# Farmers Using Neonicotinoids



## okb

Would bees be considered a pest?? Why would they have to use less?

Food for thought

Also try reading here. http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219264


----------



## buckbee

*neonicotinoids*

http://www.biobees.com/downloads/imidacloprid.pdf

http://www.britishbeekeeping.com


----------



## edenhillapiaries

Neonicitinoids are a new class of chemistry used in seed treatments and foliar insecticides. They are one of the new classes of "softer" chemicals that the EPA seem to favor. In tree fruit such as cherries and apples the EPA has forced a "phase out" of the organophosphate AZM (trade name Guthion). Other organophosphates such as Nemicur (a nematicide) have been banned outright. 

The older classes of chemistry like organophosphates and carbamates have been shown to be highly toxic to bees, but unlike the neonics are not systemic (some like Vydate and Nemicur are but they are not as widely used). With the phasing out of highly effective and economical insecticides like Guthion growers have little choice but to use the Neonicitinoids in order to produce fruit that is up to consumer standards.

In fruit crops the Neonicitinoids are not used at bloom and there is very little chance that they will show up in the pollen. As far as imidacloprid use in field crops such as corn and soybeans, the farmers statement about using less insecticides because of these treatments is true. In the past growers applied highly toxic soil insecticides such as Lorsban (an organophosphate) and Furidan to control soil pests. Now the seed comes treated so they do not apply these materials. The use of treated seed and GMOs have dramatically cut the use of insecticides and herbicides in corn.

So what is the beekeeper to think. The American public wants cheap food without defects and will never tolerate a worm in their apple. The environmental movement has pushed for the banning of the traditional insecticides and new worker protection standards have forced this change. The farmers that I know all love bees, their livelihoods depend on them, and do not love using the new chemistries (they are very costly) or any chemistries for that matter. But they have no choice. With a zero tolerance for any internal pests in cherries they must spray in order to sell their crops.

A healthy farm economy is good for beekeepers so we have a problem here. What are the farmers to do to keep their fruit up to consumer standards? If they can't use the older chemicals and can't use the newer chemicals, what can they use? It looks to me like communication with your growers is more important than ever before so we can find a way to make this thing work.


----------



## buckbee

*neonicotinoids*

1. In 1998 -99 the national French beekeeping associations reported that they had lost 500,000 hives out of a total of 1.5 million; their own independent lab tests confirmed that the cause was a new family of pesticides called Neo-Nicotinoids of which Imidacloprid and Fipronil were the main culprits. Bayer claimed that their insecticides were 'not responsible' and provided field test data which 'proved' this. The independent lab tests proved otherwise. On the basis of those lab results, the French government banned Imidacloprid in 2000 and - despite massive lobbying and pressure from Bayer- they have never rescinded that ban.

BBKA said nothing during this huge crisis. They have never instigated any investigation into the French claims, nor offered any leadership to British beekeepers on the obvious threat to bees here in the UK from Imidacloprid.
All recent statements have implied that 'there is no problem with Imidacloprid, Fipronil or Clothianidin in this country'; which implies that our bees must be a different species than French bees, or that they are immune to the same pesticides which killed 500,000 hives in France.

2. The appearance of American Colony Collapse Disease has led to the loss of over 2 million colonies in the USA - a biological disaster on a staggering scale.
After more than a year of investigations, the commercial beekeeper who first lost 500 hives to CCD (Dave Hackenberg) has gone on the record today as saying that it is 'neo-nicotinoid pesticides' made by Bayer which are 'at the root cause of this CCD'. (see Guardian Article - Saturday May 31st.)

During this ecological catastrophe - BBKA has said nothing about the possible similarities with loss of colonies in the UK

3. In 2003 the BBKA Executive set up a company, BBKA Enterprises whose only significant source of income over the last 5 years has been derived from endorsing pesticides made by Bayer, BASF and Syngenta. This, according to Durham BKA's motion was done without any advance consultation of the membership. A series of negotiations were entered into and a series of 'product agreements' were formally signed by BBKA - under which they endorsed products containing *Deltamethrin*, *Lamda Cyhalothrin* and * Permethrin* as being *'bee-friendly*; in fact ALL of these products are highly toxic to bees; *they KILL bees*. According to the Durham BKA motion, the membership of BBKA was never consulted about these deals until more than 2 years after they came into force. It was only the submission of a motion by Durham BKA to the ADM in 2005 which revealed the existence of BBKA Enterprises and the 'product agreements' under which pesticides were endorsed by BBKA in return for 'sponsorship'.

4. In May 2008 the German Beekeeping organisations revealed that there had been yet another ecological disaster in the Rhineland with thousands of hives being killed overnight by yet another neo-nicotinoid - *Clothianidin* - which is already widely used here in the UK. Once again - it was a Bayer product which was confirmed by government laboratory tests at the Julius Kuhn Insititute as having caused the colony deaths. Acting very quickly - the German Federal Government suspended licenses for 8 Bayer insecticides including: Imidacloprid, Fipronil and Clothianidin.

These same pesticides are used on over 1.4 million acres of crops here in the UK but BBKA's most recent statement reiterates the position of the Executive that 'there are no problems with poisonings by crop insecticides in the UK'.
Once again - our bees must have a different biology and biochemistry than French bees, German bees, Italian bees, Swiss bees and American bees - all of which have died in uncountable billions since the introduction of neo-nicotinoids in those countries.

