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:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:18:36 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (60 lines)
>
> >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.


For comparison, those are enviable takes--spot on for any good queen
producer--good enough for bragging rights.  And far better than that
attained for the control group in nearly any scientific study that I've
read.

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 would say with no reservations,  Randy is one of the biggest skeptics on
> any pesticide.  He's no fan of neonics,  but he is understanding more than
> most the consequenses.


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.


>  > Any real discussion of Neonics  needs to include OPs
> any Pyrethroids.  Without that you're not having an intelligent discussion.
> That's where I get upset.


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.


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.

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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