Who Keeps Bees?

Norm · Post by **Norm** » 22 Jul 2013, 14:58

You never can tell with Bees! - Pooh, Winnie the

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 25 Jul 2013, 08:30

An important paper on bees and multiple pesticides:
Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticides Which Alters Their Susceptibility to the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae
Jeffery S. Pettis, Elinor M. Lichtenberg, Michael Andree, Jennie Stitzinger, Robyn Rose, Dennis vanEngelsdorp

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... uthcontrib

and translated into lay-speak:
http://qz.com/107970/scientists-discove ... u-thought/

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 25 Jul 2013, 16:32

Bill Turnbull, Horizon, BBC2, Friday 2nd August, 9:00pm - What's Killing Our Bees?

Part of it, at least, is a discussion that took place at UCL a few weeks ago between Bill Turnbull, a couple of boffins and a scientist from Syngenta in front of an interested audience about whether or not neonics were killing bees. Surprisingly there were a few beekeepers who didn't think that neonics were killing bees.

I ended up with the PR manager of Syngenta sitting next to me and had quite a conversation with him. I felt like asking him how he could do a job like that for a company that was poisoning our environment. I decided that it was a waste of time going down that route. I did suggest to him that, as Biff has said here, the farming that has pertained on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years, organic farming, was conventional farming and what they are doing now was unconventional chemical farming. He obviously didn't agree with the sentiment.

Post by **clv101** » 25 Jul 2013, 16:47

kenneal - lagger wrote:Surprisingly there were a few beekeepers who didn't think that neonics were killing bees.

There are plenty of beekeepers who think the whole neonics thing has been overblown. Some are even a little angry feeling their community has been hijacked by anti-pesticide folk. It's clear that the beekeeping community isn't leading the challenge against neonics. Many remember the bad old days when pesticide sprays regularly killed hives, that doesn't happen much these days. Many also pro-actively take a lot of hives to neonic-laden oil seed rape fields year after year - they don't notice any ill effects from doing this.

I'm sure pesticides are not in any way good for bees. I'm not convinced neonics are worse than the pesticide regime of the 70s and 80s. I also think the problems bees face are many, with habitat loss, the last five year's weather and varroa all being more significant problems than neonics.

Neonics have received disproportional attention as there's a large, mature, well organised anti-pesticide lobby. I don't think the attention is proportional to the threat with respect to the other problems bees face.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 25 Jul 2013, 19:33

clv101 wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:Surprisingly there were a few beekeepers who didn't think that neonics were killing bees.
There are plenty of beekeepers who think the whole neonics thing has been overblown. Some are even a little angry feeling their community has been hijacked by anti-pesticide folk. It's clear that the beekeeping community isn't leading the challenge against neonics. Many remember the bad old days when pesticide sprays regularly killed hives, that doesn't happen much these days. Many also pro-actively take a lot of hives to neonic-laden oil seed rape fields year after year - they don't notice any ill effects from doing this.

I'm sure pesticides are not in any way good for bees. I'm not convinced neonics are worse than the pesticide regime of the 70s and 80s. I also think the problems bees face are many, with habitat loss, the last five year's weather and varroa all being more significant problems than neonics.

Neonics have received disproportional attention as there's a large, mature, well organised anti-pesticide lobby. I don't think the attention is proportional to the threat with respect to the other problems bees face.

Neonics, loss of habitat and all the other things putting pressure on the pollinators; they are all part of a much bigger problem not just for the pollinators but also for the rest of life.

Wanna guess what it is yet?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 05 Aug 2013, 14:11

Just an update on my bees. All doing well so far, the first lot of brood should be inflating the colony around about now. They had a major problem with robbing parties from other nearby colonies, but seemed to have held their own in that regard. The robbing episodes have declined markedly. They have filled about three quarters of one of the Warre hive boxes and I have added another to the bottom of the hive so I won't need to worry about predicting when they will need it in the spring.

It's just a case of waiting and seeing now if they make it through their first winter.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 05 Aug 2013, 17:17

stevecook172001 wrote:
clv101 wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:Surprisingly there were a few beekeepers who didn't think that neonics were killing bees.
There are plenty of beekeepers who think the whole neonics thing has been overblown. Some are even a little angry feeling their community has been hijacked by anti-pesticide folk. It's clear that the beekeeping community isn't leading the challenge against neonics. Many remember the bad old days when pesticide sprays regularly killed hives, that doesn't happen much these days. Many also pro-actively take a lot of hives to neonic-laden oil seed rape fields year after year - they don't notice any ill effects from doing this.

