What Corn-Canola Comparisons Tell us about Neonics and Bees – Plenty Actually

Corn-Canola Comparisons: Neonic-Bee Problem Likely Unrelated to Pollen or Soil Residues

Corn in flower

Corn in flower

Canola in flower. Credit: Brian Hall, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Canola in flower. Credit: Brian Hall, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food

 

“Why are there problems for bees associated with the growing corn but not canola, when both are planted using neonic-treated seed?” A great question: asked from the floor during a recent Pollination Guelph panel discussion of which I was a part.

The question brought everything into focus.

The implied assumption – more bee problems with corn versus canola – is quite well supported. Although 70-80% of Canadian neonic seed treatment occurs in Western Canada, mostly with canola, the complaints about neonic-linked bee deaths are almost all from Ontario and Quebec where corn is more dominant. And while much of the anti-neonic outcry in Central Canada does come from traditional anti-pesticide voices, data such as that provided by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency do show linkages among corn, neonics and bee health, at least for some beekeepers.

Jim Coneybeare, a vice president of the Ontario Bee Association, told a major Farm & Food Care meeting last September that his bees thrive when making honey from canola (almost certainly grown from neonic-treated seed) but do poorly near corn and soybeans.

There is one obvious difference: While canola is an excellent source of nectar and pollen for bees (bees love canola) corn is the reverse. This wind-pollinated species produces no nectar and experts say bees forage it for high-protein pollen only if there are no better choices. Bees don’t much like corn and tend to avoid it. If you locate a few hives near corn fields, there are usually enough wild flowers nearby in fence rows and non-cropped lands to service the bees. But if you place many dozens of hives surrounded by corn, they’ll be malnourished. I’ve likened it to shopping for food supplies at Home Depot. (Canola is more like Walmart.)

Soybeans, a self-pollinating crop, are also a very poor source of nectar and pollen.

But on to the specific links with neonic seed treatments, where the corn-canola comparison is also highly informative: The rate of neonic application per hectare is virtually the same with the two crops and, according to available data summarized by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the percent uptake by plants grown from treated seed is also similar. (Some anti-neonic advocates in Ontario have claimed uptake is four times greater with corn, listing their source as Dr. Christy Morrissey, University of Saskatchewan. But the underlying scientific paper provided to me by Dr. Morrissey (Sur and Stork, 2003) contains no such comparison.)

Hence, soil seeded to canola gets the same amount of neonic added annually as does soil seeded to corn. And rate of neonic breakdown should be no faster in canola-seeded Prairie fields than in those planted to corn in Ontario/Quebec. Indeed, breakdown should be slower in Western Canada because of lower average temperatures and less rainfall. If residual neonic in soil is a critical contributor to bee deaths as some, including Dr. Morrissey, claim, then we should hear as many complaints about bee deaths from canola as from corn – or maybe even more so. But we don’t. Almost all complaints to Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency come from Ontario and Quebec.

Dr. Morrissey has garnered attention with a recent paper in Plos One (http://goo.gl/uJWOHr) focussing on neonic levels in Prairie sloughs (ponds within farm fields) but the data are not that convincing. When the measured concentrations are only a few parts per trillion, you can find almost anything anywhere. Morrissey’s data show neonic-in-water levels about the same magnitude as that for caffeine in the Great Lakes. In Quebec, Dr. Fournier reported elevated neonic levels at or above LD50 levels for bees in some surface waters, but subsequent calculations show she overestimated the risk to bees by at least a 20-fold factor.

So, if it’s not the soil, what about the pollen, especially given the claims by some beekeepers and anti-pesticide advocates that neonics in corn pollen are a critical cause of bee mortality?

In fact, the EFSA has looked at this in detail with some fairly detailed calculations of the daily uptake of worker bees foraging on corn and canola (called ‘oilseed rape,’ or OSR, in Europe). The concentration of neonics in pollen is about the same in corn and OSR, but of course corn has no nectar. The total amount of neonic gathered per day from nectar and pollen was estimated at least 10 times greater with OSR than corn (http://goo.gl/VVCqxF, http://goo.gl/kj5njU). In all cases, the amount of daily uptake from either flowers of corn or OSR was judged to be very minute.

Back to Canada, if neonic in pollen is a notable source of bee deaths, the problem should be much worse with canola than corn. But Jim Coneybeare’s bees thrive near canola fields. And Cutler and Scott-Dupree at the University of Guelph, in some detailed and extensive trials involving bees hives positioned within canola fields grown from treated seed, found no evidence of negative effects on bees (http://goo.gl/fvBSTu).

So that leads us to the one notable difference in neonic exposure between treated corn and canola – different planting technology – notably in the widespread use of vacuum pneumatic planters for seeding corn, though not for canola. On this, the evidence is quite clear, both in North American and European research (see EFSA links provided above for the latter): more neonic-laden dust from these corn planters can mean a greater risk of acute bee exposure at planting time. European research also shows that with proper planter modifications – notably, the release of planter exhaust dust at ground level and at a low air speed – 90%+ of the emission release into the surrounding air can be eliminated.

Bottom line: If we can get rid of the dust emission with corn planting – different planter design, better adherence of neonic treatment to seed, exhaust emission at the soil surface at slow speed – we should go most of the way in solving that portion of bee mortality associated with neonic usage in field crop agriculture.

That will leave the bee industry to deal with much bigger problems like bee pathogens, viruses (up to 100% of Ontario bees may be affected according to one unpublished survey), and proper nutrition. The latter or combinations involving  pathogens/disease, poor nutrition and severe weather is why over-winter bee mortality has been exceptionally high in Ontario this year. And if beekeepers are looking to nourish, not starve, their bee colonies, don’t locate them near corn fields.

For those looking for a single, highly readable review covering all aspects of this neonic-bee issue with an international (including Canadian) perspective, I highly recommend this report, http://goo.gl/t3tDBC, from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Here’s another great review especially on effects of long-term, ‘sub-lethal’ exposure by Fairbrother et al (2014), http://goo.gl/NywA8T.

Roots – The Secret to Record Corn Yields

Corn roots (Credit Blendspace.com)

Corn roots (Credit Blendspace.com)

I’ve long been fascinated by corn yield and did my Masters and PhD research on this subject. The physiology of corn yield was a prime research interest during my former academic career in Crop Science at the University of Guelph.

Most of the research on yield has featured above-ground plant parts – eg. higher and sustained rates of leaf photosynthesis, canopy morphology, timing of pollen shed and silk emergence, and higher harvest index (portion of above-ground dry matter in the grain at harvest). All of these are highly important. Improvements achieved both genetically and agronomically have meant that 300 bushels/acre (19t/ha) is now a realistic goal for some farmers, and 450 bu/acre (28t/ha) has been exceeded.

During my tenure in Crop Science, I became increasingly interested in the role of corn roots and their interactions with soil. This was triggered, in part, by another personal research interest, soil tillage – and part by some anecdotal observations and quasi-research findings which were difficult/impossible to explain by conventional crop physiology.

My career in research ended when I became full-time chief of staff for the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association in 1985. I did return briefly to the University of Guelph as adjunct professor in 2002, hoping I could pursue my interest in corn roots. But the system had changed: there were new (justifiable) charges for the use of almost anything – greenhouse bench space or whatever – and I had no enthusiasm for resuming the ‘chase for research dollars’ which I had left years before. So I did a lot of reading (actually relatively little literature on corn roots), and ultimately returned to more non-academic activities including increased attention to our family farm business.

It’s obvious that further research on corn roots is no longer in my future, but the fascination remains. I’ll spell out below why and how I think roots are so critical to superior yields. Maybe others will pick up the challenge.

Case 1. During our initial 24 years of farming, my wife and I harvested corn with an old-style picker, carefully screening out loose corn kernels as the ears went up a conveyor elevator into the corn crib. The loose kernels fell onto the ground a few metres from the crib, year-by-year adding to the soil organic matter in a band parallelling the crib.

