# ccd - corn - pesticides



## suttonbeeman

nuff said......AMEN!


----------



## beemandan

sylus p said:


> Neonics have been found in 100% of CCD affected colonies.


Where did you get this data?


----------



## Bud Dingler

*Neonics Refuted*

I operate in Wisco, MN and northern IA in a sea of corn. The initial post is way off base since the corn belt which also includes, MO, NE, IN and IL have the lowest to zero reports of CCD. 

There is also one other notable problem with the posters hypothesis and that is except in extreme situations of drought honeybees do not ever get nectar from corn and only in rare circumstances pollen. 

I was involved in a University study in 2003 where they ID'd the flower sources of pollen from 100 of my pollen traps over a 150 mile area. Corn never turned up during the corn tasseling season. 

and

Finally Maryam Fraziers work

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4115244451959719523

also in ABJ article during summer of 2008. 

is the only substantial recent analysis of chemicals in brood comb from the original CDD losses. The Neonics only showed up in a few samples and in extremely low doses, low enough to not even be considered as a possible cause. What did show up in every sample was chemicals beekeepers applied for mites. The number 1,2 and 3 chems by a factor of 1000 were miticides. 

So no I'm sorry this idea that Imid on corn is the source of CCD just does not wash with the evidence. 

These kind of rumors are damaging to the industry as beekeepers have a scape goat for their own comb contamination and mite treatment practices. A recent forum has been convened between Bayer the maker of the Neonics and some western beekeeper associations to share data and each get to the facts sop we can put an end to this misinformation band wagon.

Also a FL study to be released soon where a number of hives were moved to an isolated area away from agriculture and one third of the hives fed a pollen sub laced with a dose of Imid typically encountered by bees in canola, pumpkins or other crops bees might actually visit (not corn!) another third were fed a really high dose way above what they would see in crops. the final third were fed only pollen subs. all hives in the 3 groups had pollen traps fitted so they all relied on the pollen subs fed in the hives. 

The preliminary data suggests = no effects between the three groups. So if you want to talk smoke screen the smoke screen is the commercial beeks that out of one hand bash Bayer and with the other hand contaminate their bees with miticides. They use the Imid non-debate as a smoke screen to cover up their own ills. 

It would bee called progress if beekeepers were to get beyond this Bayer misinformation and move on and solve the real problem thats not a question and that is the brood comb contamination.


----------



## alpha6

But it is you who refuses to accept the facts. France and Germany have banned the use of clothianidin one of the neonicitinoid pesticides because of its impact on bees. Here is an excellent article regarding this issue.

http://beestreesfrogselephants.blogspot.com/2008/10/ccd-link-to-neonicitinoids-deepens.html

Lastly your cheap shot against commercial beeks was uncalled for. We take great pride in maintaining healthy bees and the practices utilized by them for treatments of mites and other problems for years would not "suddenly" start killing off the bees. Additionally, as a commercial beek that does not utilize chemicals in my hives I resent the fact that you "assume" that all use chemicals in their hives. I know many that do not and the trend seems to be moving to more natural substances to maintain the health of the bees. (essential oils and supplemental feeding)


----------



## alpha6

Here are some additional links to articles regarding this issue.

http://www.vanishingbees.com/blog/?p=245

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2008/2008-08-25-01.asp

"In the United States, the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit August 15 in federal court in Washington, DC to force the federal government to disclose studies it ordered on the effect of clothianidin on honey bees.

Studies on clothianidin were ordered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from Bayer CropScience in 2003 when the EPA granted the company a registration for the chemical.

NRDC attorneys believe that the EPA has evidence of connections between pesticides and the mysterious honey bee die-offs reported across the country called colony collapse disorder that it has not made public. "


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Bud Dingler said:


> So no I'm sorry this idea that Imid on corn is the source of CCD just does not wash with the evidence.
> .


well said, Bud


----------



## alpha6

And here is a recent study (Oct 08) done at the University of Florida that shows that Imidacloprid does have serious effects on young bees.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/business/epaper/2008/10/21/a8c_beeresearch_1022.html

"Tiny doses of pesticides can kill baby bees.

That's what research just completed at the University of Florida found when honey bee larvae were fed a diet laced with miniscule amounts of a nicotine-based pesticide."


----------



## tecumseh

sylus writes:
CCD came along after the neonics came into widespread use for the treatment of seeds and the spraying of crops and residential areas. CCD symptoms mirror the description of how these chems work. Neonics have been found in 100% of CCD affected colonies. 

tecumseh:
hummm.... well my casual reading of some fairly old bee magazines suggest that something that looked quite a bit like CCD was first reported in 1935 and then again in 1965. of course they didn't call it ccd in those days... the name seems to have changed but the general symptoms have not. are you suggesting that neonicatines existed prior to 1935... or ever 1965?

the '60s outbreak was quite interesting in that they inverview state bee inspectors... plus reported some observation Mraz made while in mexico. at least one symptom (partial cause perhaps) reported in one of those old bee magazines was... an unseasonal drop in termperature and high humidity (sometime accompanied by rain or snow).


----------



## suttonbeeman

Just another note....a beekeeper in Florida who happens top be a bee inspector lost 250 colonies while pollinating this summer.....250 colonies not in pollination are fine.....no differance in mite treatment....just a considence????I think [email protected] Leaky irrigation pipe with insecticides an dbees gathering water equals a higher dose of nict. say what you want but looka at common sence.....look how nic insecticides kill thenm look at ccd? see anything ? doesnt prove it but **** sure look suspicious!! Also I know one beekeeper WHO HAS NOT USED fluvinate or other chemicals for a number of years (has been using wintergreen, tea tree oil and thymol)....lost 1/2 of his bees to ccd two yrs ago....and all comb was not OLD!!! most comb was less than 5 yrs old. So quit blaming commercial beeks....there are alot of possiable causes but neon nic insecticides have to be at the top of the list!!!! PERIOD!!!!!!!


----------



## tecumseh

suttonbeeman writes:
@ Leaky irrigation pipe with insecticides an dbees gathering water equals a higher dose of nict. say what you want but looka at common sence.....look how nic insecticides kill thenm look at ccd? see anything ? doesnt prove it but **** sure look suspicious!!

tecumseh:
curious. I wonder what the beekeeper/inspector was pollinating? depending on the type of crop and what area in florida this incident might represent any number of likely suspects. in the two cases you mentioned suttonbeeman what might they have had in common? did the two beekeepers have any suspects of their own beside neonicotine? do both OVERWINTER in florida?


----------



## Ian

>>Neonics have been found in 100% of CCD affected colonies. 


Thats an old claim, and found not to be true,


----------



## suttonbeeman

It was one beekeeper....1/2 bees on pollination 1/2 not on pollination. The 250 not on pollination were treated the same as the ones on pollination....cucumbers. Bees are in Fl year around. Beekeeper is NOT migratory..just moves in Fl to flows/pollination. Numerous other beekeepers in Fl have had same experience. If you dont think insecticides have anything to do with CCD(NOTE: I"M NOT TALKING ABOUT MITEICIDES) you need to get your head from where the sun dont shine!


----------



## Kieck

I recommend anyone making claims about the similarities of symptoms appearing in colonies and symptoms caused by neonicotinoid poisoning read the literature on what the actual observed symptoms in neonicotinoid poisonings have been.

If you still believe the two are similar, try exposing a hundred or so of your bees in confinement to trace amounts of neonicotinoids.

Also, keep in mind that neonicotinoids have been in heavy use in the U. S. at least since the mid to late 1990s. Where was CCD in 2001? Or 2002? And why isn't it most common in areas with the greatest use of neonicotinoids and the greatest corn growing areas? Based on the accusations in this thread, no honey bees should be able to survive in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, or eastern South Dakota.

Florida, in comparison, grows very little corn, and uses very little neonicotinoids.

And, suttonbeeman, why would you exclude miticides from your accusation? Miticides are also generally insecticides, they're deliberately used in bee hives, bees are definitely in contact with them, and bees are exposed to much greater concentrations of them than to most other insecticides.


----------



## tecumseh

kieck writes:
Florida, in comparison, grows very little corn, and uses very little neonicotinoids.

tecumseh:
first off kiech I pretty muc agree with your view. however..... they may grow very little corn (except a bit here and there in north florida) but they do grow a great deal of a vast variety of other stuff all over florida. one need only work a short while in some of the truck patches of central and south floria to come to the conclusion that those folks may well be relieving themselves on someone else's dinner plate (and thats been going on for quite some time). during my last little venture to florida (just prior to the first reported outbreak of ccd) I noted to my wife that all the springs in central florida suggested (by direct observation) that they were overburdened with human contamination. what had been crystal clear spring that pumped out millions of gallon of clear cool water per hour when I was young, now look somewhat like the outflow of a waste treatment plant.

what bothers me most about suttonbeeman's post is first he suggest there were two beekeepers with almost the same experience and then later he states there was one. he also seems a bit guarded in revealing where the supposed loss occurred.

there are areas in florida that have been in intensive agriculture production for quite some time, so the possible 'contaminant' could be almost anything produced in the past 50 years.


----------



## Bud Dingler

What I see happening a lot is you get one report of a bee kill on pesticides and the [edit by mod] who posts this makes an implication or accusation that see this XYZ pesticide is causing all of the current bee related problems.

The German incident this spring comes to mind of [edit by mod] kind of reporting.

Since the 1960's we have had isolated bee kills due to missapplication of pesticides or just plain bad luck. There is no reason to believe that this will not continue into the future. To date we do not have any data that suggests that a widespread problem exists with any particular pesticide that is wiping out hives on a widespread basis. 

We do have data that says most brood comb is heavily contaminated and that the levels are reaching LD50 in some cases. Furthermore we have published data that shows the damaging effects of these miticides on the reproductive abilities of queens and drones.


----------



## Kieck

I'm with you, tecumseh. I'm not claiming that Florida is pristine, or that no pesticides are used in Florida. Pesticides certainly are. And some forms of pesticides are no doubt more heavily used in Florida than in other parts of the country.

But neonicotinoids are more heavily used in this part of the country than in Florida. And, from research data, neonicotinoid seed treatments have no significant effect on target insects just a few weeks after application.


----------



## sylus p

The USDA and the EPA get most of their funding from the major chemical corporations. These organizations are also staffed at the highest levels by folks who have made their money and their names selling chemicals and selling the idea that massive monoculture pesticide dependent plantings are the inevitable wave of the future.

These are political and corporate organizations, not regulatory and safegaurding institutions. 

"The Department of Agriculture has set up a working group of scientists from six universities, the Department of Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency." Steve Croft, 60 minutes special on ccd 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRBJf57aNp4

Now, if ccd is in fact pesticide poisoning (and it sure looks that way) and those pesticides were fradulantly approved by the EPA holding hands with the USDA while the agrichem companies were shoving greenbacks in their trousers, AND the EPA and the USDA are the ones, "leading the investigation", what do you think the chances are that you're going to get the facts man??? 

Pretty slim my friends. Pretty darn slim.


----------



## beemandan

sylus p said:


> Neonics have been found in 100% of CCD affected colonies.


