Neonics leading cause of Turkey population decline
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Joined
·
2,395 Posts
agree theres more going on
Joined
·
712 Posts
I don't diasagree with a lot that was said, but to compare the insect toxicity of DDT with neonics is dumber than hell and just a shock jock type of move on their part. Of course insecticides are toxic to insects. And the fact that it's so much more toxic means you don't have to use near as much.
Joined
·
93,481 Posts
Couple thoughts from me aside from the snide comment I made yesterday
Probably no secret that I am passionate about this type of nonsense.If you are going to qualify your ability to comment on such things by claiming you are a biologist, take the time to understand the subject matter and learn the nomenclature. Continuing to pronounce it “neonictoid“ even when your “super biologist” guest pronounces it correctly several times makes you look uninformed. I make a judgment on a persons expertise in this field by how familiar they are with the issues… like if I hear glyphosate pronounced “glyphosphate” I’m just going to assume you dont know the subject matter very well.
Treated seeds are colored, yes. But not necessarily to indicate that there is some kind of dire warning necessarily. They are simply required by the EPA to indicate that the seed is treated with something. Companies use EPA approved colors to differentiate between seed treatment packages, most of which contain not only a neonicitinoid insecticide but a variety of fungicides, inocculants, etc. This is NOT new… if you think of the old Pioneer 3394 or similar corn hybrids, they have been pink for a very long time. I will say that pesticides registered under FIFRA will have a signal word to indicate the danger of what you are working with and make sure that you are using the correct PPE. This goes back to a risk assessment and the fact that a seed coated with something may be airborne and require specific PPE, etc. Fungicides are pesticides just as are insecticides and caution language is mandated as a part of your registration with the EPA.
I like that the guy has USDA experience. I wish he would have spent more time on what exactly the risk assessment particulars are for neonics and what the endpoints are. We are shown a study that shows an apparent acute or chronic biological accumulation of neonics in various organs but we aren’t told what that means or if that is a harmful amount. Science has evolved over the years and detectability of various materials can now be found on a PPB or PPT level. You could probably find traces of arsenic in peanut M&Ms if you look hard enough. The question is, are those levels above the threshold of harm? Sometimes these results are not put into context. And sometimes, that lack of context is intentional as you said for “shock”. Why not show us how much innoculant or fungicide has accumulated in organs if eating wildlife seed is harmful? I agree with the expert though that the benefits of using neonics on seeds is probably lacking in terms of total protection of the emerging plant. I think there are better options and the advent of GMO and plant-incorporated protectants save a lot of insecticide applications, thereby narrowing the control of specific plant pests to only those pests that feed directly on the plant (rootworm, flea beetle, whatever the pest).
I’ve said this before and I will say it again… these people that are apparently aligned with the anti-agriculture NGOs and similar should have no beef with any of the companies that sell these products. Strict adherence to guidelines provided by the wonderful Environmental Protection Agency is required of all registrants and severe penalties are levied for non-compliance. A stop-sale of a popular pesticide product can cost MILLIONS of dollars in fines and penalties. I work very closely with regulatory experts and I can tell you that companies are very cautious about keeping registrations that conform. Any beef about the use of neonics or any other flavor of the day that the anti-farm lobby and ambulance chasing lawyers choose should be taken up with the EPA. They set the rules. Companies are very ill-advised to shirk the rules.
Joined
·
32,186 Posts
Well said Rat. I'm not sure what it means but you obviously earned the title of a guy that knows stuff.
Joined
·
75,624 Posts
Spend a day with him in a waterfowl blind sometime, when there are no birds flying around. You will learn stuff you cannot even begin to pronounce the words of, let alone understand what it is he's saying. He speaks a whole different language, which makes being in a blind with Fishy too, a multilingual experience, and one i cherish deeply.
Joined
·
5,619 Posts
i would come out at the end of the day feeling even more stupid than i actually am. And I am one stupid MOFOSpend a day with him in a waterfowl blind sometime, when there are no birds flying around. You will learn stuff you cannot even begin to pronounce the words of, let alone understand what it is he's saying. He speaks a whole different language, which makes being in a blind with Fishy too, a multilingual experience, and one i cherish deeply.
Joined
·
712 Posts
I'm just wondering why he quoted me in that post.... As if I didn't already know all those things!
Joined
·
75,624 Posts
He can also be sort of abrasive at times......I'm just wondering why he quoted me in that post.... As if I didn't already know all those things!
Joined
·
93,481 Posts
I was just expanding on your thoughts. You are probably one of the more sympathetic ears I might have here on this subject.I'm just wondering why he quoted me in that post.... As if I didn't already know all those things!
I think you above all here including me have much better understanding of the regulatory mess at the top. You’ve been living it.