Eventually I noticed that the corn grown in this strip grew and developed much more quickly than did nearby plants. It silked about a week earlier, was much taller and yielded more. Initially, I assumed this was somehow a wind-barrier/warm-temperature effect. But one year the crib was not filled and the effect continued. It was not caused by warmer soil temperature since the soil in the favoured strip was wetter and likely colder. And it was not caused by higher fertility or better weed control. The only obvious explanation: higher soil organic matter meant a significantly higher rate of both growth and development in independent of temperature. We have not cribbed corn now for 18 years and the effect has largely disappeared. I suppose much of that organic matter has been oxidized, or spread elsewhere by tillage implements.

Case 2. Nigel Fairey was my PhD student from 1972 to 1976 and his research project involved studying C14 labelled assimilate movement within developing corn plants. He grew corn plants outdoors but seeded in buried 22-litre perforated containers containing a granular baked-clay medium called ‘Turface,’ plus nutrient culture. Nigel also planted corn in the soil around the pots so that the treated plants would behave as if in a normal corn stand. One of his problems was that the corn plants in Turface grew and developed much more quickly than their neighbours. They silked 10 days earlier. The reason was unknown. Nigel checked and it was not differences in root-zone temperature. He solved the problem in year two by planting the bordering plants two weeks ahead of those in the pails. He got the data he needed, graduated and moved on to a productive career. But the puzzle of the accelerated growth remained.

Corn roots (Credit: Dr. Amélie Gaudin, Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph

Corn roots (Credit: Dr. Amélie Gaudin, Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph

Case 3. In the late 1970s, I filled a large growth-room bench with corn grown in perforated pails containing Turface and regularly replenished nutrient solution. The plant density was high, about 10/m2 (equivalent to 100,000/ha) as I recall, and I recorded a yield (border plants near the bench edge not harvested) of nearly 200 bushels/acre. This was despite the fact the amount of daily visible radiation to which those plants were exposed was only about 20% of what field-grown plants would receive outdoors on a clear sunny day in mid July. This was back in an era when we struggled to grow 100 bu/acre on the Daynard farm.

Case 4. In the mid 1980s, Dr. Madhava Reddy, a post-doctorate, grew corn plants indoors, suspended in pails containing aerated nutrient solution (no Turface), with half of them being subjected to a weekly regime of partial root tip removal using fingernail clippers. This was only a preliminary trial but the results showed a much slower rate of foliar growth and development for the tip-clipped plants despite the ample supply of nutrients, water and nutrients. The roots were obviously ‘annoyed,’ and this affected foliar growth and development in unknown ways. Both Madhava and I left U Guelph soon after so the work was not continued.

Case 5 is more generic and involves the generally better rates of growth and development, and grain yield I and others see with corn grown in well-manured fields. Our neighbours, the Dupasquiers, grew great crops when they had dairy cattle manure to spread. Now with chicken manure, the crops are simply superb. I am also intrigued at how many high yield reports elsewhere are associated with ample applications of manure, especially poultry manure.

So what’s going on here? Higher soil organic matter (manure addition, kernels dropping beside our corn crib) obviously has advantages in increasing available water storage and that will increase yield in most years. Nutrients from manure are also important, though that should not have been a yield factor in the cases listed above. The boost came using the biologically inert Turface as well as organic matter. The effect on rate of development is of special interest to me as I had long believed that heat accumulation to be the primary driver of rate of development (as compared to rate of growth – plant height, for example). But in some of the cases described above, above-ground rate plant development was affected by the root environment via some mechanism apparently independent of temperature – and sometimes in a dramatic way.

Plant physiologists know that stressed roots send chemical/hormonal signals to above ground parts which cause various physiological responses including reduced rates of growth. Abscissic acid is a key hormonal messenger of this type and there are others.

But are there positive signals which roots send upward when they are essentially stress free? Signals which say the biological equivalent of “put the pedal to the metal”? Signals which will tell the plant to grow and develop more quickly, set more kernels, even more ears? And maybe which stimulate increases in rates of photosynthesis?

In the months I spent as an adjunct professor, I spent much of my time in the library and on line, looking for published evidence of a “good times” hormonal signal – sadly, without success. Perhaps that’s because it’s hard to find, or perhaps no one has looked. Or perhaps the positive signal is simply the absence of stress-signal messengers.

If it’s the latter, perhaps the “brakes” are almost always on, at least in part, for real-world corn plants. That’s a good thing for plants to survive in the normal world. But it’s not so good if the goal is record high yields.

I recall an experiment performed by the late Bev Kay in Land Resource Science at Guelph, who grew young corn plants in stable soil aggregates (from a field growing red clover) of various size categories. Plants grew more quickly in soil consisting of fine aggregates (about 0.5 to 1 mm in diameter, as I recall) than with larger aggregates, and this was an effect independent of fertility or moisture supply.

In checking the roots, Bev and his team found something intriguing: Corn roots in the finely aggregated soil grew straight. Those in larger-sized aggregates were wiggly. With smaller aggregates, the soil appeared to move out of the way as the roots lengthened. With larger aggregates the roots had to grow around.

And that’s when, and why, I developed a (now long-held) hypothesis: Plant roots like to grow unimpeded without needing to turn or grow around anything. Perhaps each turn or impediment triggers a negative signal. “We’re not sure what we’re encountering here,” say the root tips to the rest of the plant, “but better you’d slow up a bit – just in case it is bad or gets worse.”

Farmers all know that compaction hurts yield. The most obvious means is by restricting root growth and access into areas of the soil containing needed water or nutrients, or by impeding water and air flow. But perhaps it also reduces yield just by impeding root growth itself, even if water, air, and nutrient supplies are fine.

How much it yields depends so much on the roots

How much it yields depends so much on the roots

My wife is an excellent gardener, outdoors and in, and she regularly has to repot plants into larger pots or else they won’t grow and flower as they should. These plants are well watered and well fertilized, but still they do poorly when “root bound.” And what does root bound mean? Roots which are constantly running into each other or the container walls, and can only grow by turning – growing around things.

Or consider Bonsai plant cultivation with trees permanently dwarfed by restricted root growth.

Ontario farmer Dean Glenney at Dunnville Ontario has produced some really high corn yields and he plants his corn and soybeans in the same row positions year after year. He says that roots can grow easily down existing root channels. This fits my conjecture well. I’ve not met Dean personally, but understand that he also uses lots of poultry manure. The manure will also be great for reducing soil density and strength, making it easier for roots to grow unimpeded.

Old root channels may be one of the biggest benefits for cover crops, i.e., in addition to drainage and aeration benefits – provided, of course, that these channels aren’t destroyed by subsequent tillage and heavy equipment tramping on wet soils.

My hypothesis is that unimpeded root growth is highly important for top corn performance – independent of any effect on providing soil moisture or nutrients. (Not that the latter aren’t also highly important.)

It’s an untested hypothesis. I’ve spent hours thinking about ways to test this. Dr. Amélie Gaudin completed a PhD thesis recently in Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, growing corn plants aerobically with roots dangling in a mist of nutrient solution. Her study was about genetic differences between corn and ancestral teosinte, but maybe the same system could be used to study the effects of impediments to root growth independent of water, nutrient and air supply. The challenge would be to introduce barriers/impediments in such a way that they force roots to bend around obstacles but don’t lead to stressful oxygen deprivation. Maybe there are other creative ways to test my conjecture.

To close: I’ve no proof – nothing would stand up to good peer reviewing – only a collection of anecdotal and quasi-research results pointing in a certain direction. But if you really want to be the farmer who breaks above 500-bu/acre corn yield – or even 50 bu/acre better than what you’re doing today, figure out how to encourage unimpeded root growth. And if you can sort out how to do this in a cost-effective manner (not everyone has huge poultry manure supplies, and Turface is way too expensive), you could become a very wealthy person.

A Primer on Ontario Cropping and Tillage Systems

A European acquaintance quizzed me recently about crop rotation and tillage practices for major crops in Ontario. I’ve prepared the following. And, since it might be also of interest to others too, I am posting it on the web. This is a very simplified overview of Ontario cropping systems. Readers should recognize that each farmer does things somewhat differently, and farming practices continue to evolve quickly.

