Government response to Neonic petition.

Latest Articles

Government response to Neonic petition.
Page Previous 1, 2

Downsizer Forum Index -> The Apiary

Author

Message

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 15 11:47 am Post subject: Re: Government response to Neonic petition.

Tavascarow wrote:

IMHO a pack of lies & greenwash.

A bit harsh & defeatist - it's less than 15,000 away from a debate in parliament. And a blocking of use in 74% of the crop is better than none.

Meanwhile, I'm going to continue my crusade to increase the numbers of grazing livestock and encourage more untreated biodiverse pastures. If only we could get the UN on board a bit more.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46247
Location: yes

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 15 12:44 pm Post subject:
greenwash ,yes lies ,probably. no mention of the power of overt and covert lobby from the agrochem industry .yes. a bad call based on the importance of pollinator insects,very yes. business as usual but probably less evil than bombing for peace ,blackmail and whitewash,etc etc etc .

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 15 2:20 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to Neonic petition.

Rob R wrote:

Tavascarow wrote:

IMHO a pack of lies & greenwash.

I was talking about the government response not the petition.

Quote:

We use the best available scientific evidence to inform decisions on pesticides and have a committee of scientists, called the Expert Committee on Pesticides, to advise ministers. When the Committee provides its advice it takes into account wider environmental factors, such as increasing resistance to alternative pesticides, risks to biodiversity, and the availability of other pesticides and agronomic techniques to control pests.

The government tried to gag the ' expert committee on pesticides just prior to them lifting the ban & have constantly ignored their recomendations. & the DEFRA minister who was responsible for the decision rather than meeting with her 'experts' was in meeting with representatives from Bayer & Syngenta only the day before the decision was made.

Quote:

EU legislation allows Member States to consider applications for the authorisation of products to deal with emergency situations that are temporary, limited in scale and controlled to address �a danger which cannot be contained by any other reasonable means�. Authorisations are only granted after an assessment of the evidence provided by the applicant demonstrates that all the legal requirements are met.

If it was such an emergency how come yields have increased since the ban?

Quote:

We are already providing �2 billion to farmers to implement environmental schemes and we will provide �900 million more through the new Countryside Stewardship scheme. This new scheme includes a dedicated Wild Pollinator and Farm Wildlife Package.

Most of which is EU money not government funding & would be there regardless of whomever was in power.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 15 2:40 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to Neonic petition.

Tavascarow wrote:

Quote:

If it was such an emergency how come yields have increased since the ban?

Dunno, it's hard to say without the evidence.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 15 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to Neonic petition.

Rob R wrote:

Tavascarow wrote:

Quote:

If it was such an emergency how come yields have increased since the ban?

Dunno, it's hard to say without the evidence.

Tavascarow wrote:

Oilseed rape yield higher without neonics.

Quote:

Matt Shardlow, Buglife's CEO, added: "This is further evidence that neonicotinoids are not essential to maintaining crop yields. While some farmers struggled to establish their oilseed rape crop because the weather last year was ideal for flea beetles, where they have persisted the results have been good."

He adds that the very reason for the improved harvest of oilseed rape - an insect-pollinated crop that provides a rich source of nectar for bees - may be the neonic ban itself, permitting larger and healthier populations of bees and other pollinators:

"We seem to have forgotten that bees and other pollinators are essential to good crop yields. In the trade off this year pollinators may have had a bigger positive effect than any negative impact of flea beetles."

If you want evidence to the damage neonics do to bees & in the wider environment re-read this thread.

Quote:

Tavascarow wrote:

They have been in wide use extensively since the mid 1990's.
Virtually all maize & rape crops where treated with them before the ban.
Farmers had little choice.

As to research papers.
RFID Tracking of Sublethal Effects of Two Neonicotinoid Insecticides on the Foraging Behavior of Apis mellifera

Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema

Neonicotinoids, bee disorders and the sustainability of pollinator services

Neonicotinoid clothianidin adversely affects insect immunity and promotes replication of a viral pathogen in honey bees

An insecticide-infection connection in bee colony collapses

ea
sa
c
building science into EU policy
Ecosystem services, agriculture and neonicotinoids (Page 37 onwards).

Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees

Bees prefer foods containing neonicotinoid pesticides.

There's a few to start.

