# Bayer Pesticide Chemicals Linked to Devastating Collapse of Honeybees- Sept. 30, 08



## JoeMcc (May 15, 2007)

Very interesting. Keeping an eye on the thread.

JoeMcc


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

Again. It's the application methods, not the pesticide alone that cause these unfortunate bee deaths.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Sounds like classic pesticide poisoning. To stretch it as far as to say that this is responsible for the world bee dieoff crisis (CCD) is a little premature.

Not long ago, Maryann Frazier made a presentation that clearly showed that in samples of TRUE CCD cases, most pesticides thought to be associated with CCD claims, was only found in around 30% of samples. That this pesticide or that pesticide was only seen in far less than what would be expected.

Interesting that the article noted "dead bees piled in front of the hives", yet also suggests that this "may" be what has caused bee collapse around the world. CCD and what most of the world is seeing is not dead bees piled in front of a hive.

I agree that these chemicals were to blame for the kill-off. I just do not agree with further assumptions made.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

I agree with Bjorn. It's a shame that people are so ready to blame Bayer. IMO, they'd be better off spending their time and energy looking for the real cause of CCD, whatever it may be.


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

BjornBee said:


> Interesting that the article noted "dead bees piled in front of the hives", yet also suggests that this "may" be what has caused bee collapse around the world. CCD and what most of the world is seeing is not dead bees piled in front of a hive.
> 
> I agree that these chemicals were to blame for the kill-off. .


I didn't see that part about bees piled however, I am thinking the dead bees would be new bees waiting, maybe. Which died waiting for the older bees to bring food. 

*Quote: While in many cases bees have actually been found dead, as in the Baden-Württemberg incident, beekeepers have been particularly alarmed by CCD, in which the bees simply vanish, leaving empty hives behind them.*

I wonder how they could be linked. I am not saying that couldn't be, I am just wondering.


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

Bodo said:


> I agree with Bjorn. It's a shame that people are so ready to blame Bayer. IMO, they'd be better off spending their time and energy looking for the real cause of CCD, whatever it may be.


BjornBee said,"I agree that these chemicals were to blame for the kill-off." 

One of the biggest would be Bayer's Pesticide Chemicals.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*two chems*

found in every single CCD case was fluvalinate and comaphous from long term use of these two miticides. there was no other common thread of chemical contamination in the combs from CCD hives.

furthermore these two chems and their metabolites were found at levels 1000:1 greater then most agricultural chems brought in by the bees. why would this be any surprise? When you routinely dump chems into a hive of course they are going to be more concentrated then some part per billion form the outside environment. 

while the media, feed lot beekeepers (in denial about their own chem abuse) and tree huggers have fantasies about Bayer causing a mysterious bee loss, the scientific community has been focusing on pathogens vectored by varroa mite and nosema ceranae. 

if Bayer was the smoking gun the final answer would have come along time ago. keep in mind also that in the EU and UK, the green party has a huge sway in politics and as a result bloated, voodoo science stories of scary gmo's, cell phones causing brain cancer and bayer bee killer chems are front page headlines. thankfully we still rely on hard science in this country to set environmental policies, but I see a break down in that approach as the internet and media float more and more junk science stories and the public gets dumber and dumber in the area of science and technology.


----------



## Jack Grimshaw (Feb 10, 2001)

"thankfully we still rely on hard science in this country to set environmental policies"

Unfortunately,this is what we have to do to get the results

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2008/2008-08-19-092.asp


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

>>found in every single CCD case was fluvalinate and comaphous from long term use of these two miticides. there was no other common thread of chemical contamination in the combs from CCD hives.

Bud,

I'm curious what you or others know about this
I've never used fluvalinate or comphous and I'm hoping this affords me some protection from CCD. So far all is well. I have heard it said that CCD had been found in hives of bees kept without the use of these chemicals. Do you have any info on if this is true??

inquiring minds want to know
Dave


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

Bud Dingler said:


> if Bayer was the smoking gun the final answer would have come along time ago. .


Given the fact that Bayer gives them 2.2 Million dollars every year and employs more than 185 Penn State grads, doesn't keep them from stating what Bayers Chems really does to our bees. Not until they find them something else to use will we hear the truth.
So your comment, "if Bayer was the smoking gun the final answer would have come along time ago." Not until Bayers says it is ok.

http://www.bayerus.com/Foundation/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=B191F7DF-CB30-E3CC-BA67F870018F7002


----------



## edenhillapiaries (May 25, 2008)

I can't believe that some are still pointing fingers at Bayer and neonicotinoids as the culprit behind CCD. After reading the Bee Journal and many great sites on the web including Randy Oliver's it seems as if there are other factors (nutrition, Nosema c.,etc.) involved in CCD.

But it is easier to point fingers at the big bad chemical giants and subscribe to conspiracy theories than to look at what we may need to change. Why not blame it on cell phones or space aliens?

Beekeeping and agriculture are permanently intertwined and when farmers are successful it benefits beekeepers. As pollination becomes more and more of a beekeepers income it seems to me that we all need to stay in business and profitable to make it work.

Growers in the fruit and vegetable industry are under increased pressure to abandon older "hard" chemistries such as organophosphates, and carbamates. The new alternatives, such as the neonics, are more expensive for the grower and many would rather stick with what they know (Guithion, Asana, etc.). Unfortunately AZM (Guithion) is being phased out of fruit production so many are turning to the neonics. If these chemistries are lost, what are the alternatives?

The German and French problems are a clear instance of the misuse of a chemical. The misuse of any product will lead to problems. Instead of looking for people to blame, why not look at what we all can do or change to ensure the survival of the honeybee.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

After reading some of the knee-jerk reactions, some comments clearly slanted as biased with no proof other than disdain for a company that makes this or that, and the conclusions some draw when normal rationale would prevail otherwise...I'm left wondering what the benefits of such open discussions when so many have input based on little more than what I would call....nonsense.

Does this help the process or hurt? Does those left in the middle actual learn anything? I think it's like politics. Comments are based on personal bias and hatred toward anything from large companies, to chemical manufacturers, to suggestions of near conspiracies. I think it takes little more than a poorly written article or anything that would go along with pre-conceived notions, whether correct or not, and many will draw the line in the sand of truth and will consider little else.

Even the article written suggests "perhaps" or mentions more information is needed. But some take an article such as this and will form a solid 100% ****ing opinion on the matter, mainly by reading between the lines and selectively choosing the points to conform with their already drawn conclusions. 

Oh well. It's early today. Maybe things will get better.....


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

BjornBee said:


> Oh well. It's early today. Maybe things will get better.....


Don't count on it getting better, unless the sun comes out for the bees to work. Yesterday they didn't do anything until mid-afternoon. It was cold, but the sun came out later which made their day. 

As far as your comment, I am sure you are right, it is like politics. I have always known that these companies also control or political base as well as others. I am not sure there is anything we can do about that. As far as Bayer, lets hope they do the right thing if they know. As with politics, it may take years until we know the truth.

Right now our goal should be to keep the honeybee from dying out. Could it happen, yes, as with any other living thing. But will it happen, I don't believe it will, or maybe I am just hoping. Whatever it is, maybe they will soon become amune to it.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

I would love to be able to point my finger at something and say "yup, this is what is causing CCD". We're not there yet, and maybe we'll never get there. First things first, if you are keeping your bees healthy, that is the biggest part of the battle, the rest will fall into place in due time.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Just a comment on point blame for the CCD losses and all,

Its funny how many beekeepers there are that actually dont believe CCD even exists. Claiming bad management is killin off the hives. It an opinion that just keeps popping up.
Seems kind of silly, there is alot of independant studdy into this kind of loss symtoms.

It is also kind of funny how every lobby group and thier dog has used CCD and our industry to support thier cause.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

a friend of mine has lost 50% of his bees in florida that were pollinating mellons.Alot of other beekeepers have the same result......he fed pollen sub and sugar trying to keep them from dwindling away to no avail......growers using nicotinoids......../??????????


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

Here are a list of Bayers insecticide articles. There are many many more... Do we really believe that a Chemical- nicotinoids, that acts on the central nervous system of insects, causing irreversible blockage of postsynaptic nicotinergic acetylcholine receptors, causing the insect to become disoriented, would not have any effect on our honeybees?

