I could be wrong here, but I am under the impression that systemics affect insects that feed on the foliage or juices. So if your cosmos were a host plant, which I do not believe they are, then they could kill the caterpillars that feed on it. But a butterfly visiting for the nectar won't be affected as much. It's more the spray-on insecticides that rest on the plants' surface that are a danger to pollen/nectar gatherers. Another danger would be ladybugs that land on the plant to eat the poisoned aphids, they would also be ingesting the poison and end up dying themselves, thus removing a natural pest control from one's garden. Again, this is just the impression I have gotten from articles I have read and I can not say that this is how it works in truth.

I know that there has been a nation-wide push to have foods labeled if they are grown with GMO's or other chemicals, but I think this push keeps running up against a wall of money from the corporations and fails in the state and federal congresses. Perhaps the company that grew the plants is just taking a good faith approach and getting ahead of any laws that might be passed here in Florida or perhaps a law was passed requiring it. Either way, I am somewhat glad they labeled their plants as such. However, I expect few people will look for such labeling, as you yourself admit to (nor would I for that matter) and even fewer people will understand what that statement means.

Systemic insecticides affect bugs that CHEW on the plant or suck juice from the tissues. Don't come out in the nectar to any significant extent.

And, as the plant grows, the new bits don't have any, unless of course you re-apply it.

Some neonics don't effect caterpillars and some do. Do to the size of the molecule little to none actually make it into the flower.

Thank you for responding. It's the little "possiblys" that nag at me. "But a butterfly visiting for the nectar won't be affected as much." and "Don't come out in the nectar to any significant extent."

Faint consolation if you place butterflies close to your grandchildren in your adoration, protective impulses, and joy observing their needs being met.

(I don't actually have grandchildren - or children - but it seems for me a meaningful comparison. For instance, how could I enjoy watching them play on a swing set that I know is not totally safely anchored?)

I'm not moved to feed my own body better... at 71 yrs I think (but I may rethink this) it's too late for me for the subtleties of organic eating to make a difference. But butterflies seem so vulnerable.

I understand your hesitancy, Irma. As I mentioned in my above comment, "I could be wrong." If I am not 90% sure about something, I don't put my trust in it. So even though I have read about systemics and how they work, I am not sure I fully understand it all and I'm not convinced that even the biologists fully understand the long-term effects. And so I avoid using systemics in my own yard. Will I look for the labeling in the future? Maybe, maybe not. I mostly grow things from seed or cuttings these days, though sometimes I do pick up something exotic from the Marion Market (prices are SO much better than the Big Box stores). For the most part, I let my knowledge guide what I do in my own yard/garden. What someone does in their own garden or nursery concerns me on only a very minor level. People say that if we all do our part, we can change things for the better, and I believe that to be true. But I also see the reality that the people who don't care to do their part vastly out-number the people who do care. People also say that the young of today are far more eco-aware than the older generations, but anyone who has ever been around a high school and seen what the 'young' these days are driving... I'm not so sure. If they are aware, then they seemingly don't care. The writing is on the wall as far as I am concerned, the best I can do is make sure I go out with a clear conscience on how I lived my life and how I guided my children to live theirs. Not that I have some dismal outlook on the future. It's just a matter of "It is what it is." Things might be changing for the better, but if they are, they are changing so slowly it won't make much of a difference.

Okay, I have taken this way too far into somber seriousness. Time to turn on some Zac Brown and Buffett and let it all go.

Leekle, I agree with you and stand firm on doing my part to make this a better place. Some change is better then none and it is never too late to help in that change even if it just talking it up so others can have a chance to learn that there is a better way.
Carmen

I don't know a lot about exactly the way these chemicals work at a scientific level, but I have read 3 extensive papers that all said that the use of these synthetic nicotine products in our orange groves is killing our bees. I not going to argue the fact, but these people are now expected to label their products to warn buyers of exactly what you are fearing. It all has come from our losing bees and environmental people pushing for labels. I would have to assume there is a correlation between insects consuming nicotine filled pollen and death that our bees are seeing.

