U.S. Rivers Fouled With Bee, Bird Killing Neonics

[PocketWater]

http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/082515/us-rivers-fouled-bee-bird-killing-neonics-bayry-dow-syt.aspx?partner=YahooSA

This is pretty gross.

 

[krayfish2]

That will make you want to wet wade and eat your catch.

 

[Fishwagen]

I just love reading these findings and the recommendations are made for "more study or research" on the topic. I use a little common sense to say...none of this, or previous findings on contaminated water and Eco systems, is good!

"Further Study" and "Additional Research" are just political buzz words for..."Don't ever expect anything to be done about this."

Sad. And this is exactly why I don't wet wade. It ain't worth the risks.

 

[salmonoid]

Fishwagen wrote:
I just love reading these findings and the recommendations are made for "more study or research" on the topic. I use a little common sense to say...none of this, or previous findings on contaminated water and Eco systems, is good!

"Further Study" and "Additional Research" are just political buzz words for..."Don't ever expect anything to be done about this."

Sad. And this is exactly why I don't wet wade. It ain't worth the risks.

It's not quite as simple as having one study that "proves" something and then we should all accept the findings of said study and adjust our lives. There's probably a study out there somewhere that "proves" exactly the opposite - that bees aren't influenced by neonicotinoids, and it's probably financed by a pesticide company ;-)

The interworkings of chemicals and ecosystems are complex. Nothing in the USGS study suggests that wet wading exposes one to increased of anything related to neonicotinoids. The "need for further study" is often used as a mechanism to help secure additional grant funding in the future - kind of like a cliffhanger in a movie or TV show that sets up the potential for a sequel.

Investopedia is not my primary news source for water quality issues

http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/2015-08-18-national_neonics.html

"None of the neonicotinoid concentrations exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency aquatic life criteria, and all detected neonicotinoids are classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. However, the occurrence of low levels in streams for extended periods of time highlights the need for future research on the potential effects of neonicotinoids on aquatic life and terrestrial animals that rely on aquatic life."

 

[pcray1231]

"Further Study" and "Additional Research" are just political buzz words for..."Don't ever expect anything to be done about this."

You fundamentally misunderstand academia. What it's really a buzz word for is "please give our research group more money. We've completed one thesis but have 3 new grad students who want to continue this work, and they need funding."

Salmonoid is pretty much on the money. You never take the findings of one paper and proclaim them as gospel, regardless of whether you like the answer or not. Researchers are in the business of securing funding.

But when another research group reads it, and tries to refute it, but fails, then another group reads it, and carries out a similar study to make sure it's not some other effect, and over time you get 100 such studies, including back and forths between a dozen or so separate research groups with different motivations, and collectively they've not only proven the effect, but disproven all potential alternative explanations....

Then you have something actionable.

And I'm not trying to discredit the linked study in any manner. I believe it's probably accurate. I merely recognize that this line of investigation is in its early stages.

 

[Chaz]

salmonoid wrote:

Fishwagen wrote:
I just love reading these findings and the recommendations are made for "more study or research" on the topic. I use a little common sense to say...none of this, or previous findings on contaminated water and Eco systems, is good!

"Further Study" and "Additional Research" are just political buzz words for..."Don't ever expect anything to be done about this."

Sad. And this is exactly why I don't wet wade. It ain't worth the risks.

It's not quite as simple as having one study that "proves" something and then we should all accept the findings of said study and adjust our lives. There's probably a study out there somewhere that "proves" exactly the opposite - that bees aren't influenced by neonicotinoids, and it's probably financed by a pesticide company ;-)

The interworkings of chemicals and ecosystems are complex. Nothing in the USGS study suggests that wet wading exposes one to increased of anything related to neonicotinoids. The "need for further study" is often used as a mechanism to help secure additional grant funding in the future - kind of like a cliffhanger in a movie or TV show that sets up the potential for a sequel.

Investopedia is not my primary news source for water quality issues

http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/2015-08-18-national_neonics.html

"None of the neonicotinoid concentrations exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency aquatic life criteria, and all detected neonicotinoids are classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. However, the occurrence of low levels in streams for extended periods of time highlights the need for future research on the potential effects of neonicotinoids on aquatic life and terrestrial animals that rely on aquatic life."

The need to further study the subject is a way of blocking further study also. The chemical industry, has plenty of investment tied up in pesticides and lawn and agra chemicals and doesn't want these substances banned. Further study also delays decisions that would limit use (profits).

 

[FarmerDave]

I'm an amateur beekeeper, and one of the reasons I got into it was CCD. I figured if I want a decent garden and fruit crop, I will likely need to have my own bees. And us amateur beekeepers are repopulating the wild population.