>It is used as a soil, seed or foliar treatment in cotton, rice cereals, peanuts, potatoes, vegetables, pome fruits, pecans and turf, for the control of *sucking insects*, soil insects, whiteflies, termites, turf insects and the Colorado potato beetle, with long residual control. Imidacloprid has no effect on mites or nematodes.

http://www.bayer-kills-bees.com/

http://www-infocris.iaea.org/EN/w3.exe$SSPage?ID=141&Show=12

http://viewzone.com/lostbees.bayer.html

http://industry.bnet.com/pharma/1000190/bayer-faces-pr-damage-over-mass-bee-deaths/

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/bayers-pesticide-blamed-killing-german-and-other-honeybees

http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/clothianidin.pdf

Bayer withdraw all neo-nicotinoids from ...
http://www.genecampaign.org/Sub pages/GM-Zone-News=Sep-wek1=ID19.htm

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f...,F2400_P1001_USE_ARCHIVE:1001,20080613.1868,Y

http://preardon.wordpress.com/2008/...lamed-for-killing-german-and-other-honeybees/

>Five years ago, EPA registered a new pesticide known as clothianidin under the condition that the manufacturer -- North Carolina-based Bayer CropScience -- submit studies about the product's effect on bees. The NRDC requested those studies from the EPA under the Freedom of Information Act, but the agency has declined to disclose them. Says NRDC Senior Attorney Aaron Colangelo:

>"EPA should be evaluating the risks to bees before approving new pesticides, but now refuses to tell the public what it knows. Pesticide restrictions might be at the heart of the solution to this growing crisis, so why hide the information they should be using to make those decisions?"
http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/08/lawsuit-seeks-information-on-pesticides.asp

http://gcrec.ifas.ufl.edu/TOMATO 2003.pdf


----------



## pcelar (Oct 5, 2007)

Bodo said:


> I agree with Bjorn. It's a shame that people are so ready to blame Bayer. IMO, they'd be better off spending their time and energy looking for the real cause of CCD, whatever it may be.





Eaglerock said:


> BjornBee said,"I agree that these chemicals were to blame for the kill-off."
> 
> One of the biggest would be Bayer's Pesticide Chemicals.


English vs. English


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

*Lack of Losses ≠ Benefit of Doubt*

Despite the fact that I have never lost a colony to anything, including mites, foulbroods, or even CCD. I still respect the rights of others to believe that these pests are real and that they can be fatal. And, perhaps, since it has not been unequivocally determined otherwise, that a factor in CCD may be pesticides.


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

Joseph Clemens said:


> Despite the fact that I have never lost a colony to anything, including mites, foulbroods, or even CCD. I still respect the rights of others to believe that these pests are real and that they can be fatal. And, perhaps, since it has not been unequivocally determined otherwise, that a factor in CCD may be pesticides.


I too never had any problems with anything. Not in the 60's and 70's and not this year. However, I am assuming it is the commercial beekeepers that have this ccd. One local man lost 500 hives, he was commercial, and two local beekeepers having 50 and the other 70+ have had no problems, they just keep local and are older men.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

>>>>If these chemistries are lost, what are the alternatives?<<<<<

This line appears in the thread. The writer was talking about some older more toxic pesticides but it fits the current discussion well.
1. The farm industry is not going to quit using pesticides.
2. It is the duty of those who manage companies like Bayer to make profits.
3. It would be unethical (in their lights) to do anything to hurt the bottom line ergo: it
it is hard for them to regulate themselves.
4. The current flap over the lack of government regulation in many spheres holds out 
little hope of support from that area. Witness the stonewall on data. It's as bad
as beekeepers witholding information on what they use in their hives to avoid
criticism or prosecution. 
5. The devil we know may be better than the one we don't. The next pesticides 
may be worse for us. The newest is a systemic with much greater movement 
within the plant. Be careful what you wish for.
So. What can we do? The very least we can do is educate ourselves. Badly as we need an answer we can't make one up. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT BAYER CHEMS CAUSE CCD. Good people are looking. In one sense the current stuff has been tested. It's been around a long time. New stuff may take a long time to get to this stage.

my 2cents,

dickm


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

dickm said:


> So. What can we do? The very least we can do is educate ourselves.
> dickm


I guess, if you take your bees out on the road, I would ask what they use on their plants. Maybe if enough beekeepers said use something else or you will have to find other bees. I doubt anyone will do that... $$$ talks.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*many of the beeks*

who claim some sort of conspiracy concerning Bayer, also have or still use Bayer Checkmite or buy coumaphos in the jug as an illegal home made treatment. 

so how ironic is that? 

whats even more ironic is that in most states pest exterminators cannot use the class of pesticides derived from sarin or nerve gas called organophosphates in homes and businesses but yet we still have a Section 18 so called emergency label for checkmite which incidently is a organophosphate. 

so let this sink in for a minute exterminators cannot use organophosphates but beekeepers can legally put that poison into their hives? 

me thinks the emergency nowadays is the highly contaminated brood comb from all of that use of Bayer chems that were eagerly and willingly dumped into hives in some cases for over a decade. 

how hypocritical can we get to have beeks both condemn Bayer but self contaminate their own brood comb? 

i highly doubt some part per billion trace of some chem brought into a hive has greater affects then the huge contamination levels found in brood comb by beekeeper applied miticides.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Bud Dingler said:


> i highly doubt some part per billion trace of some chem brought into a hive has greater affects then the huge contamination levels found in brood comb by beekeeper applied miticides.


I agree.

And thats why at the end of the day, no chemical company will be held accountable.

I've said before....Its not one chemical or another. It's the mixing and contamination of the hive by many different chemicals. If you take a chemical rated as 1 or 2 (out of ten being the most lethal) and mix it with another one or two, you do not get the lethal killing power of a 4. You often get something close to ten.

I found it very interesting that many of the neonicotinoids and other chems being blamed for CCD, were found in comb sample less than 30% of the time on hundreds of CCD hives so far tested. Yet both Apistan and Checkmite, were found in 100% of the samples tested, and at levels exceeding anything that one could expect by the label use and approved. It is more in line with using these chemicals straight out of the bottle, as with Mavrik, etc.

Anyone want to guess how many times Apistan and checkmite's lethal dosage has been changed over the years, and how much more deadlier than originally thought?

I've seen taktic (sp?) and mavrik being used as "candy" many times by others. And for years, anyone willing to say anything was shouted down or made to look like a liar. Now, the testing is coming back....confirming a whole lot of homebrews and concoctions being used.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Anyway Bayer on the other side of the world puts label on their product that it is highly toxic to insects ( insects die because they lose orientation, etc... ) while on this side of the world they say the exact same product with different name does no harm to bees.

Go figure....


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

Bud Dingler said:


> i highly doubt some part per billion trace of some chem brought into a hive has greater affects then the huge contamination levels found in brood comb by beekeeper applied miticides.


It never would be found in the hive... it causes the honeybee to become disoriented...the bees never make it back to the hive.


----------



## dragonfly (Jun 18, 2002)

beenovice said:


> ) while on this side of the world they say the exact same product with different name does no harm to bees.
> ...


Which products are you referring to? I wasn't aware of this.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

BjornBee said:


> I've seen taktic (sp?) and mavrik being used as "candy" many times by others. And for years, anyone willing to say anything was shouted down or made to look like a liar. Now, the testing is coming back....confirming a whole lot of homebrews and concoctions being used.


Isn't Mavrik an herbicide? A defoliant? Isn't that what farmers who grow no-till corn use before planting? How is it used as a miticide?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Eaglerock said:


> It never would be found in the hive... it causes the honeybee to become disoriented...the bees never make it back to the hive.


No way!

CCD hits within days and colonies collapse fast. Entire populations crash down to a queen and small handful of bees. If all the field bees got hit all at once, this would still only account for 40-50% of mature bees.

Every known chemical/pesticide they have looked for, they have found in samples. Just not in enough samples to suggest all of the CCD is from one chemical.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

sqkcrk said:


> Isn't Mavrik an herbicide? A defoliant? Isn't that what farmers who grow no-till corn use before planting? How is it used as a miticide?


Herbicide???Not sure. Does not seem to matter for those using it.

Mark, I have a label I was given at another beekeepers place. Wouldn't you know it layed on my desk for two years and now.....WHERE IS IT! (may I point to the three year old twins with my finger...AGAIN.  As soon as I find it, I'll list what all it says. 

All I know is it seemed to be following some method handed down via the commercial grapevine, and passed among those who supposedly know exactly how much to pour into a tub or on this or that.

Tactik and mavrik were the two I was familiar with and observed repeatedly. There is actually some additional chemicals that are the next generation of chemical used by the supposed modern beekeeper...


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

dragonfly said:


> Which products are you referring to? I wasn't aware of this.


It was on radio or TV. I can't remember now. The guy ( known biologist with doctorate so I guess he should be believed ) was showing some cases of pesticides. I think he was talking about neonicotinoids. He was comparing some spray for home use against insects with pesticides for agriculture with same "ingredients". The selling point of spray was it kills insects while on the other side the product for agriculture with same "ingredients" is safe for bees. Go figure that out now...
This was during huge bee die offs ( not CCD ) in Europe. Piles of dead bees in front of the hives.

For more info you should check many sources that prove bees are indeed dying because of pesticides. Latest ban for couple of pesticides comes from Italy. I am sure italians are not stupid and they didn't ban "just like that".

Anyway new thing from Bayer : 

http://www.agrian.com/pdfs/MOVENTO_Label.pdf
http://www.bayercropscienceus.com/products_and_seeds/insecticides/movento.html

Check the label...it says it hurts brood but doesn't hurt adult bees....now figure that out ...