One of the problems with the way many folks are viewing this issue is that they apparently never thought pesticides were used to grow the millions of plants sold, only realizing this when the neonic controversy flared up. Thus we now have folks clamoring for a ban on these useful and mostly safe compounds, which will surely push growers, who by the way do need to protect their crops from insects, into using older and even more dangerous chemistries, things like organophosphates, which are broad-spectrum nerve poisons.

This is not at all to say there are no problems with neonics. For certain, they shouldn't be used on any plant likely to be visited by bees or other pollinating insects in the near timeframe. For an example of how that can go wrong, some company sprayed a whole bunch of linden trees-while in flower-killing hundreds of thousands of bees out in Oregon. That's just dumb and irresponsible pesticide use. But it's equally dumb to across-the-board remove these items from use. They are far safer than many other classes of insecticides.

I have little doubt though that emotion, not knowledge-will rule the day, and we will probably see a ban. That would/will be a huge mistake. It's one thing to protect your single clump of Echinacea you planted in your garden. But what about the supplier who has a field full of thousands of these plants, and who supplies you in the long run? Should he or she just hope and pray nothing goes wrong?

This is a complex issue, but most people want simple, dumbed-down answers.

+oM

Good points, Tom. What about this from Pesticide Action Network - http://www.panna.org/resources/organophosphates

"A number of less-toxic alternatives to organophosphate pesticides are currently available and in use around the country and around the world. The University of California produced a special report on the use of OP alternatives in California. These alternatives include:

Pheromones: chemicals secreted by insects for communication--to disrupt insect mating

Cultural controls: crop rotations, manipulating planting dates, reducing of pest habitats and improving crop vigor

Less toxic, more pest-specific alternative insecticides"

I assume that Neonicotinoids meet the 3rd option. And I'm suspicious, although not educated on, the 1st option.

Thanks Irma. To be honest, I didn't read the linked article, but to say I'm well-versed in this and related issues would be an understatement.

All responsible growers, horticulturists, gardeners, and farmers are always trying to use the safest, least disruptive pest control strategy that is available, and that will do the job. That concept is nothing new. In fact, neonicotinoids came out of that process. They are, as a class of compounds, far safer to mammals than organophosphates, carbamates, and older and truly horrible things like chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT anyone?). But how a compound is used is just as critical as the nature of the compound itself. Timing of application is a huge factor, and if we are to not kill beneficial organisms, like bees, butterflies, etc. we must time our applications carefully. Then too, biorational products are coming on line like never before. This is where the future is going, but we need to protect our crops right now too. Unless, of course, we don't plan on eating, or having plants in our landscape.

Now I'm sure somebody is reading this and thinking, 'boy, wisconsitom is nothing but a shill for the pesticide industry'. I assure you, this is about as far from the truth as one could get. But honesty requires that we weigh all sides of an issue, and that's just not happening with this neonic issue.

I wrote a paper to a trade group, urging all growers to cease the use of neonics on plants likely to be visited by bees-during the period when the material would be active in the plant's tissues/sap. But I fear it's already too late. The emotion rollercoaster has gained too much speed already.

In the northeastern states, a horrible tragedy is taking place in the forests. There, an imported pest-hemlock wooly adelgid-is decimating one of our finest trees, hemlocks. Just about the only answer to this pest is one of the neonics-imidaclopyralid, better known as Merit or Bayer Tree/Shrub Protection, or some such trade name. Take this tool away and we will be left with nothing to stop the elimination of one of our best native tree species from the forest. There are plenty more examples just like that. These products are applied as a soil drench, such that off-target exposure is minimized. But the people clamoring for a ban don't know-or seem to care-about any of this. I'm about as big an environmentalist as there is. People that know me can't believe how passionate I am about this. But just willy-nilly banning tools, and then thinking you're saving the planet, just fills me with disgust at the stupidity of mankind.

Sometime ask me how I really feel, lol!

+oM

Good info, Tom, thanks. One thing, your "paper to a trade group, urging all growers to cease the use of neonics on plants likely to be visited by bees-during the period when the material would be active in the plant's tissues/sap." This is what I wish for my yard -- but note, I'm in Zone 9B (approx) where there is rarely a week (usually when constantly raining) with no butterflies flitting around. Carrying possible eating effects further, the millions of birds migrating to or through Florida to escape cold climates, eat these insects.