Tavascarow wrote:

A couple more that demonstrate the wider environmental effect.
Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations

Macro-Invertebrate Decline in Surface Water Polluted with Imidacloprid: A Rebuttal and Some New Analyses

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 15 4:13 pm Post subject:

I was thinking more of the evidence of higher yields, showing a correlation that goes above and beyond the fact that it was a good growing season for everything this harvest, even wind pollinated crops. If it were also to show the decreased yield in the treated crop then that would be conclusive, but I'm struggling to find the relationship in anything I have read, other than optimistic conjecture.

You know me, I'm no fan of pesticides, but I do like to have a strong case behind my opposition.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 15 5:51 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

From ADAS in the first link.

Quote:

ADAS, the UK's largest independent agricultural consultancy, has confirmed that with 15% of the oilseed rape harvested, yields are between 3.5 and 3.7 tonnes per hectare, higher than the normal farm average of 3.4, reporting:

"An estimated 15% of winter oilseed rape was also harvested with yields typically above the 5-year average, although it must be noted that yield information is based on a small area harvested to date. Limited quality data is available, although early quality indicators are good."

STOP PRESS 6th August 2015 - A second week of harvest data now more than confirms the trend. With 35% of the UK winter oilseed rape area harvested, "national yield estimates for winter barley and oilseed rape remain above the 10 year average, although this does hide some variability with low yields reported on winter oilseed rape that suffered poor establishment due to a range of factors, including pigeon and adult cabbage stem flea beetle (CSFB) damage."

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 15 6:05 pm Post subject:
We had a good harvest this year, yes. That's weather though, and we experienced the same in wind pollinated & vegetative crops.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 15 7:00 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

We had a good harvest this year, yes. That's weather though, and we experienced the same in wind pollinated & vegetative crops.

But there was no 'emergency'.
I'm sure the pesticide manufacturers & the government would have made sure we knew if there had been. & I'm sure I would have heard as my nose is c lose to the ground where neonics are involved.
Localised damage doesn't (IMHO) constitute an emergency.
I'm sure you will agree.
& if there was no emergency, then there's no reason to lift the ban in any way shape or form other than to pander to big agro business again.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 15 7:41 pm Post subject:
No, you are claiming that the ban increased yields & backing that up with a link that says nothing of the sort.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 15 9:07 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

No, you are claiming that the ban increased yields & backing that up with a link that says nothing of the sort.

No I'm not, in this instance I'm saying the ADAS report is evidence there's been no emergency.
In the original post I said it could be indicating the ban helped increase yields through increased pollinator activity. But (IIRC) I did say it wasn't scientific to draw those conclusions from just one years result.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 15 10:53 pm Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

Rob R wrote:

No, you are claiming that the ban increased yields & backing that up with a link that says nothing of the sort.

No I'm not, in this instance I'm saying the ADAS report is evidence there's been no emergency.

You asked why yields were up. I answered. I asked where the evidence for yields being up because of the ban was. You gave the ADAS link, I'm sorry but it wasn't terribly clear that you weren't answering my question with that response.

It doesn't take account of what the yields would have been without the ban or the area redrilled and knocked up though. I'm interested in the comparable side-by-side evidence of yields, if you come across anything of that nature.

Having never grown it I still favour grass as the more sustainable break crop, if indeed you feel the need to grow annuals at all.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15997

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 15 7:02 am Post subject:
It may be completely circumstantial that the yields are up. We will only know if the ban remains for several years and yields remain higher than normal. OSR does have some uses other than fodder, so some needs to be grown, but using it as a break crop between cereals is perhaps not the best reason.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46247
Location: yes

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 15 11:31 am Post subject:

iirc legumes are a better break crop ,as the root nodules fix nitrates,but they are not as economically viable as adding nitrates derived from air and fossil fuel for hydrogen and energy.

the traditional series grain,legumes,fallow(graze)? has a few variations (2 and4 yr series have been used historically)and some systems alternate wheat and barley (or oats)or include a root crop.

rotation also reduces the problems of "pests"as the children of one crop's pest have no food from the next crop.

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 15 2:31 pm Post subject:

dpack wrote:

iirc legumes are a better break crop ,as the root nodules fix nitrates,but they are not as economically viable as adding nitrates derived from air and fossil fuel for hydrogen and energy.

Have we discussed here the idea offshore fertiliser plants?
I did wonder about using the pressure of the depth to save on engineering, but I decided it would create more problems than it solved.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> The Apiary	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

View Latest Posts