5. BBKA has* NOT *endorsed any neo-nicotinoid insecticides by Bayer or any other company. However, despite the biggest global bee-crisis in over a century - with rapidly mounting evidence that Bayer's neo-nicotinoids seem to be central to the issue in France, Germany and America - BBKA has said nothing, given no demands for urgent investigations, offered no leadership here in the UK and no solidarity with beekeepers in Europe or America.

The obvious question is:

If BBKA had NOT been in receipt of sponsorship money in return for endorsing pesticides manufactured by Bayer, would it have felt free to speak out about the threat posed by Neo-Nicotinoid poisons used on crops all over the UK? A hypothetical question I know - but what is at stake here is the survival of beekeeping in the whole of Europe. If the German and French governments are CORRECT - and they at least have done INDEPENDENT LAB STUDIES - then we in the UK are witnessing a silent extinction in the countryside: not just of our bees, but potentially all insects and insectivores on arable crop land; earthworms, beetles, hoverflies, butterflies, hedgehogs, shrews, - all insectivorous birds. We have no independent labs here in the UK - even the Pesticides Safety Directorate has no labs - it merely takes the data from Bayer and accepts it as true. Well, the French did not accept it. And now, neither have the Germans.

I - and many others - think this is a really serious situation. It is not going to go away overnight - and there are very obvious signs that something is terribly wrong with bees in the UK; the Bee Inspectorate has said that 20% of UK hives were llost last winter; I have heard estimates ranging from 30- 70% for some areas. Faced with this crisis, the BBKA should be leading the fight to ban neo-nicotinoid pesticides from the UK - as has been done in France and Germany. The BBKA Executive shows no sign whatever of doing anything of the kind - indeed all of its recent official statements are utterly complacent about the widespread use of these pesticides here in the UK. I do not believe that would be the case if the BBKA was not in receipt of financial sponsorship from Bayer for endorsing pesticides.


----------



## Jim Fischer

buckbee said:


> French beekeeping associations reported that they had lost 500,000 hives... their own independent lab tests confirmed that the cause was a new family of pesticides called Neo-Nicotinoids of which Imidacloprid and Fipronil were the main culprits.


No, this is wrong. There has yet to be any science to support the
claim that any pesticide had anything to do wit the bee losses cited.



> The independent lab tests proved otherwise.


Nope, still wrong. No such tests provided any data to even suggest such
a thing.



> On the basis of those lab results, the French government banned Imidacloprid in 2000


Nope, wrong again - it was banned based 
upon the "precautionary principle", which is the EUs way of doing things 
*without* any proof, "just in case".

Funny thing though, if you look at losses since the ban, you see that
the bee losses are ongoing, even though the pesticides are no longer
used anywhere near where the losses are. More to the point, the
losses are taking place in areas where the pesticide was never used at all.



> BBKA said nothing during this huge crisis. They have never instigated any investigation into the French claims, nor offered any leadership to British beekeepers on the obvious threat to bees here in the UK from Imidacloprid.


It would appear that their refusal to echo France's hysteria was wise.



> All recent statements have implied that 'there is no problem with Imidacloprid, Fipronil or Clothianidin in this country';


Here in the USA, there has been a very intensive look at pesticides,
and a sampling and analysis effort that may be the most widespread
ever in terms of number of samples, number of yards sampled, geographic
range sampled, and number of pesticides looked for. They can't pin 
CCD on Imidacloprid either. They can't pin CCD on any pesticide.
They just aren't consistenently found, even at parts-per-trillion trace levels.



> which implies that our bees must be a different species than
> French bees, or that they are immune to the same pesticides which killed 500,000 hives in France.


It merely implies that the French guessed wrong when they blamed 
the pesticides without any evidence that the pesticides were to blame,
and refused to learn from experience when years went by after the
ban without a reduction in the losses.

Here's a decent overview of the whole sordid story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid_effects_on_bee_population



> The appearance of American Colony Collapse Disease has led to the loss of over 2 million colonies in the USA - a biological disaster on a staggering scale.


Yeah, it has been tough. Some of have been lucky, but we feel guilty
for being lucky.



> After more than a year of investigations, the commercial beekeeper who first lost 500 hives to CCD (Dave Hackenberg) has gone on the record today as saying that it is 'neo-nicotinoid pesticides' made by Bayer which are 'at the root cause of this CCD'. (see Guardian Article - Saturday May 31st.)


And Dave is simply wrong. If there was even a shred of a hint that there
was a pesticide behind CCD, that would have made everyone's work much 
more simple. In fact, the evidence points to not one, but a mix of
pathogens being the root cause. See http://bee-quick.com/reprints



> During this ecological catastrophe - BBKA has said nothing about the possible similarities with loss of colonies in the UK


Again, a wise move. When one has no evidence, one should not make 
unfounded accusations.



> In 2003 the BBKA Executive set up a company, BBKA Enterprises
> whose only significant source of income over the last 5 years has been derived from endorsing pesticides made by Bayer, BASF and Syngenta.


If this is the actual story, it certainly is an unusual way to make money
for a beekeeping organization. Most groups have membership fees, 
sell t-shirts, hold the ocassional raffle, and so on.



> thousands of hives being killed overnight by yet another neo-nicotinoid - *Clothianidin*


Clearly, someone has engaged in a deliberate attempt to mislead buckbee.
What happened here was a simple pesticide kill, with the defective batch
of treated seeds being a specific cause of a limited one-time kill in a small
area where that defective batch was sold.



> Acting very quickly - the German Federal Government suspended licenses for 8 Bayer insecticides including: Imidacloprid, Fipronil and Clothianidin.


