. These canola seed treatments only target the first two weeks of growth.
> The new neonic seed treatment for canola now covers cutworms, stripped and crusifer flea beetles.


And this is why I prefer neonics to foliage applications especially if I am seeing no ill effects from the neonics. No scrambling to move bees away from fields being sprayed and missing half of the potential honey production season anyways.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Allen Martens said:


> And this is why I prefer neonics to foliage applications especially if I am seeing no ill effects from the neonics. No scrambling to move bees away from fields being sprayed and missing half of the potential honey production season anyways.


If this policy becomes popular and starts being adopted through out the prairies, our farm as most others here would simply switch back to broadcast spraying. Just now we have the proper machinery to achieve this job very efficiently, so we would be tank mixing insecticide with all our herbicide treatments. We will be ready for the change right off the hop and carry on with business...

For the bees on the otherhand, I will have to change my spring time strategy dramatically. Instead of spreading my hives out during the spring to capture all the spring pollen flows I will hide them out in a wooded area somewhat isolated from fields. And There they will stay until the canola in the area stage into three leaf to cabbage.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Allen Martens said:


> Yield gain is not the reason seed treatments are being used. They are used to reduce the probability of yield reduction due to insects. They are used because the are cost effective when compared to conventional insect control.


When will people get that into their heads?


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

Haraga said:


> When will people get that into their heads?


Never, because it's irresponsible, and completely contrary to basic IPM principles. Want insurances? Scout the fields. No bugs? No problem.

"Yield gain" is just another way of saying "no yield loss". Saying that yield gains are for the seed makers, and pesticides are for reducing yield losses is little more than a hollow battle over semantics. "Neonics offer no yield gain on 95% of corn surfaces" is the same as saying that "The absence of neonics do not cause any yield loss on 95% of corn surfaces". Because 95% of the surfaces lack enough soil pests to cause yield losses to begin with.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Dominic said:


> Never, because it's irresponsible, and completely contrary to basic IPM principles. Want insurances? Scout the fields. No bugs? No problem.
> 
> "Yield gain" is just another way of saying "no yield loss". Saying that yield gains are for the seed makers, and pesticides are for reducing yield losses is little more than a hollow battle over semantics. "Neonics offer no yield gain on 95% of corn surfaces" is the same as saying that "The absence of neonics do not cause any yield loss on 95% of corn surfaces". Because 95% of the surfaces lack enough soil pests to cause yield losses to begin with.


Spoken from a true non farmer.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Haraga next on the chopping block would be fungicides. Fungicide use does not increase crop yields either, so why would we use them in part of our crop protection strategy?


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

You nailed it Ian. The tree huggers aren't stopping with the neonics ban. When time will prove that the losses are still happening they will move on to the next chemical.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Apivar mite treatments offer no gain in colony growth, neither does formic or Thymol or Oxalic...


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Yes Ian studies have shown that those hive chemicals provide no gain in colony growth. In fact studies have shown that excessive use of these chemicals can kill bees. Maybe those chemicals should be banned?😳


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Spent 40k+ weeding 25 acres with a crew this year.... that's the smart way to do it apparently.... Just go scout your field, it'll be fine, don't worry about it..... You can't fix blind optimism and stupidity sometimes. The problem is when you wait, the damage is done by the time you notice it, then you have to add an input to stave off further yield loss, if this makes sense to you, I bet you actually farm and not just read publications on the best ways to do it on paper.....


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Well said JRG13.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

Is winter survival % the correct metric to follow? A switch to foliar application of insecticides will be less likely to impact winter survival. Colonies will be damaged immediately more so than months down the road.

Insecticide usage will decrease until pest populations increase.

If foliar application of insecticides becomes a normal practice where I keep bees it will greatly impact how I keep bees, neonic use does not.

Tom


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

TWall said:


> Is winter survival % the correct metric to follow?


You can only use metrics/data that are available. With the PMRA and EPA unwilling to force studies that look at LDL and chronic effects there isn't a lot of research to demonstrate what the effects are. The research is lacking from both sides. There is incredibly little research to demonstrate neonics safety which is why they were only given temporary approval here. A few very short term field trials that have generally been poorly done.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

The only thought I would weigh in with is the point made above. Neonics were not thoroughly tested to begin with. Read the original studies on which they were approved for use and you will see significant lack of attention to detail.