The principal field crops in Ontario are corn, soybeans and perennial forages – about 2 million+ acres of each. This column is mainly about corn and soybeans, and also wheat which is grown on about 1 million acres – and mainly about those farmers who are primarily grain growers. Perennial forages are mostly grown by farmers who raise cattle, sheep, goats and horses.

Although corn has been grown by Ontario farmers since about 500 AD, its production by farmers of European origins did not really become dominant across most of Southern Ontario until the 1960s following the introduction of better-quality, early-maturing hybrids. After that, Ontario agriculture experienced a period of about 15-20 years when many farmers grew only corn. This, coupled with intensive tillage which buries all crop residues after harvest, resulted in some serious soil erosion and other soil structural and insect/disease problems. The soil problems were worse when the entire above-ground plant was harvested to make ‘corn silage.’ (Corn silage once represented up to half of Ontario corn acreage; it’s about 10% now – usually on dairy and beef farms which also have soil-building perennial crops in their rotations.)

Figure 1. Corn crop residue protecting soil from rain and snow-melt run-off in early spring (Daynard farm)

Figure 1. Corn crop residue protecting soil from rain and snow-melt run-off in early spring (Daynard farm)

Soybeans have been grown in extreme southwestern Ontario (warmest part of the province) since the early 1900s. Production blossomed across the rest of Southern Ontario during the 1980s. This was because of the availability of better early-maturing varieties and the need for a profitable cropping alternative to break the pattern of continuous corn production. (This is sometimes called ‘mono-cropping,’ though ‘mono-cropping’ can have other meanings too and is an ambiguous term).

Figure 2. No-till soybeans in corn residue (credit: Patrick Lynch.)

Figure 2. No-till soybeans in corn residue (credit: Patrick Lynch.)

Many Ontario grain farmers add a third crop to the rotation – fall-seeded wheat, which is commonly called winter wheat. While wheat is usually not as profitable a ‘cash crop’ as corn and soybeans, farmers grow wheat because it spreads out their annual work load, provides diversity and stability (weather-vulnerable growth stages for wheat occur at different times of the year than for corn and soybeans), and because research data have shown that corn yields benefit significantly from having wheat in the rotation. (Wheat has a fine root structure which contrasts with the generally coarser roots of corn.) Wheat also represents an over-winter cover crop, to help limit soil erosion in early spring runoff (lots of water runs off the soil surface because of melting snow and rainfall).

Figure 3. No-till wheat emerging from under snow after winter. Corn stalks are from two years earlier. (Daynard farm)

Figure 3. No-till wheat emerging from under snow after winter. Corn stalks are from two years earlier. (Daynard farm)

Corn rootworm larvae are commonly a serious problem when corn follows corn. This necessitates the use of insecticides or the use of Bt-corn-rootworm-resistant corn hybrids. Corn rootworm has also become a problem in corn-soybean rotations in the United States. However, the problem does not occur with corn-soybean-wheat rotations.

Farmers are concerned about protecting their soil from erosion (primarily water erosion in Ontario), and in maintaining/improving soil organic matter levels and soil structure. Good soil structure makes root growth easier and facilitates internal water and air movement.

Reduced soil tillage (often this means no tillage at all except for the possible preparation of a very small mini ‘seed bed’ right around the planted seed) is one means of doing that. It also reduces the cost of farming (less equipment, less time for field operations, and less fuel usage). Corn crop residues are especially valuable for protecting soil from erosion (i.e., if left on the surface and not plowed under). This is because of both their high quantity (about 9 tonnes/ha for a good average corn crop) and their slow rate of decomposition. They can stick around on the soil surface for 2-3 years.

Figure 4. Soybeans planted into tilled strip (credit: Ken Brett)

Figure 4. Soybeans planted into tilled strip (credit: Ken Brett)

By contrast, soybean crop residues decompose quite quickly after harvest time and in the following spring. This is one reason why farmers commonly plant winter wheat immediately after soybean harvest to protect the soil surface.
Winter wheat presents its own soil problems – mainly because it is harvested during midsummer (commonly in July), leaving the soil surface ‘unprotected’ for many months to follow. Wheat straw residue helps. But, at least in North America, it is not as plentiful as what remains after corn. Many farmers plant special cover crop species. The most common is red clover for which the seed is spread on winter wheat fields in early spring. This allows red clover plants to germinate and then subsist until the wheat is harvested; after harvest they usually flourish until growth stops with the arrival of colder weather in October. Red clover cover crops protect the soil surface from erosion while adding soil organic matter and nitrogen fertility (red clover is a legume). The crop which follows wheat/red-clover is usually corn.

Some farmers will plant other cover-crop species after the wheat is harvested, usually using ‘no-till’ seeders for reasons of speed and minimal soil disturbance.

Figure 5. Strip tillage & fertilization in bean residue (credit: Patrick Lynch)

Figure 5. Strip tillage & fertilization in bean residue (credit: Patrick Lynch)

Early spring planting presents some challenges – and a need for compromise. Complete surface coverage is best for erosion control but it can mean slower drying of soil in spring. (Most Ontario soils begin each spring fully saturated with water, because of late-autumn and early-spring rainfall, and snow melt.) This is a special problem for corn which generally yields best when planted early. This is especially true for slow-drying clay soils. If residue coverage is really dense, some farmers will try to incorporate some residue into the soil with autumn tillage. Some farmers use strip tillage equipment to work a narrow strip (either in the fall, or a day or two before spring planting), thus allowing soil in the strip to dry out faster to permit early planting. If soil is planted when too wet, it ‘smears’ during planting operations and this can have a very negative effect on corn seedling growth and final yield.
GPS technology allows farms to plant corn into the centre of the tilled strips.

Figure 6. No-till corn plant in wheat residue (credit: Paul Sullivan, P.T. Sullivan Agro Inc)

Figure 6. No-till corn plant in wheat residue (credit: Paul Sullivan, P.T. Sullivan Agro Inc)

In addition most no-till planters have attachments which move residues a few cm to either side of the planted row. This permits sunshine penetration to the soil above the planted seed, and quicker germination. In some countries (notably north-western Europe), garden slugs will flourish with abundant soil surface organic matter coverage. Slugs eat the emerging crop plants. This is occasionally a problem in Ontario too.

Figure 7. Red clover after spring seeding into wheat in spring (credit: Patrick Lynch)

Figure 7. Red clover after spring seeding into wheat in spring (credit: Patrick Lynch)

Emerging plants in springtime in Ontario are also vulnerable to occasional late frosts, and this risk is magnified with lots of soil residue cover. It’s a trade off, with most farmers considering that the increased risk of frost damage is more than off-set by better soil quality and higher yields with ample soil residue cover, over a period of years.

Pest control is very important to the success of reduced and no-till cropping programs which allow for the abundant presence of soil surface residues. Fungicide and (usually) insecticide treatments are generally needed to protect planted seeds and emerging seedlings from diseases and insects which flourish in conditions of cool, damp soil and surface residue cover. Herbicides are needed for the weed control which was traditionally done by soil tillage. Organic farmers, who cannot use synthetic pesticides, often counter these insect and disease challenges by planting a little later and by using tillage implements for weed control which penetrate the soil only shallowly. While a few organic farmers and researchers are currently exploring options for the elimination of tillage, no-till organic farming remains largely unknown.

Figure 8. No-till corn into soybean residue (Credit: Paul Sullivan, P.T. Sullivan Agro Inc)

Figure 8. Corn planted into soybean residue after conservation (minimal)  tillage (Credit: Paul Sullivan, P.T. Sullivan Agro Inc)

 

 

Comments on the 2014 Guelph Organic Conference

I attended the Guelph Organic Conference at the University of Guelph on Saturday February 1, 2014. Jodi Koberinski, executive director of the Organic Council of Ontario, asked for my observations on the conference. Here are some:

1.       Based on the large attendance (500+) and large number of exhibitors (170) this event must be judged a major success. If the weather had not been so nasty on the Saturday of the conference, the attendance would undoubtedly have been even higher.