I must have missed the answer to my original question. Where did you get this data?


----------



## deknow

sylus p said:


> The USDA and the EPA get most of their funding from the major chemical corporations. These organizations are also staffed at the highest levels by folks who have made their money and their names selling chemicals and selling the idea that massive monoculture pesticide dependent plantings are the inevitable wave of the future.


hrmmm, watch the video that bud dingler pointed to. the nhb funded this study of chemical residues in wax, trapped pollen, stored pollen, adult bees, brood...and found the highest levels of anything (and the most commonly found) to be beekeeper applied chemicals. watch closely....this study was funded by the nhb, and did not include funding for looking at what is in the honey. also note that the only place imidacloprid was found consistantly was in orange groves that were using it to fight citris greening.



> Now, if ccd is in fact pesticide poisoning (and it sure looks that way)


well, there are pesticides applied by farmer/homeowner, and there are pesticides applied by beekeepers.



> and those pesticides were fradulantly approved by the EPA holding hands with the USDA while the agrichem companies were shoving greenbacks in their trousers, AND the EPA and the USDA are the ones, "leading the investigation", what do you think the chances are that you're going to get the facts man???


and given that we have facts and data, it is the beekeepers who are 'holding hands' with the pesticide industry...in order to keep them available for use in the beehive....all the while, enjoying the "reputation" of honey as being the "last pure food" despite what some (most) put in their honey production colonies. pretty sad.

deknow


----------



## deknow

sylus p said:


> Neonics have been found in 100% of CCD affected colonies.


this is so well documented not to be true, that it makes this whole thread irrelevant.

this isn't a matter of "my documentation vs your documentation", this is pure falsehood. even if you believe neonics are the cause of ccd, making up data (or reporting on made up data) is inexcusable.

deknow


----------



## dickm

Sylus said,
>>>>what do you think the chances are that you're going to get the facts <<<<

Listen to folks like Kieck. nicotioids have been in heavy use for nearly 20 years. This is a cotton-picking fact! Pay attention to this fact! I read about bees for hours each day and I don't see anyone with a solution. The best we can do is control mites, nutrition and keep a breed of bees that shows resistance. Clean comb seems to be important.

See "Die-off" in Point of View on this site. I wrote it in '07 after being on-site with the first CCD episodes. No-one knew then and no-one knows now. If I were to update it, I couldn't find much to add. Bees die. If you want to stay with the data, bees in big groups die. That's a fact, by the way. That's all we really know. I'm still wondering if it's not some sort of survival mechanism that lets the weak drop out and the strong survive. Sort of like the robbing instinct that concentrates the stores of an area in the stronger colonies.

Is that clear? If too many of a given species overcome the available resources, some mechanism to keep this species from damaging the resource, kicks in.

The last thing a fish would discover is water,

Dickm


----------



## tecumseh

kieck writes:
I'm not claiming that Florida is pristine

tecumseh:
only in a very slick marketing brochure.


----------



## sylus p

I do not believe that all of the samples that have been PROVIDED to the researchers in fact contain neo-nics. However, all of the samples from colonies suffering from actual ccd symptoms (few adult bees, colonies unrobbed, capped brood) have suffered acute pesticide poisoning. 

The provided samples have included colonies that are simply unhealthy as well as some colonies that are probably in perfect health. 

Even one corrupt sample taker would easily skew the results by including samples of perfectly healthy colonies, let alone two or three corrupt officials, or more. In addition there will be beekeepers who will include samples of bees that have dies from the typical bee diseases and pests. 

Factor in the enormous profits made by the pesticide biz (read billions of dollars) AND the past complicity of the corrupt EPA/USDA complex in approving chems not properly tested AND the fact that the samples and research are being collected and conducted by the USDA/EPA and you can see that the research data you may hold in high esteem as unbiased evidence is questionable at best.

Therefore I repeat the claim the 100% of colonies actually effected by "ccd" have been poisoned by pesticides, namely neonics. This claim is backed up by the anectdotal evidence of so many beeks its ridiculous. 

These folks, in the trenches, already know the causes and consequences of exposure to these chems. But I guess the scientists and researchers operating under the USDA and EPA led conglomerate know better then they do whats killing their bees. And they keep saying, "Shut up, you don't know what you're talking about, and no, we don't have the answers either. But shut up anyways." 

"So when you run be sure you run,
to something and not away from,
because nothing happens here that doesn't happen there."


----------



## sylus p

I do not believe that all of the samples that have been PROVIDED to the researchers in fact contain neo-nics. However, all of the samples from colonies suffering from actual ccd symptoms (few adult bees, colonies unrobbed, capped brood) have suffered acute pesticide poisoning. 

The provided samples have included colonies that are simply unhealthy as well as some colonies that are probably in perfect health. 

Even one corrupt sample taker would easily skew the results by including samples of perfectly healthy colonies, let alone two or three corrupt officials, or more. In addition there will be beekeepers who will include samples of bees that have died from the typical bee diseases and pests. 

Factor in the enormous profits made by the pesticide biz (read billions of dollars) AND the past complicity of the corrupt EPA/USDA complex in approving chems not properly tested AND the fact that the samples and research are being collected and conducted by the USDA/EPA and you can see that the research data you may hold in high esteem as unbiased evidence is questionable at best.

Therefore I repeat that 100% of "ccd" affected colonies have been poisoned by pesticides, namely neonics. This claim is backed up by the anectdotal evidence of so many beeks its ridiculous. 

These folks, in the trenches, already know the causes and consequences of exposure to these chems, namely "ccd". But I guess the scientists and researchers operating under the USDA and EPA led conglomerate know better then they do whats killing their bees. And they keep saying, "Shut up, you don't know what you're talking about, and no, we don't have the answers either. But shut up anyways. You don't know what you're talking about." 

How insulting this has been. 

"So when you run be sure you run,
to something and not away from
because nothing happens here that doesn't happen there."


----------



## beemandan

sylus p said:


> its ridiculous.


Something here sure is.


----------



## Bud Dingler

Perhaps Sylus finds his/her so called "data" on this web site

www.rense.com

the posters insistence that the EPA and USDA are all corrupt and on the payroll of Bayer and the agrochem giants reeks of paranoia. 

in my former career I worked in R&D for a Fortune 500 company on an electric car battery project and we had a lot of contact with the DOE. All I can tell you is if you value your comfortable life with snazzy computer, IPOD, new car and fridge filled with food you owe your lifestyle to a scientist somewhere. 

scientists and government employees at DOE, EPA and USDA are just normal people who are usually very smart and have excelled in their careers. 

this notion that the whole complex is corrupt and there is a conspiracy afoot to decimate honeybees is just plain ridiculous and uninformed. 

sure we have ABF and several visible beekeepers railing about Bayer and the neonics. We also have people who believe in UFO's and bigfoot too. WHat Sylus and the rest of us are seeing is massive, massive denial from ABF and other large commercial outfits who claim Bayer is the boogie man while meanwhile back home at the ranch they mix up their own concoction of chemicals in which they contaminate their brood combs and poison their own bees. This is not paranoia this is documented fact. Not all commercial beekeepers still use shop rags and home brews and rail about Bayer just the less informed.


----------



## sylus p

I didn't say anything about ufo's!

What I actually said is that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. 

Also I didn't say that it was a conspiracy to decimate the honeybees. I said that this was linked to corruption past and present in the form of major payoffs that people in high places are now covering up. This is an old old story, and a very human one. 

If CCD were the result of the commercial beeks overuse/abuse of pesticides, it would not have emerged "all at once" as it did, in 2006. 

Most commercial guys are feeling a little silly and sheepish and under the scope about this revelation and are taking steps to treat their bees differently. These guys are our bread and butter, literally, and they know it.

Clothianidin in particular was approved for use in only 2003. Not that long ago. Factor in the timetable for mass production and mass distribution and this particularly nasty and reactive (ie volitile and binding) chem fits the bill for a 2006 emergence of "ccd". 

Its not about ufos and I would never claim that every single EPA/USDA official is corrupt. A FEW bad apples spoil the whole darn peck Bud. At the very least you must admit this is a possibility. Otherwise, how do we safegaurd ourselves from it?

Oh and finally, and along the lines of keeping all possiblities on the table, there are wack-jobs in high places that wouldn't mind seeing the bees die and the resulting food shortages, there are people like that bud. It would make us all a heck of a lot easier to control, and for some folks, not all, but some, thats what its all about, controlling people.

Let us all pray that that is not what we are seeing, and God help us if it is.


----------



## Durandal

I grow corn and soybeans AND I keep bees. My bees are healthy. IN fact this year has been a GREAT year for bees here in Ohio.

Lots of beekeepers in Ohio and lots of corn in Ohio, yet I have heard of no massive die off that can be attributed to CCD in Ohio.


----------



## dickm

*there are wack-jobs in high places*

and they are all around us. From the corrrupt scientists taking samples to the commmercial beeks who include simply sick bees in the count. Couple that with the corrupt USDA and EPA officials and what have you got? Small wonder we got trouble. 

dickm


----------



## Keith Jarrett

I got to get me some popcorn.


----------



## Durandal

Keith Jarrett said:


> I got to get me some pop*corn*.


Watch out Keith the corn might get you too.


----------



## sylus p

Hope this doesn't ruin your appetite Keith but I just reread Bob Harrison's "Neonicitiniods, More Questions than Answers" which ran in the April ABJ this year 2008 and wanted to add to the list of very recently approved neonics which coincides with the recent "ccd" emergence.

Thiamethoxam - Registerd in 2000
Acetamiprid - Registered in March 2002
Clothiadin - June 2003
Thiacloprid - September 2003

This is bad stuff friends. Not funny at all. 

To quote the article, "I have information from a source who also said his/her funding would be pulled if the institution followed the direction that some of the U.S. current be die-off could be related to the widespread use of the neonicitiniod insecticides."

Funding pulled by who? The USDA. 

Why? You tell me.

Eating popcorn I grew myself in Nomadland, NY. Watching PJ on youtube 60 minutes disapearing bees special just disgusted by the graft. Disgusted. "and we havent we don't have....."


----------



## tecumseh

sylus p writes:
To quote the article, "I have information from a source who also said his/her funding would be pulled if the institution followed the direction that some of the U.S. current be die-off could be related to the widespread use of the neonicitiniod insecticides."

Funding pulled by who? The USDA. 


tecumseh replies:
the first is called second hand information (rumor) and no it would not be the usda paying for the research. the company that wanted the producted licensed would be paying for the test.

when the tax payer decided to no longer fund higher education and most especially began limiting monies to public universities for research, who do you think would be the logical entity that began controlling the strings that determined who's current and future research was funded? the SYSTEM is now constructed (has been for some time) quite a bit like you first sentence suggest, but most times it ain't that blatant.

on occasion an upright academic will notice how the shell game has been rigged to produce ONE answer... if they are too upright and too honest likely 1) they will never even be considered for tenure and 2) in a very short while they will not be able to make a living in this or that town cleaning toilets. and that ain't second hand information or speculation.

lastly (and I do think I am done here)... I have no doubt that neonic (plus a long list of insecticides) likely played some small part in the matter of ccd. however, there are those things you can do something about and there are those things that are almost totally out of an individuals control. I suspect there is a long list of likely suspects in the recent bout of bees just disappearing but I will chose to confront those that I can do something about . having read back thru a bunch of old literature has pretty much convinces me that at the head of the list is nosema (now two types), afb, nutrition and possibly a genetic component (likely a genetic line of bees highly subject to some virus associated with the above list). these are things I can DO when it comes to my bees.