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

*a whole lot of homebrews and concoctions being used.*

Mavrik is Fluvalinate>>> http://www.zoecon.com/pdfs/mavrik_msds.pdf
By the way, it's a lot more powerful than it used to be.

Fluvalinate is Apistan. >>> http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/tau-fluvalinate.msds.feb.98.htm<<<

It's legal, just cheaper to get it in bulk and soak a few beer coasters. It's used widely in agriculture.

Taktic is Amitraz. ... http://www.chemyq.com/En/xz/xz13/126292kpxor.htm

Amitraz is perhaps the most widely used illegal pesticide in the industry. It's legal in other countries. It used to be legal here. The story is that the origional licensee was sued because bees died (Overdosed by guess) and no dealer would touch it. No reason for the expense when it could be had so cheaply under another label, by beekeepers. I understand it to be effective and leaves no residue and hasn't created resistant mites. In my eyes it's illegal on a technicality, dictated by those who gave us Checkmite+, a real bad actor.

So the big bad chems may not be so bad after all. The trouble is, for the big guys to report honestly what they use, and in what doses. opens them to prosecution. Small wonder it tough sledding for the CCD investigators. Small wonder if problems don't even get reported. There's a shadow world out there.

Dickm


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

dickm said:


> So the big bad chems may not be so bad after all.
> Dickm


On the surface, many of the chems are not bad. But as stated, when you take two low risk chemicals and place them in the hive (retained by comb for long periods, with chems that have long half-life periods), they become a much more lethal potion. CCD samples, have shown on average to have 7 different chemicals, to which would be considered a danger to bees.

It may not be Amitraz, but the Amitraz in conjunction with every chemical brought into the hive by the bees, and other chemicals placed by the beekeeper.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But with what they are finding out about contaminated comb, contaminated pollen, and the levels being found in hives.....I am surprised there are still people willing to state that this is all fine and dandy and suggest that "chems may not be so bad after all".

For the record, I do not think the claims are as they stand in regards to CCD. But I am very much opposed to chemicals in the hive, and think beekeepers have shot themselves in the foot repeatedly over the years jumping from band-aid to band-aid.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

>>>For the record, I do not think the claims are as they stand in regards to CCD. But I am very much opposed to chemicals in the hive, and think beekeepers have shot themselves in the foot repeatedly over the years jumping from band-aid to band-aid.<<<<

I couldn't agree with you more. In fact we don't disagree on anything. I wasn't apologizing for off-label use, just exposing it. We have to deal with the situation as it is. I finally went to Mite-away 2 this year for the first miticide in 10 years. My biggest problem is queens dying young which I would consider to be a result of some chems but I got them from organic breeeders. I'm down to wondering if the wax foundation I bought is killing the queens. Couldn't be! Could it? Nah! Besides the new comb bees did better. 

I've heard of a lot of this sort of queen problem. Did you have any more than usual supercedures this year? PM me if you'd rather.

Dickm


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

IMO the search for stronger and better chemicals for the Agricultural industry is comparable to development of adjustable rate mortgages in the Financil industry. The chickens are just a lot slower coming home to roost.


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

dickm said:


> So the big bad chems may not be so bad after all. The trouble is, for the big guys to report honestly what they use, and in what doses. opens them to prosecution. Small wonder it tough sledding for the CCD investigators. Small wonder if problems don't even get reported. There's a shadow world out there.
> 
> Dickm


Not all, maybe. But Bayer says theirs makes the insects become disoriented. Their claim, which is true. The problem is, it not only effects other insects, it also effects the honeybee as well.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

dickm said:


> I'm down to wondering if the wax foundation I bought is killing the queens. Couldn't be! Could it? Nah! Besides the new comb bees did better.
> I've heard of a lot of this sort of queen problem. Did you have any more than usual supercedures this year? PM me if you'd rather.
> Dickm


hi dick....a few things come to mind.

1. you can always try foundationless to see if that makes a difference in queen survival.

2. wrt supercedure of new queens, we had kim flottum speak at our club this last week. one of the talks was on pheromones. kim pointed out that some of the queen pheremones come from glands in her feet. if her feet are injured, the balance of chemicals in her pheromones can be off...leading to supercedure. kim seemed to think that the wooden queen cages with the plastic mesh stapled on top is a culprit in this....that the plastic mesh stretches, and that biting workers can get their mouthparts inside, and often grab a hold of (and injure) the queens feet.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Eaglerock said:


> Not all, maybe. But Bayer says theirs makes the insects become disoriented. Their claim, which is true. The problem is, it not only effects other insects, it also effects the honeybee as well.


we know what these chems can do to individual bees....but testing seems to have found so little of them in bees and in hives that it seems to me to be overstating things to blame them...it would be easy to make these claims if these chems were actually found to be present in the hive...they tend not to be. perhaps we need to be netting bees foraging on these treated crops...perhaps they simply don't carry the stuff back to the hive.

nations act for all different reasons. i have yet to see data (other than the well known cases of misapplication) that supports the actions taken in other countries. ...and even if they did show levels of imidacloprid or other neonics, if what they are seeing is similar to what we are seeing here in the states, and if we are not seeing levels of these chems in hives here in the states, how likely is it that the same problems are caused by neonics across the pond, but another cause is at work here in the states?

deknow


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

deknow said:


> we know what these chems can do to individual bees....but testing seems to have found so little of them in bees and in hives that it seems to me to be overstating things to blame them...it would be easy to make these claims if these chems were actually found to be present in the hive...they tend not to be. perhaps we need to be netting bees foraging on these treated crops...perhaps they simply don't carry the stuff back to the hive.
> 
> nations act for all different reasons. i have yet to see data (other than the well known cases of misapplication) that supports the actions taken in other countries. ...and even if they did show levels of imidacloprid or other neonics, if what they are seeing is similar to what we are seeing here in the states, and if we are not seeing levels of these chems in hives here in the states, how likely is it that the same problems are caused by neonics across the pond, but another cause is at work here in the states?
> 
> deknow


It seems to me there is difference between CCD and bee die offs here in Europe. Laboratories here in Europe proved that seed treatments ( not only mistake with application and dust ) are cause of some bee die offs. The whole plant is dangerous to bees. 

Even Bayer with Movento clearly states that larvae and brood are affected by contaminated nectar and pollen of treated plants. Oh they also say adult bees are not affected. Go figure that out now. How do adult bees become adult ?

Even if these chemicals do not directly cause dying they can significantly lower insects immune system and there we go ... huge pile of problems because of that...

There is no need for us to just look to the other side and pretend nothing is happening. There are huge problems with these chemicals. People are at stake here also. In my country rural areas with intensive agriculture have highest rate of hart diseases and cancer ( no industry, just farming in these areas ). Even higher than polluted cities. I am sure pesticides have nothing to do with this :no: You don't need laboratory and mumbo jumbo agri science elite to see that there is something really really wrong with how we produce our food.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

beenovice said:


> Laboratories here in Europe proved that seed treatments ( not only mistake with application and dust ) are cause of some bee die offs.


can you provide a citation for this? i hear this claim a lot, but have yet to see any data to support it.



> Even if these chemicals do not directly cause dying they can significantly lower insects immune system and there we go ... huge pile of problems because of that...


yes, they can. the question is, are they? it isn't as if all beehives are owned by bayer, and that no one in the beekeeping industry has access to samples from within hives. so where is the data to support the claim that these chems are getting into the hives and affecting bees?



> You don't need laboratory and mumbo jumbo agri science elite to see that there is something really really wrong with how we produce our food.


no, we don't need elite to tell us what's going on...but given the ready access to lab testing these days (and the ppb resoution available), i don't see why we aren't seeing more residues of these chems in hives.

what we do know is that (at least here in the states), the highest levels of contamination in the hives is the crap the the beekeepers themselves put directly into the hive. ...i expect it is the same in your country as well, but i don't know. we know that these substances are harmful to bees, and we know they are present in the hive, wax, foundation, pollen (both trapped and stored), adult bees, and brood (the nhb has been funding these studies, and honey is not being tested).

until we clean up our own operations, there is no way to know which of these problems are beekeeper induced, and which may come from the environment (or which is a combination). ...it would be akin to suspecting that substance X causes lung cancer, and trying to prove it by showing that people who smoke and use substance X have lung cancer.

i don't disagree that these chems are harmful...they are. but if we blame them for the problems we are having with bees, then we stop looking at other possibilities (like the one you see when you look in the mirror). put all our effort into banning substances that don't seem to be prevelent in the beehive while those that we put in are "necessary" 

deknow


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

deknow said:


> we know what these chems can do to individual bees....but testing seems to have found so little of them in bees and in hives that it seems to me to be overstating things to blame them...it would be easy to make these claims if these chems were actually found to be present in the hive...they tend not to be. perhaps we need to be netting bees foraging on these treated crops...perhaps they simply don't carry the stuff back to the hive.
> 
> deknow


Let me ask you this... if she is working out in the fields and becomes disoriented and never makes it back to the hive, how then, would it EVEN show in the hive? 
It is not killing them in the hive. It kills them by them never making it back to the hive. If 2000 bees go out each day and never make it back... soon you have no food coming in, hive dies. End of story.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

deknow said:


> can you provide a citation for this? i hear this claim a lot, but have yet to see any data to support it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. Check the label of Bayer Movento. It clearly states nectar and pollen is harmful to bees. Italians banned those pesticides after germans lifted the ban because their preliminary laboratory results showed that this might be it. French made the research 10 years ago. Their conclusion was it is best to ban some of the treatments. No brainer here for me. The people wanting some scientific data are just trying to look to the other side and would like to pretend nothing is wrong. You cannot expect from me to present you with some sheets of scientific data. I don't have any. I am just calculating all info I see, hear and feel into my opinion. 
For real data you can check labels of Bayer products ! Lots of info there...no need for laboratory even

2. Again read the labels of Bayer pesticides. Especially those that say that insects lose their orientation. No brainer here either...

