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:
Mike Griggs <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:33:13 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
Many commercial, side line and even hobby beekeepers don't quibble with the need to use pesticides as an economic necessity, nor do large commercial farms and  there is a reason (read below -a bit dated but relevant).  Farmers don't like that their production goes down or that their costs to control a given pest go up any more than beekeepers.  Beekeepers don't like to loose bees which equates with production declines /loss of income.

There is a need to develop new methods to access the risks of each pesticide (fungicide, insecticide, herbicide, etc) against economic and environmental costs.   Its apparent that combinations of interacting chemicals need to be accessed as to their environmental impact vs economic impact--off target effects.  Quite frankly the trends show that the message is getting across that we can get by with less use of chemicals and the stats bare that out.  It is a bit ambiguous what the impact of more targeted pesticides have on this assessment.  (i.e. ULV-ultra low volume--but generally less off target exposure) 

Regardless its good to see the trends toward less chemicals used, more critical evaluation of likely off target effects, ULV,  new classes of control and a more cautious approach to pesticide use.  Along with this is a better understanding of the need to look more closely at affects of chronic, sub-leathal exposure.  That said that will equal more costs and more regulations which I know is a big issue to everyone.

Mike
------------------------------------------------------

Environmental and Economic Costs of Pesticide Use: An assessment based on currently available US data, although incomplete, tallies $8 billion in annual costs 

Worldwide, approximately 2.5 million tons of pesticides are applied each year with a purchase price of $20 billion (Pesticide News 1990). In the United States, approximately 500,000 tons of 600 different types of pesticides are used annually at a cost of $4.1 billion, including application costs (Pimentel et al. 1991). Pesticides make a significant contribution to maintaining world food production. In general, each dollar invested in pesticide control returns approximately $4 in crops saved. Estimates are that losses to pests would increase 10% if no pesticides were used at all; specific crop losses would range from zero to nearly 100%. Despite the widespread use of pesticides in the United States, pests (principally insects, plant pathogens, and weeds) destroy 37% of all potential food and fiber crops (Pimentel 1990).

Environmental and Economic Costs of Pesticide UseAuthor(s): David Pimentel, H. Acquay, M. Biltonen, P. Rice, M. Silva, J. Nelson, V. Lipner, S.Giordano, A. Horowitz, M. D'AmoreReviewed work(s):Source: BioScience, Vol. 42, No. 10 (Nov., 1992), pp. 750-760Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological SciencesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1311994 .Accessed: 09/02/2012 09:48

-------------------------------------------------------

sorry that the full article is not deadly available for distribution.

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2