Quite right, Irma. Thing is, in a yard situation, pest control is a minor issue-for the most part-with the biggest thing riding on it being whether some plant will or will not grace the yard. Where things get hairy is in mass production-whatever the crop-where real $$ are involved. It's easy enough for me to look at the aphids on my Heliopsis and say, gee, better soap em up. What about the guy growing ten thousand Heliopsis for the trade, along with 100,000 other susceptible plants? Or food production. Or timber. Or...well, you get my point. Nobody wants to kill off-target organisms, or at least they shouldn't. But when you have big bucks riding on your having the ability to bring something to market, it's not so simple.

The other main point I was trying to make is that it seems a bunch of people just woke up and found out pesticides are being used to grow things. Far more harmful compounds were replaced by neonics. That's just the truth. doesn't mean we can spray them willy nilly, but they are a tool, a tool which was invented for a reason. I remember when Orthene, Diazinon, Malathion, etc...all nerve poisons and all organophosphates, were being used for everything. Then we realized this was not a good thing. chemists went to work to find replacement strategies and neonics came out of that effort.

But don't get me wrong. I believe....and firmly hope...that biorationals are the future. It just takes time.

+oM

So, is big business the problem? Sell more and do it more cheaply or no one will buy and the empire will collapse?

I google "mealy bugs" which is one of the insect enemys listed on the HD tag, and first offered is: www.planetnatural.com/pest-problem-solver/...pests/mealybug-control/ (I guess Google knows my interests even if HD doesn't!). This lists numerous control agents and activities that are less harmful than a pesticide; most, it seems to me, can be followed by growers/suppliers.

Anyway, now that I am awake to this, I will willingly pay more for pesticide-free plants. And learn to grow from seeds (or are seeds a poison issue, too?... I will start a new thread asking that).

Seeds can indeed be "non-organic", so to speak. And while this can be important for those growers needing to maintain their organic certification, an individual gardener needs to decide where they are going to draw the line. I am having a few hundred (Of an order totaling many thousands) of our bedding plants grown for this spring by a community garden/organic collective-type thing. The gal I'm working with there did indeed have to make certain that even though the seed she uses to start our stuff may be from a non-organic seed supplier, this will not undermine her ability to maintain that certification, so it gets kind of crazy.

I would rather the entire industry move towards minimizing the use of wide-spectrum pesticides than for one grower here, one grower there be organic and everybody else just go about things the "old" way. And in a sense, this is exactly what's happening. When I started working in this biz back around 1980, "organic growing" was a kind of weird fringe element of the entire industry. We see that's not so anymore, and additionally, growers who do not consider themselves "organic" are largely moving towards more biorationals and other so-called "softer" approaches as they learn that these measures can work. Such aspects as worker re-entry intervals, which are of course shorter or non-existent with biological and/or other organic pest control strategies save these folks money, and that's something everyone, even those who don't care about the environment, understand. So it is getting better. But......meanwhile, the human population of the planet continues to explode and one way or another, every one of those mouths is going to want to get fed. So again, what you do in your yard or I in mine is one thing. But the big picture is quite another, and that's where the challenges lie.

+oM

I was in Home Depot this past weekend. I was looking for nectar plants to put in my butterfly garden. I noticed some of the plants had a separate tag and I was it was saying the plant was treated with Neonicotinoids. There were Penta, Snapdragons, Petunias, many more.

I bought a few plants that did not have the label. When I was checking out, I noticed 3 pots of Cosmos had the tag (I didn't notice.) I asked the lady at checkout to put those a side as I didn't want them. I told her what I read from Irma. She was so surprised and upset that Home Depot doesn't inform their workers about these things.

I told her what I found out from Irma's post and the information I gained here. Told her about bee's and butterflies. She was shocked and upset with Home Depot. Thanked me profusely and said she would mention it to people buying plants.

Thank you Irma. This was such an important post and provided good information. I do believe we all need to do our best to protect our planet and its inhabitants.