I've seen how effective neonics can be when properly used. Since I am not in an area that heavily uses them, I have no direct observations to comment on.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Yesterday, the Ontario premier’s office and the ministry of the environment and climate change revealed its plan to restrict the use of neonicotinoid seed treatments. The goal, referred to as “aspirational,” is to reduce the number of Ontario corn and soybean acres planted with the seed treatment by 80% by the year 2017. The details of the new rules, regulations and certification for using the pesticide will be determined by July of 2015, the province says, following a two month consultation process running through December, 2014, and January, 2015.
You’ll note I didn’t say that the ministry of agriculture, food and rural affairs is proposing this plan, even though, yes, technically it is. Want to know why? Because from what I saw yesterday, OMAFRA isn’t the lead on this even a little — premier Kathleen Wynne and her environment minister, Glen Murray, are. And if I were Jeff Leal, minister of agriculture, food and rural affairs, or an Ontario farmer, I’d be feeling more than a little bullied at this point.
That this isn’t being driven by OMAFRA is a significant point, and speaks to the challenge ahead for farmers. It’s one thing to have to deal with changes and increased regulation stemming from your own ministry — a ministry that should understand and respect the complexity of your industry. It’s another beast to be expected to morph and fall in line with the demands of a ministry that is only handing down demands and not offering up any help on the solutions side. Mix in a bit of blatant ignorance of (or disregard for, I can’t tell which it is) farming and agriculture, and we’ve got ourselves a hot mess.
Farmers are, understandably, upset over the coming regulations. Wynne and Murray are busy patting themselves on the back and reminding voters how great they are, while simultaneously disregarding what it means on the ground for farmers and the environment. How so? Read on.
What Wynne and Murray, and apparently most of the Ontario government, fail to grasp is how growing food actually works. What really gets me worked up in all of this is the total disregard for biological systems — we can’t EVER view change or management of a farming system in isolation. I’ve written about this before, and Rob Wallbridge does a great job explaining the folly of ‘silver bullet mentality’ here, but somehow the concept of farming and agriculture being complex is lost in the politicians’ zeal to appease the idealistic masses. Every decision farmers make has a consequence — using tillage, not tilling, spraying, not spraying, a change in seeding rates, variety selection, crop rotation…row spacing…do I need to continue? You can’t view neonic use as a single item, just as a ban or near-ban fails to address the entire issue.
A near-ban on neonics fails to consider the reasons the products were introduced in the first place, and what beneficial aspects they offer over past products. A near-ban fails to account for how farmers may manage for targeted pests instead, perhaps through increased tillage or more foliar sprays. A near-ban fails to recognize the incredible amount of work already going in to adapting the farming operation to mitigate risks to pollinators (at farmers’ expense). This near-ban fails to account for the human element in both beekeeping and in neighbour relations. This near-ban also seems to fly in the face of Ontario’s own extension work, which stated the products are likely necessary on 30% of Ontario acres, and runs into trouble with Canada’s own regulatory system.
And what of our dear bees? Is the fact that farmers want continued access to neonics equivalent to disregarding bee health? Absolutely not, and here’s where pesky science comes in. Perhaps coincidentally, Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) yesterday released an update of its ongoing evaluation of neonic usage and its impact on bee health. You can read it for yourself by following this link, but I’ll give you the Cole’s Notes version: neonics can impact bee health; how farmers use neonics can mitigate that risk. Several other factors contribute to bee health, including simple things like communication between farmers and beekeepers and what the beekeepers do with and to their hives. Weather also plays a role in bee health. Neonics are used in several other jurisdictions with high honeybee populations without incidents of neonic-linked bee death. What’s more, 72% of post-planting bee deaths in Ontario in 2014 were reported by a grand total of three beekeepers. THREE. Let that sink in.
My point is, that there are few farmers who would deny the importance or significance of bees to agriculture. Corn and soybean farmers heard of concerns regarding neonic usage, took them to heart, and in the spring climbed on the back of their planters and mixed in Fluency agent with hockey sticks, for crying out loud. If we’re looking for someone who is going to “Save the Bees!” I’d suggest we look no further than farmers themselves. Last time I checked, there was very little a city could do to support the livelihood of honey producers, as I’m pretty sure bees can’t forage on concrete and car exhaust.
Here’s what I want to see — I want to see Jeff Leal stand up for farmers and his ministry. I want ministers Murray and Leal to fully recognize and respect what farming entails, and the complexity of decisions made and actions taken on the farm in a growing season. I want Leal to fight for agriculture, for the necessity of science-based regulations, firmly rooted in practicality and reality. I want farmers to be respected as business people — people who are running a business vital to our very survival. We’re not talking about an industry that makes knick-knacks and throw pillows — we need food. Farmers grow food, but farmers can only stay in business if they’re profitable. Is banning one product going to bankrupt farmers? Of course not, but regulating an industry based on popular ideals is bad business and will absolutely have long-term impacts on the profitability of the sector.
Instead of bullying farmers and creating an adversary, I suggest Wynne et. al. give farmers the respect they deserve and recognize their boots-on-the-ground role in preserving not just pollinator health, but the health of our soils, waterways and food systems.
Farmers, for their part, also have to be willing to adopt new practices, adapt to change and adhere to sound stewardship practices. What’s more, the “Trust me, I’m a farmer” no longer carries the clout it once did — the masses have spoken, and the simply don’t accept your word as enough.
But if that’s what we as consumers expect of our farmers, we have to base changes to rules and regulations on more than public sentiment. Farmers deserve much more respect than that.


