Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wildflowers Give Bees a Dose of Pesticides

Posted by timothy on from the bzzt-pass-it-on dept.

JMarshall writes: Wildflowers growing near fields sown with pesticide-treated seeds can be reservoirs of bee-harming neonicotinoid compounds, according to new research. The study suggests bees get most of their exposure to these pesticides from wildflowers, rather than from the crops the pesticides are designed to protect. At the peak of flowering season, 97% of the pollen brought back to beehives tested in the UK came from wildflowers, not the canola crops they were growing alongside.

38 comments

  1. Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing we have genetic engineering, which actually improves the pest resistence of the plant itself, rather than merely improving its resistence to toxic pesticides.

    Oh, wait...

  2. Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's completely ignore that the large scale data shows that banning neonicotonoids didn't have ANY affect on the bee population in Europe. Though there's a huge amount of media-induced blame, a continent-wide experiment demonstrated that they aren't a significant factor, after much smaller scale studies showed the same thing. Now Europeans are using pesticides that are worse for the environment because they are less specific to the particular pests.

    1. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since it persists in the environment, banning neonicotonoids isn't going to have an effect for many years.

    2. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's completely ignore that the large scale data shows that banning neonicotonoids didn't have ANY affect on the bee population in Europe.

      If you're going to challenge the science in this paper, challenge the science in this paper. "But ... but ... this other data seems contradictory to anecdotes I have" is not a valid scientific critique, which probably explains why your works critical of scientific studies aren't published.

    3. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's completely ignore that the large scale data shows that banning neonicotonoids didn't have ANY affect on the bee population in Europe.

      Neonicotinoids are not banned in Europe, so this data does not exist.

    4. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Informative

      IIRC, it took something like 20 years before the effects of DDT were removed enough from the environment to be measured. Just because you sat in the bottom of the latrine for years doesn't mean 1 shower washes the stink off of you.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to challenge the science in this paper, challenge the science in this paper.
       
      So the only valid way to offset a paper, in your mind, is from sources within the paper? If that's the case then what is the point of peer review?
       
        "But ... but ... this other data seems contradictory to anecdotes I have" is not a valid scientific critique
       
      The OP said "Let's completely ignore that the large scale data shows that banning neonicotonoids didn't have ANY affect on the bee population in Europe." I would really have liked to see a cite on this but just from the way it's being stated I'm somehow doubting that if the sources he claims actually do exist are merely anecdotes.
       
        which probably explains why your works critical of scientific studies aren't published.
       
      How would you know? One AC replying to another AC and we're to take your word over their word how exactly? The OP might be the head of the school of agriculture at some greatly respected university.
       
      tl;dr: they brought just as much to the table as you did without the hostility.

    6. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh?
       
      Just go Google it. There are many sources that contradict your claim.
       
      The article does seem to offset some of the OP's claims but yours is clearly false as well.

    7. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is Europe we're talking about here.

      http://41.media.tumblr.com/d51...

    8. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Informative

      At least one expert disagrees with you.

      "Dr Lynn Dicks, a biodiversity and ecosystem services research fellow at the University of Cambridge, told the Science Media Centre: "We now have robust evidence that neonicotinoids have a serious impact on free-living bumblebee colonies in real farmed landscapes."

      http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      What's the average life of this chemical in the environment?

      Longer than the ban, so literally the ban meant nothing.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AGAIN: The article does seem to offset some of the OP's claims but yours is clearly false as well.
       
      I swear that Slashtards can't be bothered to read. They say something that was already said like they're pointing out something new. And they get modded up by even bigger morons!

    11. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      How?

      Neonicotinoids can last up to almost 4 years when in the ground. Where the plants will absorb it. Thus a 2 year ban would have no effect on reducing the chemicals in the soil.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      At least source your bitchiness.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    12. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the only valid way to offset a paper, in your mind, is from sources within the paper? If that's the case then what is the point of peer review?

      The only valid way to offset a paper is to offer evidence that something is wrong with the data or methodology. Offering observations that are alleged to contradict the paper without substantiation is not a valid scientific critique.

      I would really have liked to see a cite on this but just from the way it's being stated I'm somehow doubting that if the sources he claims actually do exist are merely anecdotes.

      Without a cite it is only anecdotal. The real issue here is that the OP has no apparent understanding of the mechanism of action or environmental fate of neonicotinoids, but that doesn't stop him from engaging in amateur armchair science (that is completely wrong, BTW) and pontificating about it. What concerns me is that his statement sounds "truthy" and many people believe that it's a valid criticism of the study when it's really not even connected.

    13. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth of something characterized as a "fact" doesn't matter. What does matter is that some righteous dude is giving his followers directions on how to be righteously angry about, and whether any of them has the background or intellectual curiosity to even remotely understand what they're ranting about is of no consequence. Bee justice warriors are in it because it temporarily alleviates the two biggest first world psychological problems they suffer from: boredom and guilt.

