Just to be clear, John, when you said this "The paper uses only Italian maize and Canadian forestry as examples -" you were talking about the reference you gave us a link to....by Furlan and Kreutzweiser?


Simon-Delso, Noa, et al. covered a lot of territory, only a little of it had to do with a review of alternatives like the paper you mentioned. The authors state "Neonicotinoid seed treatments are routinely applied to the vast majority of grain and oilseed crops in developed countries, regardless of pest pressures or field histories. Untreated seeds are often unavailable for purchase.  In fact, in many of the most important crops grown in North America (notably maize), there are no non-neonicotinoid seed alternatives readily available to producers in the marketplace. Because any subsequent crop insurance claims by producers must document that accepted standard practices were used during planting, there is an inherent risk in requesting seed that is markedly different from the standard. This may present a disincentive for producers that would otherwise attempt growing untreated seeds in some fields."


They go on to say that the alternatives mentioned in the Furlan and Kreutzweiser paper (the one you linked us to) "...may help to minimize the risk of insect and other arthropod resistance.....to neonicotinoids and reduce overall operational costs."


But it seems clear that they aren't advocating any particular alternative and in fact see problems with finding any here in the US.


A bit of encouragement, to me at least, is this:  "However, because the pests targeted by neonicotinoids are generally occasional, sporadic, and secondary pests, these benefits are not routinely found: a review of literature by Stevens and Jenkins (2014) found inconsistent benefits in 11 of 19 peer-reviewed papers examined, and no benefit in the remaining 8 articles. Considering the nature of the pests targeted, this is not altogether surprising. By definition, these secondary pests are often not present or present in subeconomic levels. However, they do occur and it is crucial that crop producers have options for management. These resources do exist: there is a significant base of knowledge for managing these secondary pests, and agricultural practices such as crop rotation drastically reduce the need for control through neonicotinoids in many cases (Apenet 2009, 2010, 2011). Indeed, the cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic use of neonicotinoids has in the past and recently been questioned (Maini et al. 2010; Stevens and Jenkins 2014). Several studies have shown that the use of neonicotinoids does not necessarily result in increased yield or economic benefit, thereby bringing into question the advisability of a widespread and prophylactic use of neonicotinoid insecticides (Apenet 2011; Mole et al. 2013; Stokstad 2013)."


I'd like to think this kind of data will lead to some important revisions in agricultural practice...changes that won't compromise the crop yield, that will actually reduce the cost of growing the crops, and will also help the beneficials like our honeybees by resulting in less chemical use overall.  I hope.



Christina





             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html