3. Propolis in most european countries is heavily contaminated with Pb for example. Above treshold ! There can be no residues because bees die out or in front of the hive. I sure wasn't blind when I saw piles of bees dying in front of hives this year. Also Bayer must be lying when they say it is harmful for larvae and brood ? 

4. I agree...beekeepers are also farmers and they do exactly the same thing as other agri folks. They use chemicals to fight diseases and pests. 

5. Whatever I don't understand really. I just see how people are sicker in rural areas than in cities and even around industrial areas. I interpret this as something that has to do with all chemicals. Anyway check the water in rural areas. It is contaminated like hell. But I guess now you need proof that people are sick because of that contaminated water and not something else...

6. Of course we should ban this stuf. It says on label it is dangerous for us, people. What it does for smaller insects, animals, etc I can not picture. 
*Since you are beekeeper you should know that sick bees try not to go into the hive....Result ?* ... no such thing as agri posion in the hive 

Again please check the official labels of Bayer products. What more do we want ? It clearly states it is highly toxic to humans, insects, animals and what not. Enough for me.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Eaglerock said:


> Let me ask you this... if she is working out in the fields and becomes disoriented and never makes it back to the hive, how then, would it EVEN show in the hive?
> It is not killing them in the hive. It kills them by them never making it back to the hive. If 2000 bees go out each day and never make it back... soon you have no food coming in, hive dies. End of story.



Hives are NOT starving with CCD. Hives are NOT dying with CCD. They have plenty of food. They have a queen and a handful of bees.

And ANY chemicals to be suggested of being associated with CCD has been found in the hive. 

So do tell, since my last post on page three was ignored....what chemical do you know that has NEVER been found in a hive to allow you to suggest "Would it then EVEN show in a hive?"

You keep mentioning about whole populations leaving the hive and the possibility of no chems being found in the hive. And NOTHING has been shown in this regard.

Ask Iddee, how long it takes for all field bees to leave a hive to the point that the hive dies? And it's longer than the rapid crashing seen with CCD.

From everything I have read and heard, to suggest that it comes down to field bees leaving everyday and not returning, and coupled with the possibility of no chems to be found in the hive, does not add up.

Sorry to keep counter your posts. But I find no rationale in your comments. 

So you say bees leave everyday....no chems would be found in the hive....and you can connect the dots to what has been observed and researched up to this date with that suggestion? Please correct me if I am wrong.
________________________________________

As a side note....sick bees being poisoned in the hive also leave the hive. Sick, poisoned, and any bee able to fly, crawl or fall out of the hive will do so.

So chems are brought back to the hive (and as noted - they have all been found) are mixed with the 30 year old contaminated comb that the beekeeper has poisoned himself repeatedly (thus making the concoction deadlier)....and bees leave as they have unselfishly done for millions of years. Hmmmm....

That makes more sense with what they are saying about bees being better off AFTER the comb is radiated. It makes sense about lack of robbing. It makes sense about reinfection or a second colony crashing after being placed on the same comb. Granted....I am not one who thinks they are true all the time in regards to some of these observations....but it does seem that chems INSIDE the hives are at play.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*coumaphos trade names*

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/coumapho.htm


Trade and Other Names: Trade names include Agridip, Asunthol, Bay 21, Baymix, Co-Ral, Dilice, Meldame, Muscatox, Negashunt, Resistox, Suntol, and Umbethion

no liscence or permit is needed to buy these materials in most states. 

what many posters who drink the bayer kool aid may not realize is that the systemic chems have been in use since around 1996. 

right around that time Apistan and checkmite stopped working. massive losses to resistant mites started being common in the late 90's into 2005. During this time many beekeepers started concocting their own miticide mixes. Never before in the history of modern beekeeping was their such a huge shift in beekeeper behaviour and massive chemical inputs. 

Maryann Fraziers recent analysis basically shows the result of this shift in beekeeper attitudes that dumping poisonous chemicals into brood comb became the norm. 

Many beekeepers, tree huggers and media types who have little knowledge of science have created the Bayer bandwagon and pass out the kool aid to anyone willing to listen. 

The fact is we have little to no science on Bayer chems creating massive bee kills. The germany situation to those who care to read the fine details was an isolated incident and has nothing to do with the question about systemic sub lethal levels. It was a mistake relative to the seed coating. And yes there are many many chemicals that in raw form out of the jug are lethal to bees per the labels the Bayer chem labels inform. But rarely will a bee see the raw sytemic chem as they did in Germany if properly applied. Again, beyond the novice and uniformed beekeepers who spout their pet theories that clutter web sites like beesource, the misapplications of ag chemicals are always prone to bee kills. Pointing out some isolated incident of misapplication as proof of the evil Bayer is akin to the misinformation campaigns being done daily in our presidential race. 

We do have a growing body of factual data that suggests self contamination is a massive problem relative to honeybee health. 

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?req....1603/0022-0493(2008)101[1081:SOHBHA]2.0.CO;2

But pointing to beekeepers as the problem does not sell media and does not sit well with the self contaminators who call themselves beekeepers and sit on the board of organizations like ABF who put on their parade of misinformation when called upon to speak at congressional hearings. 

CCD has and will likely remain an isolated problem with a few large beekeepers who routinely dump chems into their hives spring and fall,move frequently for pollination and basically treat their bees as disposable. Replacing dead colonies is routine in that sector and just like in a feedlot pork operation, death is part of the process. their interests and problems are increasingly not in step with the rest of beekeepers who practice sustainable beekeeping principles. 

Note that in 07/08, no real increase in the number of beekeepers with CCD was found. Its basically the same bunch who reported the problems in 06/07. This is not a widespread, random problem, affecting anyone anywhere nor is it confined to any one region or type of crop . Its confined to a small number of large and visible beekeepers. The other common thread is massive brood comb contamination from miticides. 

What does that tell you?


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Tell that to all those people with cancer and heart failures from rural areas with intensive farming ( higher in rural areas where pesticides are in use than in industrial areas - how the heck can that be huh ? Because of bad weather ). 

Tell that to beekeepers who use no chemicals and see piles of dead bees in front of the hives.....I am not talking CCD here. I don't know what CCD is. I know that when farmers spray my bees day. I know that when farmers treat seeds and make clouds when sowing my bees die. Am I as a beekeeper to blame ? Who to blame ? Do I have a right to live in healthy environment ? 


It is not Bayer bandwagon. It is a fact that we do not know long term consequences of these chemicals we put into our fields and crop and into our hives.

You should check some clips from 50's when they sprayed people with such things. They said it is perfectly safe. 50 years later we know they were WRONG !


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

Bud Dingler said:


> What does that tell you?


That people will believe what they want to believe irregardless of facts. Bayer is the scape goat so beeks feel good that they're not to blame.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Bodo said:


> That people will believe what they want to believe irregardless of facts. Bayer is the scape goat so beeks feel good that they're not to blame.


Exactly...people will believe what they want to believe. 

For example : farmers around here believe it is perfectly safe to use pesticides. No harm done. I wonder if they would give treated seeds of corn to their stock to eat ? I guess not. But it is good. They give the crop from that seed to eat. 

*Now...Where did that toxic material that kills animals, people and insects if ingested go ?*

Some of you guys are really funny. I mean Bayer says on the label that the whole treated plant is toxic to insects by contact. That is their commercial material. That is how they sell treatments. Bug is killed on contact with corn ! 
What is this telling you ? Is it harmless ? Is it good for stock to eat that ? Is it good for people to eat secondary products from those seeds and stock ?

Imagine the whole picture and not just CCD, bees, etc....so many insects die because of this. Human healts is also in question here. If you are so sure everything is harmless why don't you dring some bottle of red Maxim Extra ? 