No, that's _also_ wrong - they suspended the license of the company 
that *buys the bayer pesticide and applies it to the seed*. They should 
also suspend the "license" of the company that makes the specific seed 
drills used, which raise massive dust clouds to spread the pesticide to 
adjacent canola fields.



> ...with rapidly mounting evidence that Bayer's neo-nicotinoids seem to be central to the issue in France, Germany and America


No, that's wrong yet again - there simply is no evidence to support your
accusation. 



> BBKA has said nothing, given no demands for urgent investigations, offered no leadership here in the UK and no solidarity with beekeepers in Europe or America.


 If the claim that their practice of 
"endorsement" is true, I think we here in the USA would rather not have
any "solidarity" with the BBKA, thank you very much. 

But given that every other claim made in your post has been so easy
to refute as "wrong", one is forced to wonder if the claim about the
"endorsement" is true.



> would it have felt free to speak out about the threat posed by Neo-Nicotinoid poisons used on crops all over the UK?


A moot point, as there is a mounting pile of analysis of pollen, wax, and
bees that prove that the systemic pesticides are just as "good for bees"
as they were claimed to be. Anything that reduces spraying reduces
bee kills, as pesticide problems tend to be "over-spray" or "spraying at
the wrong time of day", or "drift" issues.



> If the German and French governments are CORRECT


The French are wrong. The Germans are correct in that they have blamed
a defective process for applying pesticide to corn seed rather than a
pesticide as a whole, but you are being fed misquotes and half-truths 
by someone with an agenda. 

I wonder why someone would want to mislead you so.



> the Bee Inspectorate has said that 20% of UK hives were lost last
> winter; I have heard estimates ranging from 30- 70% for some areas.


Yes, but this is due to varroa, Nosema, and other exotic invasive 
pathogens brought to our (and your!) shores by a headlong rush into
"World Trade" without adequate biosecurity controls.



> the BBKA should be leading the fight to ban neo-nicotinoid
> pesticides from the UK - as has been done in France and Germany. The BBKA Executive shows no sign whatever of doing anything of the kind -


This indicates that they have a better handle on the facts that whoever 
has been feeding you all the misinformation you have repeated here.


----------



## Gene Weitzel

edenhillapiaries said:


> Neonicitinoids are a new class of chemistry used in seed treatments and foliar insecticides. They are one of the new classes of "softer" chemicals that the EPA seem to favor. In tree fruit such as cherries and apples the EPA has forced a "phase out" of the organophosphate AZM (trade name Guthion). Other organophosphates such as Nemicur (a nematicide) have been banned outright.
> 
> The older classes of chemistry like organophosphates and carbamates have been shown to be highly toxic to bees, but unlike the neonics are not systemic (some like Vydate and Nemicur are but they are not as widely used). With the phasing out of highly effective and economical insecticides like Guthion growers have little choice but to use the Neonicitinoids in order to produce fruit that is up to consumer standards.
> 
> In fruit crops the Neonicitinoids are not used at bloom and there is very little chance that they will show up in the pollen. As far as imidacloprid use in field crops such as corn and soybeans, the farmers statement about using less insecticides because of these treatments is true. In the past growers applied highly toxic soil insecticides such as Lorsban (an organophosphate) and Furidan to control soil pests. Now the seed comes treated so they do not apply these materials. The use of treated seed and GMOs have dramatically cut the use of insecticides and herbicides in corn.
> 
> So what is the beekeeper to think. The American public wants cheap food without defects and will never tolerate a worm in their apple. The environmental movement has pushed for the banning of the traditional insecticides and new worker protection standards have forced this change. The farmers that I know all love bees, their livelihoods depend on them, and do not love using the new chemistries (they are very costly) or any chemistries for that matter. But they have no choice. With a zero tolerance for any internal pests in cherries they must spray in order to sell their crops.
> 
> A healthy farm economy is good for beekeepers so we have a problem here. What are the farmers to do to keep their fruit up to consumer standards? If they can't use the older chemicals and can't use the newer chemicals, what can they use? It looks to me like communication with your growers is more important than ever before so we can find a way to make this thing work.


One of the things the Germans proved was that the culprit was the way the treated seed was planted. The grain drills and planters being used would abrade the seed and a toxic dust cloud was generated. This dust drifted onto adjacent forage areas where bees were active causing the kill. There is very little evidence that the systemic effects of these chemicals poses an issue with the bees, but the treated seed planting problem is significant. Planting in the evening or at night when pollinators are not active would not help as the dust would still drift onto their forage and they would be exposed to it the following day. It would seem that the only real solution would be some sort of dust abatement technology installed on the planting equipment. This would however, incur more costs for the grower.


----------



## SL Tx

I am pleased by the knowledgeable discourse here. The importance of 'new classes of "softer" chemicals' is huge. I often wonder if the shopper in the produce department picking over individual green beans would label all pesticides and their makers with a skull and crossed bones. 

The sometimes missing context of all this is the pesticides that the new products are replacing (some of them with a real skull and bones label). I'm of the view that the world becomes a better place to live almost every day. I suspect we'll manage to survive the terrors of the past and the "certain doom" that lies ahead.


----------



## Axtmann

The farmers in your country should hire specialists from BAYER. They take care of your bees with their environmentally friendly pesticides. 