2.       In some ways it resembles the Ontario Plowing Match with many exhibitors selling/promoting just about anything and everything. However, the speaking program is much more important at the Guelph Organic Conference.

3.       Both the audience and the exhibitors were highly diverse and included: profit-oriented farmers (a distinct minority, I believe), farm suppliers and farm produce buyers, organic food wholesalers and retailers, organic farm certifiers, book and publication marketers, educational/research institutions, advocacy and farm groups, some snake oil and trinket sales people, students, and a large number of gardeners and homeowners. My guess is that gardeners, homeowners and the exhibitors themselves represented the largest percentage of the conference attendees.

4.       I could only attend a few of the speaker presentations since several of these occurred simultaneously. I am relying on written summaries of presentations I did not attend for some of my observations. In my opinion, the presentations ranged from outstanding to really weird – at least from a perspective of someone like me with a science and farm background. At one extreme was Essex County organic farmer, Roger Rivest, presenting excellent information on how to control pests (chiefly weeds) in organic farming. On the other hand, there was an organic consultant recommending phosphate soil fertility levels which were extremely (irresponsibly high in my view, 100 ppm phosphate if I heard him right) and telling the audience that 1) the sugar from GM sugar beets is less healthy than that from non-GM beets (100% sucrose in both cases) and 2) they should promote unpasteurized milk.

There was an excellent session on organic certification standards in Canada, the US and Europe, one of the best I’ve ever attended. And a hokey one on soil quality telling the audience how to tell soil pH by its physical appearance. There was a good session on the organic dairy research program at U of Guelph’s Alfred campus. But another speaker told listeners that plants derived using radiation mutagenesis are radioactive, and that corn evolved pretty much naturally up until the 19th century. (She’s probably never heard of teosinte.)

5.       I felt sorry for attendees lacking backgrounds in science and agriculture but genuinely seeking good information on how to farm organically profitably, or be better gardeners, or on how to feed their families. The conference provided a mish-mash of information and misinformation – with no guidebook for telling one from the other. Better quality control in choosing speakers for the conference in 2015 might help – if indeed that’s possible. It may not be: The organic industry seems to be a marriage of convenience between those truly wanting to produce food in a sustainable way (i.e., sustainability as defined by the original Bruntland Commission), and those who are more interested in anti-corporate/anti-modern-agriculture advocacy. The two are not the same, and the conference seems to be designed to appeal to both.

5.       The conference has obviously outgrown its space availability for exhibitors, jamming 170 exhibits into two moderate-sized rooms plus corridors – and with everyone squeezed together like sardines. By contrast, the speaker sessions did not seem to be that full – though, as noted above, bad weather was a factor. With better weather, the U of Guelph facility would have been completely swamped.

6.       I think the organizers need to do a better job in organizing that portion of the conference (program and exhibitor formatting) designed for serious organic farmers. In fairness, one section of the Saturday speakers’ program was more dedicated to farmers (done very well in 2013, not so well in 2014), but exhibits related to farmer needs are all mixed in with the other retail and consumer-interest displays, and sort of get lost. Maybe they need a dedicated space for farmer-oriented displays, ideally linked to a setting where serious farmers could meet each other and talk about common problems and solutions.

Or maybe there needs to be an entirely different event for organic farmers – perhaps like the Innovative Farmers of Ontario convention.

At one ‘farmer oriented’ session on February 1, the speaker quizzed his audience as to the size of their farming/gardening operations. The majority were under 2 acres in size. Probably less than 12 were over 400 acres. I know that high gross and net returns are possible for very specialized production on very small acreages (eg., greenhouses), but for this audience, I believe that under 2 acres mostly meant gardeners.

Organic farming is difficult. If profitability was easier and there was more of it, the province would not be such a large importer of organic foods and food-ingredients. Better catering to farmer needs would be a good thing.

John Morriss: Different this Time —- Again

For some time I’ve been planning to write a column about how the global grain market is returning to the state of burdensome or near-burdensome supply which has been predominant for most years since about 1950 – notwithstanding so-called ‘expert’ opinion that this time it is “really different.” I remember hearing the same words from about 1973 through 1981, and then experiencing first-hand the price depression and damaging effects which occurred for both developed and developing world farmers during most of the 25 years which followed. Then I saw this recent editorial written by John Morriss, Associate Publisher/Editorial Director of the Manitoba Cooperator which said exactly what I wanted to say. So with his permission, I am republishing his column here. The only change I would make is that his reference should be to all Canadian grain farmers. Thanks, John.

The original column is at http://www.manitobacooperator.ca/2014/01/23/different-this-time-again/

———–

Different this Time —Again

This line in a Reuters story last week certainly put things in focus. “Ukraine is likely to be the world’s second-largest grain exporter in the 2013-14 season with the shipment of more than 30 million tonnes, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”

We’d seen the figures before, but considering that Ukraine and its former Soviet partners used to be Canada’s largest grain customer, putting it that way still comes as a bit of a jolt. At times in the 1980s, the Former Soviet Union was importing 50 million tonnes of grain a year. This year it will export that much.

The FSU’s massive entry into the world market and the “Great Grain Robbery” of 1972 sparked a price rise to unprecedented levels. The wheat price of $6 per bushel then equalled $27 today. The resulting prosperity sparked much optimism that good times were finally here, and here to stay. It was “different this time.”

Well, for a couple of years anyway, and soon things were back in the doldrums, with grain price wars and a series of ad hoc “Special Grains Payments” and programs with four-letter acronyms ­ WGSA, GRIP, NISA, CAIS, etc. The doldrums were periodically interrupted by a short crop somewhere in the world, and then a brief price rally ­ 1980, 1985 1993, 1996, 2006 and then in 2012-13.

During each of those blips we heard this ­ “The world’s population is growing. It’s getting more affluent, so people will eat more meat. They aren’t making any more land.”

All true, to a point. But we’ve been hearing that same line in speeches for 40 years now, and those who were around will remember that in the 1960s and 1970s, the big concern was “feeding the starving millions” in India. That brings us to another bit of news from last week, which is that India’s wheat exports are at 6.5 million tonnes so far for this crop year, and there is plenty of room to export more.

And which country was the world’s largest beef exporter last year? India.

The latest variation on the, “It’s different this time” was that it was “a new paradigm,” accompanied by the statistic we’ve heard so many times in the last couple of years ­ that the world has to double food production to feed nine billion people by 2050. That may or may not be true, but the Indian example shows that part of the goal will be met by countries feeding themselves.

A year ago at this time, crop farmers were in an upbeat mood, with a combination of a big crop and record (nominal) prices. Today, despite a record crop, the atmosphere is subdued at best. As we report this week, and which most farmers had figured out for themselves, Manitoba Agriculture’s production budgets show that the only major crop to “pencil out” this year is winter wheat, and it’s a bit late for that. Meanwhile crop farmers are in a cash flow crunch, with a combination of low prices, slow transportation and a wide basis. Imagine the pickle farmers would be in if they had a small or low-quality crop.

So it wasn’t different this time ­ again, which raises the question of how farmers and the industry should react next time there’s a price spike which gets everyone excited about a “new paradigm.”

That’s a tough one. Those who are asked to give presentations at farm meetings don’t want to be a wet blanket, especially if they have something to sell or money to lend. “Now listen everyone, times are good now, but we know these price spikes always fizzle after a year or two, so you had better keep your money in your jeans.” Who wants to be the one to say that?

And who wants to raise some of the tough questions about where Western Canada fits in supplying future world grain demand? What if U.S. winter wheat yields, currently averaging under 40 bushels per acre, start to approach those in Europe, currently over 100 bushels? What if genetic modification allows European wheat to produce high protein?

Now that most Canadian exports are being handled by the same companies that operate in the Former Soviet Union, U.S., South America and Australia, what are the implications for Western Canada, especially since it has the highest transportation costs?

This is not to say that western Canadian farmers can’t adapt to future challenges, as they have done so well in the past. But they will be able to adapt much better if they have a long-term view which realistically considers their inherent strengths and weaknesses.

Farm organizations. particularly the ones emerging from changes to the wheat board, need to think about this, not just breeding for more yield. “The world is going to take every bushel we can produce” is no basis for an industry strategy. Next time that you hear that it’s different this time, remember ­ it won’t be.

How Can You Tell What “Good” Science Really Says?

This column responds to a good question from an organic agriculture acquaintance. She’s convinced that I am quick to endorse all scientific reports supporting my tech-oriented perspective, while rejecting those supporting hers. “How do you decide what’s right and what’s not?” she exclaimed. Fair question. This is my response.

Though decades have passed since I was an active university researcher (a former professor of crop science, University of Guelph), I still read many research papers and remember well the process for publishing results in a peer-reviewed journal. The process was imperfect: some reviewers were too picky; some not enough. Some journals are much “easier” than others.

But imperfections aside, the system worked quite well. A peer-reviewed article was generally considered credible. “Peer-reviewed” was an assurance of meeting certain standards of quality.

My faith in the system has since weakened. I now read too many scientific papers which I cannot believe made it through a proper peer-reviewer process – papers providing only the sketchiest description of experimental methodology, or limited statistical analysis, or selected data which are clearly cherry-picked, or abstracts and conclusions which extrapolate way beyond that justified by the data. And then there is a flood of new journals emphasizing speed over thoroughness. You pay the money and you get published quickly, especially if your findings are sufficiently sensational to make the national news. Journals and some scientists and their institutions even issue news releases to make sure this happens.

And now we have retractions: peer-reviewed articles are retracted after publication. I never heard of this in my research/publishing days.

I do understand the academic process, which really has not changed much for generations. As a researcher you must publish – to get a permanent job, secure tenure and promotion, have stature, get research grants, and more. And it’s not enough just to publish: you must also be cited. That means you emphasize positive, not negative, results. “Dramatic new findings” are best. And as the number of permanent public research position numbers plateaus or declines, the pressures increase.

In theory, this should mean higher quality. If the potential supply of papers balloons, then raise the standards. Sadly, I don’t think this has happened. There’s too much money in the journal publication business. Perhaps everyone is too busy writing to have time for reviewing the submissions of others. I see a lot of what I consider to be crap – to be blunt – in the form of peer-reviewed publication.

I’ve wondered: Maybe it is just me, an old guy with a too rosy memory of what it was like in days past. But then I recently read an outstanding column in a recent issue of The Economist decrying the same (“Unreliable research: trouble at the lab,” Oct. 19, 2013, http://goo.gl/iE5fha).

And there is the experience of John Bohannon, a biologist at Harvard, who purposely fabricated an entire experiment and research report, making sure that the paper contained obvious flaws – and having it accepted for publication in more than half of the 304 research journals to which it was submitted.

The bar has been lowered: peer-reviewed – while still better than not – is not the same guarantor of quality and credibility as before.

For me in crop agriculture, the most high-profile example of failure is the recently retracted rats-fed-glyphosate-and-GMO-corn paper of Dr. Séralini and colleagues at the Université de Caen. The journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, is (or least was) considered prestigious. The editors ultimately did the right thing – a forced retraction despite the authors’ objection. But serious damage was done – to the stature of GMO technology and well-being of people who could benefit from its usage, to the credibility of the journal, and to science itself.

There are lots more examples still within the realm of agricultural technology: A paper by Carman et al in the obscure Journal of Organic Systems, claiming notable health problems for pigs fed GMO crops, is one. A paper from computer staff at MIT in another obscure journal, Entropy, asserting even larger health problems for humans exposed to the herbicide, glyphosate, is another. Both papers triggered immediate responses from knowledgeable critiques, exposing the obvious flaws, and have been dismissed by most informed scientists. But the fact remains: they were peer-reviewed, not retracted, and continue to be cited publicly as “proof” by those with anti-GMO perspectives.

The retractions aren’t all on one side: Dr. Pamela Ronald, a well-respected geneticist at the University of California (she works on GMO rice) recently retracted her own peer-reviewed paper because she later discovered that some of the data were incorrect. The anti-GMO crowd had a field day praising the retraction, using this to try to undermine Ronald’s credibility – just as they reacted in reverse with the Séralini paper retraction. The difference is that Ronald initiated the retraction herself.

One cannot eliminate personal perspective and bias totally in making judgements as to which scientific papers/reports are credible and which ones are not. I’ve those biases, myself, as does everyone in science. I can counter this by being more receptive to papers which challenge my personal bias, but that’s not being objective either.

So how do you make a judgement? For what it’s worth, here are a few guidelines I use:

1. Are the findings consistent with basic principles, i.e., physical, chemical and (to the extent that we understand them) biological and economic principles?

As an example, I’ve had no problem accepting that an increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide should mean an increase in average global temperature and rainfall. Both are totally consistent with basic physics. I’ve had more problems with statements/conclusions that global climate is becoming more variable as the physical basis seems far less obvious. (Working Group I of the International Panel on Climate Change seems to have the same problem.)

2. Is the statistical analysis solid? I don’t expect the data in every paper to have been subjected to every possible statistical test – most of which I don’t understand myself – but it is reasonable to expect some reasonable replication and basic analyses of the results.

Another example: A recent paper from Purdue University is being cited everywhere as proof that a category of insecticides is deadly to bees. Its high profile in the journal PLoS One attracted lots of attention. I confess my bias: I don’t believe that these insecticides are the dominant cause of bee colony mortality as the anti-pesticide crowd proclaim. But the paper presented data with few meaningful statistical analysis and included non replicated measurements. How did it pass peer-reviewing?

3. Do results seem consistent with common experience?

Again, the Séralini and Carman papers come to mind. For, if the results presented were correct and applicable to humans, then one should expect to see massive health problems for the billions of people who have eaten GM-based foods. We haven’t.

4. Is there a conflict of interest?

This is commonly raised as a huge concern if the data/publication are linked to industry funding. That’s a legitimate concern. But it applies equally when the work comes from someone with a known agenda/bias of a contrary nature. Is research supported by Monsanto any less credible than that linked to Greenpeace? This does not mean that reported results are automatically wrong, but that they do need to be interpreted with special caution.

One judgement I use is whether the researcher is known for findings which are always one sided – for example, always supportive or negative, on issues such as pesticide safety, GMO technology, increased climatic variability, or hundreds of other controversial issues. If always one-sided, I’m suspicious.

5. Has the work been repeated/verified by independent researchers?

This is a given requirement for the acceptance of almost all research findings. Even when results are reported as being statistically significant at the 95% probability level, that means one chance in 20 of being a random fluke. The potential for inadvertent errors induced by the research technique itself is larger. This has been called the “single study syndrome.” Research findings must be confirmed by other labs before being accepted as “likely true.”

6. Is the researcher well recognized?

This one is problematic as it would seem to discriminate against younger researchers who are often the most brilliant. Perhaps a better criterion is the reciprocal: Is the researcher recognized negatively?

This should have been a red flag with Dr. Séralini – the rat study is not the first time his work has been challenged for objectivity.

But it also works in reverse. I’ve been saddened by the story of Dr. Don Huber, formerly a respected Purdue University pathologist, who in later life has been making incredulous and unsupported claims about a mysterious new organism which renders humans susceptible to a raft of illnesses triggered by glyphosate. Without his (formerly) good reputation, his recent assertions would have been dismissed as quackery well before now.

Of course, these guidelines all work best if you have some scientific experience, which most of the human population lacks. And even with scientific training, my guidelines are not infallible. They would surely have led me, if I was around at the time and into physics, to reject Einstein’s initial paper on relativity – inconsistent with known physical principles or common experience, an unknown researcher, etc. In my defence, most of Einstein’s contemporaries rejected his work initially, as well. (I don’t know if they pushed for a retraction.)

The biggest scientific findings are those which contradict the “well known,” though that’s where and why the need for independent verification is so important. Bear in mind that science can never prove anything to be absolutely true. Einstein’s conclusions were only accepted after they were tested in some now-legendary experiments, and no one can yet say they are absolutely correct more than a century later.

So what’s my advice for those without scientific training? Well points 3, 4 and 5 above still apply. And a healthy degree of skepticism works too. Just because some new research finding gets high-profile attention on the national news does not mean it’s right. In fact, the odds are that it is wrong. The article in The Economist concludes that most research reports are only partially true, at best. Wait at least a few days before drawing any conclusions. A few weeks or months is even better. Wait for the counter perspectives to come out – which, incidentally, are unlikely to be reported in the national news; the Internet and social media are better sources.

Science is wonderful and the basis for a large portion of what we call quality of life. But it can be a big challenge to know just what good science really says. Unfortunately, that challenge is getting bigger. That’s a huge problem for those of us who proclaim, “Trust good science.”

Additional Comments on the Issue of Neonicotinoid Seed Treatments and Bee Mortality

Since posting my early September blog (http://goo.gl/DmqH3N) about neonicotinoid seed treatments and bee mortality, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada has issued a Notice of Intent on “action to protect bees from exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides” (http://goo.gl/Uhg6Vv). The following comments pertain to that notice and a related PMRA report on bee deaths in Ontario and Quebec in 2012, some additional data they’ve collected for 2013, other published research papers/reports, and further discussions with Canadian bee researchers and professionals. 

1.         The PMRA Notice of Intent states that “the majority of pollinator mortalities were a result of exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides, likely through exposure to contaminated dust generated during the planting of treated corn seed.” And it goes on to say, “we have concluded that current agricultural practices related to the use of neonicotinoid treated corn and soybean seed are not sustainable.” The Notice of Intent seems to be based largely on information contained in a PMRA report entitled, Evaluation of Canadian Bee Mortalities Coinciding with Corn Planting in Spring 2012 (not on web).The 2012 report involves an investigation of reports of bee deaths from 40 beekeepers involving a total of 240 hive locations in Ontario and one report involving eight hive locations in Quebec. 

2.         PMRA tested, for neonic residues, 125 samples of dead and 2 samples of “dozy” bees from 25 affected beekeepers, plus 20 samples of living bees from apparently healthy hives. The sampling occurred sometime after corn planting, but before corn pollination. The PMRA’s finding that 70% of the dead bee samples in Ontario had detectible residues of chlothianidin, while residues were detected in only one “unaffected” bee sample, has received major attention. (Note that clothianidin is the active ingredient in the seed treatment commonly known as ‘Poncho,’ and is also a breakdown product of thiamethoxam, or ‘Cruiser,’ the other commonly used corn seed treatment.) 

3,         An appendix table in the “2012 deaths” report, listing neonic residue levels for the 127 dead- and dozy-bee samples, is of major significance. PMRA states that the 48-hr “NOELs” (No Observable adverse Effect Levels) for clothianidin are 0.0085 (oral exposure) and 0.067 ppm (dermal exposure). NOEL is the minimum exposure level considered to have any negative effect on bees. If it’s contact with neonic-laden dust in air at planting time, dermal would seem like the most likely means of exposure, with oral exposure being more appropriate for neonics in floral nectar and pollen. Importantly, data in the appendix table show that not one of the 127 dead/dozy bee samples had neonic residue concentrations as high as the NOEL dermal level. The highest sample reading was 0.024 ppm. Only 17 of the127 were even at or above 0.0085 ppm. 

In summary, 70% of the dead samples had detectable neonics, but 100% of samples were below NOEL values. 

PMRA’s report says that residue concentrations in dead bees may decline with time, because of bacterial decomposition. Sunshine exposure also breaks neonics down. However, experts in the field say that the rate of decline in dead bees is largely unknown. Hence, it’s not clear whether the amount of neonics in any of the dead bee samples was ever high enough to cause adverse effects to these bees while they were still alive – at least based on available science. 

4.         By contrast, what is well established scientifically is that the rate of breakdown of neonics in living bees is very rapid. I’m told that the half-life for clothianidin in bees is 11 hr, or less. After 3 days, only about 1% of the original exposure remains. It’s no surprise that PMRA did not detect neonics in most living bee samples presumably collected several days after incident reports were submitted. This perspective seems to be missing from both the PMRA 2102 report and Notice of Intent. 

5.         A summary (not published) of 2013 PMRA analyses of neonic levels in dead bees does not give the breakout for individual samples, only the range, which is from 0.001 to 0.071 ppm, with 75% of all dead bee samples having detectable clothianidin. The 0.071 is close to the NOEL dermal limit (0.067 ppm). Hence, one sample out of more than 225 over two years was as high as the minimal level known to harm bees. 

6.         The PMRA’s statistic that 70% of dead bees (and 75% in 2013) had detectable neonic residues has also much to do with the precision of the detection technology. The “limit of quantification” in the PMRA analyses is 0.001 ppm. If it had been 0.01 ppm, the 70% in 2012 would have been 12%. And if the limit of quantification had been 0.000l ppm, the 70% figure would almost certainly been even higher. With sufficiently sensitive technology, given the wide use of neonics in modern society for uses well beyond corn seed treatment, almost 100% of the samples might have been expected to have neonic residues. The critical issue is not whether neonics are detected but whether they are present at levels which are injurious to bees. The 2012 document implies “no.” Preliminary 2013 data say “maybe in one case.” 

7.         PMRA’s identification of soybean seed treatments as a probable cause of bee deaths is most puzzling, especially when the agency goes so far as to say, “agricultural practices related to the use of neonicotinoid treated … soybean seed are not sustainable.” But PMRA has not presented any direct evidence linking bee deaths to soybean seed treatment. All of the discussion/analysis in its “Evaluation of Canadian Bee Mortalities Coinciding with Corn Planting in Spring 2012″ pertains to corn. Why did they do this? The rationale might have been: ‘if corn seed treatment is bad, then soybean treatment must be bad too’ (scarcely a word said about canola or other crops). 

Or maybe they assumed that soybeans are planted with corn planters with the same practices/problems in dust emissions. While it is true that some soybeans are planted with corn planters, the vast majority of the acreage is planted with equipment more akin to that used for canola. 

8.         Then there’s another enigma: The PMRA document about 2012 bee deaths contains a map showing the location of the 72 bee yards from which samples were analyzed. They are not uniformly distributed across the corn/soybean growing area of Ontario. In fact, about one-third of those yards are in a small pocket near Hanover, (Grey County) Ontario. While corn and soybeans are definitely grown there (canola too), this is not an intensive area of corn and soy production as a map in the PMRA report shows. The other site where a large portion of the samples were collected is Middlesex and East Lambton counties, an area which does grow a lot of corn and soybeans. 

9.         In short, while the PMRA document does make a modest case for bee deaths being caused by corn (though not soybean) neonic seed treatments, the supporting data are far from overwhelming. 

10.       Of interest, also, is an analysis which Cutler et al. (2012, http://goo.gl/9V65oX ) did of PMRA’s “bee incident reports” for pesticide injury during the years 2007 through 2012. There were a total of 110 incident reports filed by Canadian beekeepers, 104 of them in 2012 alone. PMRA divided these incident reports into three categories, minor, moderate and major. Major incidents were defined as having at least 3000 dead bees from each of five or more colonies, or 30% of the bees in any one colony, dead or exhibiting abnormal behavioural effects. Of the 110 incidents, 78 involved neonics or a combination of neonic plus another pesticide. However, only four of the 20 major incidents involved neonics. In fact, five of the major incidents involved exposure to formic acid, an organic miticide that beekeepers apply to colonies to control varroa mites on bees. The formic acid incidents are especially notable for reporting queen bee deaths. Here’s another report linking bee colony mortality to miticide treatments, http://goo.gl/1mTYYg .

 11.       There is another part to this puzzle. Some vocal beekeepers claim that the effect of neonic seed treatment for corn has been a drastic drop in bee numbers in Ontario. However, when presented with data from Statistics Canada showing that colony numbers have actually been increasing at a steady rate in recent years, they say that the critical effect is on over-winter mortality, citing an average of about 35% mortality during the 2012/2013 winter. (Average Canadian mortality has ranged from 15% to 35% since 2006/07 with the highest percentage actually being in 2007/08.) 