----------



## Bud Dingler

*I respect*

Bob Harrison as a beekeeper. However I don't think Bob would tell you he is a scientist. His article is full of speculation like the rest of the beeks who drink the Bayer Kool Aid. 

Here is a dialogue indirectly between Bob Harrison and Dr. David Fisher from Bayer.

The following is a copy of a post from a Bayer representative posted on BEE L. The author Dr. David Fisher lists several studies which support the notion that the Bayer systemics are not harming bees. 

I challenge Bee Novice to read these materials and report back in a few days with some more relevant questions and discussions. 

here is the link to this post for further educational reading!

http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-...ail.com&P=1829

Dear BEE-L readers,

I’ve been following the discussion about neonics and CCD for some time and 
really appreciate the open exchange of opinions. In that spirit, I’d like 
to respond to some of the recent comments Bob Harrison has posted about 
neonics and Bayer CropScience. For those who do not know me, I’m the head 
of the Ecotoxicology unit in North America of Bayer CropScience. 

Bob wrote: “We are talking sub lethal effects. NOT LD50. ALL Bayer 
research is based on LD50.”

Actually, Bayer’s research does address sub-lethal effects. Same is true of 
much non-Bayer sponsored research. Several summary papers by Bayer 
scientists have appeared over the years that discussed no observed adverse 
effect levels. These NOAELs are all based on sub-lethal effects. See 
Schmuck et al. (2001. Pest Manag Sci 57:225-238) and Maus et al. (2003, 
Bulletin of Insectology 56 (1): 51-58). 

Bob wrote: “They did no sub lethal research nor does Bayer labs own a 
single bee hive!”

Bayer has a full time beekeeper on staff and owns many hives. We’ve had 
this in-house bee research capacity since before I joined the company 21 
years ago. We thoroughly research the bee safety of every product we 
develop. 

Bob wrote: “Until you post research saying the sub lethal effects of the 
neonicotinoids are not causing problems then expect a response from me.” 
and “Show me some sub lethal research?”

There are scores of relevant studies. Sub-lethal endpoints that have been 
evaluated include foraging behavior, fecundity, brood development, honey 
production, hive performance and yes, the ability of foraging bees to 
return to the hive (more on this one later). Sub-lethal endpoints have 
been evaluated in special experiments as well as in semi-field (i.e., 
tunnel or tent studies) and field studies. The review paper by Maus et al 
(2003) discussed results of 18 semi-field and 14 field studies with 
imidacloprid that were conducted between 1995 and 2001. The goal of these 
studies was to evaluate what happens when bees encounter crops treated with imidacloprid under conditions of practical use. In every case, no adverseeffects were observed. Not even once. There have been many more such studies on imidacloprid and other neonics in subsequent years. For example, Elzen et al. (2004, J. Econ Entomol 97(5) 1513-1516) studied the response of bee colonies to imidacloprid treatment of melon fields and 
Cutler et al. (2007, J. Econ. Entomol. 100(3):765-772) studied the response 
of bee colonies to clothianidin seed-treated canola fields. 

Another bit of relevant research on “sub-lethal effects” was presented at 
the 2006 EurBee meeting and the abstract was posted to this list by Randy 
Oliver on 30 September 2007. This study tested whether exposure to 
imidacloprid in combination with other stressors including Varroa and 
Nosema ceranae, caused effects greater than those of the individuals 
stressors alone. Here again is the title, author list and conclusion. The 
full abstract is in the BEE-L archives (and also obtainable from 
EurBee.org).

INTOXICATION OF HONEYBEES – INTERACTIONS OF PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS AND OTHER FACTORS. Martina Wehling, Werner von der Ohe, Dietrich Brasse, Rolf Forster

“From the findings of chronic feeding tests and semi-field test it can be 
concluded that imidacloprid used as standard seed dressing formulation will 
pose no risks to honeybees.”

Bob wrote: “Proving a negative? In Italy the research testing sub lethal 
effects was straight forward. Each level of expose caused certain problems 
in the bees. Sub lethal testing is not rocket science.”

While Lloyd’s original point that you can never prove a negative is 
correct, you can test whether predictions of an underlying hypothesis are 
consistent with observations either generally available or generated via 
experimentation. The “sub-lethal” adverse effects that are commonly 
mentioned as being of concern are (1) disorientation (foragers not 
returning to the hive) and (2) suppression of the immune system with the 
result that the hive succumbs to common pathogens. If either of these 
effects occurred, one should see a dwindling of the population of 
imidacloprid-exposed hives. This has been looked for in >30 experiments 
and field studies and it has NEVER happened. That’s pretty compelling 
evidence this hypothesis is not correct. 

But what about the “Italian study” which showed bees didn’t return to the 
hive when feeding on syrup containing imidacloprid? I assume Bob means the study of Bortolotti et al. (Bull. of Insectology 56(1):63-67, 2003). They 
tested three exposure concentrations, 100, 500 and 1000 ppb and the number of bees returning was greatly reduced at the two higher test levels (500 and 1000 ppb). But these are concentrations far greater than anything bees are likely to be exposed to, and in fact it could be argued they aren’t 
even sub-lethal. Take the lowest published oral LD50 value for 
imidacloprid (3.7 ng/bee) and convert it to an equivalent food 
concentration (you do this by dividing by the amount of food (26 mg) bees 
ingest on average during acute oral tests). 3.7 ng / 26 mg = a 
concentration of 142 ppb. Looking at all available data, the threshold for 
knock-down and lethal effects in Bayer studies is about 100 ppb. With this 
perspective, the finding by Bortolotti et al. that bees don’t return to the 
hive when exposed to 500 and 1000 ppb is hardly a surprise. Nor does it 
support a conclusion that use of neonics will cause a problem. 

Bob said: “Bayer first fought French beeks by blaming varroa! At the time 
the French beeks had a excellent varroa control to use. Sorry Bayer.”

A comprehensive multiyear study of the factors that caused the famous bee 
losses in France was made by the AFFSA (French Food Safety Agency) bee 
research unit. It concluded varroa was indeed a major factor. Their 
report was released in April and is accessible at 

http://www.afssa.fr/index.htm 

Search the news archives for the press release from April 2, 2008. There 
is a link to the full report (in French) in the press release. 

The AFFSA bee research team has also weighed in on the hypothesis that 
imidacloprid was responsible for the massive bee losses experienced by 
French beekeepers. Again, Randy Oliver posted an abstract on 30 Sept 2007 
of this group’s presentation to the EurBee 96 meeting. You can check the 
BEE-L archives to get the whole thing. I’ve repeated the title, author 
list and main conclusion here. 

IMIDACLOPRID AND BEE MORTALITY IN FRANCE
M. Aubert, J.-P.Faucon, A.-C. Martel and M.-P.Chauzat 
“We conclude that, if contamination by imidacloprid from sunflower 
cultures issued from treated seeds may have occurred simultaneously with a 
period of colony losses as described by several	French bee-keepers, such 
occurrence has not been observed systematically, and no negative impact on 
bee colonies of the use of Gaucho® has been experimentally demonstrated in the field.”

You may also want to read the following publication. 
Faucon, J.-P.; Clément, A.; Drajnudel, P.; Mathieu, L.; Ribière, 
M.; Martel, A.-C.; Zeggane, S.; Chauzat, M.-P.; Aubert, M. F. (2005): 
Experimental study on the toxicity of imidacloprid given in syrup to honey 
bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Pest Management Science; 61 (2), 111-125

Bob said: “I approached Bayer about funding sub lethal testing of 
imidacloprid on bees but the company declined. The national organizations 
tried! forty grand to Penn State to settle the issue seemed like chump 
change but the company declined.” 

I find this a very hard to believe. Who did you approach at Bayer? I’ve 
asked around the company and nobody has any recollection of such a 
request. Such requests should get forwarded to me. Yours did not. I’m 
not impossible to reach. David Mendes has gotten through and I sent him a 
bunch of information. Others who post regularly to this list have talked 
to me on the phone as well. Also, nobody from the national organizations 
approach Bayer with any proposal. 

Bayer has never been asked to contribute funds to any of the Penn State 
work. When they were first getting started, they asked for analytical 
standards and advice on analytical methodology which we provided. 

Bob wrote: “So now the study is coming. A company rep said off the record 
that they would denounce findings that sub lethal effects hurt bees on the 
grounds the study was funded by beekeepers and the researchers were 
biased.” 

Any technical opinion from Bayer would come from my team. Our comments would be based on the scientific merits of the work. I find it very hard to believe a Bayer rep said what you claim. 

Bob wrote: “All the beekeepers in the U.S. are asking for is some label 
changes. Bayer will not even sit down with us and talk. Printed company 
positions have been sent to both groups.” 

Again, I checked around the company and no such meeting has been proposed to Bayer CropScience. If asked, and assuming the request came from the leadership of one of the beekeeping organizations, I’d be very surprised if Bayer wouldn’t agree to meet. We do however stand behind our labels as wehave extensive research that shows our products are safe when used as directed. 

Maybe the label changes Bob seeks are for the product ASSAIL (acetamiprid) 
since the following is mentioned in a string of posts on July 9 about this 
product. 

“All beeks are asking for is a few label changes. If Bayer would meet and 
discuss then the tension would ease in my opinion.” 

Bayer does not sell ASSAIL or any other products containing acetamiprid. I 
do know quite a bit about this chemical however. It (along with 
thiacloprid) are the two neonics that are not very toxic to bees. They are 
1000 times less toxic than the nitroguanidines (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, 
etc.). If I was a beekeeper, rather than pressuring growers to use 
something else, this is a product I would be encouraging them to use. You 
aren’t going to find many alternative insecticide treatments safer to honey 
bees than ASSAIL. To comply with the label restriction, the application 
can be made late in the day or at night. 

Want more information on Neonics and honey bees? Bayer has a technical FAQ 
document on neonics and bees. It has much more info and citations than I 
have space for here. We sent it around to the CCD research community last 
year but I'm not sure if it was passed on. If anyone on the list wants a 
copy, drop me an e-mail and I’ll send it to you. 

Best regards to all,

Dave Fischer
Director, Ecotoxicology 
Research and Development Department
Bayer CropScience LP
2 T.W. Alexander Drive
PO Box 12014
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
[email protected]


----------



## beemandan

tecumseh said:


> when the tax payer decided to no longer fund higher education and most especially began limiting monies to public universities for research, who do you think would be the logical entity that began controlling the strings that determined who's current and future research was funded?


Dr t, I'm not sure which funding you're referring to here but much of the agricultural research conducted in this country is funded by the USDA. $4.1 million grant recently awarded to fund CCD research......awarded to the University of GA by the USDA.


stylus p, I know a number of USDA research folks personally and they are honest and every bit as concerned about the environment as you. I don't know a single one that I wouldn't trust explicitly to publish their results accurately regardless of who might be unhappy with them. The suggestion that they would falsify results, without a shred of evidence, is personally offensive.


