BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jerry Bromenshenk <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:15:22 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (84 lines)
All, I've finished a review of honey bees and biosensors for inclusion in  a Special Issue on Agricutlural Biosensors.  I have two place-holder photos that are readily found on the Internet, but I need original photos and permission  from the provider to use, if I'm to actually use in the published article.
 
1) The Wood's Apidictor was the first electronic device to be applied to bee management to detect swarming.  A few hundred were produced and sold.  Lots of pics on Internet, and it would appear that some pics are in the common domain, but the provenance is impossible to ascertain.  I assume someone in U.K. must still have one of these devices, or one is in a museum, where a picture could be obtained and a note from the provider that gives me permission to use in the published article?
 
2) Inscentinel - they worked with us in the USA some years ago.  Apparently ran out of money last year.  They initially worked with some folks at Rothamsted Research.  Neither Norman Carreck nor Lin Field at Rothamsted seem to know who worked with them, yet some of the Internet pics of the bees in holders list Rothamsted in the credits.  

Apparently Oxford Technology provided the start-up funding for Inscentinel.  The contact is Lucius Carey.  Both Insentinel and Oxford Technology still have accessible web sites, but no emails are being answered, and the phones have been disconnected or changed.

Like the Apidictor, lots of pics on Internet of Inscentinel bees and devices, we may even have some, but I can't use any of the pics without someone at either Rothamsted or preferably Lucius providing a pic with written (email is fine) permission to use.

I can publish the paper without pics of these two technologies, but seeing  in  this case is a real benefit.  The original Apidictor was in a lunch-box sized wooden box, some were lined with red velvet.  The Insecentinel bees in their holders were iconic.  Pictures of these technologies would significantly contribute to the overall article.

I've done what I can from the USA, but I've run out of contacts.  The journal  won't publish pics unless we've got pics that we know that we and the journal have permission to use, or that can be clearly shown to be in the public domain.

Since both technologies are from the U.K., I'm hoping someone on the other side of the pond can help me out.

 
J.J. Bromenshenk
Bee Alert
Missoula, Mt
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Loring Borst <[log in to unmask]>
To: BEE-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 7:17 am
Subject: Re: [BEE-L] Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates


Hi all

Honestly, to invoke native pollinators in the context of agriculture
is a red herring. A farm is not a wildlife preserve. Everybody loves wildlife
but there are places where it isn't welcome. Some folks would like to see lions
in the mountains of Southern California, but every time one of them comes down
into the suburbs and snatches a toddler, the interest seems to wane. 

Farmers
that need pollinators will naturally prefer honey bees, because they can get
them in and out as needed. If some conservationist tries to tell them how to
farm to protect butterflies, potentially putting their crop at risk, that's
going to be a tough sell. There are wildlife preserves for a variety of species,
why do we think native insects should be protected in farm lands? 

The fences
along the Interstate keep wildlife off the highways. This prevents some wildlife
from getting killed, of course, but the main reason is that animals wandering on
the highway would kill thousands of people. The insurance industry estimates
that the annual cost to society for fatalities and injuries is $200 million per
year. 

From the viewpoint of the farmer, you would have to make a stronger
case for the protection of insects on his farm, if his chief goal is to rid his
farm of insects. The case will be especially hard to make if the farmer is
growing crops that don't require bees, like corn, or if he uses honey bees,
which are generally moved out after the bloom has passed.

Don't misunderstand
me, I love native plants and insects as much as anyone, but I don't think that
my predilections should be imposed on other people, least of all farmers who
raise the food I eat. I have an organic garden here at the house, we probably
get less than a third of the expected yield due to birds, bugs, etc. If it
weren't for the ten foot fence the deer would eat everything before it got more
than 6 inches high. So I need farmers, or I don't eat. They should have a voice
in this discussion.

PLB

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2