You are welcome.

I know a little bit about Neonicotinoids. It is a systemic pesticide meaning it is absorbed into the plant and I believe it is normally applied to the seed.Therefore it is in the nector and pollen, and in the food you eat as well.

There is a fair amount of data and information that Neonicotinoids are a contributing factor to CCD. There is also "anecdotal" evidence.

The Europeans have studied this more extensively.

The problem is that most of the studies were done BY or paid for BY the producers, like Bayer.

Neonicotinoids have been studied enough to show that they are not likely to cause problems in humans in the concentrations that are in the food grown with it. And certainly, it is not an issue when wet wading. I'd be more worried about wet wading in streams receiving municipal effluent.

Neonicotinoids have also been studied for their effects on ADULT bees as well, and determined to be "non-fatal." What they didn't study is the effects on bee larvae.

So, the bees go out and gather nectar and pollen. They bring it back to the hive where the nectar is dehydrated and EXTENSIVELY concentrated into honey. The honey is then fed to the developing larvae. Bad news.

But nobody, including our government, or Governments in Europe or other farmers wants to listen to beekeepers. We are viewed as a bunch of weirdo hippies and not real farmers. But without us, what do we have?

I mentioned anecdotal evidence. Many European countries had actually banned the use of certain Neonicotinoids. Guess what? The cases of CCD greatly reduced. Bees were doing much better.

Unfortunately, the pest insects were also doing better.

And I just read recently that the ban has been lifted in several areas in Europe (England specifically) because it is believed to be less harmful than topical pesticides. I kind of have my doubts for several reasons. It's just much cheaper than applying nicotine products topically.

Topical pesticides are external to the plant. They can be timed around when plants are in bloom. If done correctly, topical is not in the blossoms, or in the fruit and vegetables you eat. Neonicotinoids are in the entire plant.

I'll admit I only know enough to be dangerous.

I don't believe it is as big of a problem in this area because bees don't rely on the plants it is normally used on for nectar, such as corn and soybeans. They will use pollen from corn, but not nectar. Soybeans? My understanding is that honey bees don't frequent soybeans. The flower is too small for their mouth parts to collect the nectar.

But if it is getting into the soil and therefore into surrounding plants that the bees do frequent, that is a problem.

CCD has not been a big issue with my hives, but then, they have plenty of forage that is not treated and I keep them considerable distance from the cultivated fields (which I lease out). They have lots of wild flowers and hay which isn't treated with anything other than manure.

Birds? I don't see a decrease in population here. More like an increase. But that could be regional as well.

 

[bikerfish]

bottom line, we are poisoning our planet for profit. It WILL catch up to us.

 

[FarmerDave]

True, Al.

But there is also the part about feeding more and more people for less and less. Farmers don't farm for free.

 

[bikerfish]

nobody will eat for long if we lose bees, and money won't mean a damn thing in the end.
sustainability, but that takes too much effort for many. I for one will gladly pay a dollar more for lettuce that won't kill me or the planet, but will others? they will claim they can't afford it, and then go buy a carton of cigarettes.
like you say, people suck.

 

[FarmerDave]

I don't have a problem paying more, either.

That is, if I can't or chose not to grow it myself.

And that was probably over half of my point.

I'm just saying... Something to consider is that getting rid of current practices cold turkey means considerably less food for the 7 billion on this rock who mostly all suck. ;-)

Buying local from local producers, is a start.

Americans are for the most part stupid about what they consume and we have our own Goobermint to blame. Afterall, they are there to protect us, right?

 

[greenghost]

FarmerDave wrote:
I don't have a problem paying more, either.

That is, if I can't or chose not to grow it myself.

And that was probably over half of my point.

I'm just saying... Something to consider is that getting rid of current practices cold turkey means considerably less food for the 7 billion on this rock who mostly all suck. ;-)

Buying local from local producers, is a start.

If we all were a bit more self sustaining, only good could come from it. Perhaps the time is right for a resurgence of the Victory Gardens of WWI and WWII. A garden for every home.

 

[franklin]

greenghost wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:
I don't have a problem paying more, either.

That is, if I can't or chose not to grow it myself.

And that was probably over half of my point.

I'm just saying... Something to consider is that getting rid of current practices cold turkey means considerably less food for the 7 billion on this rock who mostly all suck. ;-)

Buying local from local producers, is a start.

If we all were a bit more self sustaining, only good could come from it. Perhaps the time is right for a resurgence of the Victory Gardens of WWI and WWII. A garden for every home.

What is stopping you from creating your own "victory garden" next spring?

 

[greenghost]

I have no clue where I will be living?