> I have read reports out of France that detail imadicloprid's
> effect on the honey bee.
We all have.
Its been talked about endlessly. Ad nauseam, even.
For what seems like years, because it has been years.
Bottom line, if anyone saw the specific symptoms seen in
France repeated here in the USofA, we beekeepers would
have been the first to march upon the offices of Bayer
Cropscience with pitchforks, hive tools, torches, and
blunt instruments.
Lucky for us we did not act so rashly. Bayer's been doing
some serious work on the project, for free. I somehow doubt
that they would have been quite so generous and cooperative
if we had redcued their offices to a smoking ruin based upon
mere impressions and innuendo.
It may well be that one or more pesticides play a role in
the gestalt of CCD. But stop and pretend you are a
beekeeper for a moment - you have a choice between:
a) pesticides applied to seeds in carefully-controlled
tiny doses by a company that is forced to keep records
and undergo inspections, one that can be easily sued if
their products kill your bees. (Note that all the press
about bees over the past year assures a sympathetic jury.)
b) a farm worker, perhaps not having English skills sufficient
to even read the pesticide label, let alone comprehend the
technical jargon on the label, spraying pesticides hither
and yon as he daydreams.
c) a state employee, spraying with wild abandon in a vain
attempt to control mosquitoes with an adultacide, when it
is well known that only larvecides (applied to water) have
any impact at all on mosquito populations. (In fact, such
efforts are more "PR" than insect control, which is why
they tend to be done during daylight hours, when bees are
flying, in direct violation of label requirements and EPA
regulations. PR must be seen to be effective.
d) an air national guard pilot, who must fly (and spray)
due to the declaration of an "emergency", such as a flood,
but lacking both the navigational equipment and the training
to fly at low altitudes at dusk or at night. So, he flies
during daylight hours, and sprays under the banner of
state-sponsored "emergency actions", exempt from nearly
all pesticide regulations.
Which would you prefer? I know that I would prefer the
more modern approach. Most pesticide kills are a direct
result of human error or malfeasance. The new pesticides
really ARE much less toxic to bees than the old stuff.
Eliminating the human-error scenarios can't hurt, can it?
We walk a very thin line. Our pollination customers are
heavy users of pesticides, and they certainly don't want
to kill our bees. But in a service business like
pollination, the first rule has to be that you don't yell
at the customer.
> "the idea of putting insecticide in a beehive is
> inherently a little daffy."
Yep, this has been noted countless times. We wish we had a
better way. People are working on such better ways.
Maybe some of them will pan out, prove to be of long-term
value, and prove to be able to "scale" to operations larger
than 100 hives. Hope so. But in the meanwhile, people
have kids to feed, bills to pay, and pollination contracts
to meet. So, yes we DO put miticides into beehives.
Yes, we are very very well aware of the irony.
Beekeeping will likely be the last segment of agriculture
to abandon organophosphates. Some beekeepers put these
chemicals into their brood chambers. Now that's ironic.
> "Worshipping science can be just as faulty as other kinds
> of idolatry."
There is no worship. In fact, the entire process is one of
NON-worship, with each and every conclusion and claim made
subject to a full range of challenge, critique, and scorn
if it is in any way less-than bulletproof.
So, if there is any "belief" or "worship" it is belief in
the process of skepticism, and a trust that some young
gun looking to make a name for him or herself will build
some street cred by taking on any less-than perfect
reasoning or less-than adequate datasets, or less-than
rigorous statistical treatments.
Yep, that's right - the only belief is in the strict policy of
non-belief and universal skepticism as applied to the work at hand.
Maybe that's worship of rationality.
If so, fine.
> I find it strange that there are beekeepers out there defending
> these products.
A lack of baseless indictment is not "defense", nor is calling
to account the irresponsible attempts to indict by those having
little or no data to prove their claims. I wonder sometimes
what the agenda actually is of people who want to distract the
attention of all and sundry, but I have watched enough 3-Card
Monty games to suspect such misdirection of having a purpose.
If you want knee-jerk reactions like "chemicals are bad - nature
is good", you certainly came to the wrong place. Along with
industrial-grade skepticism, the other basic ingredient you'll
find around here is some Mil-Spec pragmatism. So, we are not
about to point blame in the wrong direction just because it
might "feel good". I don't think anyone is "defending"
anything. But the lack of tangible proof for the
claim is important to point out, as it directs us to look
elsewhere, in more productive places.
> As a reporter I am simply relating theories out there as 'wildly'
> different as they may be.
We've yet to see a single story in "the press" that did not
contain at least one massive, knee-slapping, ROTFLMAO,
completely bogus statement or conclusion, often an attempt
at "insight" by someone who could not pick out a drone
from a worker bee at a 2-foot distance.
Yes, there is certainly is no shortage of "theories" out there.
While theoretical physics somehow still maintains some shred
of legitimacy, there never has been a field of "theoretical
beekeeping". Beekeeping is 100% "practice" and our mantra is
that "Theory is the same as practice, except in practice".
We often get into very long heartfelt disagreements about
issues of practice, so don't expect us to show wide-eyed
amazement at the fact that different people have different
opinions. 'Cause without things like "controlled studies",
"statistical analysis", and whatever "peer review" is
possible in such a small an obscure field as ours, what
one has is nothing more than mere opinion, and the bulk
of opinions aren't worth the paper they aren't written upon.
> We don't know what is causing CCD.
Correction - you don't.
Some other folks think they do.
They seem to have convinced the publishers of a science
journal that they have sufficient proof to back their
statements up.
I think we should hear them out.
If they can support their contentions with facts, we
will listen. If they can't, we will slice, dice, puree
and mince them and their data so as to make sure that
any tiny shreds of fact don't go ignored. Heck, that
will probably be done regardless of the level of proof
provided, as there seem to be "World Trade" implications,
so there are people who well get paid good money to make
baseless arguments both pro and con.
But as I said, we'll just have to wait for "the paper", won't we?
> And it's not necessarily one singular thing.
That's a contention in its own right, one that would
require more than opinion to support it.
Of course there may be multiple factors at work here.
But if there are, they will likely be found one by one. We
are well-acquainted with the "X + Y + Z = Boom" equation, but
we have to admit that the forces being focused on the problem
are more "analysis" than "synthesis" in nature. No problem,
lots of things get solved one piece at a time. So, turn the
crank, and see what comes out the slot. Better than sitting
around contemplating the "interconnectedness of all things",
and the futility of our feeble efforts in the face of such
overwhelming complexity, dontcha think?
Just to prove my point, a series of contrasting views are
sure to be offered, as even my non-controversial statements
are certain to prompt rebuttals and comments from those who
see things differently.
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
