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:
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:55:45 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
Stan,

Great response.

You actually made my point, which was

> Let us say that the neonics are the cause of all our troubles.
> >
>
> Let's not.  First of all it doesn't have any purpose.  It is probably
> untrue.
>

You also substantiate another point about being near or around the neonics


> I never saw cyclic losses.  When farmers shifted to set treatment from soil
>
>> injection I saw losses lessen.  We still have 1200 hives to unwrap but
>> losses in the first 2000 are running about 10 percent (before dink culling
>> which will add another 5 percent at least).  Losses in the hives that were
>> in thiamethoxam treated canola last year are not significantly higher than
>> other hives.
>>
>
Your experience is the same I see with beekeepers who control Varroa and
nosema and know how to do it properly. Generally they are around 15% plus
or minus 5%.

You will note that my points have always been with seed treatment since it
reduces the amount of pesticide in the soil. Your experience with soil
injection is completely different that seed treatment and I now understand
why you were so concerned with persistence, since the difference in the
amounts used is significant. You should also note that Regent is injected
and is taken up by plants.

I am completely against spray and not too happy with soil application
methods other than seed treatment, mainly because of amounts used and lack
of targeting specific seed eating or sucking insects. All those methods are
killers of just about everything in their path. The reason I support the
use of neonics, unless they can be proven more harmful than to date, is
seed treatment and reduced pesticide use. After that, all bets are off.

I could respond to other points you made, but they are your experience,
which I share, but not that of the propagandists that are all for a
complete ban on all neonics, regardless of application methods or class.

My post was to show that the neonics are not the be all and end all of our
troubles as some beekeepers seem to imply. Just check all the documentaries
and news articles that do just that.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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