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

[Sandra Bell]

That sidesteps the issue. Would FOE be prepared to acknowledge and participate in an impact assessment i.e. what the alternatives are?

Yellowbelly has a valid point. The loss of osr to flea beetle means there is less osr grown now in favour of less open flowering crops. Who is the real loser in this? Some disorientated bees or all pollinating insects? I host 48 hives here for someone who has 650 hives in total. Osr is the difference between him being a professional beekeeper and an amateur one. Last year he made 29 tonnes of honey, 16 of which came from oilseed rape crops. He would rather see the same area of osr grown with neonic seed dressings and risk some bee losses instead of half the area grown without.

There is very clear evidence that neonics harm wild bees - and wild bees actually do more pollination than honey bees. On the benefits of OSR as a flowering crop its worth looking at this CEH study which concluded that:

"As a flowering crop, oilseed rape is beneficial for pollinating insects. This benefit however, appears to be more than nullified by the effect of neonicotinoid seed treatment on a range of wild bee species." Dr Ben Woodcock, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media...icides-linked-wild-bee-decline-across-england

 

[turbo]

There is very clear evidence that neonics harm wild bees - and wild bees actually do more pollination than honey bees. On the benefits of OSR as a flowering crop its worth looking at this CEH study which concluded that:

"As a flowering crop, oilseed rape is beneficial for pollinating insects. This benefit however, appears to be more than nullified by the effect of neonicotinoid seed treatment on a range of wild bee species." Dr Ben Woodcock, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media...icides-linked-wild-bee-decline-across-england

How has the clear evidence that neonics harm bees been carried out,was it from bees feeding on the pollen in the early summer on crops treated in the autumn before or as I have seen by putting the neonics on the entrance to the hives so the bees have to pass over it

 

[Gong Farmer]

The 'problem' is the ever advancing technology that allows detection of ever smaller quantities of anything - water contamination is another example. I imagine there's equipment that can detect a tiny fraction of a ppm of neonics in pollen so proving that applied to seed, it gets into pollen much later in the year. Then I imaging separate studies that show neonics are bad for bees, then put the two together (?)

 

[Brisel]

There is very clear evidence that neonics harm wild bees - and wild bees actually do more pollination than honey bees. On the benefits of OSR as a flowering crop its worth looking at this CEH study which concluded that:

"As a flowering crop, oilseed rape is beneficial for pollinating insects. This benefit however, appears to be more than nullified by the effect of neonicotinoid seed treatment on a range of wild bee species." Dr Ben Woodcock, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media...icides-linked-wild-bee-decline-across-england

Well at least the article you linked did add this at the end...

Dr Woodcock added, “Although we find evidence to show that neonicotinoid use is a contributory factor leading to wild bee species population decline, it is unlikely that they are acting in isolation of other environmental pressures. Wild bees have undergone global declines that have been linked to habitat loss and fragmentation, pathogens, climate change and other insecticides.”

So, has the ban on neonicotinoid seed dressings in oilseed rape increased the number of bees, wild or otherwise? Or are you going to blame their continued use in cereals and other non open pollinating crops for numbers continuing to decrease?

 

[turbo]

Well at least the article you linked did add this at the end...

Dr Woodcock added, “Although we find evidence to show that neonicotinoid use is a contributory factor leading to wild bee species population decline, it is unlikely that they are acting in isolation of other environmental pressures. Wild bees have undergone global declines that have been linked to habitat loss and fragmentation, pathogens, climate change and other insecticides.”

So, has the ban on neonicotinoid seed dressings in oilseed rape increased the number of bees, wild or otherwise? Or are you going to blame their continued use in cereals and other non open pollinating crops for numbers continuing to decrease?

That would be good to know but I fear we won't be told the true results

 

[Brisel]

I'll have a search

 

[turbo]

I'll have a search

I had a quick one and came up the bit about putting neat chemical on the way into their hive nothing about if the pollen was at a higher enough strenth to do the same.It was only a quick look though so I await to see if you can find anymore

 

[dontknowanything]

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/01/06/098897

"Relative to the risk assessments produced in 2013 for clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam which focussed on their effects on bees, new research strengthens arguments for the imposition of a moratorium, in particular because it has become evident that they pose significant risks to many non-target organisms, not just bees."