Guys I am also a small farmer but I never ever used pesticides, fungicides or what not. Everything grows and it grows better than on other properties around. It takes more time though....
How can you not see things like that farmers cannot sow their own corn seed from crop. It just does not grow. Where will this bring us ? Totally dependant on businesses like Bayer ? 
Take a step back beekeepers and take a look at the big picture...


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Good post Bud...


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

BjornBee said:


> Good post Bud...



http://archive.corporatewatch.org/profiles/bayer/bayer5.htm

Do you really believe a company that sells for billions of dollars to tell you the truth about controversal product ? Do you know that Bayer was hiding that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees ?




> *Baygon [261]*
> Baygon, a pesticide produced by Bayer, has been linked to child leukaemia. A study showed that pregnant women who were exposed to a substance from the same family of chemicals were 10 times more likely to have a baby which developed the deadly disease than mothers who were not exposed. Baygon is used as an insecticide and also in mosquito repellant.
> 
> *Baysiston [263]*
> ...


*There is a lot more ! *

*Do you believe them ?*

They don't care about you. They don't care about your children. They only care about profit and how to enslave farmers providing products that prevents farmers sowing their own seeds !


----------



## France (Apr 5, 2007)

I noted above that the writer on numerous occasions suggests that the label be read carefully on Bayer' products.

I would not give much heed on that, my fellow beekeepers!

Some time back, it was in Der Spiegel that an employee of Bayer' was testifying in court that he lost his job simply cause he was against for far too many requests from "higher ups" to rewrite the damaging data in those tests that were done by Bayer itself on its own products. (Independent tests are simply not done)
According to this witness the numbers are simply juggled around as to look "milder' but by his words even in those supposedly milder rewrites the danger is still there - only it takes a little longer to show itself.

Personally I am involved in EU beekeeping scene and especialy the one in Slovenia is particularly worrisome. There had been massive loses of bees and for stifling the beeks they started to blame inept beekeepers for their loses. Of course Varroa popped up as the main culprit!?
(Their government even send in the field the inspectors. They were finding banned practices and issuing hefty fines - which stifled most, if not all the beekeepers. They even threatened to test their honey and wax for contaminants!?)
To further quieten down the complaints they obtained another Bayer product to combat Varroa. (First Bayer poisons them - than they give them their own medicine?!) This (Baywarol) was distributed to all free of charge and its use was made mandatory. It did not take long that beeks started complaining again cause Varroa was not falling!? (Obviously that was never their problem!) Now again - Slovenian media is attacking their beeeks, with renown vigour, for their lack of proper knowledge about the use of this stuff.
Of course now they jumped on yet another bandwagon and are suggesting that beeks use the acids to save what is there to save. Only the type of the hives used in Slovenia - makes this use of acids all but impossible at this late stage of the game. 

So stage has been meticulously set for spring!? If bees don't make it - the fault will fall from Bayer down on the inept beekeepers!

Of course, Bayer and others are too powerful to go down the drain. Even though in a lot of countries are baning the products - but same stuff is produced and licenced under myriad of other names and designations and the vicious circle just keep going around and around. . . .

On the other hand, some bee associations are suing Bayer and Wining ! ! !
Does that not tell you something?


http://www.spiegel.de/international/


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

France said:


> If bees don't make it - the fault will fall from Bayer down on the inept beekeepers!
> 
> Of course, Bayer and others are too powerful to go down the drain. Even though in a lot of countries are baning the products - but same stuff is produced and licenced under myriad of other names and designations and the vicious circle just keep going around and around. . . .
> 
> ...


>On the other hand, some bee associations are suing Bayer and Wining ! ! !
Does that not tell you something?

Yes, that my thoughts and worries were true. Even though some turn their heads, or bury them in the ground, and say, "oh no this can not be true". :no:


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

BjornBee said:


> And ANY chemicals to be suggested of being associated with CCD has been found in the hive.
> 
> Originally Posted by deknow
> we know what these chems can do to individual bees....but testing seems to have found so little of them in bees and in hives that it seems to me to be overstating things to blame them...it would be easy to make these claims if these chems were actually found to be present in the hive...they tend not to be. perhaps we need to be netting bees foraging on these treated crops...perhaps they simply don't carry the stuff back to the hive.
> ...



Ok so the chems are being brought into the hive and causing CCD, either way it is the Chemicals that Bayer makes. SO we agree...thanks. As to a mitake in my posing, I might have, but the fact remains, Bayer needs to stand up to it's mistakes. 

I will read back for your other post. I missed it.


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

BjornBee said:


> No way!
> 
> CCD hits within days and colonies collapse fast. Entire populations crash down to a queen and small handful of bees.
> If all the field bees got hit all at once, this would still only account for 40-50% of mature bees.
> ...


This might be true, but what Iwas saying is that if 40 to 50 % would be left then I would assume they would leave to go out next and so on, until only young bees and the queen is left. However never having this problem I am only guessing as to what it would look like. However a beekeeper that knows the man near Philly that lost 1800 or something like that, hives, said to me their thoughts which they would know more than I. 

But read France's post and tell me you know he is wrong.


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

BjornBee said:


> Sorry to keep counter your posts. But I find no rationale in your comments.


Sorry? Don't be. 

I enjoy your posts, and if I am wrong then so be it. I would rather be wrong about something this important. I use to tell my daughters, if I tell them something, not to take my word for it, find out for themselves and prove me wrong or right. 

Although they loved proving dad wrong, they found I was not, most of the time.  However, having said that, I had to eat crow a couple of times and yet I knew it was a win win for me, as I got them to do the foot work in proving and finding out things for themselves. And in that, they knew for themselves, the proof of it and not just hear say. 

When we stop questioning, we become stagnate, as in, to fail to develop, progress, or make necessary changes.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*why is it*

that I keep thousands of colonies in the heartland of America surrounded by corn, soybeans, apple orchards and in general heavy agriculture and I have no mysterious or large bee colony losses? 

Maybe its cause my brood comb is clean and I do not use harsh miticides? and I do not cart my bees around like a UPS delivery man? We never move equipment from one yard to another. No frame exchanges with other beeks or even between our own yards. My yards are isolated from other feedlot bee operations to keep my bees clean from their array of viruses and super mites and god knows what else. 

To hear some of the posters here on Beesource - you'd think that its a haz mat disaster in farm land. Poisons everywhere...blah blah, blah. How many of these posters have a couple of hives in the back yard and are somehow experts on the complex biology and chemistry concerning the systemic materials made by Bayer? 

Yes you can get burned playing with matches - that does not mean matches should be removed from the market. Same thing with pesticides. You misuse them near bees you can kill bees or damage the environment. 

BTW i'm not the only sustainable beekeeper who has had no issues with losing bees. Many, many beeks are having good success maintaining their colonies but none of that makes the headlines. 

My guess is that 50% of annual losses are due to beekeeper ineptness in dealing with varrora mites. The other 40% of losses are due to indirect problems from heavily contaminated brood comb, which causes drones to be sterile, installed queens to be supersceded and subsequent newly hatched queens unable to mate effectively. Toss in 5% losses for real CCD and another 5% for missapplication of farm pesticides and you have the whole gamut of how beekeepers lose bees. 

Since Mankind has kept bees, they have found new and creative ways to kill them. 

If farm pesticides explained 90% of the losses, brighter minds then mine would have proven it a long time ago. Its not that hard to document and collect data on a pesticide bee kill. I worked as an Ag Dept Bee inspector for a decade and its pretty straight forward nowadays with the sophisticated analytical instruments to prove a bee ag chemical kill. 

I feel bad for the novice and hobby beeks who read the drivel on sites like this and blame external factors on their own losses. 

This massive misinformation has taken the focus away from encouraging less experienced beeks to learn bee craft and how to keep bees healthy and productive. 

Keeping bees with varroa is not a small task. 

I am very unhappy with ABF. Instead of getting checkmite and apistan delisted as legal materials ( and we have ample data now to prove how harmful these materials are to bees) they put up the smoke screen of Bayer and quietly look the other way on shop rag treatments. They should be encouraging beeks to use soft miticides - they could help the labeling of Oxalic along with EPA, there are lots of progressive things ABF could bee doing. Instead they elected their current president even after he was busted by North Dakota Dept of Ag for using illegal mite treatments. 

IMHO this cowboy attitude is killing our industry and the Bayer smokescreen is a shameful side show. 

Finally - if beekeepers expect the answer to their losses to be found on the internet or front page newspaper in the form of news articles on the perils of Bayer, cell phone towers, or GMO's - I have a piece of swamp land available for youse boys for use as an excellent bee yard.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Bud, thanks for the straight talk.

Do you know if large farms, particularly corn, in your area are using Imadacloprid
seed treatments, or any other neonicitoinoids. I'm just asking.

