several Randy and Charles quotes followed>> by my comments and questions...
>My queen operation is in a cornfield.  No comparison.  I run fair
> numbers,  95% take on cells.   75-85% mated.    But I have no "clean yards"
> to compare to.

>>My question (humbly submitted) here to Charles is what kind of comb are you using to rear these queens? Basically is it new, relatively new or very aged comb? Long ago I made a remark about the area dripping in ag chemicals and I had the idea at the time Charles thought I was talking about neonic (which only bother me a little and impacts my own bees not in the least) but in terms of the area would place fungicides, emulsifiers and surfactants at the top of my own list as problems for honeybees.


So clearly you have success in obtaining mated queens in a neonic/soy
area.  How about premature failure--any noticable problems?  After
successful introduction, 20% failure of healthy queens would not be
abnormal.

>>I have reared queens for several decades and have casually worked for one very well known queen rearer and I would suggest (much like where it seems the discussion is going in terms of neonics specifically and ag chemicals in general) it is not one thing that impacts a queen getting successfully mated and imho all queens that are quickly supersceded are not ALL necessarily due to them failing due to exposure to ag chemicals.  At least here erratic nectar flows and constant high winds will get you the same bad end results.


Thanks Charlie.  I was the first beekeeper in the U.S. to file an incident
report with EPA on clothianidin.  Two days ago I forwarded a detailed
beekeeper's report of bee/brood kills in almonds to EPA, the almond board,
CDPR, and others.  And I just had a long discussion with the head of Bayer
mite control products regarding beekeepers problems with insecticides.

>>'the evil corporate overlords' (<all tongue in cheek) do get a bad rap from some folks but as far as I can tell they all employ good folks who are very motivated about dealing with problems.  They also typically have the funds and the expertise to address any problem that may impact them short or long term.  Basically if you have the funds any problem is an opportunity. 


As well as the fungicides and surfactants!  I'm in complete agreement.


> >SO while we at it,  I would take a completely different position to Randy
> and Most people position that we "use way to much" pesticides.  It's a
> strawman argument.

>>At this point my own experience would be in disagreement with Charles and more in line with what Randy suggest. I have worked in various forms and scale of agriculture since I was in my early teens and the time line of use of most agricultural sprays (for bugs, or fungicides or whatever) follows the same growth curve.  Basically when crop patterns change the new crop in the field has few problems but with repeated years of rearing the same crop problems arise and grows as does the inevitable 'remedies' that farmers use to reduce these problems. Like one of those basic laws of physics... for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


There is plenty of evidence that by practicing IPM and crop rotation that
dependence upon pesticides can be reduced.  As consumers shift their
demands upon the growers, perhaps including paying a bit more for product,
agriculture will continue to shift.  This is certainly occurring in
California, and with hope will spread to the Corn Belt.  Charlie is correct
that it is all about incentive and economics. Consumers vote with their
dollars, and farmers respond.

>> in beekeeping we seem to have inverted the IPM triangle.  Recently someone has posted an article and picture on the local clubs facebook page concerning the use of Roundup and right there on the picture at the top of the article is what appears to be inserted into a hive is a strip of a insecticide to counter varroa. Do you really think the average consumer really understand what is placed into a hive by the beekeeper?  Which just between me and you may be several fold more lethal that something like Roundup.  Of course the beekeeper has more control over the one item potentially contaminating the food supply than the other < at least a basic consideration when it comes to my own decision making.  Do you really think most or all beekeepers recognize or even consider the long terms consequence or the impact on the brand that is honey of placing such material in a hive? 

>>I have long though that many of the problems in beekeeping are economic in nature. However there is a significant supply line and a lot of marketing hype between the producer and the ultimate consumer when it comes to honey. Consequently (and this applies to most if not all agricultural crops in terms of how or if the economic system works in terms of modifying producer's  and consumer's behavior) what happens at the consumer end of the supply chain may have little or no effect at the production end of the supply chain.

Gene > back in Central Texas after a long week away doing a bit of science for one of the 'evil corporate overlords'. 

             ***********************************************
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