Bees Bayer Systemic Pesticide

[Orchid Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Brooke

(snip by OW) Do you know that one of the main systemic flea control products contains imidacloprid?

Brooke

You bet! If I knew how to mix it into a spray for plants, I would consider it. I suspect the formulations for plants probably have stabilizers of one kind or another added, but that is a guess. There may be carriers in the pet formulations that might not be good for plants (again, I don't know, just a guess).

[DavidCampen]

I use Dominion 2L for my orchids. It is 21.4% imidacloprid. It is listed for use on ornamentals and interior plantscapes and is widely available.
http://www.controlsolutionsinc.com/d...202L_label.pdf

[Orchid Whisperer]

Originally Posted by DavidCampen

I use Dominion 2L for my orchids. It is 21.4% imidacloprid. It is listed for use on ornamentals and interior plantscapes and is widely available.
http://www.controlsolutionsinc.com/d...202L_label.pdf

Good information!

I looked up the shelf life. Good up to 36 months if kept cool. For a small grower like me, it is probably more economical to buy a container of the 3-in-1 meant for the garden hose, and dilute from that. In larger quantities than that, it would likely go bad before I could use it.

Great information for the grower with a larger collection, though.

[orchidsarefun]

WOW !!!!!!! Guess all you naysayers REALLY better stock-up


Home Depot, Lowe's petitioned by environmentalists to save bees


.... said Home Depot has been working on an alternative to neonicotinoids for some time and that several of the retailer's suppliers are already using the replacements. He said that anti-pesticide petitioners who have been in the stores this week have been very polite—and that anytime someone has an issue with a Home Depot product, it is taken seriously.

[Brooke]

How many of those environmentalist are scientists or chemical engineers?

Brooke

[orchidsarefun]

I am not sure why that would be relevant, other than for a pointless yes, but argument. Are we supposed to blindly accept only "scientists and chemical engineers" know what they are talking about ? I am sure it was "scientists and chemical engineers" that gave us now-banned products like DDT and thalidomide, told us tobacco smoking was safe, and a laundry list of other wonderful products.
I believe a non-scientist can reach a conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence and the likelihood of problems. Evidently in the minds of some people, not so much. I have asked a couple of times for the research showing these products are SAFE, but its much easier for some just to raise specious comments.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink....

[katrina]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

I believe a non-scientist can reach a conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence and the likelihood of problems.

"Likelyhood" is not fact. Nor is it proof of what is going on or what the problems might be.

The scientist nor the non-scientist can come to any one conclusion for CCD. No one has been able to definitely determine the cause of the deaths. Even most beekeepers are at a loss as to what is happening. Most of what I've read/heard/been told...they think it's a combo of issues at hand but no one is exactly sure what is happening. So, with that said, I don't think anyone can say one product or body or products is to blame for the issue.

FWIW...I wish it was just the one group of products that is causing the problem because then we could stop using those and the problem would reverse itself. The reality is...there is still far too much that's unknown and many people (scientist, non-scientist, and beekeepers) think the problem has more than just one root cause.



BTW - my info comes from a beekeeper... My sister is a beekeeper and honey producer...and she's in contact w/many other local beekeepers. She is a small operation but some of her contacts are very large operations. I may not have an scientific link on hand but my info comes from her as well as what her and her local colleagues have discussed as well as some of the article and info she's shared w/me over the past couple/few years.

If you'd like to read more about the other side of the controversy...google it. Just like you can find all the stuff you want when you google your side of this...you can find just as much on the other side.

I will repeat...there is still too much that we need to learn/uncover/figure out. I'm not taking the side of the pesticide but I'm also not ready to jump on the side of those pointing the finger at just pesticides...much less one body of pesticides. Personally, I am very interested to watch what unfolds over the next 2 years in the EU. Very interested.

I seriously hope it shows a complete turn around in the colonies...it would be awesome to find out it's this group of pesticides because then we have an answer. Plus, if it's just the one group of products then it's much easier to remedy than some of the other discussed culprits (malnutrition, climate change, mites, virus, GMO crops, or other pathogens...or a combo of any or all) I would gladly give up imidacloprid (or any other insecticide) to save the bees. Problem is...I just don't believe it's that simple.

[NYCorchidman]

Originally Posted by Brooke

How many of those environmentalist are scientists or chemical engineers?

Brooke

This is really an irrelevant and dumb question if you think about it.

Like only what scientists and chemical engineers claim matters.

First off, science is not perfect. It just a way for people to understand things based on limited methods.

Scientists can come up with any results depending on who's funding what.

Many of the big chemical companies only cares about money, or to be nicer, money is the first and most important thing, which is not bad, but that means they don't care about the consequence of their products as much. Simple as that.

The approving agency of the government isn't any better, but that's a long story and I don't want to get into that here.

Chemical engineers make stuff up to come up with unwanted product. They don't weigh all the effects of what their products might have on the world.

They just have to get their products approved by the final authority to get them out on the market.

---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------

Katrina- Science is not a fact, either.

[Brooke]

"Chemical engineers make stuff up to come up with unwanted product. They don't weigh all the effects of what their products might have on the world."


Chemical engineers do not "make stuff up". They have to prove what they are saying to that "approving" agency in the government. The EPA doesn't permit anyone to "make stuff up", only they can do that.

We have one person insisting chemical engineers and scientists don't know what their doing and another is touting a new schedule of insecticides that are "considered" to be safe for bees. For me, considered and a fact are a world apart.

Brooke

[NYCorchidman]

There was a type error.

wanted instead of unwanted.

Anyhow, I don't think you understood.

No one is saying that scientists do not know what they are doing. Read again.

However, your question does make it sound that scientists and chemical engineers matters more than others.

Also, what "fact"??

Science does not equal fact, but it can though.
Don't get confused.