http://www.realagriculture.com/2014...well-ontario-farmers-get-steamrolled-neonics/


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

What’s more, 72% of post-planting bee deaths in Ontario in 2014 were reported by a grand total of three beekeepers. THREE. Let that sink in.

Very interesting, Cam.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Haraga said:


> What’s more, 72% of post-planting bee deaths in Ontario in 2014 were reported by a grand total of three beekeepers. THREE. Let that sink in.
> 
> Very interesting, Cam.


With a 58% loss there were a lot less bees to lose. The unusual spring also contributed. From the PMRA:

"A complete analysis is not yet available, but information to date indicates the number of incident reports associated with neonicotinoid pesticide use during the planting period in 2014 is 70 percent lower than in 2013. A direct correlation to the risk mitigation measures cannot be made because the cold wet spring in southwestern Ontario meant that corn was planted later and less intensively than in previous years, possibly influencing the reduction in the number of incidents. As well, the cold spring meant that there were differences in bee foraging activity and available forage relative to timing of corn planting."

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/neonicotinoid/neonicotinoid-eng.php


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Also from the PMRA:

"In 2013 and 2014, Health Canada's PMRA received an increase in incident reports of poorly performing hives later in the season.

At this time, it is unclear what factors may be responsible for these reports. It may be that beekeepers have become more vigilant in reporting unusual symptoms observed in their colonies, as well as more aware of the process of reporting these issues to Health Canada's PMRA and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. In 2013, some of the colonies affected later in the season had pesticide residues present in the hives; whereas, some colonies did not have any measurable residues, making it difficult to determine whether or not pesticides were a contributing factor to the effects reported."

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/neonicotinoid/neonicotinoid-eng.php


----------



## Brad Bee (Apr 15, 2013)

Ian said:


> Usually sustainability means smaller and diversified. I think that would increase our honey bee foraging crops


I'm not a row crop farmer, but how do you suppose you get farming back on a smaller level? Ever try to justify buying a $300,000 combine to pick 200 acres of corn? Cropland is being turned into subdivisions at an ever increasing rate. Farmers have to do more with less than ever before.

What diversification do you want to see? Diversification of crops? Have you ever stopped to think what impact it would have on society if there was just a 10% reduction in soybean and corn acreage? I doubt it.

I am not a fan of systemic insecticides either.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

TWall said:


> Is winter survival % the correct metric to follow?


Absolutely not. You should track childhood cancers.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

camero7 said:


> A near-ban on neonics fails to consider the reasons the products were introduced in the first place, and what beneficial aspects they offer over past products. A near-ban fails to account for how farmers may manage for targeted pests instead, perhaps through increased tillage or more foliar sprays. A near-ban fails to recognize the incredible amount of work already going in to adapting the farming operation to mitigate risks to pollinators (at farmers’ expense). This near-ban fails to account for the human element in both beekeeping and in neighbour relations. This near-ban also seems to fly in the face of Ontario’s own extension work, which stated the products are likely necessary on 30% of Ontario acres, and runs into trouble with Canada’s own regulatory syst


Good post Cam. 

I need someone to find me that clapping icon, I need it in response to that post.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Brad Bee said:


> What diversification do you want to see? Diversification of crops? Have you ever stopped to think what impact it would have on society if there was just a 10% reduction in soybean and corn acreage? I doubt it.


I think you miss understood what I said. You can not argue diversified smaller farms would provide more honeybee forage. That's common sense. More fields of differing cropping rotations will give more forage availability than large mono culture fields. 
Whether or not turning back the clock is actually feasible is not what I was eluding to.


----------



## Brad Bee (Apr 15, 2013)

What I meant was that there isn't going to be diversification because there are really only 2 summer crops that are planted on 99% of the cropland. That's corn and soybeans. You could get smaller fields of each but that's basically all you're gonna see. In the US anyway.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Brad Bee said:


> What I meant was that there isn't going to be diversification because there are really only 2 summer crops that are planted on 99% of the cropland. That's corn and soybeans. You could get smaller fields of each but that's basically all you're gonna see. In the US anyway.


With livestock comes pastures legume cropping rotations.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Ian said:


> Good post Cam.
> 
> I need someone to find me that clapping icon, I need it in response to that post.


Would have been nice if he at least put quotes around content he cut and pasted....


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

camero7 said:


> A near-ban on neonics fails to consider the reasons the products were introduced in the first place,


If you think it had anything to do with the good of the people I would say you are a tad naive.

The ban puts the focus on what is for the better good not on just how can "we" control the worlds food source. People, government, has to push industry into doing what is right. It will never ever happen on their own accord.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Just curious Ace, how many acres have you farmed?


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

> If you think it had anything to do with the good of the people I would say you are a tad naive.
> 
> The ban puts the focus on what is for the better good not on just how can "we" control the worlds food source. People, government, has to push industry into doing what is right. It will never ever happen on their own accord.


That is a pretty jaded view of the world. And, a gross assumption that a ban on neonics is somehow good.

Looking for 'the government' to solve problems is an even bigger problem. There are places in this world where the government makes many decisions for its' people. I don't think there are better places to live.

Tom


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

camero7 said:


> Just curious Ace, how many acres have you farmed?


I think on paper, it has to be over 1,600! In real life, he has a 1/8 acre garden at the house.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

However, Ace has the benefit of having a closeup and personal view of ... mmm ... _environmental hazards_ at that garden. 

See this link from the US EPA database about an '_emergency cleanup_' at that property:
http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/efsyst...&database_type=CERCLIS&fac_value=NYN000205841


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> However, Ace has the benefit of having a closeup and personal view of ... mmm ... _environmental hazards_ at that garden.


You are supporting what I am saying. Industry could care less what effects it has on the environment. Who is left to clean up what they did? Everyone else.

There needs to be a solution that doesn't involve continual use of poisons that always affect future lives no matter what the cost. In the end the cost are minuscule compared to the clean up and effects on human life.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, Ace, that depends on *who *created the problem at your garden site. According to the database link, the cleanup was performed by the 'responsible party', not the government.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Well, Ace, that depends on *who *created the problem at your garden site. According to the database link, the cleanup was performed by the 'responsible party', not the government.


It is still there. They just stopped polluting. BTW re-calibrate your GPS the site is not at my garden. It is miles up the creek.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Miles up the creek? :scratch: :s



Funny how the address in the EPA database is


> 425 LOMOND PLACE


Does that ring any bells for you?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

zhiv9 said:


> Would have been nice if he at least put quotes around content he cut and pasted....


