If I may, what is lost in these discussions is that there is a large and
growing group of farmers, working with all crops at all scales of size, who
aren't using pesticides or herbicides at all. Certified organic farming has
been a reality for over 20 years, where pest and weed issues are handled
much, MUCH differently than "which chemical cocktail shall we pour out upon
the world today?" And they're doing so profitably. Yet that approach to
production is still treated like some fantasy. I would strongly encourage
folks, again, to consider that we as a society have bought into the idea
that we need herbicides and pesticides. Lots and lots and lots of proof now
that we don't. There's a reason the agrichemical companies spend a fortune
on advertising and marketing - it's to keep us convinced that we still do.
If they really truly were the only game in town, they could save themselves
that cost and reap even higher profits. The fact that they have to continue
to pour so much money into marketing should be the dead giveaway that
they're working really hard to sell us something we don't actually need.
Kathryn Kerby
Frogchorusfarm.com
Snohomish, WA
-----Original Message-----
From: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Loring Borst
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 8:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BEE-L] nsecticides which show the least toxicity to bees
Hi all
What is lost in these discussions is that there are many pesticides which
are toxic to bees and neonics may be one of the least problematical.
Beekeepers and environmentalists need to work _with_ agriculturists to forge
compromises. The factionalization of the world seems to be increasing, with
lines drawn in the sand over every issue. Few people appear interested in
the idea of a mutually beneficial solution, preferring to dig in and fight
forever. You see this on a global, national, and regional level. Sadly,
every time one of these factions "wins" they use the victory as leverage to
raise money to finance other battles, often completely unrelated. Here's a
bit of back story from 1953:
> For years economic entomology has suffered from a dichotomy of purpose
arising, on the one hand, from the necessity of controlling harmful insects
and, on the other, from the necessity of protecting beneficial forms of
life. It was only upon the advent of the synthetic organic insecticides with
their comparatively selective toxicity that entomologists began to hope for
a chemical program of insect control which would not cause too drastic an
upset in the balance of nature. And it is only this selective toxicity of
organic insecticides which makes a study of the toxicity of insecticides to
honeybees worthwhile.
> When there were no adequate alternate methods of chemical control of
insects, and the grower had to choose between using a specific insecticide
or employing the wholly inadequate programs of cultural and biological
control, studies of the effects of the insecticide on bees were largely
academic.
> But with a constantly increasing number of insecticides to choose from, a
grower can, if he wishes, select the insecticide which will cause a minimum
of damage to bees and still control insect pests. Since farmers are becoming
increasingly aware of the value of honeybees as pollinators of many field
crops, there is at least some hope that the insecticides which show the
least toxicity to bees will be preferred on many farms.
Weaver, J. N. (1953). Toxicity of Certain Organic Insecticides to Honeybees
(Doctoral dissertation, A. & M. College of Texas.).
***********************************************
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
***********************************************
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
|
