"We're shocked!" -No One
Seriously though, outside of a few desperate libertarians on the internet who needed not to believe it, I've never met a serious person who didn't see that likely connection.
Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study
31–40 of 101 posts
Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Active hives have increased because beekeepers have reacted to the increase in bee die-offs by splitting hives and otherwise increasing the number of hives they have. This causes an increase in demand for queens, and companies that sell queens will have more hives in order to meet that demand. Also, simple economic growth is a possible contributor to the increase in number of hives.
Do I properly understand your argument, like the one below, to be that despite the increase in beehives, there are fewer live bees in the US?
When you talk about "increase in beehives", are you referring to hives that are managed by a beekeeper, or hives created by wild bees, and not managed by a human? When you talk about "fewer live bees", are you referring to wild bees, or bees in a managed hive? In my previous post, I was only referring to managed hives.
Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study
#33If neonicotinoids are causing a long-term decline in bee populations, why does their introduction correspond with a global increase in beehives?
The article refers to wild bees, not managed.
Regardless, a better metric to consider re: managed hives might be annual colony losses, not total quantity of active hives. Of course beekeepers can make new hives. Thus far they are thankfully able to keep up with higher and higher losses each year (and honey and pollination prices are continuing to rise as more energy and money is put into raising bees instead of bee products).
This spike in losses is more recent than the varroa introduction. Graphing out one positive metric and pretending things haven't gone weird with honeybees in the past decade or so seems misguided.
Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study
#34"We're shocked!" -No One Seriously though, outside of a few desperate libertarians on the internet who needed not to believe it, I've never met a serious person who didn't see that likely connection.
There is evidence that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees and there is also evidence that they aren't. Why makes you so sure it's a slam dunk explanation?
Hell, even the EPA and Dept of Agriculture conducted a massive study and said it's pretty far down the list of factors in the decline of the honey bee population.
Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study
#35The strange thing is that the response will be "OK so lets create poisons that kill all insects EXCEPT bees".
Given that pesticides have greatly increased agricultural efficiency, does that response not make sense?
The US wastes 40% of the food it produces. I imagine we could give up a fair amount of efficiency in favor of ecology.
Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do I properly understand your argument, like the one below, to be that despite the increase in beehives, there are fewer live bees in the US?
When you talk about "increase in beehives", are you referring to hives that are managed by a beekeeper, or hives created by wild bees, and not managed by a human? When you talk about "fewer live bees", are you referring to wild bees, or bees in a managed hive? In my previous post, I was only referring to managed hives.
There are no feral honeybees in the US. They were wiped out, not by neonics, but by the varroa mite, 30 years ago.
(Before we colonized this place, there were no wild honeybees: they're an introduced species).
Honeybees are livestock, not wildlife.
Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study
#37If neonicotinoids are causing a long-term decline in bee populations, why does their introduction correspond with a global increase in beehives?
The article refers to wild bees, not managed. Regardless, a better metric to consider re: managed hives might be annual colony losses, not total quantity of active hives. Of course beekeepers can make new hives. Thus far they are thankfully able to keep up with higher and higher losses each year (and honey and pollination prices are continuing to rise as more energy and money is put into raising bees instead of bee p…
I don't know about the UK, but there are (essentially) no feral honeybees in the US, and there haven't been in something like 30 years, not because of pesticides, but because of the varroa mite.
Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study
#38The strange thing is that the response will be "OK so lets create poisons that kill all insects EXCEPT bees".
We already have many, many, many pesticides that do this, but neonicotinoid pesticides are really useful for a couple of reasons:
1. Very low toxicity to mammals. Neonics are used in flea collars, and to kill lice in farm animal bedding materials for this reason. Neonoics are also very safe to apply by human applicators.
2. Neonics are systemic pesticides in plants. They are absorbed into the plant and provide long term protection against insects pests. Less pesticide drift, less danger to applicators, BUT it also gets into floral nectar, causing problems for bees and possibly other insect pollinators.
3. Neonics are cheap. I can buy 5lbs of Marathon 1G, a neonic pesiticde for about $80. Something more targeted, such as Rycar is more than $500 for a similar quantity, and Rycar is not systemic, it has to be applied several times.
There is a move towards more targeted pesticides such as Rycar, Floramite, Kontos, etc. but they are expensive, and in many cases more difficult to use. That's the darn problem. Neonics are terrible for bees, but for agriculture, they are really useful and there is no clear replacement.
Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study
#39The strange thing is that the response will be "OK so lets create poisons that kill all insects EXCEPT bees".
We already have many, many, many pesticides that do this, but neonicotinoid pesticides are really useful for a couple of reasons: 1. Very low toxicity to mammals. Neonics are used in flea collars, and to kill lice in farm animal bedding materials for this reason. Neonoics are also very safe to apply by human applicators. 2. Neonics are systemic pesticides in plants. They are absorbed into the plant and provide long t…
Ok, so lets make bees more resistant to Neonics.
:P
Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study
#40The strange thing is that the response will be "OK so lets create poisons that kill all insects EXCEPT bees".
We already have many, many, many pesticides that do this, but neonicotinoid pesticides are really useful for a couple of reasons: 1. Very low toxicity to mammals. Neonics are used in flea collars, and to kill lice in farm animal bedding materials for this reason. Neonoics are also very safe to apply by human applicators. 2. Neonics are systemic pesticides in plants. They are absorbed into the plant and provide long t…
>Very low toxicity to mammals.
What is the difference between killing us directly and destroying the food web and ecosystem we depend on to survive?