{{gwi:2125376}}

Jane

For nectar sources I have learned to avoid big box stores, not because of the neonicotinoids, but because so many plants provided have been hybridized to the point of being undesirable to insects. If you plant a dwarfed, brighter red pentas near the non-dwarfed, self-seeding (not horribly so) standard red pentas, you will likely notice butterflies and hummingbirds will go to the latter. If a butterfly goes to the dwarfed variety, it tends to linger for a second and then goes to the standard where it will sit and drink.

It is far better, in my humble opinion to hit up actual nurseries, 'backyard' nurseries, Garden Fairs and MG plant sales. Starting from seed is the absolute best to make sure you will have a non-sterile plant.

And I could be mistaken, but the name neonicotinoid seems to suggest that this compound is really just the nicotine plant's natural pest control put into a form so it can be applied to other plants? I will have to read more on it and verify my suspicion.

Oh, and if that cashier starts telling people to avoid those plants, she will at the very least will get reprimanded and at worst get fired.

Leekle, no, neonicotinoids are synthetic versions of an old, old (old!) pest control strategy employing nicotine from tobacco plants. They are related the way aspirin is related to willow bark-they both have salycilic acid...er...that's not quite right. Let's see, how can I explain this? Just as millennia ago, people noticed that juice from poppy pods could alleviate pain in humans, today, there are fully synthetic opioids, not at all derived from the poppy plant, but which dock in the same sites in our brain/nervous system, thereby also relieving pain. So similar in some structural ways, but completely unrelated in terms of origin.

That lady at the counter fits precisely what I said at my opening remarks; apparently, she never knew pesticides-not just neonics now-were used to propagate the millions of plants that go through her store and all the other outlets. She works in a garden center yet was/is completely clueless about the industry within which she works. Now, she too will be on the rampage about 'these horrible new chemicals that are poisoning our planet". More hysteria, less information. We've got a lot of that today.

Now true enough, older, open-pollinated varieties of plants are very often more appealing to insects, etc. They do often, though not always, tend to have more pollen and/or nectar. But that has nothing whatever to do with where they are sold or grown. In fact, the little family garden center and the big box mostly source their materials from the same big wholesale growers. I like the mom and pops better myself, and when last down in Fort Myers, I had some very enjoyable days at several such establishments, looking and learning about the plants and having some great conversations with some great people. But let's try and keep this to actual facts here.

The banning of neonics will surely cause growers to fall back to organophosphates and other more dangerous materials. There is no other way for this to go. In time, biorationals will take over more of the job of pest control/protection. But for the guys with crops in the ground or under glass right now, they need to use what is available. And this hysteria is surely going to cause things to run backwards for a while.

Incidentally, did you readers know that many, many species of plant "poison" the ground around which they grow, in order to inhibit other species from taking hold there? This is called 'allelopathy' and is a very well-known and very common situation out in nature. Should we "ban" these plant species because they are "poisoning" their environment?

+oM

Melaleuca, eucalyptus and pine are some of those alleopathic plants. I've been reading on these and some say that the alleopathic properties are carried over into the mulches, but no one has yet been able to 100% say that they do. I can say from my experience that my garden beds seem to react positively to pine bark, my melaleuca path is the most weed free of any mulched path I have laid (even my mimosa seems reluctant to invade) and last year after my mother swapped out the cypress mulch (another possibly alleopathic mulch) in her coleus bed with eucalyptus, her coleus never got to the full and lush sizes of the previous year, they lived, but they were a sorry looking lot. This year when I take her annual Birthday coleus for planting (I grow them from seed for her each December), I am going to swap out 3/4 of the eucalyptus mulch for pine straw, leaving one mostly unseen corner with the eucalyptus to see if there will be a difference in growth.

Interesting idea. Up further north, the black walnut is the most well-known allelopathic plant. For one example, you CAN NOT grow tomato plants under or anywhere near a black walnut. Then again, other plant species are unaffected by the walnut's secretions, things like kentucky bluegrass for instance. So even though this tree's presence will surely inhibit or outright prevent many plants from growing nearby, to look at other species, you'd never know it.

I think allelopathy and other such naturally-occurring processes are neat! Just as are the myriad ways in which most all the plants we see out in the landscape are being aided by soil-borne fungi (micorrhyzae). There's so much going on that we don't know about.

