Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Maryland Takes Additional Steps to Protect Bees and Other Pollinators

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by stgislander View Post
    I seem to remember when last year's Pollinator Habitat Plans law was being discussed, a study by the US Dept of Agriculture indicated that there wasn't enough data to conclude the neonicotinoids were any more or less toxic than other pesticides. The primary problem seemed to be that companies were spraying insecticides during the peak times when bees were pollinating. As always, the MD Legislature jumped the gun before the problem was fully understood.
    It works too good and is used on field crops. It's really that simple. In the greenhouse, it is fantastic on aphids and white fly, 2 of the big 3 ornamental problems. HUGE headache eliminator. I hope greenhouses are carved out because it's a controlled environment and, properly used, not much of a threat. You have to make sure you apply on time in your crop cycles as the goal is to plan it to have decayed enough and lost efficacy by the time you ship so it is not a threat once it gets to someone's home. And their bees. So, the problem is guys putting it on too late and shipping plants that are still 'hot', for lack of better term, when exposed to gardens.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

  2. #12
    Registered User
    Member Since
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
    That's the point, dude. We NEED insects. News at 12...
    Don't jump up my ass. I was just pointing out that it seems reasonable a pesticide designed to target specific insects might kill other un-targeted insects as well.

    Didn't pass any judgment on the need for insects in general.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Clem72 View Post
    Don't jump up my ass. I was just pointing out that it seems reasonable a pesticide designed to target specific insects might kill other un-targeted insects as well.

    Didn't pass any judgment on the need for insects in general.
    I'm not jumping your ass. It's a pointless comment to say insecticides kill insects. The issue here is WHICH insects are harmed and why. You CAN do better. So, do so.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
    It works too good and is used on field crops. It's really that simple. In the greenhouse, it is fantastic on aphids and white fly, 2 of the big 3 ornamental problems. HUGE headache eliminator. I hope greenhouses are carved out because it's a controlled environment and, properly used, not much of a threat. You have to make sure you apply on time in your crop cycles as the goal is to plan it to have decayed enough and lost efficacy by the time you ship so it is not a threat once it gets to someone's home. And their bees. So, the problem is guys putting it on too late and shipping plants that are still 'hot', for lack of better term, when exposed to gardens.
    As I read the passed Senate Bill (SB386), it sounds like it only applies to State lands. From Section (3)(II):

    "A POLLINATOR HABITAT PLAN REQUIRED UNDER THIS SUBSECTION MAY NOT RESTRICT A FARMER, OR A PERSON WORKING UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A FARMER, FROM USING THE PESTICIDES, SEEDS, OR PLANTS SPECIFIED UNDER PARAGRAPH (2)(V) OF THIS SUBSECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, INCLUDING: 1. CROP PRODUCTION; 2. LIVESTOCK; 3. POULTRY; 4. EQUINE; AND 5. NONCROP AGRICULTURAL FIELDS."
    "Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever." - Shane Falco

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by stgislander View Post
    As I read the passed Senate Bill (SB386), it sounds like it only applies to State lands. From Section (3)(II):

    "A POLLINATOR HABITAT PLAN REQUIRED UNDER THIS SUBSECTION MAY NOT RESTRICT A FARMER, OR A PERSON WORKING UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A FARMER, FROM USING THE PESTICIDES, SEEDS, OR PLANTS SPECIFIED UNDER PARAGRAPH (2)(V) OF THIS SUBSECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, INCLUDING: 1. CROP PRODUCTION; 2. LIVESTOCK; 3. POULTRY; 4. EQUINE; AND 5. NONCROP AGRICULTURAL FIELDS."
    Yup.

    Digger deeper, it is a 'neo' nicotinoid, similar to nicotine in it's mode of action, how it kills. However, nicotinoids were long since banned because they worked too good. They were GREAT. So, now we have a much gentler insecticide with a similar mode of action BUT the new ones are more persistent. they stick around longer, because they have to. If they were not as long lasting, they'd be useless. Real nicotine killed EVERYTHING but then was done in a day. So, the pursuit of the perfect, in this case, became very much the enemy, in my view, of the good.
    Last edited by Larry Gude; 04-12-2017 at 12:55 PM.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
    Yup.

    Digger deeper, it is a 'neo' nicotinoid, similar to nicotine in it's mode of action, how it kills. However, nicotinoids were long since banned because they worked too good. They were GREAT. So, now we have a much gentler insecticide with a similar mode of action BUT the new ones are more persistent. they stick around longer, because they have to. If they were not as long lasting, they'd be useless. Real nicotine killed EVERYTHING but then was done in a day. So, the pursuit of the perfect, in this case, became very much the enemy, in my view, of the good.
    Reminds me of an episode of the X-Files.
    "Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever." - Shane Falco

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by stgislander View Post
    Reminds me of an episode of the X-Files.
    Well, it makes sense. At least from a certain perspective, that of how our world really works.

    One of the most illustrative stories I've read is one about light bulbs that asked, and explained, why fluorescents became law displacing the incandescents. It, simply, is about money. Not the environment, not saving any money but making money with a new product by making it a legal requirement. Old lightbulbs reached the peak of efficiency many decades ago, minimum use of materials, maximum performance, most efficient production and distribution. It simply was impossible to make the many better or any cheaper, ie, there was NO way to wring another penny of profit out of them. The only thing that could be done is corporations to battle it out and try not to lose money on them because they HAD to have them. Solution?

    Congress to the rescue. No fluorescent could ever cost less and have less negative impact on the environment BUT you could charge more for them. A small, seemingly inconsequential item but massive dollars in the total.

    That's pretty much everything in our economy. Once it's maxed out, have the law work for you. Nicotine wasn't gonna get any cheaper to produce or be able to command any more dough. And it could be labeled as scary. Because it worked.\

    I'm all for advances in technology but they would be better if they earned their place, not were given, like solar, lightbulbs and some pesticides.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

  8. #18
    Well, today, in my little God given acre of the World, I was sitting watching my granddot, and minding my own biz next to my laurel bush which the honey bees LOVE! Next thing I knew, one crawled inside my shirt and stung me. Didn't really hurt, and I shooed him out. Anyway, honey bees are abundant at my house! Long live the honey bees!
    ​​Like I said. JMO, yo! - Roman
    If you ignore the trolls, they starve. - Wishbone

  9. #19
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    31,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
    Well, it makes sense. At least from a certain perspective, that of how our world really works.

    One of the most illustrative stories I've read is one about light bulbs that asked, and explained, why fluorescents became law displacing the incandescents. It, simply, is about money. Not the environment, not saving any money but making money with a new product by making it a legal requirement. Old lightbulbs reached the peak of efficiency many decades ago, minimum use of materials, maximum performance, most efficient production and distribution.


    LED ftw
    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    - Robert J. Hanlon.

    “There is a deeply anti-democratic undercurrent to much of the criticism of the new president, borne aloft by an assumption that democracy is too important to be left to the voters.”

    And if a statue can oppress you, then I submit that you have greater issues. - A West.

Members who have read this thread: 39

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |