Slashdot Mirror
Pesticides Turn Bumblebees Into Poor Pollinators (acs.org)
MTorrice writes about a new study that suggests neonicotinoids, one of the most widely used insecticides in the world, turn bumblebees into poor pollinators, leading to lower yields of apples and other plants. Chemical & Engineering News reports: "Neonicotinoid pesticides have been blamed for declines in bee populations worldwide. The chemicals don't kill bees, instead neonicotinoids impair the insects' abilities to learn, navigate, forage for nectar, and reproduce, according to studies published over the past several years. Now, researchers report that bees exposed to the pesticides also become less effective pollinators for crops. The study is the first to demonstrate that neonicotinoids can decrease the quality of a food crop by affecting bee pollination. About 30% of our food comes from crops, including fruits, nuts, seeds, and oils, that depend on insect pollinators, according to Dara A. Stanley of Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the new study. 'Basically,' she says, 'you can't have a balanced diet without insect pollination.'"
From TFA:
“Until now, all of the focus has been on the impact of neonicotinoids on bees themselves,” she continues. “But obviously the reason why we’re interested in bees is because they provide pollination services.”
Rough translation, this study examines how neonicotinoids affect bee behaviour, and not just whether they kill or injure them.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Smoke isn't "good" for bees. It just triggers behaviours that make them docile.
The smoke masks the scent produced by guard-bees, so a bee-keeper's intrusion produces less alarm. Also, the smoke tricks the bees into thinking the hive is on fire, so they gorge on the honey, and become distended and less able to sting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
With all due respect to farmers, they'll probably need some help with this. They know how to grow food, but not necessarily how to create better pesticides.
And what's with the claim of hype or exaggeration? The full context of what you quoted, in TFS and TFA, is:
About 30% of our food comes from crops, including fruits, nuts, seeds, and oils, that depend on insect pollinators, according to Dara A. Stanley of Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the new study. 'Basically,' she says, 'you can't have a balanced diet without insect pollination.'"
I see no hype or exaggeration here. Just rational and accurate communication.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Because people want all food, cheap, unblemished in any way, all year round, no matter how tasteless or lacking in nutrition.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Newsflash: chemicals used because of they harm insects end up harming insects.
If the pesticides are a problem, let's address it. There's no need to pretend we're in for a future "without insect pollination". If this phenomenon is a real problem that can be demonstrated, then why hype it up? .
Because I'm certain that we can find some scientist, probably paid by the industry making Neonicotinoid pesticides, who will deny a problem, and a whole lot of people will hop on that bandwagon, just like global warming deniers, vaccine deniers, evolution deniers, moon landing deniers, tobacco and lung cancer deniers, and all the other happy little deniers out there. In 21st century America, Opinion trumps science every time.
Teach the controversy!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
About 30% of our food comes from crops, including fruits, nuts, seeds, and oils, that depend on insect pollinators, according to Dara A. Stanley of Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the new study. 'Basically,' she says, 'you can't have a balanced diet without insect pollination.'"
I see no hype or exaggeration here. Just rational and accurate communication.
Truth can be hype to some folks.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This is coming from the country that lifted a ban on neonictonoids... http://www.theguardian.com/env...
Silence is a state of mime.
Practical and direct, just great analysis.! https://www.facebook.com/julio...
It seems reasonable enough to me that bees that quit pollinating multiple times a day to take a smoke break would be less efficient than normal, upstanding, hard working, bees.
Neonics have been in popular use since the 90's and increasing every year. If the use of them was hurting yield (it isn't) farmers would have noticed by now. They're using them because it increases yield in a cost effective manner and it's not a simple story.
Neonics are useful because they're deliverable in powder form, you can coat a seed with it, and it'll protect the seed from insects while germinating. After that the plant will take up the chemical to provide some systemic activity for a period of time. This helps the young plants get established. After about 30 days they're gone and not doing anything.
They started being used in the 90's for field farming because you could seed at a lower rate, but seed is, generally, very cheap so it wasn't too common. Pumpkins? Sure. Corn? No way -- too cheap of seed. When GMO corn, soy, cotton, etc came along THEN you saw a big uptick in neonics as it was now beneficial to protect those seeds as the GMO crops were fairly expensive seed.
Apiaries (bee keepers) might be taking a bit of hit but that's just part of dropping your bees off at a farm where a simple mistake can kill most of them. One entymologist I've heard speak on this pointed out a farm that killed a bunch of rented bees with vegetable oil... and yes vegetable oil is an insecticide. Another killed a bunch with RoundUp, an herbicide, but too much will kill a bee. Pretty much anything will kill a bee. The fact that neonics aren't terribly fatal to them is amazing, and public resistance to them confounds me and generally every other guy that's donned a chem suit and went to town on bugs. The alternatives are generally horrible to bees. Push back on neonics is going to result in more pyrethroids, carbamates and organophosphates. Every single one is toxic to bees, horribly so, and carbamates and organophosphates are bad news for humans.
Because neonicotinoids are among the safest overall pesticides that have ever been developed. They very effectively target insects, but have very minor effects on mammals. The LD50 of Safari is over 2000 mg/kg of body weight in rats. They're rated category III by the EPA, which means 'slightly toxic and/or slightly irritating.'
The big problem is with bees. Neonics are supposedly 150X more lethal to bees than to any other insect genera.
The EU has already banned neonics (possibly because population density is higher and bees may be more shared than in the US); the US is dragging their feet.
John
Correction: 100 % of our food comes from crops. What do you think that steak was eating before landing on your plate? Also, inefficient as hell, but steak does taste nice.
Or you could you know look at the data. There is a lot more than just this study about this. Fact is the data is not nearly as clear cut as the summary claims. What is clear is how crops handle not using pesticide, they don't. You know organic crops use pesticide right? You think you can just ask all the insects to be nice to your crop just because you decided it organic?
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?