 

[caroline]

What I don't get is your definition of "better". It is just a value judgement. All the problems you outline could be relatively easily solved. For us I can see low organic matter could become a problem in certain fields but I know what to do about it. As for insecticide whats the problem with adhering to already defined thresholds. Fertiliser rates will be governed by economic response and limited by law anyway. Does any of that warrant government support?
Pesticide regulation is an unknown and on going headache. I do note that from Sandra Bell's post that FOE foresee a time when all pesticides will be withdraw, how realistic that is I don't know.
My hunch is that when the trade deals are done and dusted "better" won't matter. We'll do or die.

Thresholds when they exist ? ... BYDV falls into the prophylactic category 99% of time with winter wheat, winter barley and winter oats (on conventional farms especially with early drilling) ...

 

[caroline]

snap!

Which is why for the sake of our wildlife, ours and the planets health some products have to be removed ... the system has got caught up in early planting ...In the meantime many farmers are forced (?) into planting in high risk situations and seed treatment is an insurance so IPM is not being practised. I would concede though that there are many farmers who would deliberately stagger planting dates and then are faced with do they or don't they use pyrethroid on the non dressed seed.... perhaps this is where we should consider some kind of insurance system to balance the risk ?

 

[caroline]

If we are asking our farmers to take risks i.e. to truly apply Integrated Farm/Pest Management (IPM) ..... then perhaps we should consider a financial buffer, albeit transitional , in the event of things going wrong... it will take time to build up natural predators and appropriate habitat / management ?

 

[caroline]

Explain this then friends of the earth

Uncontrolled wild oats in 2012 wheat crop deter treated hammered with BYDV. Wheat crop totally unaffected.

Conclusion: seed dressing is well targeted to the plants being farmed.

It doesn't really matter anyway as neonics about off patent and diamide$ ready to replace them Which I'm sure @dontknowanything will find interesting

Uncontrolled wild oats in wheat crop was the problem !!

 

[shakerator]

Thresholds when they exist ? ... BYDV falls into the prophylactic category 99% of time with winter wheat, winter barley and winter oats (on conventional farms especially with early drilling) ...

You cannot cure virus only control the vector. So non prophylactic treatment is impossible. I agree you cannot prove what you can prevent

 

[shakerator]

Uncontrolled wild oats in wheat crop was the problem !!

The oats had the life sucked out of them by aphids yet not one wheat plant was affected by the virus. To me this suggests a level of selectivity unachievable by pyrethroid overspraying as it's clearly not removed all insect activity in the way the latter does (albeit activity picks up again very very quickly in my experience with a decent habitat in the field)

 

[Feldspar]

I think the other thing that farmers probably need to face up to is the risk of farmland wildlife eating treated seeds. The label states that seed should not be left uncovered and that spillages should be cleared up. However, in the real world we know that when you lift up at the headlands that you're going to get seed left lying on top of the ground. Also, in heavy soils under imperfect soil conditions, you are going to get seed exposed to foraging birds. The one obvious thing that I notice around drilling time is that you start to see a lot of very groggy looking pigeons; I'm not sure if there is any research in this area, but I would be willing to bet that if you analysed these birds that they would be suffering from eating treated seed. I certainly would not be very keen to eat pigeon shot at this time of year, and given the persistent effects, it does raise concerns over eating them at any time of the year.

To back-up this line of thinking, here is one study that looked at mortality and adverse health effects in red leg partridges: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935114003879. I think the picture here is pretty clear: we are going to be causing some effects on farmland birds whose decline is already of concern.

Furthermore, this recent study backs up the above, and extends it further to provide normal field observations and links the risk to a wider range of farmland birds: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12668/full.

One other aspect that worries me is operator safety with hazardous seed treatments. I definitely see more lax standards of PPE being worn when filling up drills than I do when out spraying, but the risk of the former situation is probably at least as large.

My hunch with neonics and emerging evidence is that the picture is only going to get worse. On balance, I think that probably if I had to choose between the two, a pyrethroid application is better than neonic seed treatment. I've read enough recently to mean that we are going to cut out neonics almost completely. Certainly putting on Deter to stop juvenile slugs is a waste of time anyway IMO.

I'm just off to post my spring barley sample to NIAB to see if we can drill our spring barley using completely untreated seed.