And that brings me around to what I want to say, in wrapping up my part at least, of the neonic controversy: Fully understanding natural relationships in the air, water and soil is the most exciting aspect of horticulture to me. Just because I decry the pseudoscience which is now poised to bring down a whole class of useful chemicals, I hope folks here don't get the wrong idea....I'm one of the world's original tree huggers! I really mean that. When I visit Florida, I volunteer at nature preserves-as a part of my "vacation" because I know of and understand the huge threats to the natural world all around us, and especially in places like S. Florida. I've personally planted just under ten thousand trees on land I own in N. Wisconsin. It's not as if I "like" pesticides, I just know they will be used and I hate what I see happening: People latching onto a very poorly-understood situation (with these neonics) and then proceeding to take action.....with almost zero knowledge of what's actually happening.

+oM

If you haven't already, you might want to do a search for the studies in... Scotland or Ireland about how trees appear to be communicating with each other through moss. When one tree gets attacked by a pest, all the trees in the area with moss around the base would similarly react by increasing their internal chemical defenses. It sounds too fantastic to be true, but their studies show it is happening.

(Edit: Sorry, it was fungi, not moss.)

This post was edited by Leekle2ManE on Fri, Jan 23, 15 at 13:03

I have indeed heard and read about this, Leekle! As you say, at first look, it seems incredible, as in, not believable. But as you report, it does appear to be happening. This network of tree roots/mycorrhizae do indeed function as one big organism.

There's just so much we don't know. Which makes me even sadder at all the wanton destruction of nature going on all around us. And especially, I might add, in the state of Florida.

Leekle, I've got to ask-your screen name reminds me of the patois of my Jamaican friends. I used to play reggae music all over the country-in an earlier lifetime. Is that so? Are you from JA or have I misinterpreted your use of that version of "English"?

+oM

Sorry, but no. It is simply a bad phonic synonym for "Little too many", something nobody would likely get without being told.

Plants which prevent undergrowth are not exactly a poison. They prevent growth and seed germination.

Growing plants with systemic insecticides will poison the pollen and nectar used by pollinators. No comparison.

This Country is suffering a decline of pollinators. Continuing to allow the use of insecticides and other forms of poisons which threaten our bees should be banned, in my opinion.

Jane

I would just like to point out that even the Xerces Society, who champion the bees, only say that it is 'possible' that neonicotinoids 'might' be affecting bees. Apparently no chemist or biologist has been able to factually connect the two. I would hazard a guess that all the rampant development combined with your average Joe improperly spraying his pristine lawn with whatever combination herbicide/insecticide with the words "Guaranteed to protect for 6 months" on the bag are the bigger reasons for the loss of pollinators. Heck, despite how much I respect the Florida Wildflower Foundation, I think their idea to seed roadsides with wildflowers is a bad idea. When I count how many bees and butterflies are stuck to my grill and windshield after a 30-minute round trip and then multiply that number by all the other cars that use those roads... well... there's a huge number loss as well. It's easy to point at one thing and say it is the problem when the truth is that there are so many factors playing into the population loss of pollinators, it can be hard to figure which is really the worst.

That said, the only insecticides I use are Spinosad to protect my one lone citrus from greening and Amdro when the fire ants get so bad that I can't sit in a chair with my feet up on a stool without getting bitten. Oh, and dish soap when aphids get too out of control. Any of those, if used improperly can still be a hazard to other critters, but when used properly, they only affect the targeted pest.

Leekle, that's precisely my point-about your name, not neonics! My Jamaican friends speak exactly like that, and mean exactly what you said. I grasped it immediately when I signed up on this board. You are unwittingly speaking Jamaican patois!

Jane___ny, you're not going to listen/learn anyway, but answer this question if you would: How would the presence of a neonicotinoid insecticide, or for that matter, any systemic product, have an impact on pollinators if said material had been applied to a wind-pollinated plant?

No, you can't possibly answer that question because A) Your mind is made up, no further info required, and B) There is no answer, it just would not have an effect. Folks like you are making things worse by refusing to use science in your arguments. Like I said about a mile up in this thread, the emotional roller coaster is already coming down the tracks, unstoppable. Your post is a perfect example.