Here's my main view on the subject. Its pretty clear that
CCD is not directly related to neonicitinoids by the information that
I've seen. However, I don't think there has been any real, substantial study to see
if neonicitinoid seed treatments, or other use, has a long term negative effect on honey
bees. I've never seen such a study and would be interested if anyone has. I think
its something that simply has not been looked at, but it should. This could
be a separate issue from CCD.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Bud your arguments are valid but you missed the point. It is not only bees. How long can land take these chemicals year after year without serious damage to people ? Maybe as long as bee colonies were taking all the poison and then ? What happened then ... you said it yourself...wax contamination ring a bell ???? Sterile people, not just drones ? 
When will we start seeing PCC or something ? It is already visible with people in rural areas sicker than in other parts of our countries....Some questions are not answered. Why rural areas with almost no industry have water polluted that it is not drinkable and why the higher rate of cancer and heart disease ?


----------



## dcross (Jan 20, 2003)

Sorry!


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Eaglerock said:


> Let me ask you this... if she is working out in the fields and becomes disoriented and never makes it back to the hive, how then, would it EVEN show in the hive?
> It is not killing them in the hive. It kills them by them never making it back to the hive. If 2000 bees go out each day and never make it back... soon you have no food coming in, hive dies. End of story.


ummm, eaglerock....i addressed this, and you even quoted it in your post:



> perhaps we need to be netting bees foraging on these treated crops...perhaps they simply don't carry the stuff back to the hive.


if the problem is simply a specific pesticide on a specific crop, it should be trivial to go to that crop while the bees are foraging with a butterfly net and get some bees foraging (the way one would look at solitary pollinators).

this isn't rocket science here. the louder the roar gets with absolutely no evidence to support it, the dumber beekeepers will appear in the long run.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

beenovice said:


> 1. Check the label of Bayer Movento. It clearly states nectar and pollen is harmful to bees.


yes, i have bleach under my kitchen sink. it is poison...and it even says so on the label. if i were found dead, would it be reasonable to conclude that i was poisoned by bleach?





> Italians banned those pesticides after germans lifted the ban because their preliminary laboratory results showed that this might be it. French made the research 10 years ago. Their conclusion was it is best to ban some of the treatments.


the french ban was due (from my reading) to political pressure, not any kind of "proof". i know less about the italian situation, but my impression is that it was also political...on the "precautionary principle". the german situation was misapplication, plain and simple. again, i'm not in europe, and if you have data to contradict this, i'd love to see it.




> The people wanting some scientific data are just trying to look to the other side and would like to pretend nothing is wrong. You cannot expect from me to present you with some sheets of scientific data.


"sheets of data" are by no means necessary. an article from a reputable publication (or website) citing data would be sufficient.

but to quote you from earlier in this thread:


> Laboratories here in Europe proved that seed treatments ( not only mistake with application and dust ) are cause of some bee die offs.


if you are going to make claims like this, you must expect to be able to back it up. if labs in europe have proved what you claim they have proved, how do you know it? a little birdie told you? i'm not trying to attack you or be harsh, but if you are convinced that this is proven, then you either saw some data, or heard it from someone you trust. what is your source?





> I am just calculating all info I see, hear and feel into my opinion.


sorry, if what you hear and feel forms your opinion, and that somehow becomes "fact", you are way off the mark. i hear that cell phones are the cause about 20 times a week...doesn't make it true.



> For real data you can check labels of Bayer products ! Lots of info there...no need for laboratory even


so because the bleach under my sink is labeled poison, that is what will kill me?



> 2. Again read the labels of Bayer pesticides. Especially those that say that insects lose their orientation. No brainer here either...


...and drinking bleach will kill me. says so on the label. no need to do an autopsy when i die, it must be the bleach.



> 3. Propolis in most european countries is heavily contaminated with Pb for example. Above treshold ! There can be no residues because bees die out or in front of the hive. I sure wasn't blind when I saw piles of bees dying in front of hives this year. Also Bayer must be lying when they say it is harmful for larvae and brood ?


i don't understand what you are saying here. are you saying you had dead bees in front of your hives this year due to lead (i assume that's what you mean by pb), or neonics? if you think it's neonics, then the dead bees would in fact be a smoking gun. if you have so much lead poisoning that you have piles of dead bees in front of your hives, how can you even evaluate the toxicity of other substances that may or may not be present?



> 4. I agree...beekeepers are also farmers and they do exactly the same thing as other agri folks. They use chemicals to fight diseases and pests.


here in the states, things seem to be changing in this regard. increasingly, we are hearing from people that are not using hard treatments, or no treatments at all (this is the camp i'm in). the big eastern confernece next year (eas) has a theme of beekeeping without chemicals next year. nebraska's state conference is on chemical free beekeeping next month. at our local club, both a researcher and the editor of one of the big journals said they don't use chemicals in their own hives. 



> 5. Whatever I don't understand really. I just see how people are sicker in rural areas than in cities and even around industrial areas. I interpret this as something that has to do with all chemicals. Anyway check the water in rural areas. It is contaminated like hell. But I guess now you need proof that people are sick because of that contaminated water and not something else...


i know nothing about how ag chems are used in your country, or the condition of the environment. this is, however, a separate issue from neonics and ccd. i'm all for working towards reducing (or even eliminating) the use of pesticides...but to, with no evidence, claim that neonics are causing ccd is spreading ignorance. if there are real problems where you are with the environment (and i don't doubt that there are), it is much more productive to address those, and to address ccd wrt what might actually be causing it. this campaign against bayer can only hurt beekeepers (unless whe come up with real evidence). when beekeepers are protesting the use of ag chems by others, and the root of the problem turns out to be what the beekeepers are putting into the hives, they will look stupid, and not able to regulate themselves. this will be "the boy who cried wolf" when the next real problem arises.



> 6. ...*Since you are beekeeper you should know that sick bees try not to go into the hive....Result ?* ... no such thing as agri posion in the hive


again, see my previous post on this.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

beenovice,

please don't get me wrong...i'm all for reducing/eliminating pesticides both on farms and in hives. i don't know what beekeepers use in your area for mites or other problems...but i assume something is used by beekeepers?

fwiw, we wrote a short paper on the possible effects of even "soft treatments" such as formic acid on the colony.

http://www.BeeUntoOthers.com/nobeeisanisland.pdf/

i know via google that this was discussed on a forum in your country (as well as germany, poland, and the uk). believe me, i think chems do harm in the hive...but top on the list, the low hanging fruit, the stuff that beekeepers themselves can do something about is the stuff the bees put in the hive.

deknow


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I recently was traveling in Beenovice's neck of the woods and took the time to chat with beekeepers at open air markets in Belgrade, Split and Ljubljana. While I can't verify the accuracy of his claims, I can say that Beenovice's opinions are common ones in his part of Europe. All the beekeepers that i spoke with had similar beliefs.


----------



## France (Apr 5, 2007)

Deknow, 

you and I already locked our horns a while back on another forum over this same issue - you really have a knack to nit-pick and push red buttons. Too bad that your attention span and memory wouldn't mach it. I guess some people just have a in-borne yearning to be on top on every conversation they engage in...
You constantly demand from people that they provide you with 'sheets" of all sorts of scientific data - to prove, who knows what, to you!?

Nobody is obligated to provide you with nothing! You yourself often contradict yourself in your interpretations of affairs at hand - your info is known from where it is gathered. . . 
I often wonder who is greasing you - for constantly defending the chem side of things? 
This is a beekeeping forum and this and similar stuff has all the right to be discussed - without some (same) person constantly screaming for "scientific proof!"

(Don't you now go thinking that I might be trying to pick a bone with you? No, I would rather pick it with some junk-yard dog, for I know there I would not be bored to death.) 

I also should disregard the posts that raise my hackles, but than I would be running away from people who bully others this way.
Change forums? It hardly works cause this is not the only one where same is encountered!

Too bad we can't get somebody, of your calibre, to defend the beekeeping fraternity!? 
And don't you dare again go and look down on people with "two hives in back yard!" They are the backbone of worlds pollination industry and most if not all have no desire to make it any bigger. (Some HAD bigger outfits what you can master) and are now satisfied with "two!" And a good number, if not all, also know more than is needed - about their craft!

I often wander if you have a yob to go too? Perhaps you are on a job and you do this on a "company time?" If so, your job must be very important? Is that why you constantly try to impress ?

Please give us a brake and stop nit-picking every post that catches your eye. By your own admission - most of your own "scientific proof" is from the same sources, or is some DIY stuff?! 
Google, and alike, sites, are hardly a trustworthy sources of information and hardly qualify as a reliable proof and don't even come close to what you demand/ask from others. 
By your writings, you don't have a clue about conditions, close proximity, chem contamination, etc in Europe. Conditions there are crammed in on a "postage stamp," in relation to hugeness of North America!
In some countries chem problems are so bad that ground watter is so contaminated that it can burn through your boots if you stepped in it - those places you will probably have trouble finding on the map. 
I lived there for about 20 years and even I have lately hard time to believe how poisoned has that continent become in last decade or so. (Since the fall of Iron curtain - now everything goes. In my days they took hay once a year - now is 3 or even 4 times if weather is right! 

Why you think this is so?

