Bees: Pesticide restrictions must be extended to wheat - new Friends of the Earth report

[dontknowanything]

Not at all. I'm looking after my own interests. Using chemicals to mitigate risk is one of them. Going cold turkey overnight is going to get me sacked WHEN I lose a crop. My successor will then have a brief to stop messing about with greenies and grow the damn crop. Then what good have I done?

Would you do everything a NGO told you to?

No, why would I? I'm not the one who thought pointing out FoE was biased was relevant.

 

[shakerator]

Come now, let's not use absurdities to make a point. Two different specie are affected differently - that means nothing and you know it!

Use the same variety of wheat, some treated and some not, then see what happens. Also one must consider that sub-lethal doses may also have a negative effect on other species, like bees for example.

whats absurd about it? its well known oats and barley are more severely affected than wheat hence why i brought this example to attention.

remember bayer dont recommend deter efficacy below 100kg/ha. if FoE was correct we would achieve residual CSFB control in OSR following deter treated wheat as surely the smaller insects are going to be affected first.

neonics are an easy target because the tech is still largely on patent so the "bad guys" have money in the game.

nobody from these organisations seems to mention the less sexy topics eg. mixing triazoles with pyrethroids is exponentially more toxic for bees (less repellent - im sure this is done with tight workloads on some units)

as said before once neonic are off patent we will move to diamides and go through this all over again

 

[shakerator]

So you'd consider yourself to be totally impartial and unbiased on this matter?

et toi?

 

[dontknowanything]

whats absurd about it? its well known oats and barley are more severely affected than wheat hence why i brought this example to attention

neonics are an easy target because the tech is still largely on patent so the "bad guys" have money in the game.

nobody from these organisations seems to mention the less sexy topics eg. mixing triazoles with pyrethroids is exponentially more toxic for bees- im sure this is done with tight workloads on some units

So let me get this straight - you're saying oats are more affected by BYDV, so the fact they get an infection in a wheat field when the wheat doesn't shows what exactly?

There may well be practices that are "even worse" than neonics, they should also be looked at, but it doesn't affect the virtues of any other practice one way or the other.

 

[dontknowanything]

et toi?

No, I've never claimed to be, everyone has bias.

I would like to think I'm fairly open minded though, and I have the large luxury of being my own boss, so I don't have to please anyone else and always go for the safest option to keep my job.

 

[shakerator]

So let me get this straight - you're saying oats are more affected by BYDV, so the fact they get an infection in a wheat field when the wheat doesn't shows what exactly?

There may well be practices that are "even worse" than neonics, they should also be looked at, but it doesn't affect the virtues of any other practice one way or the other.

it shows that a "high" loading of deter in the soil (200kg/ha seed), did not in this case result in incidental protection of non target species (weeds) which could just as easily be nectar rich weeds in a given field- you would never see this degree of selectivity with pyrethroid over spraying

 

[dontknowanything]

it shows that a "high" loading of deter in the soil (200kg/ha seed), did not in this case result in incidental protection of non target species (weeds) which could just as easily be nectar rich weeds in a given field- you would never see this degree of selectivity with pyrethroid over spraying

OK, you'll convince me when you show me the results of treating wild oat seeds directly with deter to compare with this scenario...

 

[Sandra Bell]

Pretty sure that has been done already?

Yes you are right - neonic residues have been found in pollen collected from crops and wildflowers: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b03459

 

[Chalky]

And oestrogen from the contraceptive pill is drinking water used by humans. Feminised fish species found etc etc..

Want to go for wholesale population explosion & really put the environment under the cosh?

Since humans became able to adapt their environment, they have done so. Engineering, technology, profit, invention & necessity give us the earth we are all existing on-and it will obviously change as we go into the future.

I am not suggesting that we throw caution to the wind with our use of chemicals, and I am talking about all synthetic chemicals here, not just agchems. Detergents, fuels, paint. drugs, solvents. The list is endless.

Good science is needed to weigh up risk/alternative and impact/benefit. We have regulatory bodies doing that, but science is fluid and as history shows us, things change. Thalidomide, DDT.

Political and charity driven axe grinding cannot be relied upon to give an unbiased decision.

Failing that-all back to the stone age without everything humans have ever achieved. I fancy a farmer is going to fare a deal better than a Guardianista.

 

[dontknowanything]

Yes you are right - neonic residues have been found in pollen collected from crops and wildflowers: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b03459

Your link doesn't work, try this

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b03459

 

[shakerator]

Your link doesn't work, try this

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b03459

$40 for 48 hours access is certainly biased!