After a few treatments from BAYER you can use your hives as storage boxes or for firewood. Beekeepers in some part of our country can proof this.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Suppose this new class of highly toxic and very systemic insecticides only affected insects, and also suppose if they were only and ever used precisely as directed - and this kept all honeybees and all other non-target organisms safe, only affecting the targeted organisms. This may be true, but few things, in our "real" world are so absolute - I am skeptical that no other unintended and undesirable side-effects will "show up", as we humans continue to create ever more potent, persistent, and insidious poisons. 

We've seen what one small, unanticipated, accidental, misapplication has caused in Germany, with the honeybees there. And, yes, there have been (and continue to be) accidental honeybee poisonings with earlier classes of insecticides (microencapsulated methyl parathion) comes to mind, among others. Maybe we should call for an international moratorium on creating and using any new poisons, before we belatedly discover that we've opened Pandora's Box and unleashed something that destroys our planet's ability to continue to support our existence.

Certainly honeybees, by most people, aren't given the same consideration as humans. We certainly wouldn't be so accepting of so much death, if it were human deaths, nor even if it were the deaths of our pet dogs and cats (perhaps by a misapplication of flea collar insecticide). But dogs and cats aren't so helpful as to assist in the production of so much of our food supply.


----------



## beehoppers

There is a 3rd option and who knows how many more....kaolin clay. It may be as effective as either so called hard or soft chemicals in LARGE and small situations. You can spray it on anything. You can eat it...its in Kaopectate! Sold as "Surround" by Gardens Alive.
I bought a 50# bag for $10.18 as Carotex. It is sold by masonry supply places to help with stickon stone. 
This stuff is a real option that really works. Bugs hate it! That is all it takes.


----------



## Gene Weitzel

Jim Fischer said:


> .....What happened here was a simple pesticide kill, with the defective batch
> of treated seeds being a specific cause of a limited one-time kill in a small
> area where that defective batch was sold.
> 
> No, that's _also_ wrong - they suspended the license of the company
> that *buys the bayer pesticide and applies it to the seed*. They should
> also suspend the "license" of the company that makes the specific seed
> drills used, which raise massive dust clouds to spread the pesticide to
> adjacent canola fields......


Jim,

Do you have links to the details of the Germany incident? The article I read was rather poorly translated and all that I was able to get from it was the info about the dust clouds being raise by the drills and that they had laboratory tests confirming the cause of the kill. There were no details concerning it being a one-time kill from a defective batch of seed and I was left with the impression that it was a potential problem with all treated seed.


----------



## dcross

mobees said:


> Has anyone had a farmer using Neonicotinoids on there young seedling and seeds had any
> issues with bee health? I spoke with a farmer that said it will mean allot less treatments with pesticides.



I'm no fan of the stuff, but I use it(VERY sparingly) in my garden. It bothers me how many products available to the general public contain it.


----------



## MapMan

beehoppers said:


> There is a 3rd option and who knows how many more....kaolin clay. It may be as effective as either so called hard or soft chemicals in LARGE and small situations. You can spray it on anything. You can eat it...its in Kaopectate! Sold as "Surround" by Gardens Alive.
> I bought a 50# bag for $10.18 as Carotex. It is sold by masonry supply places to help with stickon stone.
> This stuff is a real option that really works. Bugs hate it! That is all it takes.


I'd be careful, as _Surround_ is the only kaolin clay product which is _registered_ as a horticultural product. Other kaolin clay products might in fact be phytotoxic (starvation of the plant foliage by greatly diminished sunlight). _Surround_ is refined to a much smaller micron size than mason clay, and also includes a sticker. That is why the cost is higher for _Surround_ than for bulk kaolin - the clay is highly refined, and undergoes quite a few manufacturing steps so that particle size, shape, texture, density are consistent. _Surround_ and bulk kaolin are two separate animals, so to speak.

Kaolin clay was tested on plants decades ago (since 1930's), with failure, until _Surround_ was developed. The key is particle size - insects can't tolerate the much smaller size of clay particles in _Surround_ - bulk kaolin's particle size is too large to be effective. Add to that benefits of no phytotoxicity, minimal residue for coatings on fruit at harvest and no clogged spray nozzles or lines... You get what you pay for - it doesn't pay to be cheap.

MM


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Do you have links to the details of the Germany incident?

No, I am getting information from a composer friend who has
recently moved from Manhattan to Germany, and is translating 
the press accounts in the local German press for me.

Her English is excellent, her German is her native language,
and she knows a bit of beekeeping, but she is 85 years old,
and is not about to type me full transcripts of what she
reads and hears. She is merely summarizing for me.

The good news is that here in the USA, the seed companies
buy the pesticide from Bayer, and also buy the exact polymer
that Bayer suggests they use, and follow a strict process for
seed application. My understanding from a few US seed companies
is that Germany does not permit Bayer to "dictate" to the seed
companies, so they can use whatever polymer they wish to use.

The normal rate for corn seed treatment in Europe is a "dose" of 0.5 mg of
clothianidin per seed. In the specific area of Germany where the bee kills
happened, they have a problem with western corn root worm which required use 
of a much higher rate, 1.25 mg clothianidin per seed. More than double.

The weather may have also been a factor. In this region of Germany 
the spring had started off on the cool side, then in early May it became 
warm and windy. When the weather broke, the farmers feverishly began 
planting corn, all at the same time, and this likely coincided with an 
upswing in bee foraging activity. The windy conditions likely increased the
amount of dust that reached adjacent crops where bees were foraging. 