----------



## beenovice

*Interesting how these chemical threads are popular and some people demanding scientific proof and what not while thread about GM food research made by austrian scientists went away quietly. *

I see a pattern here....similar people all around the world (internet) demanded proof and defended GM food couple of months ago saying all is good. Now they are quiet. 

Scientists 50 years ago thought lots of things are harmless. There were commercials saying : look it is safe...we can even spray people. Today there is different story.

So what and how it will be for our children ? 

Go test your pollen and propolis and go listen to heavy metal  Some will get it...others not....


----------



## Durandal

Now we are claiming GM crops are responsible for CCD?

ALL of my crops are GM be they Round-Up Ready or the organic seed I use for my market produce. GM crops have been big for hundreds of years.


----------



## sylus p

budingler - Everything you posted came from the head of Bayer's Ecotoxicology unit in North America!! And it largely conflicts with other *third party independent* research. So yeah... anyways... :scratch:

beemandan writes "Dr t, I'm not sure which funding you're referring to here but much of the agricultural research conducted in this country is funded by the USDA. $4.1 million grant recently awarded to fund CCD research......awarded to the University of GA by the USDA."

Maybe I should have been more specific tec, so here goes.... The ccd research is being funded largely by the USDA... and according to Bob's article that funding is contingent on NOT looking too closely at the neo nics. Look too close... and they pull the plug.

and to me beemandan wrote, "stylus p, I know a number of USDA research folks personally and they are honest and every bit as concerned about the environment as you. I don't know a single one that I wouldn't trust explicitly to publish their results accurately regardless of who might be unhappy with them. The suggestion that they would falsify results, without a shred of evidence, is personally offensive. " 

Please don't take offense at my suggestion beemandan. You don't know EVERY USDA research folk, right? I never named names and I never claimed that every person in the USDA is a stooge. 

I DID and DO point out the ease with which a few bad apples could spoil the whole batch, thereby keeping a lot of folks asking a question which actually has has an easy answer. I supported this theory very simply by pointing to human greed and human shame. Greed takes the payoff, shame tries to cover it up.

What offends me is to be fed to a snake just because its hungry all the time. "My snake is hungry, so your gonna feed it, with your legs." inch:


----------



## Bud Dingler

*incorrect again*

Stylus says:

"The ccd research is being funded largely by the USDA."

The CCD working group is a varied group of researchers from several universities andf government entities. Some of the key people are Dianna Cox Foster and Maryann Frazier, Jeff Pettis. Most of the funding has come from various bee organizations and companies like Hagen Daaz etc. So you and Bob's conspiracy theories are fantasies I'm afraid. Please get informed, go to a bee meeting and meet some of these scary researchers who you claim are on the agribusiness payroll.


----------



## beenovice

Durandal said:


> Now we are claiming GM crops are responsible for CCD?
> 
> ALL of my crops are GM be they Round-Up Ready or the organic seed I use for my market produce. GM crops have been big for hundreds of years.


I am not claiming that GM crops are responsible for CCD. I am claiming we are destroying our planet with chems and GM crops. That includes destroying bees and ourselves in the process ! 

About GM crops check some research of Dr.Hans-Heinrich Kaatz. Also gather some pollen and propolis and send it for testing. Let's see what they find propolis especially


----------



## Ian

It was not only 6 months ago the world was caught in a short fall of food stores and casued many countries food prices to double and tripple. It caused starvation in many of the countries where people work to eat. The cause was purely a combination of weather disasters degrading and distorying our world crops.
We are only talking 10-20% of the total crop being lost last year, 

If we are going to continue to talk about alternatives to chemicals then give the answers that WILL fill the void in crop production without chemical use. 
We can go back 80 years and adopt the old time practices of stripping and reaping, but as it showed back 80 years ago, it wasnt only unsustainable, but unproductive.


----------



## Bud Dingler

*funny thing is*

Aside from speculation and non scientific news stories there does not exist a large body of published data that GMO or neonics are dangerous to people or honeybees. Maybe thats why these products are legal to use or consume ?

[edit by mod] Anyone can put up a so called article on a blog or web page. 

Very few people have the credentials and knowledge to perform a scientific study using accepted protocols, write a report and submit it to a scientific journal. [edit by mod] Its all scary and threatening then after a while....


----------



## beenovice

Bud Dingler said:


> Aside from speculation and non scientific news stories there does not exist a large body of published data that GMO or neonics are dangerous to people or honeybees. Maybe thats why these products are legal to use or consume ?
> 
> [edit by mod] Anyone can put up a so called article on a blog or web page.
> 
> Very few people have the credentials and knowledge to perform a scientific study using accepted protocols, write a report and submit it to a scientific journal. [edit by mod] Its all scary and threatening then after a while....


Well not all around the world GM and neonics are legal  

Anyway check the latest austrian study and research by Dr.Hans-Heinrich Kaatz. Some pretty disturbing stuff. 

The thing is that even scientific community cannot agree on this. 

30 years ago there were chemicals that were "perfectly safe". People like you walked around convincing others that there is no scientific evidence anything is wrong. In those years workers soon started to complain about their lungs and other health problems but everything was safe and good. Scientists didn't find anything...and today those people who worked with those chemicals are dying. BTW...those chems are illegal nowadays....

So go and tell those people that new chems some guys came up with are perfectly safe for their children. It is not just a paper. It is experience with similar stuff that got some people thinking and suspicious.

You can go on and dismiss everything that don't fit into your "scientific" thing. Not everything needs scientific proof. People can and do feel if something is wrong. And workers felt 30 years ago something is wrong. Out of 10 only 3 are alive today....

Why do you insist on needing some papers, scientific studies ? There are professors that give interviews in media. Some say all is good and the others say it is dangerous. Even science is changing. Everyday!
What was the "rule" 10 years ago is dismissed today and is considered bad. You know how many things changed in stomatology for example? Not ten years ago some things were preached at university and today the same professors preach the "new thing". They all forgot what they were talking about. Like people like you that preached and sprayed people in commercials 50 years ago were saying everything is safe. They are all silent now or demand scientific evidence for "new stuff". They forgot since there are no more those people that suffered living around them.
You should touch some reality Bud and come down to earth.


----------



## Kieck

The nice thing about neonicotinoids or similar pesticides or "GM" (actually transgenic) crops as a scape goat for CCD is that it becomes "their" problem rather than "our" problem.

What about the dangers of packing small areas with vast numbers of honey bee colonies? What about the stress on the bees from competing with other colonies in those situations? What about the stress from hauling bees all over the country? What about the lack of diversity in nectar and pollen sources that has been thrust on our bees because of agricultural practices in this country and, more importantly, the ways we handle our bees for pollination purposes?


----------



## NashBeek

The problem today is that we don't have Scientist we have studiers who are interpreting what people are observing. It took about 40 years for people to realize that "DDT" was dangerous and I don't know that Bayer is to blame but it seems to do what Bayer says in that insects get disoriented and lose their appetite. We need some good independent scientist to look into this not studiers


----------



## Bud Dingler

I agree with Kieck that "feedlot" beekeeping is the main reason behind CCD, the rest of the so called controversies are denial and a smoke screen.


----------



## Barry

Bud Dingler said:


> I agree with Kieck that "feedlot" beekeeping is the main reason behind CCD


I'd like to see a quote by a researcher (authority) that states this please.


----------



## Roland

Or maybe the feedlots are the means by which CCD is spread, not the cause???


----------



## Kieck

To clarify, I did not specify that concentrated beekeeping is "the main cause of CCD," just that we (beekeepers) use practices that are probably more likely to cause problems than peripheral issues. It's just easier to blame someone else than to blame ourselves.

As far as a research opinion on stress from concentrated beekeeping contributing to CCD, see:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=15908

Again, not saying that stresses from current methods of beekeeping are causing CCD, but bear in mind that testing the effects even of sub-lethal doses of neonicotinoids or chemicals from transgenic crops is very simple and quick compared to trying to sort out problems caused by some of these complex stresses.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Kieck said:


> What about the lack of diversity in nectar and pollen sources


Kieck, very well said, the whole post was right on target.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Barry said:


> I'd like to see a quote by a researcher (authority) that states this please.


That is a good question Barry, I use this feedlot keeping style and have had NO problems the last ten plus years. I do think however, if you bunch up hives you need to compensate your feeding program, and I don't mean with some square sugar patty that's called a pollen patty.


----------



## Durandal

beenovice said:


> I am not claiming that GM crops are responsible for CCD. I am claiming we are destroying our planet with chems and GM crops. That includes destroying bees and ourselves in the process !


SO Rather than replying I did take some time and research your request to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Here is quote that sums up, in my opinion, Kaatz...

"_According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the University of Halle in eastern Germany and the director of the study, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn may have "altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry -- or perhaps it was the other way around. *We don't know.*"

*Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period.*_"

He does not know if the GM crops were the cause of the problems or even if the the problems were somehow attributed to CCD. In the end there was no answer, just more questions and certainly nothing to attribute a negative in association with GM crops. 

Nor are all GM crops the same. I'll be the first to agree that GMO crops, especially the self terminating types should be tested extensively in a closed system to avoid possible environmental problems, but GM crops, like we grow, allow us to establish a crop where would have required a massive amount of chemicals, manual labor, or fuel use to attain a smaller crop. Now we are able to grow and yield a profit.

You give me a market for a mix of Horseweeds and Johnson grass where I can simply mow, chop, and haul to a close destination and sell at the same market price as corn or beans then I stop farming the way we do this instance.


----------



## beenovice

Durandal said:


> SO Rather than replying I did take some time and research your request to give you the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Here is quote that sums up, in my opinion, Kaatz...
> 
> "_According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the University of Halle in eastern Germany and the director of the study, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn may have "altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry -- or perhaps it was the other way around. *We don't know.*"
> 
> *Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period.*_"
> 
> He does not know if the GM crops were the cause of the problems or even if the the problems were somehow attributed to CCD. In the end there was no answer, just more questions and certainly nothing to attribute a negative in association with GM crops.
> 
> Nor are all GM crops the same. I'll be the first to agree that GMO crops, especially the self terminating types should be tested extensively in a closed system to avoid possible environmental problems, but GM crops, like we grow, allow us to establish a crop where would have required a massive amount of chemicals, manual labor, or fuel use to attain a smaller crop. Now we are able to grow and yield a profit.
> 
> You give me a market for a mix of Horseweeds and Johnson grass where I can simply mow, chop, and haul to a close destination and sell at the same market price as corn or beans then I stop farming the way we do this instance.




http://www.progress.org/archive/gene48.htm





> There are many unanswered questions about genetic engineering, which is a very young science. *Nobody knows the long-term health and environmental impacts of these foods,� he adds.* �At the very least, genetically manipulated foods need to be labeled so people can make up their own minds about whether they will consume them or not.�
> 
> In the study, Professor Hans-Heinrich Kaatz of the University of Jena�s Bee Institute released bees onto a crop of genetically altered rape and later removed the pollen they gathered. *He fed the pollen to young bees, and found that some of the bees had taken up modified genes in the bacteria in their digestive tract.*
> 
> *The study reveals that novel genes from genetically engineered crops and food may cause changes to take place in the intestinal tracts of people and animals. If so, some scientists say, the role bacteria play in fighting disease, aiding digestion and other important health functions may be compromised. *


Like I said already and let me repeat again! Today some people are saying that everything is safe. People like them 50 years ago also said everything is safe. TODAY we know that then it was not safe. 