 

[dontknowanything]

Good science is needed to weigh up risk/alternative and impact/benefit. We have regulatory bodies doing that, but science is fluid and as history shows us, things change. Thalidomide, DDT.

Political and charity driven axe grinding cannot be relied upon to give an unbiased decision.

Anyone who stops using neonics, or glyphosate, or whatever, because FoE says they should is a cretin.

The regulatory bodies are not perfect, but they're as good as we've got, and I trust them to make the right, scientific, decision. I do find it bemusing how the NFU calls for a "science led debate", until there's some science that goes against what they want to show. Apparently it's only some science that is acceptable.

I have two reasons for trying to stop using neonics. One is that I do believe, without much hard evidence, that insecticide use leads to more insecticide use, and I would like to get off that hamster wheel. The same goes for other insecticides too by the way, although the discussions pretty much all focus around neonics at the moment, so that is where I contribute. The second reason is that I would like to stop spending so much fu!#&ng money on chemical inputs. Double spend per tonne of wheat produced over the last 15 years...it's crazy.

 

[fudge]

There is no clarity to government strategy at the moment. Perhaps they should commit themselves to supporting organic farming. If organic production were to be supported to the degree it was a similar price to conventionally produced food then there would be no bar to consumers choosing it. This would minimise the impact of UK consumers need for pesticides in the UK countryside. Conventional farmers would of course be free to produce on a level playing field with those countries we choose to do free trade deals with, such as the USA.

 

[dontknowanything]

$40 for 48 hours access is certainly biased!

Quick, call @Feldspar

Try this one too, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412015301161

Abstract
There is considerable and ongoing debate as to the harm inflicted on bees by exposure to agricultural pesticides. In part, the lack of consensus reflects a shortage of information on field-realistic levels of exposure. Here, we quantify concentrations of neonicotinoid insecticides and fungicides in the pollen of oilseed rape, and in pollen of wildflowers growing near arable fields. We then compare this to concentrations of these pesticides found in pollen collected by honey bees and in pollen and adult bees sampled from bumble bee colonies placed on arable farms. We also compared this with levels found in bumble bee colonies placed in urban areas. Pollen of oilseed rape was heavily contaminated with a broad range of pesticides, as was the pollen of wildflowers growing nearby. Consequently, pollen collected by both bee species also contained a wide range of pesticides, notably including the fungicides carbendazim, boscalid, flusilazole, metconazole, tebuconazole and trifloxystrobin and the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam, thiacloprid and imidacloprid. In bumble bees, the fungicides carbendazim, boscalid, tebuconazole, flusilazole and metconazole were present at concentrations up to 73 nanogram/gram (ng/g). It is notable that pollen collected by bumble bees in rural areas contained high levels of the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam (mean 18 ng/g) and thiacloprid (mean 2.9 ng/g), along with a range of fungicides, some of which are known to act synergistically with neonicotinoids. Pesticide exposure of bumble bee colonies in urban areas was much lower than in rural areas. Understanding the effects of simultaneous exposure of bees to complex mixtures of pesticides remains a major challenge.

 

[dontknowanything]

There is no clarity to government strategy at the moment. Perhaps they should commit themselves to supporting organic farming. If organic production were to be supported to the degree it was a similar price to conventionally produced food then there would be no bar to consumers choosing it. This would minimise the impact of UK consumers need for pesticides in the UK countryside. Conventional farmers would of course be free to produce on a level playing field with those countries we choose to do free trade deals with, such as the USA.

I would be against that. Why use that particular artificial distinction?

What do we want to do? Produce nutrient dense food, improve the environment, and sequester carbon? Well let's come up with a way of doing that to maximum effect, rather than getting bogged down in what the Soil Association thinks will make them appear less evil to a consumer.

 

[Feldspar]

$40 for 48 hours access is certainly biased!

PM sent.

 

[fudge]

I would be against that. Why use that particular artificial distinction?

What do we want to do? Produce nutrient dense food, improve the environment, and sequester carbon? Well let's come up with a way of doing that to maximum effect, rather than getting bogged down in what the Soil Association thinks will make them appear less evil to a consumer.