 

[turbo]

The Evidence on neonics isn't as straight forward as you think, the only evidence I have found is from either the bees being sprayed with a neonics chemical or being put around the entrance of the hive,neither of these practices is what happens with a seed dressing.Only thing I have seen on pollen is that there could be a risk and nothing about how much neonics has been found in the pollen and if it is at a higher enough concentrate to affect the bees

 

[Feldspar]

The Evidence on neonics isn't as straight forward as you think, the only evidence I have found is from either the bees being sprayed with a neonics chemical or being put around the entrance of the hive,neither of these practices is what happens with a seed dressing.Only thing I have seen on pollen is that there could be a risk and nothing about how much neonics has been found in the pollen and if it is at a higher enough concentrate to affect the bees

There are real world studies out there, it just tends to be buried in academic literature rather than out there on the front pages of the Farmers Weekly. I'm pretty sure I answered this question earlier in this thread with some examples.

 

[fudge]

I think the other thing that farmers probably need to face up to is the risk of farmland wildlife eating treated seeds. The label states that seed should not be left uncovered and that spillages should be cleared up. However, in the real world we know that when you lift up at the headlands that you're going to get seed left lying on top of the ground. Also, in heavy soils under imperfect soil conditions, you are going to get seed exposed to foraging birds. The one obvious thing that I notice around drilling time is that you start to see a lot of very groggy looking pigeons; I'm not sure if there is any research in this area, but I would be willing to bet that if you analysed these birds that they would be suffering from eating treated seed. I certainly would not be very keen to eat pigeon shot at this time of year, and given the persistent effects, it does raise concerns over eating them at any time of the year.

To back-up this line of thinking, here is one study that looked at mortality and adverse health effects in red leg partridges: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935114003879. I think the picture here is pretty clear: we are going to be causing some effects on farmland birds whose decline is already of concern.

Furthermore, this recent study backs up the above, and extends it further to provide normal field observations and links the risk to a wider range of farmland birds: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12668/full.

One other aspect that worries me is operator safety with hazardous seed treatments. I definitely see more lax standards of PPE being worn when filling up drills than I do when out spraying, but the risk of the former situation is probably at least as large.

My hunch with neonics and emerging evidence is that the picture is only going to get worse. On balance, I think that probably if I had to choose between the two, a pyrethroid application is better than neonic seed treatment. I've read enough recently to mean that we are going to cut out neonics almost completely. Certainly putting on Deter to stop juvenile slugs is a waste of time anyway IMO.

I'm just off to post my spring barley sample to NIAB to see if we can drill our spring barley using completely untreated seed.

If the regulatory body decides that crop losses are too high and neonics are re approved surely farmers would be right to treat crops at risk.
In the context of free trade, which is where we are heading, farmers will need to use all available means to remain competitive. In the real world we are seeing a swing to poultry meat which is much cheaper down in the South American towns. I wonder why?

 

[Feldspar]

If the regulatory body decides that crop losses are too high and neonics are re approved surely farmers would be right to treat crops at risk.
In the context of free trade, which is where we are heading, farmers will need to use all available means to remain competitive. In the real world we are seeing a swing to poultry meat which is much cheaper down in the South American towns. I wonder why?

I know, it's not good news if we're the only ones who are acting in environmentally responsible manner because it will hurt our profitability. I think FoE should be working very hard with the NFU et al to make sure higher standards of production are recognised. When I spent a considerable amount of time planning and putting in buffer strips and nesting habitat, I could not do something that I knew to be damaging to the extent that all of that other hard work is wiped out. I think we can be more inventive with strategies to avoid the risk though, but I'm not denying in any way that there are anything other than hard choices.

 

[martian]

Now I'm no phytopathologist, but you can't help thinking that we are farming ourselves into a bit of a corner with a lot of these chemicals. For instance, why is it that BYDV will infect most grasses and yet most grasses don't seem to suffer? Could it be that we are pushing our cereals too hard, so that they are actually unhealthy and thus succumb to the disease (and I'm looking at you Shakerator, pushing your wild oats...)?

It is certainly a mugs game trying to 'beat' aphids. Like the plants they feed on, they have evolved over millions of years to be very good at what they do, puncturing the phloem of grasses and extracting nourishment from there. And breeding. The viruses likewise ( there are several types which cause BYDV) have evolved with their hosts and carriers. A well adjusted virus doesn't want to harm its host too much, as it'll then have to move to a new one.

I can't help thinking that we are doing something wrong if this has become a big issue. When dealing with problems like this, it's much cheaper and more effective to work with nature, rather than against