I'm sure pesticides are not in any way good for bees. I'm not convinced neonics are worse than the pesticide regime of the 70s and 80s. I also think the problems bees face are many, with habitat loss, the last five year's weather and varroa all being more significant problems than neonics.

Neonics have received disproportional attention as there's a large, mature, well organised anti-pesticide lobby. I don't think the attention is proportional to the threat with respect to the other problems bees face.
Neonics, loss of habitat and all the other things putting pressure on the pollinators; they are all part of a much bigger problem not just for the pollinators but also for the rest of life.

Wanna guess what it is yet?

Pesticides should not be used at all. It was possible to grow crops before they existed by having mixed farming. Pesticides have allowed the mono-culture method to be used, which means pests and diseases are able to propagate, so needing more chemicals to stop them.

In the Bill Turnbill program, a scientist from Rothamstead said without insecticides, yields would be 40% less. So what? 40% of rape seed production from the UK goes to make bio-diesel. 2 million tonnes of wheat goes to make ethanol. It's ok to feed cars, but it's not ok to have an environment fit to live in. Management by poisons is not acceptable.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 05 Aug 2013, 21:11

clv101 wrote: Neonics have received disproportional attention as there's a large, mature, well organised anti-pesticide lobby. I don't think the attention is proportional to the threat with respect to the other problems bees face.

You're looking at it from the narrow beekeeper's point of view. Neonics have a much wider effect and probably affect honeybees less than most wild insects because people take care to ensure they are bred in large numbers. To assess the effect of neonics we should be looking at other creatures such as thrips and moths.

Post by **clv101** » 05 Aug 2013, 21:57

biffvernon wrote:You're looking at it from the narrow beekeeper's point of view.

Indeed, as this is the beekeeping thread.

I agree with woodburner that pesticides should not be used at all. What I'm talking about above though is the purity of the argument. I think there's more politics than rational science in say, the recent Friends of the Earth "The Bee Cause" campaign.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 05 Aug 2013, 22:29

Yes. FoE have a habit of going for the mass appeal headline even when a bit science-light.

But it's not good to say neonics aren't a problem because my bees are all right. (And some have said as much.)

Here's Monbiot today:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... des-nature

It's a good piece, discussing the effect of neonics on the whole ecosystem and putting honeybees in their proper place.

Listening to the legislators, you could be forgiven for believing that the only species which might be affected is honeybees, and the only way in which they can be killed is through the flowers of plants whose seeds were dressed.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 06 Aug 2013, 03:16

I went to see a client on a housing estate just south of Winchester yesterday, before the rain, and the neighbour, a former client, has a large clump of lavender in the garden which was a mass of small bumble bees. No honey bees! Our lavender has been the same, although one clump has gone over now.

What I have noticed is that there are none of the hoverflies which I can remember from my younger days. We have never used pesticides on our holding in the 30 years that we have been here and I don't think that any have been used within a quarter of a mile of here. It's all woodland.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 06 Aug 2013, 11:51

I believe I can shed some light on the Hoverfly question. Last year I overheard my neighbour, may she soon be no more, asking her neighbour (a good sort, who politely turned down her request) to nuke her/our privet-hedge with something because it was alive with "wasps", to which she is allergic. The "wasps" turned out to be hoverflies, and I think the nuking was subsequently carried out by professionals, who of course wouldn't want to say the work was harmful and unneccessary because that would be bad for business.

Let us presuppose that there is more than one such ignorant neighbour on this island, and there is your explanation. There may in time evolve hoverflies who do not look like wasps...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Aug 2013, 12:43

RenewableCandy wrote:There may in time evolve hoverflies who do not look like wasps...

There are clues to identification, such as their habit of hovering.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 06 Aug 2013, 14:33

We've still got plenty of wasps even though we had a nest in the wall next to the back door sprayed. They are definitely not hoverflies as one stung me.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 06 Aug 2013, 21:38

RenewableCandy wrote:I believe I can shed some light on the Hoverfly question. Last year I overheard my neighbour, may she soon be no more, asking her neighbour (a good sort, who politely turned down her request) to nuke her/our privet-hedge with something because it was alive with "wasps", to which she is allergic. The "wasps" turned out to be hoverflies, and I think the nuking was subsequently carried out by professionals, who of course wouldn't want to say the work was harmful and unneccessary because that would be bad for business.

Let us presuppose that there is more than one such ignorant neighbour on this island, and there is your explanation. There may in time evolve hoverflies who do not look like wasps...

That really is just speculation. Is it 2013 when all the ignorant neighbours act in concert to destroy the hoverfly population?