I didnt use any big words, just plain old logic and common sense sprinkled with a modicum of understanding of the process.
I think the EPA is a good thing in principle. The problem is that much like any other invented govt department (like the department of education) its bloated, ineffective, riddled with unnecessary regulations and inhibiting. I want safety with pesticides. I want common sense regulations. I want structure and control with agriculture and the resulting food supply it provides the world. What I dont want is regulators that dont know what they are doing setting rules that dont make sense. Lotsa luck with that in Washington.
The EPA has taken science-driven stances on various pesticides through the years that have enraged NGOs and the result is a bunch of cumbersome lawsuits back and forth that prolong any real progress. Without all these distractions, the EPA could operate much more smoothly.
It would be nice if the folks demanding to follow the science actually did just that.
Joined
·
30,221 Posts
Good stuff Paul…..you can keep ranting as far as I’m concerned. Folks might learn stuff. The anti farm folks absolutely blow my mind. Go ahead and make farming more expensive than it already is, go ahead and work to reduce farming efficiency, go ahead and reduce farming yield capabilities. See what happens to food availability, see what happens to food prices, see what happens to the economy as a whole. Look at what the war in Eastern Europe has done to the economy….part of that impact is due to the impact on farming and on resources needed for farming. If folks don’t understand that farming is central to EVERYTHING they are living in a box.Rant off. Back the regularly scheduled programming of imidicloprid killing deer and turkeys right and left.
Joined
·
75,624 Posts
GDMMMIT Eggs are expensive though!!!!
Joined
·
15,184 Posts
but the bird flu wiped out 3% of the laying hens is why the price of eggs have gone up over 250%GDMMMIT Eggs are expensive though!!!!
well that and feed prices and fuel prices on and on and on
Joined
·
29,334 Posts
all of that stuff is probably good for animal consumption.Couple thoughts from me aside from the snide comment I made yesterday
If you are going to qualify your ability to comment on such things by claiming you are a biologist, take the time to understand the subject matter and learn the nomenclature. Continuing to pronounce it “neonictoid“ even when your “super biologist” guest pronounces it correctly several times makes you look uninformed. I make a judgment on a persons expertise in this field by how familiar they are with the issues… like if I hear glyphosate pronounced “glyphosphate” I’m just going to assume you dont know the subject matter very well.
Treated seeds are colored, yes. But not necessarily to indicate that there is some kind of dire warning necessarily. They are simply required by the EPA to indicate that the seed is treated with something. Companies use EPA approved colors to differentiate between seed treatment packages, most of which contain not only a neonicitinoid insecticide but a variety of fungicides, inocculants, etc. This is NOT new… if you think of the old Pioneer 3394 or similar corn hybrids, they have been pink for a very long time. I will say that pesticides registered under FIFRA will have a signal word to indicate the danger of what you are working with and make sure that you are using the correct PPE. This goes back to a risk assessment and the fact that a seed coated with something may be airborne and require specific PPE, etc. Fungicides are pesticides just as are insecticides and caution language is mandated as a part of your registration with the EPA.
I like that the guy has USDA experience. I wish he would have spent more time on what exactly the risk assessment particulars are for neonics and what the endpoints are. We are shown a study that shows an apparent acute or chronic biological accumulation of neonics in various organs but we aren’t told what that means or if that is a harmful amount. Science has evolved over the years and detectability of various materials can now be found on a PPB or PPT level. You could probably find traces of arsenic in peanut M&Ms if you look hard enough. The question is, are those levels above the threshold of harm? Sometimes these results are not put into context. And sometimes, that lack of context is intentional as you said for “shock”. Why not show us how much innoculant or fungicide has accumulated in organs if eating wildlife seed is harmful? I agree with the expert though that the benefits of using neonics on seeds is probably lacking in terms of total protection of the emerging plant. I think there are better options and the advent of GMO and plant-incorporated protectants save a lot of insecticide applications, thereby narrowing the control of specific plant pests to only those pests that feed directly on the plant (rootworm, flea beetle, whatever the pest).
I’ve said this before and I will say it again… these people that are apparently aligned with the anti-agriculture NGOs and similar should have no beef with any of the companies that sell these products. Strict adherence to guidelines provided by the wonderful Environmental Protection Agency is required of all registrants and severe penalties are levied for non-compliance. A stop-sale of a popular pesticide product can cost MILLIONS of dollars in fines and penalties. I work very closely with regulatory experts and I can tell you that companies are very cautious about keeping registrations that conform. Any beef about the use of neonics or any other flavor of the day that the anti-farm lobby and ambulance chasing lawyers choose should be taken up with the EPA. They set the rules. Companies are very ill-advised to shirk the rules.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