I don't know why you addressed that to me, :scratch: but you must of missed this reference posted at the bottom of his post;
http://www.realagriculture.com/2014...well-ontario-farmers-get-steamrolled-neonics/


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Does that ring any bells for you?


LMAO, sure does. Asbestos contractor owes back taxes so they got to him through the EPA. What a circus that was. BTW by law the owner of a self storage business does not know what is stored in a personal storage bin even though many things are illegal to store in them. Examples would be flammables, fire arms and ammo and drugs of course. It will take a dog approximately 2.5 minutes to find the storage bin out of 500+ bins. No way for the renter to claim innocence if their name is on the contract.

I thought you were referring to the PCB site up the creek that Nabber sited.


----------



## Michigander (Jul 31, 2014)

Acebird said:


> There needs to be a solution that doesn't involve continual use of poisons that always affect future lives no matter what the cost. In the end the cost are minuscule compared to the clean up and effects on human life.


I agree. Ontario should ban all mite treatments. After all they are just poisons in the hive. This would increase overwintering success dramatically, right? Why worry about neonicotinoids when we are putting poisons right in the hives. 

This would be a good experiment. But.... I am glad I am not a farmer in Ontario right now and if Ontario followed my advice I would not want to be a beekeeper there either.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

In the future I would hate to be a beek in ontario when the farmer figures out that the seed treat has been taken off the market. The beek better hope he has a new location for his bees.


----------



## erikebrown (Oct 27, 2014)

*Alberta beekeepers oppose pesticide ban*

http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/alberta-beekeepers-oppose-pesticide-ban


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Alberta is where all the money is in Canada so I doubt if they have a strong concern for the environment.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Alberta is where all the money is in Canada so I doubt if they have a strong concern for the environment.


Here is more of Ace's _deep thinking_ to go along with the above blarney ....


Acebird said:


> Any fruit you buy is heavily poisoned.


:bus


----------



## erikebrown (Oct 27, 2014)

Acebird said:


> Alberta is where all the money is in Canada so I doubt if they have a strong concern for the environment.


Well, I certainly have no idea. What I found interesting was that the local beekeepers were opposed to the idea because they have not seen pesticide-related problems. Even though Alberta is a pretty heavy user of neonics.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Alberta is where all the money is in Canada so I doubt if they have a strong concern for the environment.


Please explain.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Think I'll put Ace on my ignore list for a while. Lots of hot air with little substance.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

camero7 said:


> Think I'll put Ace on my ignore list for a while. Lots of hot air with little substance.


Well go to the other provinces and listen to what they say. Provence's have much more power than federal in Canada. Not like the US.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Here is more of Ace's _deep thinking_ to go along with the above blarney ....


Tell me what you know about Canada from Tennessee when your only mode of travel is an IP addresses.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Ace, what I do know is that this is a thread about '_changes in the laws in Ontario (Canada) regarding neonicotinoids_'. 

Your ramblings about the relative wealth of various Canadian provinces, and their related level of environmental concern, are just unsupported _*fantasy *_that you dream up, unless you can back them up with some facts/links. :kn:


And you are *completely clueless* about any travel to Canada, or anywhere else for that matter, that I may have engaged in.

:ws:

For the record, I _did _check my facts about Canadian provinces relative household wealth before composing this post. And it shouldn't surprise anyone that, *once again*, _Ace was wrong_.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Looks like it's time again for a Mark Twain quote.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

I have mentioned seeing these maps in presentations previously, but this is the first time I have seen them posted online.

https://twitter.com/OntarioBee/status/538698582258614273

Map of report bee/colony deaths in 2013:

https://twitter.com/OntarioBee/status/538698779764219904

This isn't just dust incidents. Again from the PMRA's recent update on the 2013 season:

"In 2013 and 2014, Health Canada's PMRA received an increase in incident reports of poorly performing hives later in the season."

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/neonicotinoid/neonicotinoid-eng.php


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

bet if those corn plants had bee friendly flowers...

that other red spot of corn in Western Canada is where my hives live,


----------