This was nothing less than an amazing run of bad luck.
Yes, people screw up, accidents happen, and this might happen again,
but the odds against it are very high. The "lesson learned" here is that
seed drills must be looked at as potential pesticide-spreading "sprayers",
and perhaps retrofitted with dust covers, like the ones you can find on
table saws. The seed-drills were designed BEFORE people started doing
seed treatments, so "dust" was never more than a cloud of dry soil.


----------



## Bodo

Gene Weitzel said:


> Jim,
> 
> Do you have links to the details of the Germany incident? The article I read was rather poorly translated and all that I was able to get from it was the info about the dust clouds being raise by the drills and that they had laboratory tests confirming the cause of the kill. There were no details concerning it being a one-time kill from a defective batch of seed and I was left with the impression that it was a potential problem with all treated seed.


Careful there! You'll be labeled a propagandist for evil chemical companies if you keep that kind of talk up!


----------



## Gene Weitzel

Bodo said:


> Careful there! You'll be labeled a propagandist for evil chemical companies if you keep that kind of talk up!


Trust me, I have no love for big chemical companies, but as Paul Harvey puts it, there is always "the rest of the story". That is what I am after.


----------



## Bodo

Exactly my point. Some people would rather jump to conclusions and place blame where it may not be warranted instead of trying to find the real culprit.


----------



## buckbee

Jim Fischer said:


> This was nothing less than an amazing run of bad luck.
> Yes, people screw up, accidents happen, and this might happen again,
> but the odds against it are very high.


The odds against it happening in the first place were very high.

But it happened.

It will happen again.

And again.

Until we learn that covering the earth with toxins was a horrible mistake.

But then - given the human propensity for screwing up and not learning the lesson - it will most likely be too late.


----------



## beehoppers

Thanks Mapman...I wasn't aware of the difference. But I'll see how carotex works out. Haven't had any problems with my sprayer.
My point is there are options. It doesn't have to just be this chemical or that chemical.


----------



## edenhillapiaries

I have seen products like Surround used in commercial orchard operations (transitioning to organic). While it does work to a point, it and other organic options do not offer the level of control that conventional pesticides do. This is okay if the consumer is willing to pay higher prices (look at what organic produce costs) due to the reduction of yield for the grower. The consumer is also going to have to be willing to pay more for a lower quality product (insect damage,scab,etc.).

Many want to have things both ways. They want cheap perfect fruit produced without chemicals. While this would be nice, it is unrealistic. The same consumer will not think twice about buying an apple (for example) from China where they are not held to standards even close to U.S. growers.

Others do not seem to care and want "organic" produce at any cost. This is a selfish view in my opinion. Modern agricultural practices have brought us greater yields and higher quality from less acres. As anyone who lives in an agricultural area can see, farm land is not expanding it is shrinking (due to development, higher production costs, increased regulation, etc.) We can hardly feed the world now even with all of these advancements, so what would we face if some had their wish and all food was produced "organically"? Many, even in this country, simply cannot afforded to pay the higher prices that "organic" products must receive. 

A look at the current "biofuel" craze demonstrates the unintended consequences of what seems to be a great idea. Food prices are on the rise and global food stocks are at an all time low. The costs of farming have risen as well as our groceries, and I would not look for them to fall. Countries that were net exporters (i.e. China, India) have put restrictions on exports as they can hardly feed their own populations. And we want to run our vehicles on food?

What does all of this have to do with beekeeping? In this time of change I believe that beekeepers, growers and the consumer need to work together and not jump to conclusions. Remember that in the "good old days" a typical spray program included Wettable DDT, Lead Arsinate, Phygon, etc. Somehow we made it through that.


----------



## suttonbeeman

I will agree that it is yet to be proven and may never bee, hard to prove something when the evidence is gone! (bees). But for the life of me I cant figure out WHY Mr. Fisher is so pro Bayer! Is he on their payroll?(just joking). The way the neon nictinoids kill certainly resembles CCD ie flying off and not returning (Not proof but certainly suspicious). ANd they have been shown to be present in pollen! even though it is small amounts. I know Dave Hackenberg personally and I lost 280 colonies 1 mile from his at the same time he discovered his losses. I am 100% convinced neon nictinoids played a roll.....on Tuesday colonies looking great...perfect brood patterns....no mites........4 frames brood.....on Friday....maybe a handfull on newly hatched bees and a queen.....you tell me.....but I would bet my life it wasnt mites or nutrition......look at how these insectidides kill.....weakening the immune system and mental/social abnormalities....just co-insidence? I doubt it!!! I know I cant prove it and neither can MR Fisher prove his point....but I can GUARANTEE you one thing......BAYERS data will be in their favor!!!!! Its all about $$$$ and they sold over a BILLION dollars of it last year!


----------



## Gene Weitzel

Jim Fischer said:


> > Do you have links to the details of the Germany incident?
> 
> No, I am getting information from a composer friend who has
> recently moved from Manhattan to Germany, and is translating
> the press accounts in the local German press for me.
> 
> Her English is excellent, her German is her native language,
> and she knows a bit of beekeeping, but she is 85 years old,
> and is not about to type me full transcripts of what she
> reads and hears. She is merely summarizing for me.
> 
> The good news is that here in the USA, the seed companies
> buy the pesticide from Bayer, and also buy the exact polymer
> that Bayer suggests they use, and follow a strict process for
> seed application. My understanding from a few US seed companies
> is that Germany does not permit Bayer to "dictate" to the seed
> companies, so they can use whatever polymer they wish to use.
> 
> The normal rate for corn seed treatment in Europe is a "dose" of 0.5 mg of
> clothianidin per seed. In the specific area of Germany where the bee kills
> happened, they have a problem with western corn root worm which required use
> of a much higher rate, 1.25 mg clothianidin per seed. More than double.
> 
> The weather may have also been a factor. In this region of Germany
> the spring had started off on the cool side, then in early May it became
> warm and windy. When the weather broke, the farmers feverishly began
> planting corn, all at the same time, and this likely coincided with an
> upswing in bee foraging activity. The windy conditions likely increased the
> amount of dust that reached adjacent crops where bees were foraging.
> 
> This was nothing less than an amazing run of bad luck.
> Yes, people screw up, accidents happen, and this might happen again,
> but the odds against it are very high. The "lesson learned" here is that
> seed drills must be looked at as potential pesticide-spreading "sprayers",
> and perhaps retrofitted with dust covers, like the ones you can find on
> table saws. The seed-drills were designed BEFORE people started doing
> seed treatments, so "dust" was never more than a cloud of dry soil.


I am a little embarrassed here because I am 2nd generation from German immigrants and know very little of my family's native tongue (even after a year of taking it in college). My father spoke it at home and my sister is quite fluent, so I may try to enlist their help in translating some of the German press releases. I have a few links to them, more would be appreciated.


----------



## buckbee

edenhillapiaries said:


> Remember that in the "good old days" a typical spray program included Wettable DDT, Lead Arsinate, Phygon, etc. Somehow we made it through that.


We made it? You mean... we survived? For what - maybe 50 years? And that is evidence that pesticides are the way forward? Have you the faintest idea how meaningless 50 years is in the context of human agriculture, let alone the life of the planet?

Take your blinkers off and see what is happening to the world.


----------



## edenhillapiaries

Buckbee,

In response to...

We made it? You mean... we survived? For what - maybe 50 years? And that is evidence that pesticides are the way forward? Have you the faintest idea how meaningless 50 years is in the context of human agriculture, let alone the life of the planet?

Take your blinkers off and see what is happening to the world.

I would like to ask what do you propose we do to feed the world and keep the farmers yields at the levels we need. What I was getting at when I referred to the chemicals that were used in the past is that sometimes one hears how easy it was to keep bees years ago (before mites, but when these chemicals were in regular use) and that we have improved our agricultural practices since then.

What drives me nuts is when folks with lofty ideas criticize current practices without providing any alternatives. What would you have farmers do? Consumers demand cheap and perfect fruit, veggies, etc. Not everyone can afford to pay the big bucks for organic, and just to let you know most commercial organic growers end up spraying a hell of a lot more than conventional growers.

I work in agriculture and do my part to help growers use chemicals in a responsible manner, and only target the pests that are of economic importance. The days of spraying broad spectrum insecticides every two weeks no matter what is out there are gone, and I feel good that I play a part in helping to cut down on these sprays.

So Buckbee, what do you to help this situation?


----------



## buckbee

edenhillapiaries said:


> I would like to ask what do you propose we do to feed the world and keep the farmers yields at the levels we need. What I was getting at when I referred to the chemicals that were used in the past is that sometimes one hears how easy it was to keep bees years ago (before mites, but when these chemicals were in regular use) and that we have improved our agricultural practices since then.
> 
> What drives me nuts is when folks with lofty ideas criticize current practices without providing any alternatives. What would you have farmers do? Consumers demand cheap and perfect fruit, veggies, etc. Not everyone can afford to pay the big bucks for organic, and just to let you know most commercial organic growers end up spraying a hell of a lot more than conventional growers.
> 
> I work in agriculture and do my part to help growers use chemicals in a responsible manner, and only target the pests that are of economic importance. The days of spraying broad spectrum insecticides every two weeks no matter what is out there are gone, and I feel good that I play a part in helping to cut down on these sprays.
> 
> So Buckbee, what do you to help this situation?


You mean, what am I doing about the situation of the USA consuming a hugely disproportionate amount of the world's food? Not to mention oil, and just about everything else?

Put your own house in order: there is plenty of food in the world - it is the distribution that is grossly distorted by the greed of one nation.

And, by the way, if you had some idea that GM crops are the answer, you might like to scan this:



EXTRACT: *Let's be clear. As of this year, there are no commercialized GE crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GE crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one. *
---
---
Genetic engineering - a crop of hyperbole
By Doug Gurian-Sherman 
The San Diego Union Tribune, June 18 2008
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080618/news_lz1e18gurian.html 

The food crisis is much in the news. It is also on the minds of the biotech industry, which is using rising food worries to suggest, contrary to the evidence, that genetically engineered, or GE, crops are needed to help the world feed itself. The recent spike in food prices is due to increased demand, drought and trade policies rather than to inadequate global production. But world population is growing, so it is worthwhile to consider the role of GE for ensuring adequate, affordable and sustainable food in the future. 

After 20 years of GE research and 13 years of commercialization, GE crops have a track record that allows us to evaluate their future prospects. And so far, they have shown little progress on the biggest food production issues, such as intrinsic yield, stress tolerance and improving sustainability. The weak performance to date raises questions about how much more of our scarce research dollars should be devoted to this controversial technology. Moreover, the lax regulation of both food safety and environmental risks from GE also remains to be addressed, especially in developing countries that often have no regulatory infrastructure to evaluate GE crops. 