Well the default position is free trade. We are not the USA we won't isolate ourselves it is economic suicide for the UK. Organic food is an established brand that could be sold to the electorate. You position is just another farmer trying to make national policy fit your existing practice? If there is a "third" way the industry will have to sell it. Why would taxpayers continue to cough up for a system which has doubled it's spend on chemicals? Increasing the area under organic production would also help the whole industry by reducing local production. We see price rises in the arable sector based on biofuels. This won't last, electric vehicles are the future we know that already.

 

[shakerator]

Quick, call @Feldspar

Try this one too, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412015301161

Abstract
There is considerable and ongoing debate as to the harm inflicted on bees by exposure to agricultural pesticides. In part, the lack of consensus reflects a shortage of information on field-realistic levels of exposure. Here, we quantify concentrations of neonicotinoid insecticides and fungicides in the pollen of oilseed rape, and in pollen of wildflowers growing near arable fields. We then compare this to concentrations of these pesticides found in pollen collected by honey bees and in pollen and adult bees sampled from bumble bee colonies placed on arable farms. We also compared this with levels found in bumble bee colonies placed in urban areas. Pollen of oilseed rape was heavily contaminated with a broad range of pesticides, as was the pollen of wildflowers growing nearby. Consequently, pollen collected by both bee species also contained a wide range of pesticides, notably including the fungicides carbendazim, boscalid, flusilazole, metconazole, tebuconazole and trifloxystrobin and the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam, thiacloprid and imidacloprid. In bumble bees, the fungicides carbendazim, boscalid, tebuconazole, flusilazole and metconazole were present at concentrations up to 73 nanogram/gram (ng/g). It is notable that pollen collected by bumble bees in rural areas contained high levels of the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam (mean 18 ng/g) and thiacloprid (mean 2.9 ng/g), along with a range of fungicides, some of which are known to act synergistically with neonicotinoids. Pesticide exposure of bumble bee colonies in urban areas was much lower than in rural areas. Understanding the effects of simultaneous exposure of bees to complex mixtures of pesticides remains a major challenge.

im suprised field margin soil was contaminated tbh

 

[Sandra Bell]

Moving away from neonics and other systemic insecticides is important to protect ecosystem services vital to farming - earthworms, ground beetles, bees etc - so this should be a shared interest. But Friends of the Earth is not denying that there are challenges for farmers to control pests as pesticide products are withdrawn. If you read our reports on oilseed rape and wheat linked below you will see that we set out the pest problems in some detail and then examine solutions that work for farmers and the environment, that we acknowledge the risks that farmers take in trying a different way of controlling pests, and that we talked to farmers to inform our report. We are calling for more support to farmers ahead of products coming off the market - for example the possible extension of the neonic restrictions to wheat is on the cards so the R&D on alternatives should be done now not after the regulations come into effect. We are not telling farmers what to do but we are learning from farmers who've had success with farming without neonics and reducing overall insecticide use.

Wheat:
https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/farming-wheat-without-neonicotinoids-102577.pdf

Oilseed rape:
https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/farming-without-neonicotinoids-100611.pdf

We have a shared interest in ensuring that the vital natural systems underpinning British food production - including pollination and natural predators - are thriving in the future. A study from the US found that neonics were counterproductive in slug control as the pest slugs were unaffected by the neonic treatment but transmitted the toxin to the ground beetles that would normally prey on the slugs. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12372/full (you can access the full paper for this study for free). Also the report from the European Academies Science Advisory Council concludes that "There is an increasing body of evidence that the widespread prophylactic use of neonicotinoids has severe negative effects on non-target organisms that provide ecosystem services including pollination and natural pest control." http://www.easac.eu/environment/reports-and-statements/detail-view/article/ecosystem-se.html.

We are looking for common ground not conflict. And as I've mentioned in a previous post we've also been working with rapeseed oil producers to promote what they are doing http://www.rapeseedoilguide.com/.

I hope all these links work. If not I'll try again.

 

[dontknowanything]

You position is just another farmer trying to make national policy fit your existing practice? If there is a "third" way the industry will have to sell it. Why would taxpayers continue to cough up for a system which has doubled it's spend on chemicals?

Sorry, but that's BS, you have it the wrong way around. I don't have "existing practice", I'm changing every year to try and make the farm better in what, I think, are pretty objectively virtuous ways. Unless you think that farming as an industry should not be trying to make better quality food, improve the environment, and sequester carbon?

As for your second point, that's exactly what I'm saying. The normal way of conventional farming is broken, it's not something to strive for and should probably not receive tax payers' money, at least not for environmental work anyway.