  3. But is this enough to change policy? by waTeim · · Score: 2

    Is seems pretty clear now that an outright ban on neonicotinoids is what is is called for here. The overall effect in bee population in countries that use is versus ones that don't combined with the detectable presence in honey and now this show that even controlled use is has too many unexpected side effects. The mere benefit of improved pest control efficiency is not worth this danger.

    1. Re:But is this enough to change policy? by tinkerton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that one lesson of this research is that since bees get their honey not just from the targeted crops it's generally worth to try and contain the pesticides better. That means taking in account wind, drop size, delivery method. In fact it could mean that the pesticides on the targeted crops are the least of your concerns. Which is interesting.

    2. Re:But is this enough to change policy? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      it's generally worth to try and contain the pesticides better.

      If you just read TFS, you'd see that the seeds were treated. I am not sure how much more contained the pesticide can be.

      Just another one of those unforeseen consequences of moving ahead full speed and oh, is that an ice berg?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:But is this enough to change policy? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      But my comment is not about treated seeds. It's about general practice. I'm not saying general practice will make a large difference in this case. What I am saying is that if you have bees next to cropland then still use strict rules for the road shoulders.

    4. Re:But is this enough to change policy? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      1) I don't know how much more restrictive you can be than to treat the seeds prior to planting. The problem is leeching, which will happen with anything water soluble, which just about all pesticides are.

      2) To take that "strict" approach would mean to essentially create a bucket for crop land, because it has to be isolated from everything else. These pesticides are just flat out nasty in ways that apparently don't become evident until after widespread enough use causes effects that can take years to reverse. At least chemicals have a realistic shot at being countered. GMOs, not so much.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:But is this enough to change policy? by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      Ok, so ban neonics and replace them with what? Carbamates? Oranophosphates? Pyretheroids? Avermectins? Pretty much everything is horrible for bees. The neonics are some of the least harmful to them; they can at least shrug some low dosages off. Generally speaking runoff in water from farmland should have dinotefuran or imidicloprid at a concentration around 7ppm and they're not acutely toxic until you get to around 150ppm. Chronic poisioning can happen at 50ppm but that's still 7 times higher than what they should be found at "in the wild."

    6. Re:But is this enough to change policy? by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      The problem is seeds leave a bit of chaff in the seed bin when planting and when planting treated seeds you get a lot of insecticidal dust with that too. When that "dust" is dumped at the edge of a field with the wildflowers/weeds the bees pick it up.

      The solution to this problem is, I'm not kidding, just dump the seed bin's dust and chaff in the middle of the field where bees don't care to forage.

  4. Not mentioned... by willworkforbeer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Monsanto has demanded licensing payments for every jar sold of Pesticide Honey (TM).

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    1. Re:Not mentioned... by codeAlDente · · Score: 1

      LOL willworkforbees

      --
      He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
    2. Re:Not mentioned... by c · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right, like Monsanto would take responsibility for side-effects of their products...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    3. Re:Not mentioned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They take ownership, why not responsibility?

    4. Re:Not mentioned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monsanto doesn't even sell neonicotinoids.

    5. Re:Not mentioned... by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      Monsanto doesn't have a dog in the neonic fight. They don't make any of them.

    6. Re:Not mentioned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're kind of like the Nazis at this point - a convenient generic stand-in for any bad guy in a particular field.

  5. Simple Solution by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

    There is a simple solution. We can just kill all the wildflowers. A good dose of roundup or gasoline 50ft around the perimeter of the field should do the trick

    1. Re:Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We can just kill all the wildflowers. A good dose of roundup or gasoline 50ft around the perimeter of the field should do the trick

      That is actually a real corporate farming strategy, supposedly driven by the demands of food sellers. Farm in a doughnut hole of fertile land surrounded by a sterilized wasteland.

      Unsurprisingly, it doesn't work. And yes, they really do use glyophosate (roundup) if you were wondering how come there's so much of that showing up in our food.

  6. I used to raise bees w/ my grandparents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We literally can't live minus their presence for pollination of crops (sure, there's other insects that help but NOT as much as bees)... & they're decent beasts IF you don't upset them (then, you're in trouble, especially near their hives when the queen gives the scent signal to 'attack'...). Whatever anyone here does IF you're near bees? Don't "swat/swing" @ them. They interpret it as aggression, & DO NOT WEAR PERFUMES or COLOGNES either... they'll be all over you then.

    I remember smoking them out with bellows loaded with dry appletree leaves & LITERALLY then being able to lift them by the handfuls - minus the queen giving signals, they're completely docile (for the most part).