Durandal : you can put whatever you want into your land and onto your crops. I did not and never will. 
But please don't underestimate the EXPERIENCE of those 3 out of 10 that are still alive ! You know for those 7 everything was safe couple of decades ago scientists said.... :no:

Oh and another thing. Please put ccd aside. Beekeepers are to blame as much as all the others. Think about long-term consequences using newly developed chemicals and GM that has not been tested as they should. Put a finger on your head and look at your childreen. And yes some of us do make food for ourselves and for sale without any chemicals. If it does not work for you that does not mean it does not work. It just means you cannot or don't want to do it....


----------



## Ian

>>And yes some of us do make food for ourselves and for sale without any chemicals

Supplying yourself and the world is two different stories


----------



## beenovice

Ian said:


> >>And yes some of us do make food for ourselves and for sale without any chemicals
> 
> Supplying yourself and the world is two different stories



Don't really understand where you are getting at with your response. Is it : "we will starve without pesticides" ? Give me a break. Food shortage without pesticides is a myth. I don't know about you but I see farmers utilizing organic methods on hectars producing same amount of food ( with added extra value ) as "regular" farmers. 
The problem with food "shortage" (or better food availability) lies elsewhere and not in use of pesticides or not. 10% of produced food in the world is lost due to storage and transport "mistakes". Yes some just don't know how to deal with food and yet we let them do it ! 

Since you care about the World ! here you go ..... 

I guess we will be selling those poor indians water along with nice shiny bag of RoundUp and in the second shipment ... here it goes a little Aspirin...( any cures for cancer yet ? ) Good for us huh....



> Like a star of exceptional talent *pushed too hard*, Punjab’s agricultural miracle is on the *verge of collapse*. The canals – “Punjab” means the land of five rivers – that channel water to dry fields, allowing water-thirsty rice to be grown where rainfall alone would never support it, are going dry. Where farmers have tube wells, they find it necessary to sink them deeper and deeper. *Nitrites from synthetic fertilizers have polluted much of the groundwater.* *Over-irrigation increased salinity in the soil. Pesticides have permeated the soil, plant and animal life. Cancer rates have reached alarming proportions. *


http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10766


----------



## Ian

I farm beside an organic farmer, a good one, and a dedicated one.
He manages his land to get a crop once every two years with the use of green manure for nutrients and summerfallow to control weeds. He will yeild about the same on his land in that crop year as I do on mine, he gets almost twice as much as I do for my produce, yet he is utilizing his land half as much. So in the end, he produces half as much as me, and profits about the same. If he were to switch to a annual cropping practice, there would be nothing to manage nutient replacement and nothing to manage weed control. So basically yeilding nothing on the land,

>>Food shortage without pesticides is a myth

do you wonder how south america can produce soo much off thier vast acres of land, how about Russia, how about China? These contries supply the world with all that surplus of grain we are sitting on, It isnt organic production I can tell you that.


----------



## suttonbeeman

OK guys....been in Fl with the bees....most look good..heavy maple bloom for last 10 daYS WITH LOTS POLLEN/NECTAR.. The ones who have gone downhill are the ones (1 yard) I missed treating and got high mite counts..the other one is the ones I kept in ky this summer with a 120yr drought.....although I fed should have used mega bee. NOTICE: I have not blamed Bayer! 

Kieck....you stated Research data of neonicotiod treatment ....no signficiant ....who did this testing???? Bayer You never heard of biased testing...BIG COMPANIES MISLEAD US ALL THE TIME! Just look at history!!!!! Alot of $$$ involved here!

Tecumseh....You said what bothered you was at first there were two beekeepers then one.....go back and read it again!!!! I was talking about the beekeeper in Florida this year.....the other beekeeper I referred to was one who lost numerous colonies two years ago and did not loose them in Florida and HAD NOT TREATED HIS BEES WITH MITEICIDES nor had he had high mite counts. Maybe I didnt write it clear enough but I was referring to the second beekeeper because of his not using miteicides but the first beekeeper was the subject of my first post and I was referring to him in the second post!

Bud Dingler.....If you think money doesnt affect research/gov agencies....you better check and see where your head is...it isnt on your shoulders! EPA is a bunch of goverment lazy burecrats who draw their salary and do very little at a snails pace. FDA is he same....when we tried to get them to sign off and creat a hopney standard they said they didnt have the time/personnel that there were alot of other more important things. A honey standard would have really helped stop funny honey ect and improved the price and quality of honey! By the way Florida has adopted it and all states need to jin the bandwagon!~ This will help the price of honey more than anything! Also when CCD first broke I had REAL GOOD INFORMATION that Bayer threatened to pull research $$$ If they got blamed.......who funds alot of (most) research at universities...not tax $$....but COMPANIES!! AN D YOU DONT THINK RESEARCH CAN BE BIASED????? BETTER CHECK WHERE THAT HEAD IS!!!! Dont want to make you mad...but using that to get my point across. BIG $$$ control our goverment and most of our research!


----------



## Bud Dingler

I have posted this advance notice a couple of times. An experiment was run in FL this past season where all of the hives were placed in a non - Ag area and had pollen traps installed. 

one third was fed a pollen sub

one third was fed a pollen sub with typical levels of Imid found in Ag plants

one third was fed a pollen sub with 10X or some huge factor over what a bee would find in Imid treated Ag crops. 

end result - do difference. this study is working its way through a peer review and will be released in 2009 and probably end up in ABJ. 

the funders of this study are....drum roll please - BEEKEEPERS!!!!!

I come from an academic and R&D background. I'm sorry but while you only hear about the unethical instances of research that has been tainted by money the vast majority of research is not tainted. Most researchers like beekeepers and every day citizens are honest hard working trust worthy people. 

This idea that every researcher is in the backpocket of some big company is a fantasy just like the fantasy that all of a sudden some damming proof of GMO or Imid is hiding under a rock will surface and solve all of beekeeping problems.....hoooey. 

Feedlot beekeeping has evolved in the last 20 years. Some of the many negatives which came out of this are the selection of bees for non swarming and minimal propolis production. Both of these traits are found in the opposite as in high swarming and lots of propolis production in the Russian bee. Science is giving us hints that propolis needs to be present all over inside a hive to help bees maintain a healthy immune system. Frequent swarming is a wild behaviour trait. My point is feedlot beekeeping has damaged the bees natural defenses in a way that we do not fully understand yet. If you load and move semi loads of bees frequently like I used to do on an annual basis you share problems with the whole load. THen set them down in a massive holding yard in CA and share problems with even more bees. Look, in nature hives were one every 1/2 mile. Feedlot beekeeping has pushed bees beyond their natural abilities to defend themselves on top of the various new foreign pests etc. My theory is we don't need any research on CCD as we have the answers - they are just not the answers the feedlot bee industry and almonds want to hear. 

I learned the hard way and gave up feedlotting and the CA gold rush. I never move hives between my 275 stationary yards in a 3 state area to minimize transfer of problems. I don't lose any large numbers of bees either and don't use any meds treatments or pollen subs. The bottom line of my business improved greatly when I went stationary and stopped all of the treatments, HFCS feeding and all of that nonsense of so called modern beekeeping etc. The sheer cost of labor fuel and treatment, feed and med costs were unbelievable. 

VSH and russian bees are an integral part of my operation and I would not be able to run my operation with such minimal inputs without those lines.


----------



## Kieck

> Kieck....you stated Research data of neonicotiod treatment ....no signficiant ....who did this testing???? Bayer You never heard of biased testing...BIG COMPANIES MISLEAD US ALL THE TIME! Just look at history!!!!! Alot of $$$ involved here! -suttonbeeman


No, I challenged you to read the literature on the symptoms or effects of neonicotinoid poisoning, and compare what you read in the scientific literature to what appears in CCD.

Neonicotinoids are acetylcholine receptor agonists. Compare "overstimulation of neurons, poisoning and paralysis and resultant death" to "workers simply disappear, leaving only a queen and a few bees; stores of honey and pollen appear to remain untouched by robbers after a colony collapses from CCD."

How do you make the connection?

Spell it out for me, if you would please: what data do you have to support the claim that neonicotinoid poisoning causes CCD?


----------



## kirk-o

What Data says it dosen't
kirk-o


----------



## Kieck

Trying to find data that says it doesn't is attempting to prove a negative. Not so easy to do.

But I'll throw some at you: I've exposed bees from several of my hives to levels of neonicotinoids (imidacloprid and clothianidin among them) high enough to cause some acute pesticide poisoning of some of the workers. None of the hives have succumbed to CCD. So, if it's a simple cause-and-effect relationship, my experience rules out "exposure to neonicotinoids leads to CCD."


----------



## suttonbeeman

neonnic insecticides kill by weakened imune system and mental abnormalities......CCD bees have from what I have read numerous fungus and their intestines are a mess.....suspicious along with the mental abnormailities ...bees fly off and dont come back. I'll be the first to admit there are other problems (miteicides especially chumophus along with apistan in wax and their affect on queens and drones) nutrition.....the weather just hasnt been normal with all the droughts and stress related to migratory beekeeping. BUt IknowI'll never convince you neoncic. has anything to do with CCD.....but when the fat lady sings Ill bet it does someday. 

Do any of you think that if lets say Penn St for instance just as a example came to the conclusion that neonnics were responsiable dont you think bayer would pull research $$$ . I agree the scientist are hard working and honest...... but research can still be tainted especially research by bayer on their product.....if you dont believe that you are living in a fantasy world.


----------



## Kieck

> neonnic insecticides kill by weakened imune system and mental abnormalities...... -suttonbeeman


No, that's not correct. Look up "mode of action for neonicotinoid pesticides." You'll find that it's an acetylcholine receptor agonist.

If you wish to believe neonicotinoids are the cause, that's your choice. But you're attempting to convince others on this thread simply based on your personal belief, not on any hard evidence. If you have hard evidence, produce it, please.


----------



## sylus p

Goodness gracious look what I started... I'm sorry.

Some thoughts.

1.) We WILL NOT starve if we stop using pesticides. That is a lie. You may not think its a lie, you may believe the lie. But it is a lie. 

2.) Starvation is imposed on cultures and peoples by "Principalities and powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world and spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12

3.) Pesticides are poison, the world you're sitting on is one place, when you poison a part of it, you're poisoning the one physical thing we all share. You have no right to poison me, I have no right to poison you. 

4.) Corruption is real. See the history of the world. There has always been corruption. Let us not be ignorant jingoists or corporate facists. 

Give Martin Luther King a try. http://www.bushflash.com/mlk.html


----------



## sylus p

Much Love To All.


----------



## Kieck

Just a couple more thoughts:

"Pesticide" does not equal "bad."

"Pesticide" does not mean "unnatural." And poisons occur naturally, too. In fact, some of the most effective pesticides right now are either "natural" or derived from natural pesticides.

Notice the "nicotine" in neo*nicotin*oids? Neonicotinoids are synthetic chemicals similar in form and function to nicotine, and nicotine is a natural insecticide (pesticide) produced by plants to reduce feeding by some insects. Nicotine in and of itself is an effective pesticide.

Also, don't equate "organic" with "uses no pesticides." Some pesticides (such as Bt and some natural plant compounds) can be and are used in "organic" operations.

Just some thoughts. Not trying to cause offense, just wishing to make sure that some of these ideas are clarified.


----------



## beemandan

Kieck said:


> Neonicotinoids are synthetic chemicals similar in form and function to nicotine, and nicotine is a natural insecticide (pesticide) produced by plants to reduce feeding by some insects.


In a similar fashion, fluvalinate (active ingredient in Apistan strips) is a pyrethroid. Pyrethroids are a second generation synthetic compound based on pyrethrum, an extract of chrysanthemums (mums). And as you pointed out, just because its of natural origins doesn't necessarily mean that it is harmless.


----------



## mudlake

Years ago when I got Mothers Earth News there was a system for using camels Cigs. for a pesticide for the garden. Tony


----------



## Camp9

Maybe I missed it, but are there any beekeepers and farmers on this board that use pesticides for growing crops? I'm one who does and understand both worlds on this subject. I'd love to respond to so many of the comments that have been posted but there's no since in being redundent. I'd like to know who is making there FULL living (income) beekeeping and production Ag. that is on this board? It seems most people making the decisions that will impact what I do are made by those who have never lived in the shoes of those they effect with their decisions. Who here farm and have bee's both and live and feed their families? And out of those have you seen the effects of your practices being positive or negative to your beekeeping operations in relation to CCD or any other problems?

Camp


----------



## Bizzybee

Simply put Camp, because of your choice of livelihood in supporting yourself and your family you assume responsibility to all of those affected by your actions.

If you were to make Popsicles for a living. You don't have the right to use gray water from your septic system or sticks from pressure treated lumber because it's cheaper for you to purchase. Increasing your profits to better serve yourself and your family is no excuse for putting everyone else at risk and diminishing their health and well being. 

Does that mean that "everyone else" doesn't sympathize with you? No it doesn't. It does mean that we are not willing to compromise our health so someone else can simply make a buck.


----------



## Ian

>but are there any beekeepers and farmers on this board that use pesticides for growing crops?

yup, 700 hives, farm 4500 acres ,350 cow/calf to fat


----------



## sylus p

Kieck >"Pesticide" does not mean "unnatural." And poisons occur naturally, too. In fact, some of the most effective pesticides right now are either "natural" or derived from natural pesticides.<

So I have this really nice looking "natural" nightshade plant out in the backyard. I also happen to run a landscaping business and get a contract to plant out the grounds at the new elementary school. Since I know I can propogate the nightshade and sell it for a profit I include it all through the grounds. When one of the children eats it and dies, did I not contribute to their death?

Without diverse flora and fauna human beings don't survive. We must eat something after all, and we are beekeepers, after all. So when an organization exists with the stated goal of producing poisons which destroy flora and fauna does not this organization jeopordize our survival?

And as to the tension between ecology and economy which Camp calls to the light... 

We know that God created the ecological state of things long before man created the money system. Today we have a situation where monetary gain or loss is used as an excuse to contravene and misuse the natural systems of the creation. 

So what we see is that ecology is made the slave of money. And yet I cannot eat dollars or drink dimes and nickels. So this subservience which man has imposed upon ecology to economy we can see is unsustainable and inharmoniuos with a the glory of the creation.


----------



## Camp9

Ian said:


> >but are there any beekeepers and farmers on this board that use pesticides for growing crops?
> 
> yup, 700 hives, farm 4500 acres ,350 cow/calf to fat


We run 100 cow/calf, 650 acres, small grain, pumpkins, orchard, grapes, hay, and grass seed. Were working on getting up to over 100 hives again. So are you seeing any ill effects on you bees from your or your neighbors farming practices?

Camp


----------



## Bud Dingler

*urban legends*

the facts are pesticides rarely are documented in honeybee losses

in Eric Mussens recent Newsletter Nov/Dec08 he says

"A group of forward-looking com-mercial beekeepers took it upon themselves to contact administrators from EPA and asked to discuss their concerns about honey bee-pesticide interactions. Given the history of previous, explosive exchanges, both sides had to take a deep breath and approach the concerns cautiously. One detail that really caught the attention of the beekeepers was the fact that, at their reporting level, EPA lists only two reports of bee kills in 2006 and none be-tween 2003 and 2005. Therefore, it seemed a bit odd to EPA representatives that the beekeepers felt so strongly about this issue."

Sorry folks but pesticides are just not even a top ten cause of honey bee loses in the USA. The top ten causes are all beekeeper related except the number one cause MOTHER NATURE. 

Urban granola munchers who never have had more then a tiny backyard garden and never spent any time living in the country have unfounded fears of pesticides and such. It all sounds politically correct over a $6 cup of latte in some cool coffee house to condemn Industrial Farming while they eat their cupcakes full of hemp and pumpkin seeds . 

Unless you are doing paid pollination, the chances of losing your bees to a pesticide kill is about 10,000:1

The hobbyist beek that naively killed off his/her hive through lack of experience is often convinced they are not the cause and look externally to CCD or pesticides. They read on the internet how these chemical labels says lethal to bees and can't comprehend what that really means. 

But Hobby Beekeepers are most likely more lethal to bees then pesticides applied per label!


----------



## Michael Bush

>Unless you are doing paid pollination, the chances of losing your bees to a pesticide kill is about 10,000:1

Funny. Not doing pollination I've lost a lot of bees to pesticide kills twice in 34 years. Once to mosquito spraying by the city and once to aphid spraying by the farmers. That's a LOT higher than 10,000:1. Maybe 100:1 would be more accurate? Certainly a 1000:1 is more realistic. I'm sure a lost some bees I never noticed but those were major losses of bees. Piles of them.


----------



## Camp9

Funny. Not doing pollination I've lost a lot of bees to pesticide kills twice in 34 years. Once to mosquito spraying by the city and once to aphid spraying by the farmers. That's a LOT higher than 10,000:1. Maybe 100:1 would be more accurate? Certainly a 1000:1 is more realistic. I'm sure a lost some bees I never noticed but those were major losses of bees. Piles of them.[/QUOTE]

I'd have to agree. The farmers that know and care about bee's will go out of their way to use their pesticide of choice in a way safe to a bee, even beyond lable requirements. The damage comes from those who are not aware of what they might do potentionally to the bees or any polinator for that mater. And the worst offenders are the ones who don't care or never read a lable, or even find out the mode of action. To look at an extreme Sevin can be used when timed properly, but wouldn't be my pesticide of choice. 

Camp


----------



## Ian

>>So are you seeing any ill effects on you bees from your or your neighbors farming practices?

Am I seeing ANY effects on my bees from neighbouring farming practices?
You bet!

For the bad, insecticide damages. I pull mainly off canola sunflowers and alfalfa and buchwheat. There hasnt been a bertha problem in canola for sometime now, but for those years bertha and dimond back are bad, bee damages are high. Sunflower tends to be a problem yearly, not so much killing the bees foraging on the heads, for usually these guys spray before bloom, its killing the bees passing over the fields. And with alfalfa and buckwheat, killing off the lygus bug in their crops can cause alot of problems,.

BUT, dont forget these guys are growing the crops that I am reaping my huge honeycrop off. Without these crops, I yeild less than 1/3 of my average yeilds. These guys have a living to maintain, as do I,

SO the whole pesticide issue is a responsability of BOTH the beekeeper and the land/crop grower. I understand exactly the position the grain farmer is faced with during a bug infestation, I also farm 4500 acres. We have to manage the bug infestations to protect our lively hood. At the same time we have to act responsably to minimize losses to the beekeepers who rely on our crops as their livelyhood. 

As a beekeeper, Its my responsability to communicate my yard locations, comments and concerns to the land owner/farmer. From there we build a relationship and work together during times of insecticide use to MINIMIZE bee losses, and MINIMIZE crop losses. The problem will never be completely solved, but we can both expect everything within reason is being done to avoid any major loss event.

As beekeepers we tend to sit back and complain about our insecticide losses, yet these beekeepers never seem to do anything about it! Get off our buts and communicate positively to landowners, earn their respect, and build the relationship that will help relieve the problems that occur during the bug damage control in crops. We beekeepers expect farmers to grow the crop, and grow it to its full potential that provides us with a surplus of honey, yet we dont understand the need to maintain the crops potential during major bug infestations. Management of these bug infestations can be tricky, especially when trying to consider minimizing bee deaths, but it can be done successfully if the planning is in place,


----------



## suttonbeeman

After reading Buds last post and at the risk of being booted off here I am 100 percent convinced Bud either works for a chemical company or has his head up to his neck completely up Auger Hole!! He needs to talk to numerous beekeepers doing pollination especially cucumbers, mellons and also beekeepers in Orange Grove areas.....hate to say it but he doesnt have a clue to the truth! All will be proven in due time!


----------



## Bud Dingler

*perhaps*

you misunderstood my post Sutton: 

I said

"Unless you are doing paid pollination, the chances of losing your bees to a pesticide kill is about 10,000:1" 

and as others chimed in my estimate may be too low and I agree with Micheal Bush that 1000:1 may be a better estimate. 

So we probably agree that doing paid pollination you have a likely chance of pesticide kills. My point is the typical beesource user is a backyard or sideliner has an unlikely chance of loosing their bees to pesticides. But those smaller beeks read this Bayer and other info on pesticide kills and associate their own losses to that cause. 

as keepers of bees we all look for answers when our bees are dead, with the rampant use of apistan anc checkmite and difficulty in developing a low impact system of keeping bees its easy to point externally to blame other causes for our own mismanagement. Like others I have learned the hard way and had my share of massive losses. Then I got out of chasing the rainbow in pollination, stopped using treatments and went stationary. I am probably the largest stationary beek in my region although no one knows it as I keep a very low profile. 

I am not unique and feel I am part of a growing movement of beeks who have found ways to keep healthy bees without treatments and antibiotics and grow our own queens. (keep in mind most beeks don't post on these sites)

the old system of using west coast or southern queens, using chem treatments, moving for pollination is broken and in its last dying gasp. all it would take is $10 diesel and the system would be done for good. the continual use of treatments is summed up in Maryann Fraziers recent work. the handwriting is on the wall folks with the larger operations. get out now and find a way to keep bees without the risk. 

for anyone chasing the almonds big losses are part of the equation. just shipping a load i have lost bees when they were delayed enroute and baked on the flatbed. its high risk poker with your bees out there, but those years you hit the big one and all loads are good and so one it pays for the bad years. its not easy since when you h ave the good years you come back home in April with jacked up colonies overflowing with mites and bees. most often we could never split them fast enough and treating in spring is never that effective. i got sick of the stress and got out to a more saner lifestyle. 

honestly since I stopped doing large scale paid pollination years ago I have never had a bee kill in my stationary locations and I am surrounded by Big Ag. My point is if you stay out of paid pollination your risk for ag chem kills are low. Someone posting here that says otherwise probably is shooting from the hip with no chem analysis of the dead. I hear the claims all of the time concerning "it must have been a pesticide kill" with no Ag dept data to back it up. Its not that hard to put some dead bees in a ziplok and call the ag dept. the services are free in most states and they are more then eager to look at the samples and help out.


