Roundup and honey bees

[LazyBkpr]

Yeah well its kinda like Jeremy Wade saying there are no Alligator Gar this far north...
   When I was six a friend of the family died from a cottonmouth bite. I believe it was several bites while noodling..   It was enough trauma to make me learn what snakes were poisonous and which were not, and learn to recognize them.  I have seen at least a dozen since then.

[Chip Euliss]

@Chip:

I haven't read your article about rattlesnakes that don't rattle.  (If it doesn't rattle, is it a rattlesnake? )  That being said, there was an article in the Abilene News about rattlesnakes not rattling because the one's that rattle get eaten by feral pigs.  We now have lots of large feral pigs roaming our land, and the larger ones seem to be immune to snake bites.  I suppose their thick skin and fat on the frontal parts of a pig make it difficult for a snake to penetrate their fangs into the snakes body.

It does seem that we have less snakes in recent years.  Our ticks are now gone because the fire ants have eaten them.  Our ecology is drastically changing.

Indeed.  Pigs are thick skinned, especially their frontal areas and they will eat just about anything.  Fire ants are tough characters too (removing ticks would be a big positive here!).  Africanized were forecast to move from Texas to Florida but that didn't happen (the bees got to Florida by ship).  Monitoring data show that the bees move east during dry spells and retreat west when it's wet.  The hypothesis is that when it's wet, nest sites are more limited and they can't compete with fire ants for nest sites.  Don't know if it's true or not but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Chip Euliss]

Don't know about Jeremy but the closest state I could find with cottonmouth records was southern Missouri.  According to:

Snakes of Iowa; J.L. Christiansen and R.M. Bailey; Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA; 1986.

Iowa has 4 poisonous snakes but there were no records of cottonmouths.  If you see more, contact the DNR or Iowa State, I'm sure they would want to confirm the record.  Stranger things have happened and one thing I've learned in Biology over the past 63 years--never say never!

[brooksbeefarm]

Yes we have more cottonmouth now than when i was a teenager. If you see a snake swimming in the water, ( river, creek, lake, ect.) with his head up out of the water, more than likely it's a cottonmouth. They are a aggressive snake and won't run from you . I've had them try to get in the boat, but don't think there motive was to attack me, just getting out of the water? except for one time my buddy was trying to kill one with a boat oar and thought he killed it and then we seen it coming over the stern and it wasn't happy. We have more copperheads than any other poison snakes, but there not aggressive and will run from you unless you startle it by walking up on it. The only other poison snakes we have that i know of is timber rattlers and pygmy rattle snakes. The cottonmouth is the only one i'll go out of my way to kill, unless any of the other poison snake are anywhere close to my house. I've never seen a poison snake on my farm but i have plenty black snakes and salt and pepper king snakes, and the they have a free pass. Jack

[neillsayers]

I killed a timber rattler last summer that was sunning next to my porch step. He never rattled but I identified him by his head and markings. Sucker was 5 feet long and fat. Didn't rattle because his rattle had broken off. I have heard of that happening but it was the first time I'd seen it. As a general rule I don't go out of my way to kill venomous snakes. I live in the middle of a thousand acres of woods and rather not get close enough to get bit. Those I find in the yard and garden are too much of a threat to my family and animals.

[lazy shooter]

My neighbors say that an outdoor cat will keep snakes away from your house.  The cat doesn't kill them, at least not the large one, but the cat does annoy them until they leave.  I have an indoor cat, and can attest to them being annoying.

Back to roundup:  Our governments, local, county and state, use roundup to poison the edges of uncurbed streets, fence rows and around the bases of signs.  One would think the State of Texas has to comply with some strenuous regulations before spraying at random from a specialized 1,000 gallon truck. 

I don't know enough about life science to make an educated statement about the harmful effects of roundup, but I do know there is a lot of it being used in my tiny, little agricultural surrounding.

[capt44]

I spray roundup around my hives twice a season.
I see no ill effects on my bees.
I also use permethrin SFR as a drench around and under my hives also.

[Chip Euliss]

News on roundup:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-13/monsanto-stunned-california-confirms-roundup-will-be-labeled-cancer-causing

[hamptor]

Really interesting article, Chip.  Thanks for sharing.  It raises a lot of questions in my mind about Roundup for yard use in small quantities vs. no quantity at all being acceptable.  I'm sure there will be more research and information coming out about this. 

[Chip Euliss]

It's hard to keep track of all the chemicals and what they may or may not do to benefit or harm us sometime down the road.  The fact that some of the chemicals we use today have been used for a very long time isn't, in my opinion, a sign that they are harmless.  If history is as history was, there will be things that are commonplace today that will make future generations wonder why in the world we ever used them!  My dad died when he was 54 from brain cancer but my mom made it to 80; she died of mesothelioma.  She never worked with asbestos but she did wash my dad's clothes when he worked at a shipyard sandblasting the inside of asbestos tanks.  The doctor said that was probably how she was exposed.  The world is changing so fast that it's impossible to test everything and determine, with any degree of certainty, whether a chemical is good or bad.  I tend to shy away from chemicals that are easy to apply, are advertised as low risk and are supposed to make your life better; I avoid them if there is peer reviewed literature that documents negative and unintended impacts.  I hate that we have to use synthetic chemicals in hives and have drifted towards 'softer' ones and hope to shift to totally organic treatments in the future.  The hard way may be the best way.  Don't use chemicals in our garden either and we've never had a problem with pests because we have so many predatory insects in our  adjacent 'weedy' areas.  Do get a few worms in our apples but we just cut around those

[neillsayers]

Well said Chip,

I wonder at times if we, the public, are just two legged guinea pigs in a grand experiment.