But how can an acute effect at corn seeding time in late April-May affect the mortality of bees the next winter? This is especially puzzling given the rapid rate at which neonic chemical are broken down by living bees, as well as being photo-decomposed when exposed to daylight. And with worker bees only living an average of about 40 days, over-winter deaths would involve bees born months after the seeding-time exposure. One explanation might be neonic effects on queen bees which live much longer; however bee experts tell me this is highly unlikely given the filtering which occurs with queen bee feeding. (Queen bees eat “Royal jelly,” a special type of food manufactured by other bees.) Queen bees will also break neonic chemicals down quickly in the unlikely event of significant exposure. 

12.       Re-exposure to neonics later in the growing season is another possibility. “Let’s-ban-neonics” advocates have based their arguments on claims that the agricultural environment is full of neonics and that pollen from plants grown in neonic-containing soils is another cause of deaths. But the supporting evidence seems very weak. In published reports, where neonics have been detected in soil or plant pollen, the concentrations have been far too small to be biologically significant to bees. Bees would have to ingest daily amounts in excess of their body weights to approach the NOEL values referenced above. There is an excellent published report from southern Germany detailing how improper corn seed treatment led to spring-time bee deaths in 2008 (http://goo.gl/6QC3hh). (The amount of in-seed-bag dust per 100,000 seeds was 10 to 100 times higher than acceptable standards.) But even here the amount of chemical in subsequent corn pollen was too low to be significant. 

PMRA checked for neonic residues in Ontario farm soils and water puddles in 2013, with the residue levels being mostly “not detected” or at ultra-low levels. There is a report of neonics in surface water samples in Quebec but details are sketchy. 

In summary, statements that corn neonic seed treatments are responsible for over-wintering bee deaths make no sense, scientifically. 

13.       One big dilemma in policy decisions linked to neonic seed treatments is how to design  Best Management Practices (BMPs) based on PMRA data and policy dictates. The normal response would be to reduce exposure to a pesticide so that residue levels fall well below NOEL values. But we appear to be already there according to 2012 and 2013 PMRA measurements. So what’s the new target – 10% of NOELs, 1% of NOEL, or even lower – knowing that absolute zero is impossible? And if we switch completely to other pesticide products for seed/seedling insect control, what assurance is there that the resultant environmental problem will not be worse. (The reason for going to neonic products to begin with largely involved safety to humans and environment with other compounds.) 

14.       Some work done by Dr. Krupke and colleagues in Indiana is of interest – research results which are often cited as “proof” that neonic seed treatments kill bees. Krupke et al. (2002, http://goo.gl/scBQ9I) reported ultra-high levels of neonics in talc dust collected on the exhaust manifold of their pneumatic corn planter; they and others have used this to emphasize the seriousness of neonic exhaust from pneumatic corn planters. But as others have pointed out, this says little about emission rates. (It’s like scraping soot off the inside of a tailpipe to estimate auto exhaust emissions.) Perhaps more significantly, they placed bee colonies on all four sides of a small field being planted with this corn planter. While the research paper is silent on the fate of the bees, Dr. Krupke has told others that there were no apparent toxicological problems with these bees. (The paper has other weaknesses, but they’re beyond the scope of this blog.) 

15.       And that leads to a final question: What’s causing the bee deaths? 

There is no doubt in my opinion that there are incidents where using a pneumatic vacuum-style corn planter, with talc added to neonic-treated seed, and with wind blowing strongly towards a concentration of bees (hives, pollinating flowers) at seeding time, that neonics will kill bees. 

But I’m hearing from bee researchers that a larger cause of bee mortality is bee diseases, and most notably virus diseases spread by varroa mites. 

Some beekeepers have claimed, “This can’t be my situation because my varroa levels are low.” But the scientists respond that it takes very few varroa to introduce critical viruses into a bee hive. Once there, they spread quickly – and even to new bees introduced many months later into supposedly empty, though infected, hives. Both Dr. Rob Currie at the University of Manitoba and Dr. Ernesto Guzman, University of Guelph, have research (as yet unpublished) which implicates varroa-transported viruses as being an important cause of abnormal bee deaths. Few viral measurements have ever been taken for commercial bee hives in Ontario, and most viruses are difficult/impossible to detect visually. Bees dying from viruses display symptoms similar to those dying from pesticide exposure. (Canada has only now established its first bee virus lab service. It’s at Beaver Lodge in Northern Alberta, two days away from Ontario and Quebec by courier yet the bees must arrive alive, and the per sample cost is $325.) 

And there may be another factor too. At least one vocal Ontario beekeeper has reported that his bees have done better once he moved them “further north” where the proportion of land planted to corn and soybeans is lower. He also said the “problem” has become more notable in the last few years. He attributes this to neonics, but there could be another cause – bee starvation/malnutrition. There is little (soybeans) or no (corn) nectar with these crops. Corn provides pollen for protein though I’m told bees only collect it if other more attractive sources are not available. With recent higher grain prices, many former forage (i.e., alfalfa/clover) fields have recently been planted to grain crops. Bees positioned near these fields may have had little to eat, especially if many dozens of hives are located at one location, with each hive holding up to 80,000 worker bees. It’s a case of not enough food and too much competition.

 16.       I generally support new OMAF guidelines for corn seed treatments (http://fieldcropnews.com/tag/bee-kills/), and welcome Bayer’s plans for a safer alternative to talc powder. Planter manufacturers could help. German research showed emissions into surrounding air dropped by 90% plus when exhaust was directed to the ground. 

Suggestions that only 20-30% of corn seed needs insecticide treatment make me uneasy. Past field experience is not that useful if you’ve been using treated seed. Agricorp (Ontario’s crop insurance agency) requires a backup insect control plan if using untreated seed, to ensure crop insurance coverage in Ontario. 

I don’t believe corn growers should seed neonic-treated corn using vacuum planters with wind blowing toward areas of bee concentration. Options include different planters, untreated seed, better seed lubricants, calm winds, and/or moving the hives.

Summary Comments on the Issue of Neonicotinoid Seed Treatments and Bee Mortality

1.         Despite an effective campaign by a partnership of the Ontario Bee Association and the Sierra Club of Canada, seeking a ban on neonic usage in Ontario, science and statistics do not support their position. 

2.         Statistics Canada data show that the number of honey bee colonies was up, not down, in both Ontario and Canada in 2012. Anecdotal reports say this trend continues in 2013. 

3.         While some beekeepers have experienced excessive losses in recent years, most other beekeepers have not, including many with hives immediately adjacent to treated corn fields. 

4.         Despite claims to the contrary, there has been no shortage of pollinator bees for horticultural crop producers across Ontario. By contrast, there are reports of beekeepers seeking crops for bees to forage/pollinate. Ontario continues to send many thousands of hives to Atlantic Canada each year for blueberry pollination. The quality of the shipped bees has been unusually good in 2012 and 2013. 

5.         In the Prairie Provinces where 80% of Canadian bee/honey production occurs and where neonic usage is also much higher than in Ontario (canola and corn seed treatment), there is no linkage between neonics and bee deaths. 

6.         The Canadian Honey Council, representing bee keepers all across Canada, actively opposes the request by the board of the Ontario Beekeepers Association for a ban on neonic usage. They consider that the harm to other farmers would be substantial, with no notable change in bee mortality. 

7.         Overwinter bee death percentages vary widely from year to year. Recent Ontario numbers are not that different from historical patterns. The percent is highly dependent on management. Low hive numbers in spring are easily adjusted for by hive splitting and other normal beekeeper practices. 

8.         Bees are always dying in large numbers. An average of about 2000 dies per hive each day,  given their short life span. Overwinter hive sizes are almost 90% lower than during mid season.

 9.         The real cause of increased bee mortality for some beekeepers in recent years is the arrival of varroa mites. These mites are huge, relative to the size of a bee. They suck blood (or its insect counterpart) out of bees and also inject deadly viruses into the bees. It’s akin to malaria spread by mosquitoes. 