----------



## deknow

yes, yes, and yes bud!

there is an interesting "fractal nature" of agriculture (by that i mean that the small form resembles the large form).

a tree will provide nectar to entice pollinators (including honeybees) to do it's pollination. the nectar is the bait.

a farmer (or big ag company) will entice the migratory beekeeper with $$$ in order to have bees moved into an area temporarily that:

1. doesn't/can't support a native pollinator population
2. requires (for the farmer) insect pollination
3. carries a measurable amount of risk to the beekeeper's bees (bees die in transit, bees are exposed to high levels of ag chemicals, bees are exposed to other bees in the vicinity).

the amount of money involved belies supply, demand, barriers to entry, and risk.

take a look at the situation with the almonds...the price being paid for pollination speaks of great risk (as there are enough bees and enough beekeepers to supply what is needed if the price is right). this is no different than any high risk/high return financial investment.

if there were good, reliable, predictable, and effective "treatments" for various problems aquired via doing almond pollination, the number of beekeepers willing to do the pollination would rise...and the price would fall.

i personally don't see a future in the migratory way of doing things for the long term. i think the more beekeepers we have like bud (non-migratory, largely self contained), the better shape we as a nation will be in when things do crash. what we need is a wide distribution of beekeepers who can expand locally once the migratory model fails.

i wish no ill will on those doing migratory, and i would do nothing to hasten or worsen their problems...i expect these things will take care of themselves.


http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_Reports/2008/Oct08/102308_Parthree_bees.htm
(my recollection is that the 40% he lost were of about 70,000 colonies!)


> Adee Honey Farms – one year later
> Richard Adee of Adee Honey Farms owns the largest beekeeping operation in the U.S. He lost more than 40 percent of his bees that he trucked out to California in the fall of 2007 in preparation to pollinate the almond crop, which starts in early February.
> 
> Around Dec. 1, 2007, he said his bees were looking real “nice,” but Adee said things went downhill quickly from that point.
> 
> “All of a sudden they started collapsing through the rest of December and through most of January and early February, so it was a big hit,” he said. “We lost a lot of them before they started pollinating the almonds, so we had to scramble all over the U.S. to find bees to fill our contracts, which we were fortunate to do. That really takes a toll on a person.”
> 
> This year, Adee said they are planning to send about 65,000 hives to pollinate the almond crop. Beginning in October, his bees will be put on more than 150 truckloads out to Bakersfield, CA, where his son, Bret, runs the family operation there.
> 
> Adee said his focus right now is on keeping his bees as healthy as possible, which he hopes will help them build up more of a resistance than they had a year ago.
> 
> He knows some beekeepers who have been in the business a long time and who had to file for bankruptcy after last year’s bee collapse. He said one beekeeper he knows who lost most of his hives stacked up all of his equipment and burned it all in frustration.
> 
> “It’s really been devastating for us,” he said. “If there’s one good thing that’s come out of this, it is that there is a new awareness of the value of the honeybee in our food chain, but beekeepers sure have paid a high price.”


----------



## suttonbeeman

Bud
I agree with your last post .....believe it or not. I also try to raise most of my queens, do not use chumophus or apistan. I do go to almonds due to the drought here 3 of the past 4 yrs and no honey.... need money/. This past year I also did Cranberries in Wi. There are many causes of bee deaths. My 30 percent loss this year is due to queen failure/drone layers and one yard I missed a mitetreatment on. Most of dead outs had drone pattern or queen supercedure cells that failed to succeed. I think this goes back to mitecides residue in comb and also pesticides. Drought and nutrition can cause problems. But the 280 colonies I lost two yeas ago due to CCD (disappeared in 5 days) in my opinion were due to neonnictinoids.


----------



## Camp9

suttonbeeman said:


> Bud
> But the 280 colonies I lost two yeas ago due to CCD (disappeared in 5 days) in my opinion were due to neonnictinoids.


So are there no neonnictinoids used around your bee yards last year? 

Camp


----------



## suttonbeeman

Who knows what your neighbor uses. I am sure there were....(they are used in lawn care to crops) but in small amounts, they are used on potatoes in gardens and tobacco(admire) however bees dont get much nectar from tobacco as it is topped at early bloom and doesnt bloom long. I have however quit putting bees in south Florida where my losses were. There are alot of crops growing there and also alot of insecticide use due to citrus greening. I am in north Florida in a area with NO crops(just pine trees used for wood)along swamps with lots maple and willow. Bees look great since I moved here for buildup! Brood patterns and buildup is like 10-20 yrs ago! While I agree there is/was much damage done by miteicides especially chumophus, (I firmly believe that is a major cause our queen problems along with insecticides)our big cause of CCD is neonictinoids. THat said there are alot of other problems out there and I recognize that!


----------



## Ian

>>used on potatoes 

bees dont collect much nectar from potato's, and very little pollen, unless there is little around to forage.


----------



## Kieck

> Drought and nutrition can cause problems. But the 280 colonies I lost two yeas ago due to CCD (disappeared in 5 days) in my opinion were due to neonnictinoids. -suttonbeeman


First off, my sympathies on your losses.

Now, having said that, and intending no offense, this accusation is your opinion, as you stated. Do you have any evidence that supports your belief?

What about the first two you mentioned, drought and nutrition? Two years ago, wasn't that area experiencing a drought? And did you make sure that your bees had varied floral sources to provide good nutrition?


----------



## Camp9

I'd might be moving my bee's too in a situation like that, but if you had 2 years in a row in the same area with a high % of loss then I'd say the problem can be the local enviroment. I'm not saying you should of stayed there to see if it would happen again, not sure if I could of, but I'd have to say that I would never know if that was the problem unless I had stayed to see. When we seem to stumble on success with our management we try to duplicate it, so why don't we do the same thing with our failures to learn from them? I'm not a gluten for punishment, but I have to say I've learned from my problems because I've tried to see what the cause was. I've used Neonnictinoids on our farm with my bee here as well as other beekeepers having their bee's on our farm. And yes they know what we are using. At this point I plan on using them, but we are always trying alternatives. 

Camp


----------



## TwT

didn't relies there was so many neonics, this women opens up with a good info, don't know if its true but could be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_XnvZAcM0U&feature=related


----------



## sylus p

These are systemic pesticides right? We can agree on that? 

So when you sell your crop you're selling poisoned produce. 
You're essentially poisoning vast numbers of people. Kids and infants included. 

Maybe you'll cite some study somewhere that says these things don't hurt humans. 

Well then, go drink a pint of Gaucho or go spray your kids with Premiere. These are poisons, taken up by the whole plant, persistent in the soil, poisonous to man and beast alike.

The focus on economic systems destroys ecological systems. This is not an acceptable trade-off.


----------



## Camp9

sylus p said:


> These are systemic pesticides right? We can agree on that?
> 
> So when you sell your crop you're selling poisoned produce.
> You're essentially poisoning vast numbers of people. Kids and infants included.
> 
> You won't be able to eat anything if that's your standard.
> 
> Camp


----------



## sylus p

Camp writes: "You won't be able to eat anything if that's your standard."



Pesticide dependence is your problem, not mine. 

I am a first class cultivator of the earth my friend. Pesticide free. Your statement is absurd. There's lots to eat, your just not the one growing it.


----------



## Camp9

Pesticide dependence is your problem, not mine. 

I am a first class cultivator of the earth my friend. Pesticide free. Your statement is absurd. There's lots to eat, your just not the one growing it.[/QUOTE]

How do you keep all that pesticide laden rain from hitting your crops?

Camp


----------



## Kieck

The argument posed in this thread is that neonicotinoids "cause" CCD, not whether or not pesticides are good or bad. That, to me, belongs in Tailgater.

So far, nothing has demonstrated that neonicotinoids cause CCD. And neonicotinoids seem dangerous because insects cannot detect them, which flies in the face of the symptom that CCD hives do not get robbed out for weeks after they fail.


----------



## beenovice

Kieck said:


> The argument posed in this thread is that neonicotinoids "cause" CCD, not whether or not pesticides are good or bad. That, to me, belongs in Tailgater.
> 
> So far, nothing has demonstrated that neonicotinoids cause CCD. And neonicotinoids seem dangerous because insects cannot detect them, which flies in the face of the symptom that CCD hives do not get robbed out for weeks after they fail.


The mode of action of neonicotinoids is similar to the natural insecticide nicotine, which acts on the central nervous system. In insects, neonicatinoids cause paralysis which leads to death, often within a few hours.

Bees are insects right ?


----------



## tecumseh

bud writes:
Unless you are doing paid pollination, the chances of losing your bees to a pesticide kill is about 10,000:1

tecumseh:
humm... I don't know where you derived this number but it does sound a bit like it was snatched out of the air.

I would suspect (reflecting on past experience) that pesticide loss does to some degree depend on location and the general density (human or agriculture activity) of an area.

suttonbeeman writes:
I have however quit putting bees in south Florida where my losses were. There are alot of crops growing there and also alot of insecticide use due to citrus greening. I am in north Florida in a area with NO crops

tecumseh:
having spend a good deal of time in florida (a long long time ago) I am curious (cats being curious beast) where (general location beyond some non descriptive north/south designation) exactly this loss occurred.

and just as a point of information much of the south end of florida is a bit like a huge expansive waste treatment plant and the waste component in the water does not necessarily have to originate anywhere near florida since the water that permeates much of the area may have an origin a thousand miles away.


----------



## Kieck

> The mode of action of neonicotinoids is similar to the natural insecticide nicotine, which acts on the central nervous system. In insects, neonicatinoids cause paralysis which leads to death, often within a few hours.
> 
> Bees are insects right ? -beenovice


Right. So why would symptoms appear in bees (one type of insect) weeks or even months after exposure to neonicotinoids, but appear in other types of insects very shortly after exposure (hours to days)?

Has anyone else (besides myself) observed bee hives that are experiencing poisoning from neonicotinoid exposure?


----------



## beenovice

Kieck said:


> Right. So why would symptoms appear in bees (one type of insect) weeks or even months after exposure to neonicotinoids, but appear in other types of insects very shortly after exposure (hours to days)?
> 
> Has anyone else (besides myself) observed bee hives that are experiencing poisoning from neonicotinoid exposure?


Bees poisoned by nenocotinoids quickly die. You can see pile of bees in front of the hives. It happened this year all over Europe. A lot of us saw it in real time ! 

