It's getting worse for neonic

Latest Articles

It's getting worse for neonic
Page Previous 1, 2

Downsizer Forum Index -> The Apiary

Author

Message

Tavascarow

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

Posted: Thu May 14, 15 7:40 am Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

It's certainly having an effect.

Quote:

About 5% of the oilseed rape crop originally planted was lost to flea beetle damage last autumn, with 1.5% redrilled, leaving 22,000ha ripped up in England, equating to some 3.5%.

Quote:

The survey says England and Wales plantings would have been 5% higher if neonicotinoid treatment had been available, equivalent to an extra 38,000ha drilled.

Who are the HGCA? I like to know who pays the piper. I definitely wouldn't expect FWi to be anti pesticides considering how much advertising revenue they receive.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu May 14, 15 9:30 am Post subject:
They are the levy board for grains & oilseeds. Not everything is a conspiracy theory - I'm not sure what you're suggesting - it is exactly the outcome you would expect. Farmers don't spend thousands on pesticides for fun.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15982

Posted: Fri May 15, 15 6:58 am Post subject:

I know they don't. There are two sides to this. On one side the farmers need some sort of pesticide against flea beetle, and on the other side they need bees to pollinate the OSR and other flowers. The current pesticide of choice seems to be having an adverse effect on the pollinators. By seeing if stopping the use of the pesticide for a few years helps the pollinators, a sensible experiment is being run. However, at present, nobody has come up with a good alternative way of controlling flea beetle. How was it controlled in the past? I agree that help should be given to the farmers in terms of their lost yeilds, and also help to control the pest in some other way.

My comment about pigeons was because some years the losses to winter sown OSR to pigeons seem far in excess of reported losses to flea beetle in this area, and as a passer by, they are very obvious to me.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Fri May 15, 15 10:06 am Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

I agree that help should be given to the farmers in terms of their lost yeilds, and also help to control the pest in some other way.

I'm not so sure about that - it's prevalence as break crop is much greater because of the pesticides and breeding. With it withdrawn I think the only sensible answer is to gross less of it and return to more traditional break crops, like grass in the rotation.

Vegetable oils are causing so much damage to the environment yet it is always meat that gets the blame and we're told to cut down on that. Noone ever says that we're eating too much veg oil and we should be growing more grass.

Tavascarow

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

Posted: Fri May 15, 15 4:42 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

They are the levy board for grains & oilseeds. Not everything is a conspiracy theory - I'm not sure what you're suggesting - it is exactly the outcome you would expect. Farmers don't spend thousands on pesticides for fun.

I wasn't saying there was a conspiracy. I just like to know who's paying the bill because as you know that generally sways the conclusions. A lot of the pro chemical/ anti ban propaganda is coming from the agrochem industry, which is why I asked. Thanks for clearing that one up.
If farmers had time to read the science they probably wouldn't pay thousands. There's proof that neonics are bad for yields in certain instances because of their effects on beneficial species. As Mistress Rose stated without pollinators OSR is just a green crop. It's totally reliant on insect pollination to produce seed. 5% loss of yield to fleabeetle is better than 100% loss due to no bees.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Fri May 15, 15 5:08 pm Post subject:

Agreed, but we'd all be a lot better off with less OSR - it struggles often because there are just too few pollinators to cope with the demand in a short space of time. A few more clover leys to support pollinators are best, but for that we need a few more animals to eat it.

I think we're going to see a significantly reduced crop in the future, not just due to pesticides, but other factors too. However, I'm not so confident that it'll be replaced with more grass, perhaps more pulses to help combat rising protein costs.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15982

Posted: Sat May 16, 15 6:07 am Post subject:

I assumed the OSR was grown because it was something the farmers could sell. I didn't realise it was mainly as a break crop, because round here there is lots of it grown. We have found OSR useful for our bees because it builds them up in the spring, but whether all of it gets pollinated I don't know. The spring rape used to give us a good crop, but hardly any of that is grown here now. Pulses are not a bad alternative are they? Certainly peas and field beans add nitrogen to the soil, and field beans encourage pollinators, as the best honey I ever had was rape and field bean.

Clover is a good crop for cattle and for wildlife, but it depends on whether it is worth while for the farmer, and the particular place it is grown. If ground is to be used for livestock, then trying to re-establish the traditional pasture for that area is probably a good alternative.

Basically, it is a question of balance. We need some arable farming, some livestock and the whole as ecologically balanced as possible. You would not be able to do your type of farming where we are because it is dry and the natural pasture, although used for grazing in the valleys, is better suited for sheep on the hills.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sat May 16, 15 8:23 am Post subject:
If it grows grass (and even some places that don't) , it's suitable. We need some arable, but a lot less than we have at the moment - we should build the soil with grass for more years than we deplete it with crops. We'd need a lot less pesticides, and be a lot healthier for it.

Falstaff

Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014

Posted: Sat May 16, 15 9:48 am Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

.......... However, at present, nobody has come up with a good alternative way of controlling flea beetle. How was it controlled in the past? .........

"Flea Beetle dust" was effective I used to lend it surreptitiously to my mate who "was organic" so he could actually grow some seedlings !

It was banned around the same time as "Derris dust"

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15982

Posted: Sun May 17, 15 7:05 am Post subject:

I suspect it was derris dust. As far as I recall, that is organic, but kills nearly everything.

Leaving fields to grass or fallow would be a good way of reducing pests and diseases Rob. It might do something for things like black grass too. It would mean altering the current ideas of farming back to mixed farming as it used to be I suspect. Several farms I see locally, that mainly rely on pigs or cows seem to use this method and after the animals have been on them for a few years, they plough them up and grow a crop for a year or two before going back to grazing. Assume that gets rid of parasite build up in the soil for the animals.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sun May 17, 15 7:17 am Post subject:
I watched a programme 'Man & Beast' with Martin Clunes last night on ITV.com after hearing that it featured his Dexters too. Nothing to do with grazing but it was good (& bad) to see how much we rely on animals for so many things.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15982

Posted: Mon May 18, 15 7:16 am Post subject:
Something I think a lot of people don't realise.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46233
Location: yes

Posted: Mon May 18, 15 9:45 pm Post subject:
derris is a plant based complex ,it kills most insects and is also pretty good as a fish poison .made from a chrysanthemum iirc and discouraged for good reasons edit having checked made from vetch like plants ,perhaps used on chrysanthemums although some of those do have some rather interesting toxins and toxin precursors Last edited by dpack on Wed May 20, 15 12:02 am; edited 1 time in total

Falstaff

Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014

Posted: Mon May 18, 15 10:55 pm Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

I suspect it was derris dust. As far as I recall, that is organic,...

Like cyanide, strychnine and nicotine ?

Apparently "derris dust" is rotenone ! (you learn something every day ! ) and is efficient against insects and fish, but not on humans and other mammals.

Dunno whetehr dd and Flea beetle dust were the same - I rather doiubt it, sine they were side by side on teh shelves from the same maker

However they were only effective for a few days whereas neonics are systemic and last seemingly for the life of teh plant.

The links seem to say dd was ok for use up until2008 and possibly after - I'm wondering whether that means something else became known as dd because I remember it being "barred" in around 1992 ?

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15982

Posted: Tue May 19, 15 6:17 am Post subject:
Some things are barred for some uses by some people but not others. It could have been the shelf life of the product though as it would probably alter and become less effective with time.

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

View Latest Posts