10.       Varroa mites and viruses are deadly to bees but another problem is that the chemical controls can be just as deadly. These materials must be applied just right. Casual bee management practices, which worked well before varroa arrived, mean excessive bee mortality now. And quality bee/varroa management keeps changing as the mite develops resistance to formerly effective miticides. 

11.       A new miticide first registered for usage in Canada in early 2012 could be a major problem. It’s called Mite Away Quick Strips (MAQS) and is based on the toxic formic acid. It is produced and widely used in Ontario but not in Western Canada. It is especially toxic at higher temperatures – not recommended for use above 82F in Northern Ohio, and Ontario had many days with higher temperatures in May 2012 when some Ontario beekeepers reported high losses. 

12.       Ontario bees have also been affected by a recently arrived strain/species of a serious fungal disease, Nosema. The interactions between this disease, fungicide treatments, and the complications provided by varroa and viruses, and their chemical controls, are not well understood. 

13.       Other stresses can weaken bees, especially if bees are already weakened by varroa, viruses, diseases and mites. These include inadequate bee nutrition (quantity and quality) during periods when the nectar and pollen supply is inadequate, and transport over long distances.

 14.       Successful, careful beekeepers in Ontario say that skilled bee/varroa management coupled with quality hygiene (the same principles which apply for livestock and poultry producers) is what is needed to ensure hive survival and productivity. 

15.       Dust from corn seed treatments may be a factor, on windy days with certain brands of corn planters and when talc powder is added to the seed. Bees which are already very weak for reasons listed above may be vulnerable. Efforts are underway in the corn industry to alter the seed treatments and planter design (or the choice of equipment purchase). However, correcting this problem will not likely reduce the high mortality for some beekeepers if they don’t address more fundamental management problems. 

16.       A shift in the position of the Ontario Beekeepers Association, from one that “the problem is corn seed treatments in spring time,” to one that “neonics are everywhere in air, soil, and water and must be banned” actually weakens their case, for it further raises the question of why this is not the problem in Western Canada where neonic usage is so much greater. 

17.       If the Government of Ontario were to introduce a neonic ban as a key solution to the so-called bee mortality problem, it risks experiencing even greater ire in days ahead, i.e., when some vocal beekeepers find that the problem is just as bad as before and when corn farmers experience serious losses due to damage caused by insects now controlled by neonic seed treatments. There is also a high probability that many corn farmers would switch to the use of other insecticides much more harmful to themselves and the environment. Finally, the demand for a neonic ban could extend to horticultural farmers who are highly dependent on foliar spray applications of neonics for insect control.

Full Statement by Professor Robert Friendship, University of Guelph on Study by Carman et al on Feeding of Genetically Modified Corn and Soybeans to Pigs

Dr Robert Friendship, a professor in the Department of Population Medicine at the Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph and a swine health management specialist, reviewed the paper [see reference below]. He concluded that “it was incorrect for the researchers to conclude that one group had more stomach inflammation than the other group because the researchers did not examine stomach inflammation. They did a visual scoring of the colour of the lining of the stomach of pigs at the abattoir and misinterpreted redness to indicate evidence of inflammation. It does not. They would have had to take a tissue sample and prepare histological slides and examine these samples for evidence of inflammatory response such as white blood cell infiltration and other changes to determine if there was inflammation. There is no relationship between the colour of the stomach in the dead, bled-out pig at a slaughter plant and inflammation. The researchers should have included a veterinary pathologist on their team and this mistake would not have happened. They found no difference between the two experimental groups in pathology that can be determined by gross inspection.”

Regarding the other finding that the researchers held out as proof that the GMO fed pigs were different was that the uterus weight was different between the two groups. Dr Friendship noted that the authors did not appear unbiased in their discussion. “The research had a number of factors that could not be controlled for. It is disappointing that the authors of the paper did not admit the weaknesses of the study design and caution readers that there may be many reasons for a difference in uterine weight. Unfortunately instead of presenting a fair discussion they made wild speculation about the weight difference such as the heavier weight might indicate cancer. A flaw in the design of the study is that treatment is applied at the pen level and all the statistical analysis is done at the individual animal level. They did not suggest that the heavier uterine weight might be a result of some of the pigs in one pen of 42 pigs reaching puberty, which would be a reasonable possibility or that there may be estrogen-like substances in the feed at low levels. The testing that was performed for mycotoxins which are capable of producing estrogen-like compounds and are common was completely inadequate to rule-out this possibility. Overall the study is flawed but if you ignore the misinterpretation of the stomach colour, the research shows there is no difference in the two groups of pigs.”
————
“A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet.” Judy A. Carman, Howard R. Vlieger, Larry J. VerSteeg, Verlyn E.Sneller, Garth W. Robinson, Catherine A. Clinch-Jones, Julie I. Haynes, and John W. Edwards. Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1), 2013

A Tribute to Field Staff of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food

I could not believe it: A frontal thunder storm system had barely crossed southwestern Ontario to reach our Guelph-area farm, and Peter Johnson was already tweeting advice to farmers – how to deal the inevitable soil crusting problem which pounding rain would cause, preventing the emergence of recently planted soybean seeds/seedlings.

That incident is far from unique. Late May frosts triggered early Saturday morning tweets from Johnson, Mike Cowbrough and several other field staffers of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture (OMAF). Because my primary business is field crops, I am not as familiar with horticulture and livestock, but do recall recent tweets from Leslie Huffman, OMAF’s apple specialist (@OntAppleLady), giving 6 AM advice on expected severity of an overnight mid-May frost at blossom time.

This column is not just about a few individuals or only those who use Twitter (though hopefully they all soon will). It’s about a record of solid service to Ontario agriculture – by many OMAF field staffers who are unheralded heroes for Ontario’s second largest (or is it the largest?) economic sector. Because almost all Ontario farms are family owned and operated, this is about service to rural families as well.

I can think of so many ways in which these people make our world better. They play a dominant role (in cooperation with farm groups) in highly successful winter agricultural information programs – like the Southwest ag conference at Ridgetown, Farm$mart at Guelph – and dozens like them, including many organized by farm input/service suppliers. They are quoted constantly in the farm media – public and private. They’ve adapted readily from the days when the “ag office” dominated agriculture in every county, to providing technical advice through the Internet, farm conferences, and via high-quality private advisory services now well established across Ontario.

Their reward, unfortunately, for doing their job so well, is to be taken for granted. When farm groups meet top ministry officials and politicians, their focus is usually on other things – farm income support/stabilization, trade issues, regulatory burdens, research and more. It’s rarely about what old-timers like me called “extension services.” (The newer term seems to be “tech transfer/service”). No need for farm groups to complain about what’s working well.

Indeed, we often tend to forget that these people are even civil servants. They are seemingly available almost all the time, weekends included – farmers’ hours. “Real government staff don’t do that,” or so common perception says.

Another mis-perception is that the most important service to agriculture comes from big breakthroughs – major new genetics, crops, technologies, products etc. – when most of the gains in agricultural productivity come through incremental  changes: better soil management, more efficient use of inputs like fertilizer and pesticides, better timing, better marketing – stuff like that. And even when new breakthrough technologies come, it’s the OMAF field staff and their private sector partners who teach us how to use them effectively.

We take them for granted, and I think government sometimes does too – by creating bureaucratic impediments. I am still annoyed, for example, at a former deputy minister’s decision to prevent some OMAF staff farm visits just prior to the last election. ‘Don’t want any potential for bad press.’  (No, this was not publicized; OMAF staff did not blab; only persistent probing dragged the info out of them. But the edict did not benefit rural Ontario.)

And major barriers to out-of-province travel persist – or perhaps have even grown – even when this would/could be funded by farm groups and would help the staffers become even better informed, and provide even better service to Ontario agriculture.

But enough of that. This column is about positives and the need to say thanks. So from this Ontario farm family to OMAF field staffers: Thank you so much, and keep up the good work.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,056 other followers