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:
Peter Dillon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:24:20 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (77 lines)
Jim Fischer supports his comments relating to my observations of sunflowers flowering earlier than
normal in a manner that seems to indicate that a few more joules are required in the "global warming
scenario - point taken!

The original title to the mail was a little pushy - but seemed to capture modern day media speak.

But - there they are, well in advance, this year! Barley is 10 days early and so is Rape.

Returning back to the premise that if these plants and other crops are treated with systemic
materials (often as seed treatment).

These systemic molecules are found to be present in plant tissue for * number of days (resulting in
plants being protected from various forms of attack) - and after this period it is (they are) either
not present or converted into harmless metabolites, inoffensive to honey bees at the start and
during flowering period.

I wish to know:
Is the length of time the material is present in the plant:
a. For a fixed period (+/- SD being taken into account) from seed treatment date / germination.
b. For a variable period depending on how long it takes for a plant to attain a particular stage in
its life cycle.

If it is the former - then the possibility of a shorter than average period being taken to arrive at
a flowering stage may result in toxic material being available to honey bees via. nectar/ pollen.
If the average time taken to get from seed germination to flowering is 60 days and a material gained
acceptance on to the market because data suggests that after 50 days that the systemic material is
no longer "active" - there is a risk allowance of 10 days.

But:
If the plant is able to (due to weather conditions) arrive at flowering in 45 days, then potential
poisoning may take place.
Who is liable - I suggest that it is not the beekeeper.
The Farmer ?, for putting a substance in reach of honey bees, if it is stated that the product
should not be used during flowering periods?
The Manufacturer, for supplying a toxin that is possibly available in nectar/ pollen?

To my mind, an insecticide that due to unseasonable growth conditions becoming available to honey
bees should be removed from the market - even though under "normal" growth conditions allows for
"safe" use.

It maybe argued that one year showing advanced flowering - tough, beekeepers accept the
consequences!
But what happens if this becomes 2 years out of 5 years.

All this may  be considered highly hypothetical, searching for problems.
But looking at what has happened in the past - we beekeepers have harvested far too many dead
colonies as a result of pesticide poisoning.
IMHO, the risk allowance between what kills, what appears to be sub-lethal poisoning and No Observed
Effect levels is important.
When molecules are being put onto the market, is there enough lea way allowing for shortened growth
periods to occur?

We beekeepers have our own related problem! Example:
Antibiotic applications have to be undertaken allowing for a period to pass before honey may be
collected from treated hives. Due to advances in detection techniques becoming rather accurate at
extremely low levels / the fixing of residue levels - much care and strict adherence to timetables
must take place.
But if honey starts arriving in supers earlier!
We, I presume cannot continue applying materials in the traditional manner/ time frame - If we do
continue, then the resulting honey crop will be considered "unfit"
I do not think the proffering of the excuse that the flowers arrived early this year would be
accepted as a valid reason for having more than 1ppm (or what ever the final residue levels are
fixed at for a particular material) in the resulting honey crop.

We have to obey the regulations - so should the agro-chemical manufacturers/ users.
Maybe this has all be taken into account already, but I have no evidence that it has, and would be
most pleased to be informed that it has.
Regards,
Peter

PS: My lad appears to have grown 3 cm. in 120 days - can this be put down to climate change? and who
can I claim against since his clothing labeled "15 years" does not fit this 15 year old.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ATOM RSS1 RSS2