    Then, came eating the ABSOLUTELY FRESH HONEY straight out of the wax honeycombs we'd lift (you have to leave them 25% or so, so they can survive, especially in winters)... one time, my cousin Frank & I ate SO MUCH we literally got sick (too much sugar too fast)... made us both woozy!

    APK

    P.S.=> I learned this as a boy (since the 20++ or so hives were off the borders of my father's property) & haven't ever forgotten it (or what bees represent to us - LIFE) - my sister actually carried on this trade & afaik, makes a GOOD BUCK from it too, to this very day... apk

  7. Lesson learned by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Don't do what the researchers did by placing bee hives right next to fields that are sprayed with pesticides.

  8. Poison everywhere by pabloApicco · · Score: 1

    So... the poison is everywhere!

  9. This is not really news by pi_rules · · Score: 1

    I work in Ag, which is probably a bit rare around here, and I also happen to be a pesticide applicator. Granted, greenhouse industry, not much field farming, but this is an issue that affects us too, if only for PR reasons.

    This exact scenario was explained to me about a year ago from an entomologist from MSU working in their Ag extension. Dr. Smitely is his name if anybody wants to double-check my memory or look into what else the guy has to say about neonics and bees.

    His take on this issue was pretty simple: it's a cultural fix. Teach the field farmers to quit emptying the "dust" of their seed bin at the edge of the field. Do it in the middle and we're good. That's it. That fixes it. That keeps the insecticides away from the wildflowers that they're going to gravitate to.

    There was a bit more to the talk, so I'll just go ahead and cover some of that too.

    The rise of neonics is tied to the rise of GMO pretty directly. We've had neonics for a good while, like the mid 80's, but they didn't get much use for field farming as a seed treatment until GMOs. When the seed costs rose it then became more economical to treat the seeds rather than just seed at a higher rate. Incidentally Australia tracks right along with the US in the rise of neonics and GMO crops but they have not experienced CCD or any decline in bee populations. They also don't have the varroa mite in Australia, which is why some think it's the mite and then something else on top of it leading to CCD with neonics being a possible candidate.

    Related to the GMO thing is with the RoundUp Ready GMO crops fewer wildflowers exist for the bees. Being able to dose the field with RoundUp before planting and then again after the crop has sprung up reduced the bees forage areas. Now you couple that with dumping insecticidal dust remaining in your seed bin on the few remaining wildflowers at the edge of a field and you've got some bee deaths. In hindsight we can see the problem but nobody really saw it moving into today's world.

    The last thing I'd like to mention is pretty much every insecticide is bad news for bees. Neonics are actually on the safer side of things for bees. That's not something you generally hear about because it's not popular and it's hard to make a meme graphic to spread across Facebook that reminds people that organophosphates, carbamates, pyretheroids, avermectins, etc. all suck for bees... and sometimes humans. Big words are hard. Thankfully this is Slashdot!

  10. - gmo agenda - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'genetic engineering' of the food supply,, monsanto, dupont all of them owned by Jews, the 'gmo' bs has been to take over the food supply and they have. Idiot ameriscums traded their lives for temporary 'cheaper' food and shit from china, all the schemes an agenda for world control by the tribe. Now we're being sprayed. nano chip chemtrails.
    - thezog.info - caveats, most comments on main page are jew trolls, mikrosht page covers up gates who's obvious jew, but see all pages at right, also top of main page 'required reading' page, bottom half of list copy articles from vnn. don't waste time at vnn, also run by jews. just see pages. gates/monsanto/blackwater
    http://corruptico.com/2014/09/30/jewish-bill-gates-crypto-jew-pseudo-christian/
    page starts on religion bs but goes to racial. other pages at site have some 'satan lucifer' jew psy ops bs, the 'jeesus' 'satan' bs made up by jews so idiots 'obey' and 'turn the other cheek' instead of fight back as jews take it all. The jew's controls, phony religions and 'government'.
    Jews are a Race - http://web.archive.org/web/20100825152627/http://jewishfaces.com/banking.html -see all pages at top. holo fraud - https://archive.org/details/TheLeuchterReport - ignore 'more reading' bs, they dump extra bs to keep dupes wasting time. Just see Leuchter.
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Auschwitz.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/810dresden_primary.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Coure_d_Arlene.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/False_Flags_summary.htm
      http://jewishcrimenetworkdid911.blogspot.com/
    They have mass of virus to kill other races, nordic whites, and their race isn't affected. newworldwar.org/chemical.htm - ignore notes at bottom, skip rest of site.
    holodomorinfo.com - see pages, don't waste time on videos, sites most'jew truther' sites run by them.
    People have been extremely ignorant. Stop being nice. Stop 'following' jew fake 'activitst' groups. Make your own tribes.

  11. Dumb bees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone needs smack those dumb things upside their little heads, and tell them to get back to business pollinating the crops they are situated right next to. Doesn't matter if the wildflowers taste better, they've got real WORK to do!