(At least one participant was in Slovenia and got the same info as being written here. And more: Everybody with whom he conversed over there was of the same opinion and belief. Does that not tell you enough?)
I can supply you with a picture where a local co-op in Asia is collecting honey from people... It will make you sick just looking at it, never mind having a thought about putting some of it in your mouth. 
I would like to see you do something about that - or something similar! Do something constructive for a change. Something that we can all use. Something that those who will came after us, if they will, will be able to take in hand and admire. 
Negativeness and similar vibes are undesirable and not needed. 
Never mind protecting Bayer and the likes of them. They are experts at doing it very well themselves, thank you. . . They have money to burn and are not afraid to use it where it most suits them. (and they can afford and have all the help they need!)
We all know that real scientific research papers, which you constantly yearn, are done by in large "in house," by their own people/specialists/scientist! And yo also conveniently "missed" that, when it was being explained.

At the end of the day: Do you really think that any "negative proof" would be allowed to see the light of the day? If you so think, you are than more naive than what you appear. . .

And yes! I did get some of it of my chest and I do feel better momentarily - but I know that it won't last - conversations like this are like barking at the moon. . . .


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

france, i'll chose to assume that you don't really understand my viewpoint, and where i'm coming from.

if you think i'm some kind of apologist for chems, you really should read our website, but specifically the paper we wrote called "No Bee Is An Island"
http://BeeUntoOthers.com/nobeeisanisland.pdf/
...i think you will be surprised as to where i'm actually coming from. it has been discussed on beekeeping forums in the uk, slovenia, poland, germany, and here in the u.s.

wrt the conditions and "truths" posted by beenovice...you are correct, i have no first hand knowledge of what is going on in his part of the world. i don't know what is contaminating the environment, or how severe conditions are. i don't know if people really do get more sick in rural areas than urban...or if this is due to pollution, nutrtion, or some other factor. industrial pollution requires different solutions than agricultural...i don't know.

one cannot, however, have any kind of reasonable discussion if one can simply claim that "labrotories proved...." without giving some kind of source. there are labs that have proven all manner of things...and even more that are simply said to have been proven.

i actually have been trying to keep up with the imidacloprid issues (and related ones), and i asked for data here simply because i see many people making this same claim, but no one can identify where the info comes from. this seems to be a rumor, and acting on a rumor misdirects efforts to actually solve problems. if indeed this has been "proven", i'd like to know about it, but i can't simply parrot a beekeeper from halfway across the world and base my actions on unsubstaniated claims.

i personally keep bees without any treatments. i'm a moderator on the organic beekeeping list (where we help people keep bees without treatments...about 2200 memebers). i've spoken at the organic beekeeping conference last year, and will again next year. i'm speaking at the nebraska state beekeeping conference where the theme is chemical free beekeeping. i've presented demosnstrations on chemical free beekeeping to my local bee club. i've written articles on chemical free beekeeping for our local club newsletter. i've helped initiate plans for a study on the effect of imidiacloprid injected into trees on honeybees (in our area, they have found the asian longhorn beetle, and are likely to be injecting more than 20,000 trees with imidiacloprid for 3-5 years running...there was no chance of stopping the treatment), while other beekeepers are moving their hives out of this treated area, i've volunteered to move a couple of hives _in_ to the treatment area to be part of the study, and to add data from hives that do not have any beekeeper applied inputs. i filmed and uploaded videos from the organic beekeeping conference, a talk by maryann frazier on beekeeper applied chemicals in the hive, working a large chemical free operation....this is partial list of what i've been up to recently.

i'm not trying to toot my horn....just pointing out that i'm doing quite a bit that's "constructive"...unless you disagree that the above is constructive?

there is lots in your post i don't understand. i don't think i ever put anyone down for having 2 hives in a backyard. i don't think it's nit picking to want to know details before i take someone's word that something is "proven". i don't know how you think "negative proof" is supressed....test the darn bees! you don't need data from bayer if what is claimed is true...this is easy and inexpensive research to do....the beekeepers own the bees, not bayer.

it is very damaging to beekeepers and especially beekeeping if we simply believe and act on rumors. i believe that beenovice at least implied that he (and other beekeepers in his area) uses in hive treatments. what are they? how do they affect the bees? are they contributing to dieoffs? are they interacting with the ag chems? ...but more importantly, testing for imidiacloprid (or other systemics) in hives or foraging bees is simple and easy. you collect bees and you test them. no long term grant required, no control colonies, no PHD needed....just test the bees. if in general, imidacloprid does not seem to be a big part of various bee die offs, then efforts and activism are best directed elswhere.

i do take offense at your implication that i somehow demand more evidence from others that i base my own positions on. if you have specific problems with specific sources of information and/or data, please let me know.

deknow

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

aspera, i don't doubt what you say, and can relate.

i was recently at a meeting where someone started going into the "ccd is imidacloprid" speech...he had a copy of "silent spring" and a copy of "silence of the bees" in front of him. i know (and am quite friendly) with this beekeeper.

when i challenged him, he claimed to have read that some of the dieoffs in europe (besides the german one, which was misapplication) were proven to have been caused by neonics. i asked where he read it (similar to what i have asked here when the same claim was made), and he had no answer.

many people believe in their gut that imidacloprid is the problem, and they seem to want to grasp at anything to support their position. thus far, the data does not seem to support this position, despite what beekeepers believe. it should be easy to demonstrate. it would have been done by now i it were true.

deknow


----------



## France (Apr 5, 2007)

Look at yourself again Mister? 
You preach one and do another. Again you are defending the chem companies! Demanding proof, (Which by your own words is nonexistent) THAT is actually defending the chem companies! 
Just come on down from that high-horse of yours and read your own stuff and try to think like a person who by chance came across your writings. See with what you will come up with?

No need to hoot your horn, I know you, I should say: "I know of you." I also know that you have German roots and I too have European roots and know all about that... 
Beenovice was simply stating facts as they are. In those countries one does not question the integrity of another mans word. Those are time-honored people. proud people, grass roots people. Fortunes are made and sold on simple words and a firm handshake!
And don't think that they are stupid people! They may not drive around in Cadillacs, although many now do. Do you know that is now in city of Moscow more billionaires than in whole USA!? 
How come? 
Certainly not because they are stupid , lazy, uneducated, lacking credibility and undernourished?!

Now to get back to bees and their perils... 
You make it sound reeeeeal easy to do all kinds of tests?! 
Own bees, have bees, grab a few and make the test. No lab needed and no PHD needed? By the sound of you - nothing is needed? Just test?
So do your own test than, seem to know all about it? Prove to me that those chems are not killing the bees, poisoning the earth and its inhabitants and I WILL SHUT MY BIG MOUTH for good - that is a promise!
Comm'on man, listen to yourself a little! If it is so easy why are there no specs about the subject over which - You and I now rumble. (You have been involved with this crap for a long time. I just speak about it because it becomes a trifle boring if one keeps harping on it.)

Firstly, no matter what you say or where you have been, (in the good oll' U. S. of A.) You know little about world affairs at the grass roots, or you do, but just don't care in your blind quest for "proof". Why such a fuss about things, when you believe and claim that such things simply do not exist!?

(As by your words: if there is no proof for - there can be no proof against!)

I would hope that we both at least agree on that point of view?

Since we are on the subject of proof. Why is it that that governments and Bayer amongst others, did loose in the court of law and they, as recently as few months ago paid out damages to affected beekeeper who lost their bees to pesticides produced and sold by Bayer and others? 
Just look at beekeeping association in UK? It is well documented that they did and do take money from Bayer and in turn spread word across the land that Bayer's chems are not doing any harm. 
Something of the same happened in Germany also where profecional beekeepers were paid and endorsed the Bayer products! But there God paid them back - they lost a staggering number of bees and are now on the other end of the ****-stick if you will excuse me?! They have now Bayer in front of the Judge... and talk around the watter cooler has it that huge out of court settlements have been paid. (Don't ask for proof on that one. This is under court gag order!)
Some sort of proof had to be presented for the courts and governments to award those damages!? Don't you think?
You also find other reasons in France, Germany and perhaps elsewhere where you think those charges are not credible? 
In those countries beekeepers were compensated for their loses and/or the chems were and still are banned. (only they still sell them - but under diferent names! Same stuff though, same composition...)
Do you think that you alone know something that the rest of the world don't!?
If you do - please come out with it, don,t be bashful. . .
(But, I guess you overlook those and similar facts, cause they are contra the song that you play on your harp...)

I will repeat: Saying that most voices are coming from those with a hive or two in the back yard is "belittling" in my mind and minds of many if not close to all... 
I and others refer to them all as beekeepers because that is what they are regardless of the count!

And yes, I do not understand you and never will! 