Let's not fool ourselves anymore. CCD, what not....it just does not matter. 
The fact is we are poisoning ourselves with huge amount of pesticides ( including ones we put into our hives ! ). Higher rates of cancers are visible in rural areas these days. Water is more polluted in the areas where few people live but pesticides are in use than in cities ( it seems impossible but that is the way it is ). 

There is a lot written by some pretty credible people how pesticides damage insects immune systems even in long run and not just immediate kill. Even Bayer itself claims some pesticides are dangerous to bees by only visiting a plant and by gathering nectar and pollen on these plants. While it does not kill adult bees it is dangerous and damages larvae ! So at the end we have pretty "damaged" adult bees.


----------



## Kieck

> While it does not kill adult bees it is dangerous and damages larvae ! -beenovice


So why does CCD only show up at specific times of the year, rather than throughout the year or when neonicotinoids are being used most heavily?

And why didn't this appear in 2000? Or 2001? Why only in 2006 and 2007 (and maybe 2008?)?

And why single out specific groups of pesticides or even specific pesticides?

My suspicion is still that CCD is "caused" by a number of variables, and I suspect that prominent among the variables might be stress from moving and crowding and manipulating bees to fit artificial production systems, and nutrition from lack of diversity in forage.


----------



## Camp9

Kieck said:


> So why does CCD only show up at specific times of the year, rather than throughout the year or when neonicotinoids are being used most heavily?
> 
> .


This is what I'm wondering as well. I can see neonicotinoids causing kills if used at the wrong time or without consiceration to polinators. But if I used neonicotinoids and didn't get the control I wanted, I sure wouldn't be using it. 

Camp


----------



## Camp9

beenovice said:


> Bees poisoned by nenocotinoids quickly die. You can see pile of bees in front of the hives. It happened this year all over Europe. A lot of us saw it in real time !
> 
> .


Did you have your pile of bees tested to find out what killed them? 

Camp


----------



## sylus p

Camp9 said:


> How do you keep all that pesticide laden rain from hitting your crops?
> 
> Camp


Good point. But a better question would be, "How do you justifiy your behavior when you poison the rain itself?"


----------



## sylus p

Kieck said:


> 1 So why does CCD only show up at specific times of the year, rather than throughout the year or when neonicotinoids are being used most heavily?
> 
> 2 And why didn't this appear in 2000? Or 2001? Why only in 2006 and 2007 (and maybe 2008?)?
> 
> 3 And why single out specific groups of pesticides or even specific pesticides?
> 
> 4 My suspicion is still that CCD is "caused" by a number of variables, and I suspect that prominent among the variables might be stress from moving and crowding and manipulating bees to fit artificial production systems, and nutrition from lack of diversity in forage.



1.) In my understanding CCD has reared its head year round.
2.) If anything the timetable proves the neonics involvement in the ccd epidemic. The first neo nics were approved in the early 90's, but this was on a VERY limited scale. The years 2002-2005 mark the FIRST MASS distribution of the neonics. During these years they were slammed through approval and mass produced and distributed. The timetable you mention is one of the major pieces of evidence FOR the neonics involvement in this thing.
3.) See answer 2. 
4.) Certainly bees are ill for a variety of reasons. Certainly. The issue here is that many many bees are being killed by a specific modality (neonic pesticide poisoning) and that this is being _called_ ccd.

Keick, out of curiousity, who do you work for? USDA? University? Bayer? Syngenta? EPA?


----------



## Bud Dingler

*Sylus -> hey man.....what's up man?*

please send me by email your post office and zipcode and I will send you a free copy of this book general delivery so you can still keep your privacy. 

http://www.amazon.com/Fruitless-Fall-Collapse-Coming-Agricultural/dp/1596915374

you clearly need to bone up on some facts about beekeeping and CCD in general. I'm serious.....I have 20 copies of this book on hand....

this book has references for its conclusions not just blowing smoke with an anti societal attitude. 

let me read you a short bedtime story from this book,

excerpts.. page 97
What about Imidacloprid? Surprise only 7 pollen samples contained it (out of 196 samples from CCD affected hives). The 7 positive samples did not correlate with CCD. 

Two other chems did: fluvalinate and comaphous - the active chemicals in Apistan and Checkmite. ...fluvalinate appearing in 160 (pollen) samples anbd compaphous in 146 (pollen samples) 

mind you that means the bee bread got contaminated in the comb after collection. 

back to the bedtime story....

EVERY SINGLE WAX sample was loaded with the stuff ( apistan and checkmite) levels where 3-5 times higher in weak or dying colonies - no smoking gun but certainly a red flag. 

hmmm let me guess the author of this book must be a putz for Bayer right? and the Frazier data he quotes - that too is rigged? 

Since you asked Keick if he worked for Bayer or USDA etc. Let me ask you a personal question or three.

With Much Love!! Peace and Flowers and Tied Dyed Tshirts etc......


----------



## Barry

There will be no more name calling and personal bickering or someone is going to find their access limited.


----------



## Hambone

*Beesource Forum Rules*



Barry said:


> There will be no more name calling and personal bickering or someone is going to find their access limited.


Do you mean this rule?

From:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214524

*Personal attacks are never okay. We can disagree and debate a subject, which is fine. You'll find no "know-it-all's" here. No one on this list is in a position where they can't be questioned or disagreed with.*


----------



## Kieck

> 1.) In my understanding CCD has reared its head year round. -sylus p


Really? That's the first I've heard of that. All the reports I've read or heard have been about CCD occuring in the fall to early winter.

Maybe more importantly, exactly what symptoms are characteristic of only CCD and not other problems?



> 2.) If anything the timetable proves the neonics involvement in the ccd epidemic. The first neo nics were approved in the early 90's, but this was on a VERY limited scale. The years 2002-2005 mark the FIRST MASS distribution of the neonics. During these years they were slammed through approval and mass produced and distributed. The timetable you mention is one of the major pieces of evidence FOR the neonics involvement in this thing. -sylus p


While you're correct that neonicotinoids were first approved for used in the early 1990s, nicotine (which acts in the same way, and is where "neo*nicotin*oids" take their name) has been around and used as a pesticide for much longer.

And I'm not sure how/where you come up with the first "mass marketing" of neonicotinoids in 2002-2005. I'll have to dig out my references on amounts of classes of insecticides applied in the U. S. It sticks in my mind that the amounts of neonicotinoids applied in the U. S. have increased each year since 2000, but not all that much. I'll have to do some digging.



> 4.) Certainly bees are ill for a variety of reasons. Certainly. The issue here is that many many bees are being killed by a specific modality (neonic pesticide poisoning) and that this is being called ccd. -sylus p


While many bees might be killed by a "specific modality" (although the symptoms still seem surprisingly vague to me), labeling it specifically as "neonic pesticide poisoning" is almost certainly incorrect. Pesticides may be implicated in the long run, but have you ever seen a hive of bees poisoning by neonicotinoid pesticides? The symptoms are not in any way reminiscent of CCD. The symptoms are more similar to poisonings by other pesticides.


----------



## Camp9

Bud Dingler said:


> please send me by email your post office and zipcode and I will send you a free copy of this book general delivery so you can still keep your privacy.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Fruitless-Fall-Collapse-Coming-Agricultural/dp/1596915374
> 
> ...


Sounds like a good read, I'll order one this week with their after the holidays shipping special. 

A lot of the equipment I have has really old brood comb and we've been replacing it with new. I'll have to make sure we do a complete switch over this spring and get rid of that old stuff. I wonder if anyone has sampled the wooden frames to see what the levels are. Probably should just get new frames and be done with it. 

Camp


----------



## Bizzybee

Just some fodder for the pile of thought's. There seems to be assumptions that lethal does are always incurred when mentioning these chemicals or concentrated extractions whatever you prefer to refer to them as. Would not the affects of any of them be varied depending on dosage? Are long term affects being looked over at non-lethal doses?


----------



## Camp9

Two other chems did: fluvalinate and comaphous - the active chemicals in Apistan and Checkmite. ...fluvalinate appearing in 160 (pollen) samples anbd compaphous in 146 (pollen samples)
mind you that means the bee bread got contaminated in the comb after collection.
....[/QUOTE said:


> Wouldn't that be ironic if in all our attempts to help keep our bees healthy we ended up contributing to the problem. Hindsite is 20/20, and it's always worth a try, but once realized it's not helping, time to move on to something else.
> The last two bee journals had the article about dusting with powdered sugar for mites. When my brother got me into beekeeping 30 years ago that was one of his common practices. If fluvalinate and comaphous are found to contribute to CCD and hive health in general, that would be great. Even if neo nic's are found to be the problem, that would be great too so we can correct the problem and move on. But to remove products that may not contribute to the onset of CCD would only invite more problems. I used to use Apistan until 4 years ago. Now we just try to do the dusting, and buy queens that hopefully have some resistance.
> 
> Camp


----------



## Camp9

Bizzybee said:


> Just some fodder for the pile of thought's. There seems to be assumptions that lethal does are always incurred when mentioning these chemicals or concentrated extractions whatever you prefer to refer to them as. Would not the affects of any of them be varied depending on dosage? Are long term affects being looked over at non-lethal doses?


Exactly!! I've use a lot of different pesticides in our farming opperation, organic and non organic. We use IMP practices. Dosage and timing are everything. 

Camp


----------



## sylus p

We all need air, water and food to live. The use of pesticides puts these at risk. 

The neonics have returned billion dollar profits to Bayer. The public has not had transperancy nor cooperation from this organization. The governmental agencies charged with oversight have not demanded this transparency. I find this corporate and governemental behavior deviod of decency. 

Bud writes, "With Much Love!! Peace and Flowers and Tied Dyed Tshirts etc......"

Now I can do without the tie dyes but I can't do without love and peace. And without flowers there would be no fruits, aka no food and no bees. None of us would live very long if the flowering plants went away. There is a need to have reverence for the natural world. 

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Ghandi-

This thread has gotten pretty long though eh? I don't need the last word. We'll see each other on other threads no doubt. The floor is open for laughs, for battle and for victory....


----------



## rsullivan

Not to travel off the topic too much, but I find this thread very interesting, as I'm working on my senior science fair project right now, over the effects of pesticides on honeybee memory. 

I've been looking into the concentrations of systemic pesticides in pollen and nectar that bees have access to, and the only real information I've found has come from Wikipedia (which I know isn't the best source for anything). Does anyone know where this information came from? (it's the set of studies between 1999 and 2000) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid_effects_on_bee_population

Thanks for all the information in this post already!


----------



## tecumseh

camp9 writes:
Are long term affects being looked over at non-lethal doses?

tecumseh:
what you speak to... ie research methodology 'could be' a part of the problem. that is... the typical way of look at these kinds of products by an entomologist is a concept call LD-50 which is jargon for the dosage (as I remember it is so much product per body weight of subject) that is required to KILL 50% of a test sample. so non lethal dosages are never really discussed or considered. these 'side effect' may be listed on the label as a warning and this in itself can lead to other problems.... like encouraging folks to see cause when at best there is only a loose association.

rsullivan... how are those little test subjects doing?


----------



## beemandan

I know that UGA is currently conducting studies on the behavioral effects of sublethal doses of a variety of common pesticides found in bee hives.


----------