Most relevant for food sufficiency are properties such as yield - producing more on available land - and better use of resources, especially in the face of climate change. Agriculture already accounts for about 70 percent of human water use, so using less water to grow crops is increasingly important. And because current industrialized agriculture often degrades soil and causes substantial pollution from fertilizers, pesticides and climate-changing gases, we need to do a better job of producing food without degrading the environment. 

Let's be clear. As of this year, there are no commercialized GE crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GE crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one. 

The most widely grown GE crop in the United States, herbicide-tolerant soybeans, has not increased yield above its conventional non-GE counterparts, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture trend data and numerous field studies. Insect-resistant GE crops have sometimes indirectly improved yields by reducing insect damage - so-called operations yield. But such yield increases have been modest, and recent studies suggest that much of the apparent improvements may be due to other advances, such as from conventional breeding. New innovations, using new insights from our growing knowledge of crop genetics, are improving the versatility and speed of these established, productive breeding techniques, without using GE. 

What about environmental benefits? Those, too, have been modest at best. 

Cutting through the rhetoric, overall pesticide use (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) has not been reduced through GE. Although there may have been some initial reductions, recent U.S. data suggest that herbicide use in GE crops is now significantly higher than it was prior to their introduction. Weeds that have developed resistance to the herbicide used with GE crops now infest several million acres, forcing greater herbicide use. Insect-resistant GE crops have reduced overall insecticide use somewhat, but on balance GE crops have not reduced our dependence on pesticides. 

Soil erosion and degradation can be reduced by reducing tillage. And reduced tillage often accompanies GE herbicide-tolerant crops. But reduced-till methods were on the rise prior to the adoption of GE crops. The USDA reported in 2002 that the data did not point to GE as a significant contributor to reduced tillage. 

In many cases we can accomplish the same or better results at less expense by applying the science of agroecology. Insecticide use can be reduced by alternating the use of more crop types rather than growing nothing but corn, or only corn and soybeans. Soil erosion can be largely eliminated by the common organic practice of using cover crops between seasons. These and other practices improve soil, which thereby retains more water, helping crops during droughts. Large improvements in water use can be achieved through technologies such as drip irrigation rather than wasteful methods commonly used now. 

Many of these issues are discussed in a recently published report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, sponsored by the World Bank and U.N., which concluded that the role of GE in improving food security in the developing world should be secondary to other approaches. 

Finally, to the extent that GE may provide benefits in the future, GE must be adequately regulated to ensure food safety and protect the environment. Unfortunately, the United States, with industry support, has neglected the regulation of GE crops. The Food and Drug Administration does not approve the safety of GE foods; it simply ushers them into the market. The FDA has only a voluntary regulatory process for GE food safety, fundamentally unchanged since 1992, that requires no specific safety tests and largely allows companies to determine the tests they conduct. USDA was criticized in 2002 by the National Academy of Sciences for insufficient scientific rigor in its environmental safety assessments, and has recently lost several cases in federal courts for its lax regulation. Its own inspector general severely criticized its regulatory apparatus in 2005. USDA is revising its regulations, but current drafts do not adequately address previous criticisms. 

The challenge of growing and distributing food for a hungry world deserves serious attention. So far the inflated claims of the biotechnology industry are not backed up by scientific evidence, but its rosy rhetoric obscures our choices. This can keep us from investing in tools such as conventional breeding and agroecology that, based on their track record, should be leading the way to helping the world feed itself.


----------



## edenhillapiaries

You can find articles anywhere to support any opinion. I imagine that there are articles that state that CCD is due to cell phone use.

Reduction of insect damage and weed competition does improve yield (Agronomy 101) and GM crops do this without the need for pesticides. I personally have seen a yield increase with the use of these crops and with a yield increase comes more efficient use of fertilizers, fuel, etc. In my neck of the woods it was not long ago that 80 bushels per acre of corn (average) was the norm. With the use of the GM hybrids growers have seen the average jump to 120+. Other practices have also changed, but I know that the new corn hybrids are playing an important part. By the way, Bt (the bacteria that is placed in GM crops for insect control) is used in organic production for lepidoptera control (Dipel, etc.) If it is safe enough for organic production, why is it so harmful if placed in a crop? While many across the world hate and curse Monsanto they have brought important changes to the market and are right now working on developing a drought tolerant corn hybrid. Could they be doing this if they had not worked on RoundUp Ready hybrids?

I do not believe that GM crops, etc. are the only answer to feeding the world, but I do believe that we have to utilize the new technologies that are available to us. They are cutting the use of herbicides (Atrazine) and soil insecticides (Lorsban, Furadan) and increasing yields. What I still am waiting for from the so-called environmentalists is their solution to the problem. I imagine that when Langstroth suggested his ideas for movable frame bee hive that many beekeepers resisted these changes and stuck with their log hives and skeps.


----------



## Ian

>>What I still am waiting for from the so-called environmentalists is their solution to the problem

They dont have the solution, they just expect the food to come from some distant land, and be readily available for everyone to feed on. 

The reality is the world is working on a real tight food supply, and cropping failures have put many countries in a pinch. Eliminate the technology to grow our crops, and more than just the poorer countries will feel the same pinch.


----------



## Bob Harrison

Interesting topic. Each day the case against the neonicotinoids gets stronger. BucKbee makes excellent points. 

In the future I predict those beekeepers which side with Bayer will be the minority. To hear some talk all the French, German and U.S. beekeepers which have *seen* hives crash in areas of the neonicotinoids ( personal experience) are simply wrong.( thousands and thousands of beekeepers and a crowing number of researchers see the neonicotinoids as a problem).

