We're currently involved in small-scale market growing, so things like salad
greens, tomatoes, market root crops, etc.  That includes corn and beans but
on a smaller scale than the size fields being talked about in the previous
posts.  We also have livestock pasture and hay fields which periodically
needs to be renovated, so seed there too.  Cover crops (including legumes
such as clover and alfalfa) are part of the plan but we've only used them
sporadically so far while we get our field rotations nailed down a little
better.  And finally, we're gearing up to start with small grains production
(wheat, rye, barley) for the local feed industry.  Overall, we are currently
working 20 acres.  Within the next 5-10 years we will likely expand but
probably never beyond the 100 acre threshold.

I got to wondering last night how it could be that folks doing bee research
hadn't been able to find anyone who used untreated seed.  Part of it might
have been where the research was being conducted, and/or the size of the
farming operation.  In the context of the messages, it seems that the
research in question was being done in fields dedicated to large-scale
monocrops (soybeans, field corn, etc) on a scale of at least dozens if not
hundreds of acres per field.  That puts the conversation into the realm of
the commodities farmer, buying large lots of seed for planting any given
field.  That would reduce the number of dealers who those farmers could work
with to source their seed.  But even at that scale, untreated seed is
commercially available.  Just sitting here I can think of several dealers
I'd turn to, if I needed to plant untreated seed at those scales (including
corn, beans, clovers, etc).  As for the cost, that's figured into the
production costs as a whole, and the resulting product is priced
accordingly.  One of the reasons certified organic foods and feeds are more
expensive, is because of the costs of planting certified organic seed, using
approved naturally-sourced fertilizers, Integrated Pest Management, etc.

The issue with finding untreated seed, and farmers who use it, may also have
been an issue with semantics.  Seed can be treated with a lot of things,
thus technically be described as "treated", yet not be treated with neonics.
For instance, cotton seed is often treated with hydrogen peroxide to de-lint
the seed so it goes through the machinery more smoothly.  Chlorine products
are used as a flash treatment fungicide, with a half-life of the residue
being measured in minutes rather than days. Both of those, within
limitations, are allowed under organic certification. And then you've got
the heavy-handed "dunk that seed in all manner of toxic brews to kill
everything possibly growing around it", which I believe was what the
research was trying to avoid.  That approach in general is NOT allowed under
NOP rules, specifically because of the residues problem.  Yet simply using
the term "treated seed" would have been too general to distinguish between
those various scenarios.

Having said all that, neonic compounds are explicitly forbidden under NOP
rules, regardless of scale, market, commodity, cost, etc.  Period.  In fact,
neonics are one of the classes of residue that farmers must test for as part
of their transition to organic practices.  If the fields still have a heavy
residue, that land can't be certified.  Since some of those residues are
persistent, lands which haven't been sprayed or treated in years can still
be deemed off limits for certification thanks to those residues.  Thus, if a
farmer is/was using seed treated with neonics, they were either dramatically
and expensively violating the terms of their certification, or they weren't
certified to begin with.  Lots and lots of claims out there about
such-n-such farmer working under the organic rules.  It certainly gives them
a marketing advantage.  But until/unless that farmer has their certification
number from a licensed organic certification agency, those claims are
worthless.  That particular neonics exclusion has no wiggle room at all
within certified production.  So there is no circumstance I was able to
find, where a farmer could be a certified organic grower, and still be using
neonics in the field.

If finding certified organic fields, and/or working with certified organic
growers, plays a role in future bee research, there are definitely ways to
hook up with certified organic growers.  Furthermore, those growers would be
able to provide extensive documentation on what has been used on the fields,
when, in what concentrations, etc.  But the work to find them will need a
little effort.  I would encourage anyone wanting to work with such growers,
to actively seek them out by hooking up with organic certification agencies
and/or organic growers' professional organizations to find them.
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 charles Linder
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BEE-L] Good News For A Change About Bumbles

However, I am very
interested in the comments made about the availability of untreated seed.

Kathy,  what types of seeds are you purchasing?    I think the previous
comments were based around corn, beans and alfalfa/ clover.



Charles

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