[riverbee]

from the article:
"It’s still too early to tell whether other states will follow California’s lead."

they won't...........california is the leading state in warnings on labels......................., not picking on california but just saying.

[Springtide]

Chip:
As a brain cancer survivor myself, this resonates with me. The thing nobody talks about is how all these chemicals interact in the world. The other thing that surprises me, though it shouldn't, is how many people around me who are on antidepressants. (Not trying to make it seem like I am the cause of it  )
Like you Chip, I try to keep my chemical use to an absolute minimum, but the reality is, in the modern world, you can't escape them totally. You can reduce your exposure A LOT, but you can't eliminate it. A shame really. I agree with neillsayers

I wonder at times if we, the public, are just two legged guinea pigs in a grand experiment.

[Chip Euliss]

Chip:
As a brain cancer survivor myself, this resonates with me. The thing nobody talks about is how all these chemicals interact in the world. The other thing that surprises me, though it shouldn't, is how many people around me who are on antidepressants. (Not trying to make it seem like I am the cause of it  )
Like you Chip, I try to keep my chemical use to an absolute minimum, but the reality is, in the modern world, you can't escape them totally. You can reduce your exposure A LOT, but you can't eliminate it. A shame really. I agree with neillsayers

I wonder at times if we, the public, are just two legged guinea pigs in a grand experiment.

Congrats on surviving brain cancer--you must have terrific genes!!  My son in law had brain cancer too but he wasn't so lucky; he passed the day after he turned 32.  Indeed, it is impossible to eliminate exposure totally.  I also agree with neillsayers.  We are guinea pigs since we take a statistical approach to evaluate impacts.  We use the LD50 but I'd be far more comfortable with an LD10 or 5!!!  And, as you say, interactions, especially synergistic ones, are poorly understood at best.  Best to keep plugging along, keeping bees, fishing or whatever we enjoy that keeps our minds clear and happy

[lazy shooter]

I agree with most of what is being posted, and I would add that there is a lack of "good" science today.  Much of our often quoted, so called "research" is done by prejudiced scientists.  I think what we read from the chemical companies, Mother Jones, Yahoo, and many governmental agencies is tainted science.  Per example: I sometimes work as a geophysical well log analyst and reservoir engineer.  The people that hire me sometimes tell me to determine how much oil and gas reserves are in one or more of their production wells.  Sometimes the clients tell me THEY ARE SURE THERE IS X AMOUNT OF RESERVES AND THEY HAVE BASED THEIR FINANCIAL STATUS ON THE X AMOUNT.  These clients are really telling me that my research needs to find at least X amount of reserves, and it further implies that if I do not agree with their hypothesis, there will be no future work.

I have met some zealots at the USEPA, and I think they pressure up on some of their scientists to find what they want found.  One of the reasons I do not use my name of this forum is because of my relationship with governmental agencies.  I do not want to offend some good people that work with the EPA.  Note that is use the word "some."  I think many organizations do the same thing.  It is difficult to pay scientists or anyone else good money to find against you.  We need more unbiased science.

[brooksbeefarm]

I agree Lazy shooter, to much money and greed involved in just about everything nowaday Jack

[neillsayers]

  I grew up in a subdivision of New Orleans right on the edge of miles of swamps. Couple times a week the city mosquito control truck would slowly drive down the street blowing a huge fog of DDT everywhere. As stupid kids on a dare we would ride our bikes in that fog until we couldn't stand it! Many years later, while earning my agriculture degree, the texts would refer over and over, almost wistfully, to the "DDT revolution". All these years later, after it was taken off the market, scientists are still finding residues and their effect on health.
  So, the question is, what "safe and effective" treatment of today is to become tomorrow's ecological threat...or carcinogen?

Neill

[Chip Euliss]

  I grew up in a subdivision of New Orleans right on the edge of miles of swamps. Couple times a week the city mosquito control truck would slowly drive down the street blowing a huge fog of DDT everywhere. As stupid kids on a dare we would ride our bikes in that fog until we couldn't stand it! Many years later, while earning my agriculture degree, the texts would refer over and over, almost wistfully, to the "DDT revolution". All these years later, after it was taken off the market, scientists are still finding residues and their effect on health.
  So, the question is, what "safe and effective" treatment of today is to become tomorrow's ecological threat...or carcinogen?

Neill

That's the million dollar question and sadly, the one that only time will answer.  Monsanto still made DDT and sold it in countries like Mexico at least until the mid 1980's I found out when I was down there waterfowl hunting); they may still sell it there for all I know.