Bayer says all problems are simply caused by missapplication although they say in press releases missapplication is rare.

Which is it Bayer?

"the rest of the story"

The amounts of the neonicotinoids found in dead bees is on the rise. My opinion is the repeat use of insecticide treated seed on the same field is leading to higher and higher amounts of the neonicotinoids found in soil. Then in pollen etc. I was in the Usda office this week and looked at the number of farmers planting the same pesticide treated seed crop over and over in the same field and was shocked. No rotation out of pesticide treated seed. many had planted the same pesticide treated seed on the same ground for up to 8 years without rotation to a cover crop. 

corn after corn etc.

Current farming has gone to planting corn after corn (with no end in sight) on the best corn land.

Soybeans after soybeans on the best soybean land. Missouri/Arkansas & Alabama commercial beekeepers have had huge losses in the delta bottoms.


The person at the office assured me that rotation is a practice which has no practical application. 

The chemical companies control the Farmers and tell the farmers what chems to use. Todays farming is all about chemicals. The soil those crops are grown in has not a single earthworm A dead growing medium.



Time will tell the story. Until then many of us will have to:
"agree to disagree"


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Each day the case against the neonicotinoids gets stronger.

No, Bob, each day more and more evidence mounts that neonics
are a massive improvement over the pesticides they replaced.

What is lacking is science to support Bob's "case".

But the "case" continues to ignore the data, and tries to gloss over
the details. Beekeepers hope that a pesticide company will be able
to be sued for damages, which would be easier than keeping bees,
and allow a few beekeepers to dream of early retirement.

The problems being blamed on pesticides are more and more being
linked to off-label miticide use by beekeepers themselves. If one
looks at the MaryAnn Fraizer data, one finds an embarrassing level
of miticide misused by beekeepers who want to blame neonics.


----------



## Aspera

Bob Harrison said:


> The person at the office assured me that rotation is a practice which has no practical application.


You've got to be kidding me. These are row crops, not trees. Rotation seems like a no brainer to me, although I admittedly own no land.


----------



## Bob Harrison

Aspera,
I come from a long line of farmers. I worked on my families farms during the summers and only recently dropped farming off my tax form. 

I too was shocked. I spoke today with a large area row crop framer in town. He said the chemical companies suggested over five years ago that you could plant (at first) soy beans year after year on the same ground ( using their products of course). not many bought into the idea at first but went soy beans went to record highs they soon came on board. Now after around 5-8 years doing beans after beans with no serious issues the practice has been accepted.

Now with corn at record prices farmers are doing the same thing. The practice only caught my eye around four years ago with soybeans. 

I never liked the idea of burning off land with herbicides and then drilling in the pesticides treated seeds among the weeds ( without ever plowing or tilling the ground) but the practice is common today if not the standard.

As a beekeeper the issue is the buildup of imidacloprid in the soil from years of using pesticide treated seed EACH year. When pesticide treated seed came on the market we were told buildup would never happen due to crop rotation. 

Has the scenario changed now as in many cases farmers are not rotating out of pesticide treated seed?

Are people even checking? I think not.


----------



## Bob Harrison

Jim,
I am on the front lines. Trying to keep losses down and figure out what is going on with our bees. Our researchers have came up with nothing so far. 

Everything they suggest we have looked at years before they have suggested it. 

I have seen first hand the dead hives from the neonicotinoids. 

I was around in the days of "disappearing disease".

Beeks worked through the problems ( like many of us will this time) without any answers from the researchers.

"disappearing disease" remains unsolved. In the cold case files. Soon CCD might be added.

2 and a half million hives spread over the U.S. and those looking for the problem are enough to barely scratch the surface. Like congress those looking rarely agree on what they are looking at. 
Each group of researchers seem to thing CCD (whatever CCD is) is caused by the area they are researchers in and with enough funding can solve the problem.

Quote from jeff Pettis from the National convention:
" I don't know what CCD is but I know CCD when I see it"



Bob Harrison

48 years beekeeping 
beekeeping as project in Future Farmers of America
Started not as hobby but as migratory beek in Florida years ago.
Has kept bees in Florida,texas and California
Numerous articles in BC & ABJ


----------



## Bob Harrison

http://www.greenrightnow.com/2008/06/23germany-and-france


----------



## Bob Harrison

At the joint meeting of the AHPA & ABF plus inspectors Jeff pettis was supposed to give a presentation on CCD. The groups only meet once a year and all know months in advance about the meeting. The head of Beltsville always gives a presentation. Around 1500 people attended with standing room only in many presentations. The CCD presentation was the most attended and the most purchased CD's.

The first words out of Jeff Pettis were he could not stay long as he had to leave. Approx fifteen minutes into the CCD presentation he left.

Never before have myself or my friends ever saw such an exit. I guess questions after the presentation or afterwaords during the convention would be out of the question from Jeff.

What was his hurry we wondered? What was so important he said a few words and fled?

Leaving his help to *take the heat* so to speak.


----------



## Ian

>>What was his hurry we wondered? What was so important he said a few words and fled?


Why, do you think Jeff deserves the abuse of the beekeepers? IF the beekeepers will not listen, and presist into heated argument, for no other reason than to vent, do you feel it is fair for Jeff to take the heat for the problem? His presentation is just what it was, and if beekeepers cant listen to that and handle the information respectfully, then well, I guess they better head to the streets as they did in France and be sure everyone is listening to them,
There they can get things done wheather it is right or not!


----------

