article in The Independant

[Hebeegeebee]

My bees don't seem to have died from pesticides. Maybe farmers don't use them in Norfolk?

 

[BobH1]

on this "points 6&7" thing, I can't agree that it's a "good thing" at all - just another way for Big Pestco to gain access to a captive "market" - as I've said in earlier threads, only a small step from compulsory registration to compulsory treatment (especially if the BBKA and it's bedfellows got to administer it!)

I agree with the size of the step, but frankly I'd rather the BBKA administered it than the "government". At least I have some control over the BBKA - I have no control over the government.

For a reasoned dicussion on the merits of this campaign see the Bumble Bee Conservation Trust website: http://www.bumblebeeconservation.org.uk/news.htm

 

[Brosville]

from which "To date they have not been banned in the UK on the basis that the science isn’t clear. Pesticides, sadly, seem to work on the basis of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Further independent research will be invaluable. BBCT support the view that a precautionary ban would be wise"

I agree that the petition may not have been perfectly worded, thankfully it would appear the BBCT will help them with this, but the main thrust of the petition IS valid!

As for which is the more evil - government or the BBKA? - whistles through teeth, and looks momentarily nonplussed for once......... NO compulsory registration on the grounds that neither can be trusted seems favourite!

 

[Hebeegeebee]

BobH1

For a reasoned dicussion on the merits of this campaign see the Bumble Bee Conservation Trust website: http://www.bumblebeeconservation.org.uk/news.htm

A good link and I agree with you - a more reasoned debate than in many places. Like -- err -- here?

 

[BobH1]

......... NO compulsory registration on the grounds that neither can be trusted seems favourite!

This is not an achievable future scenario. We will have registration, sooner rather than later. So who can we influence most easily?

 

[Haughton Honey]

This is not an achievable future scenario. We will have registration, sooner rather than later. So who can we influence most easily?

But what's to stop someone being registered on the database from only declaring a partial number of their hives?

There are millions upon millions of hectares of countryside in this country where hives could be kept without anyone knowing about it.

Totally unworkable and unenforceable if you ask me....a little bit like banning the use of a mobile phone when driving.

 

[madasafish]

Agree with WPC.

The costs of implementation and enforcement are likely to swallow the revenues raised..

Lets assume there are 40k UK beeks: 20k in BBKA and 20k not.
Annual registration fee is £25 for those with less than 20 hives, and say £5 per hive thereafter.

The average hives/beek is c 4.. .

Perming the likely charging structures etc.. that would at raise between £1 to £2million. At best. And then of course it would make beekeeping uncompetitive and drive most beeks underground /to give up.

Cost of implementation? Well I cannot see anything less than £1.5million.

Why bother? The plain fact is it is very much a minority pastime and not worth the effort of regulation.

See the laws on dog licenses: given up because not worth while. And the laws on dangerous dogs: unenforceable.

How do you define feral bees vs kept bees?

Not worth the effort. Even the dimmest MP could see that.

 

[drstitson]

just been covered on PM on radio 4.

 

[Chris B]

FWIW, if registration ever became compulsory, it's far more likely to be done on an apiary basis rather than number of hives, simply because that's the way BeeBase is already set up.

 

[BobH1]

Agree with WPC.

The costs of implementation and enforcement are likely to swallow the revenues raised ...

... And the laws on dangerous dogs: unenforceable.

... Even the dimmest MP could see that.

Cost and "enforcability" are not issues that would stop a government ... and it probably woouldn't get to a vote by MPs. Legislation is no doubt already in place that would allow regulations to be made.

 

[Hivemaker.]

I think if registration was to become compulsory it would be by apairy ,not hive numbers,same as mentioned by Chris. But could cause them quite a bit of work enforcing it via inspections of these apairys,especially if the apairy consisted of one mating nuc in each apairy,and hundreds of mating nuc's on top of poles, in hundreds of different locations,that were constantly being moved from one place to another.

 

[Somerford]

I agree, with "voluntary" registration of apiaries already in place, I can see point 7 arriving within a very short time.

But it beggars the question, WHY ? and for WHAT PURPOSE ?!

I think 90 % of beekeepers would tell them to eff off and then try and waste £1000000s sorting it out in the current climate ? I think not !

I for one, would NEVER PAY A PENNY, but am happy to be registered on the beebase so I can be informed if there is an outbreak nearby....I fail to see the reasons for a payment to register !!

S

 

[Somerford]

but back to the thread....I think it is excellent that a national paper has at last decided to cover the subject and start to present the facts (albeit from non-peer reviewed data (so what I say)) and the fact it is on National radio too, perhaps the rolling stone is gathering some moss at last.

Like many here, I will continue to follow this with great interest....

S

 

[Chris B]

....I think it is excellent that a national paper has at last decided to cover the subject and start to present the facts

I agree. But let's hope he'll continue with ALL the facts not just those that paint a doom and gloom picture. So far no mention of the fact that honeybee populations have risen dramatically over the last few years in the UK. I suspect the BBKA are now wondering if they've done the right thing by not fanfaring this.

I note also his accurate statement re. the Co-op, unlike many I've read that extrapolate beyond what Co-op have actually announced.

 

[Poly Hive]

As some one who is obviously involved in bees and deals with the public on a daily basis in a relaxed manner, ie serving breakfasts, I can say with some assurance that the public are convinced bees are in dire danger.