What if someone could prove to you that an application of a chemical had no way to get to bees and butterflys (and flies and wasps and birds)? I know, you'd prove everybody else wrong because you're smarter than everyone else.

There are legitimate concerns with pesticides. Always have been, always will. Posts like yours show that you, as a person, just woke up to that fact. Many of us have been looking into this issue for decades. What do we know?

+oM

Somewhat of an old post, but I had a similar concern about rosemary being sold by Home Depot that also came bearing the tag about neonicotinoids being used to protect the plant from aphids and mealy bugs. My concern was after I found out a chemical like imidacloprid (a popular type) is systemic, which means it can't be washed off, it may not be safe to consume the leaves of the plant. Nobody knows when the plant was treated or if the application of the pesticide was within guidelines. I actually looked for the info on neonicotinoids and concluded, at the very least, to remove all the flowers this season (to protect the bees that would be attracted) and to not consume the plant until next year. Is that overkill? Do I not have a legitimate concern?

From a news article last year, "U.S. retailers look to limit pesticides to help honeybees," "An analysis of 800 peer-reviewed studies released this week by the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, a group of scientists from several countries, concluded that neonics were a key factor in bee declines and had other harmful effects on the environment." Sounds like a scientific approach to me. It's just hype? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/25/us-usa-agriculture-bees-idUSKBN0F02M120140625

My other post if anyone cares to have more info on Neonicotinoids and imidacloprid:

http://forums.gardenweb.com/discussions/2996115/m=3/home-depot-sells-rosemary-treated-with-a-systemic-pesticide

Peter, at least your concerns are reasonable and well-founded. I can't directly answer your question as to whether or not this is overkill. But good news, several grower groups are funding research to determine that very thing. Not necessarily with basil, but with a broad range of plant species.

One thing that continues to get to me about this "controversy" is the apparent fact that until neonics, most folks evidently didn't know pesticides were used in the production of the millions of plants sold. Look up organophosphates if you want to see what this hysteria will probably drive the industry back to. What a win! Yes, that is sarcasm.

Australia, BTW, has never had the big drop-off in honeybees and honey production which N. America is just starting to climb out of now. So let's see-Australian growers use neonics, but Australia does not and has never had the varroa mite, which is a serious parasite of honeybees. Hmmmm? Wonder what that tells us?

+oM

That's very awesome idea

I gotta say, I learned a lot from this post, so thank you original poster. And Wisonsitom. And Leekle, you have finally explained why some of my pentas attracted butterflies and others didn't. The ones that did always seemed to last longer.

After reading through this, I was walking around my yard, thinking where I got things I love. Honestly, most of my favorites are either from swaps with Gardenwebbers who rooted them or grew them from seed, or from little "help the park" or "help the Tropical Audubon Society" sales. I bought a tiny little tree from a "help the park" sale and the woman who grew it assured me that it would not be one-foot high very long, but that it would never get big and it would flower almost year round and I would get butterflies and birds in it. That little one-foot dwarf ponciana has been a joy, and even hosted a cardinal family a couple years ago. Then it blew down in a tropical storm, (don't plant them close to anything you care about, even your barbecue.) We chopped it down and it came back from the roots and is about to get big enough to host bird families again.

And I think WisonsiTom has very valid points. We can't all get all of our plants or all of our food from our friends and family and little old ladies who lovingly raise plants from seed for the annual benefit sale for the local park. But I gotta say, nothing I have bought from a big box has survived my Darwinism gardening as well as those plants have.

I am also very concerned about the effect these pesticides have on beneficial insects. I have been reading about colloidal silver gardening. I have used it for myself and my animals internally with good results. I am preparing some now to use in my garden. There's lots of information on the web. It seems like an easy solution to me.

Note to all readers: Few things are "easy" and those that are have been adopted already by the mass of humanity that came before you. If it looks too good to be true......

+om

You all might want to read this article: http://interlochenpublicradio.org/post/common-garden-products-can-kill-butterflies-and-bees

Newsflash! Numerous commonly available insecticides kill insects! Read all about it!