A mindset which could play for us well if adroitly handled. However I hae ma doots that that will ever happen.

PH

 

[chrismcd]

Just getting back to the article in the Independent.

I am intrigued that a neurotoxin like imidacloprid should increase susceptibility to a microsporidian parasite living in the bees guts. Low doses causing amnesia for homing foragers sounds rather more credible and they are still arguing about that.

However, this does not sound like a tricky experiment, so hopefully someone will try and duplicate it and we will know the worst.

To the best of my knowledge (and in a livestock area of North Yorkshire that is not great) Biscaya being sprayed onto OSR for pyrethroid resistant Pollen Beetle has not caused any bee deaths yet.

Once again, to the best of my knowledge, nobody ever really gave a satisfactory explanation for why the pyrethroids were so much safer in practice than Hostathion for this treatment.

The repellency argument does not really hold up, since some of the pyrethroids were a lot less repellant than others, but none of them were shown to kill bees wholesale when used on OSR. My belief is that they were locked into the leaf waxes and were only really a danger to beetles that were chewing the leaves - even bees drinking from dewdrops appeared to be reasonably safe in practice.

What I do not know is how "locked in" the neonicotinoids are. If they can get into pollen from a seed dressing the impression one would get is that they are fairly mobile.

To be frank, I am happy to keep my bees in a livestock area but would be very interested by the experiences of those who have bees working OSR.

 

[Black Comb]

Radio 4 slot here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xhffv/PM_20_01_2011/

45 mins and 40 secs in.

 

[DorsetB]

1. Government fails to manage pesticide licensing and revocation effectively.
2. Bee health and numbers suffer as a result
3. Government concern that impact on bee (and natural pollinator) pollinated crops will hit food chain
4. Government recognises that small weak band of private individuals keep bees
5. These bees can be used to monitor wider polliinator 'health and viability'
6. We are committed to bees! 'Pollination important to the country' statement from government (said in a Churchillian way)
7. Government forces compulsory registration of all beekeepers (actually not such a bad thing in my opinion - formalise beebase registration)
8. Government then imposes a £50 / year registration and inspection fee
9. Profits from registration 'used to research health issues in bees' - (government then removes the money they had committed and replaces it with ours)
10. 'Our' money is given to Pesticidie companies to aid research into bee health
11. This completely unbiased research tells us pesticides are not to blame - it is a complete eye-opener that no one in government saw coming, a change of approach is needed!
12. Based on this government decides beekeepers are bad at keeping bees and so need more inspections (sorry I mean consultative support) - because it cant be a chemical environmental impact that is the cause of all this - our money has just proved that :-0
13. Inspections now 2 a year at £100
14. Beekeepers stop keeping bees


... probably the most intelligent analysis I have seen so far on the subject - your avatar does creep me out however!

Let us also not forget that Bayer was a constituent company of the IG Farben Group during WWII.
IG Farben made Zyklon B, a pesticide graded with a letter to denote it's potency:

- grade "D" was used for mice, lice, rats etc
- grade "E" was used for cockroaches and the like
- grade "B" was used for humans in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Whilst I am not trying in any way to draw a parallel with our current problem, I think we all need to be aware of the fact that ALL such large multinational companies effectively keep governments in their pocket and treat the public with utter disdain whilst single-mindedly pursuing their endless profit objective.

In May 2008 the German Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) ordered the immediate suspension of the approval for eight seed treatment products due to mass deaths of bees. Six of the products were manufactured by Bayer. The risks of ingredients such as imidacloprid and clothianidin for bees are well known. Bayer makes around 800 million Euro (1.25 billion US dollars) per year on imidacloprid and clothianidin combined. In France imidacloprid use has been banned since 1999 for most uses. In 2003 the French government found that imidacloprid use on seeds produces a significant risk for bees. Bayer´s application for clothianidin was rejected by French authorities.


From http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/bayer_ag

So other governments including Bayer's own home country have banned their products - although if it were not Bayer, a different name would fill their shoes.

 

[Somerford]

- grade "D" was used for mice, lice, rats etc
- grade "E" was used for cockroaches and the like
- grade "B" was used for humans in the gas chambers at Auschwitz..

What on earth was grade 'A' used to destroy then ?!?!??

In May 2008 the German Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) ordered the immediate suspension of the approval for eight seed treatment products due to mass deaths of bees. Six of the products were manufactured by Bayer. The risks of ingredients such as imidacloprid and clothianidin for bees are well known. Bayer makes around 800 million Euro (1.25 billion US dollars) per year on imidacloprid and clothianidin combined. In France imidacloprid use has been banned since 1999 for most uses. In 2003 the French government found that imidacloprid use on seeds produces a significant risk for bees. Bayer´s application for clothianidin was rejected by French authorities.

.

It seems like a total failure of the EU state then.....one state can ban a product, yet the same ban isn't carried over across all member states.....I'm surprised that Bayer haven't gone to the EU courts to get the ban overturned...perhaps they know they'd fail ??

regards

S

 

[Brosville]

"What on earth was grade 'A' used to destroy then ?!?!??"

"Ferdinand Flury developed Zyklon A in 1920. Its development was a major advance over previous methods to deliver hydrocyanic acid for pest control because of its improved chemical stability and the presence of a warning odorant!"


"plus ca change, plus la meme chose"