+oM

Some newer information from the USDA

Yes, I am in the same situation- I bought several plants last year and this year...roses, perennials, hydrangeas, annuals. I was even looking into beekeeping this spring, but decided to wait and learn more about it first before committing. I saw the labels on plants at HD, and assumed neonicotinoids were something sprayed on the plant (that could be washed off), as the label does NOT say it's systemic. Stupid me, for not looking into it until now(!). Once I learned they're harmful to bees, and present in the pollen/nectar of flowers, I started researching online to find out how long it remains in the plants. I'm reading that harmful levels have been measured YEARS later! So what to do now? Pull all of my plants out? I've invested a LOT of $$, time, and energy planting my garden, thinking I was benefitting the pollinator population. I never use pesticides or chemicals, only organic fertilizers and pest/fungal control. Still, I've probably managed to do more harm than good. So discouraging.... HD labels their plants (now), but apparently most retail garden centers' plants are treated with systemics- so probably all of my plants. Sorry, bees, I had NO idea.

Thank God I didn't start keeping hives this year.....

Don't go pulling anything up until you are sure the systemics are persistent. I have read that some systemics only really effect current growth and that new growth becomes less and less affected (doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but that's what I've read). In the case of perennials and plants that are cut back (roses), I can't see even a dozen applications of a systemic pesticide lasting longer than a couple years, even if it is persistent. Eventually it would get so diluted as to not be an issue. Still, I don't think you would even have to worry about a year from the date of purchase. There is a reason that they tell you to regularly apply systemic pesticides to a crop/plant, it's because the effects wear off over time.

Yes, the systemics eventually dissipate. How long it takes depends upon many things, but normally I think the systemic will mostly be washed out after three weeks or so. I say "mostly" because I'm not sure. The variables are many--when the systemic was applied, how much, what type of plant, the growth pattern... I'm almost positive that any plant that you have had for a year or so won't have any more systemic left in it.

What I have done is cut off all the flowers from the plants I purchased at the box stores and then the new flowers that come in should have very little systemic in them. By the time the new flowers come in the plants will have easily doubled in size. I think the growers put in only enough to protect the plants while growing and perhaps for a short time afterwards.

I don't know why I torture myself so, but wading back into this mess of half-truths, mis-statements, and outright misinformation go I. Do you folks, jumping on a simple-minded bandwagon of focus on one pesticide type, really not understand that if not neonics, some other, older and even more nasty chemistry will be employed? Look up organophosphates, and tell me you'd rather it was the choice of pest control in plant production. This world is complex, but much of what I see on this and other boards is extreme simple-mindedness when it comes to this and similar issues.

Europe, where neonics were banned a few years ago, continues to suffer horrible bee losses, more so than here in N. america. Australia, where neonics have been and continue to be used, has had no dramatic drop in bee and other pollinator numbers.

BTW, not directed at the folks just above, who indeed do have a grasp of the situation, my crankiness being more generally aimed at those who have not done their homework in trying to understand such issues. One way or another, large-scale growers of the plants we enjoy will continue to use whatever methodology works to protect their crops. Do we really want to tie their hands, forcing them to go back to items we're much better off without? Organophosphates are general, wide-spectrum nerve poisons. They work on humans too. Why would you want to push the industry back to those things? Neonics, bashed repeatedly by newbies to the whole topic, were developed precisely to help us get away from those earlier, more harmful chemicals.

+oM

There are so many factors that play into population decrease that no one thing is going to 'fix' the situation, but whether it is weight-loss, general health or butterfly/bee decline, people want the Magic Pill effect. Find the scapegoat, blame it for everything and then wonder 10 years later why things have barely, if at all, improved. To anyone willimg to try a little experiment, try this:

Wash your car, get it really clean.

Go for a 2-hour drive along a highway. Make it one of the ones that have been seeded with wildflowers on the shoulders for bonus points.

Count how many other cars you see.

When you get home, count the splatted bodies that are on your grill, hood, mirrors and windshield.

Now mutiply that number by all the other vehicles on the road with you.

Convince yourself that pesticides are the real reason for pollinators becoming fewer in number each year.