Suggesting that beekeepers are "creating their own problems by sticking who knows what in their hives is also belittling and grossly unfair to them and beekeepers in general... (What proof do you have to substantiate something of this nature?)
You remind me of Slovenian Government which did, with help of their controlled media, spread such accusations all over the nation. They even send out inspectors to open up the hives and came up with "proof" of illegal substances present in the hives! 
Next: they threatened to test their honey and order it destroyed if anything is found.
You know what Mister, it worked ! The voices are now stifled and all are harbouring in their hearts deep fear of what winter and spring will bring them?!
And another thing Mister: there is not like here, where anything goes. There the Government and Beekeeping federations and Agree offices mandate what is used in the hives, for what purpose and in what quantity. Veterinary doctors write out prescriptions for Oxalic acid for example. Not like here where is not approved - but widely used for years. . . .
They issue the medicines to the bee-clubs in the regions and beeks go there with the proof of number of hives and they purchase the exact amount of medications needed. No more, no less!

A lot of dirty stuff is going on in this corrupt world of ours to help hide the damage done to bees, nature, flora/fauna and on the end - man itself. All this for a fist full of Dollars? Pardon me, Euros...

One more eye opener, Mister: For you to talk about how easy it is to test and test and test? 
In Slovenia, and a few other former communist countries, testing is absolutely impossible!
They refuse to take samples! To take your own - they will have your scalp, with threat of criminal proceedings. I personally know a commercial keeper who was the first that reported die-off and was stifled and criminal proceedings issued, cause he was a bit too loud to the government's liking. There things get done mostly behind closed doors with no witnesses and above all - quietly! 
Further more, they do not come to investigate, (if one can called it so?) until days after the fact. Making sure that samples are of no use. Not that anyone is willing to take them...

The only way to test samples taken is in government approved labs. The only way to test is to take the samples in some other EU country (Italy is usualy chosen) and pay for test from own pocket! (And those test cost more than those people make in a year!)
Their papers are full of stories about beeks not knowing how to properly take care of their stock. God, how wrong/stupid can one bee when they tel you what, when and how and at what time and for how long to do things. In all this in the land of Carniola - home of the Carniolan bee! Home of the first hive with movable frames. Carniola, the land where their precious bee is a national treasure. The land where every house had in the back yard a bee-house with Kranjici and later the AZ hive which was invented there end where is still loved and widely used. 
The land from where came Anton Jansha - beekeeper extraordinaire and the first to teach beekeeping to the world at royal court in Vienna and set up by empress Maria Terezija... 

Yes, my friends, old communist 'scare tactics' are still hard at work in much of today's free world. . .
You see, the rest of the world is not America! Not that is here much better?
You yourself keep harping that there is no substantiated proof that Bayer, Monsanto and other have done any damage to life on this earth. 
Don't fret, you are not alone at this.

Well, I will say Amen to that!

In closing: If we live long enough, perhaps some day we, you especialy I hope, will find out that proof existed before those chems even hit the market - but they are locked up where sun don't shine and won't for foreseeable future.
(and I have a lot of proof of what I say! Some is forgotten, some is in my files and I have no time and inclination to go and look for it.)
This is still the land of free speech and I at lest get my feathers ruffled when people try to stifle somebody who asks or tries to tel something which he feel might interest somebody else. 
Especialy those from other countries, where the oppressed have the guts, the knowledge of foreign language needed to call out to the world - only to see some self serving character jumping all over them in attempt to stifle and discredit their cries! 
Calling for proof is only a smoke screen to hide ones own ignorance and shortcoming on the subject. 
To cause doubt in the credibility of the speaker, to elevate those who question - to who knows where? 
(mostly to show off their intelligence, or lack of?) 
In other words - this are old tactics which I left behind a long, long time ago, but sadly run into them way too often for my liking!
The battle will be long and hard, but the outcome is far outweighed by the rich and the powerful and their cronies who are worse then they - cause they help them - for a fist full of Dollars/Euros. . . .

Have a good day and keep up with the work, such as it may be?


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

deknow said:


> http://www.BeeUntoOthers.com/nobeeisanisland.pdf/


Do you have this right? It didn't work for me.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Eaglerock said:


> Do you have this right? It didn't work for me.


The slash at the end is the thing causing problems  

http://www.beeuntoothers.com/nobeeisanisland.pdf


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

France said:


> I also know that you have German roots and I too have European roots and know all about that...


i have to leave the house for the day, and will deal with the rest of your post later...but what the heck does the above mean? that you saw my last name and assumed i had german roots? so what...is it supposed to imply that i should understand the point of view because of my "roots", or are you implying some some less than positive stereotype of germans? please be clear, because i have no idea what you are talking about.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

France said:


> In those countries one does not question the integrity of another mans word. Those are time-honored people. proud people, grass roots people. Fortunes are made and sold on simple words and a firm handshake!
> And don't think that they are stupid people! They may not drive around in Cadillacs, although many now do. Do you know that is now in city of Moscow more billionaires than in whole USA!?
> How come?
> Certainly not because they are stupid , lazy, uneducated, lacking credibility and undernourished?!


i never questioned anyone's word (in that i don't think anyone is lying)...but i do think people are misinformed. spreading misinformation helps nothing. case in point, your contention above wrt billionaires. can you cite a source for this information? you either have access to more recent data than i, or you misread what you did read.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080306/100793187.html (fwiw, this is from june of this year)


> "Sixteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, with 87 billionaires, is the new No. 2 country behind the U.S., easily overtaking Germany, with 59 billionaires, which held the honour for six years," said Forbes associate editor Luisa Kroll.


there is quite a bit of difference between saying that moscow has more billionares than the u.s. (which isn't true), and saying that moscow has more billionares than N.Y. (which is true). i could have trusted you, taken you at your word...and then we both would have been wrong. instead, i chose to check the facts...look at the data.

i'm still assuming that you simply don't understand where i'm coming from...but i'm getting very close to feeling "attacked" here. if you really want to act based on rumor and assumption, have fun...just don't ask me to follow you over the cliff.

deknow


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

deknow said:


> i'm still assuming that you simply don't understand where i'm coming from...but i'm getting very close to feeling "attacked" here.


France, I'm assuming the same thing at this point, but I suggest that you back away from the line and tone down your words when you respond. I'm feeling an air of "attack" also.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Is there any proof that all those pesticides we are talking about are harmless to bees and people ? *When I look at the label I only see those are highly toxic to people, bees, fish, water. Think about it. You cannot just throw those chemicals in the garbage can ! But you can throw it on the field ? ? ? What this tells you ???*

Someone said in this very topic that beekeepers put chemicals into the hive and kind of suggested that we should look into this when talking CCD, diseases, etc ... ( even talking about drones problems with fertility

Now I ask you all Bayer and other agri chemical companies representetives here : 

When can we expect the "signs" to become visible on people ? The signs are already visible but some keep denying....
Did you see some commercials for agri chemicals from 50 years ago ? They were spraying people and all were happy laughing. It was healthy then. Is it healthy today ? I think we all know the answer. 

The searching for some scientific proof from me is showing the lack of contra-argument. Do you really expect from people(beekeepers) on this forum to show you some proof. Do you ask believers in god to show you the proof ? 

I can see sick people all around me. I can see dead bees in front of the hives because of polluted fields with chemicals. 
I don't need scientific proof to see there is something hugely wrong with society today and sheeplets are walking like zombies around not knowing what is going on. This goes way beyond beekeepers and bees. It is health of specific, namable people that is at stake here ! 

Next time you go and spray the field put a finger onto your head and look at your children. Those 50 years ago that sprayed people with chemicals didn't think of their children. Companies didn't care then and do not care today. 
DO YOU CARE TODAY?


*Let me tell you something again just for the end for you to think about it ! 

You cannot throw packaging where pesticides were into the garbage can because it is considered dangerous waste ! Remember this is only packaging with no "contents" and you cannot put it in the garbage can beacuse of safety regulations. 

Now I ask you how come it is perfectly safe to throw the contents of that package onto field where you grow food ? For me people, this does not make any sense ! *


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

France said:


> Again you are defending the chem companies! Demanding proof, (Which by your own words is nonexistent) THAT is actually defending the chem companies!
> 
> No need to hoot your horn, I know you, I should say: "I know of you." I also know that you have German roots and I too have European roots and know all about that...
> Beenovice was simply stating facts as they are. In those countries one does not question the integrity of another mans word. Those are time-honored people. proud people, grass roots people. Fortunes are made and sold on simple words and a firm handshake!
> ...





deknow said:


> ...but what the heck does the above mean? that you saw my last name and assumed i had german roots? so what...is it supposed to imply that i should understand the point of view because of my "roots", or are you implying some some less than positive stereotype of germans? please be clear, because i have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> deknow


France, 
German roots mean nothing. It is like comparing Obama to his roots. I have german roots, so I guess because of Hitler we should be cast out. Having said that, I also am Irish, we all know what has happened there. I might add that I am also English, Portuguese, Mohegan and French Canadian. 


I may not agree with deknow or others in here, and might in fact, agree with you and Beenovice, however, we can not get into racial relating or characteristic of races or a race of people basis of physical characteristics such as skin or hair color or isolating geographically a distinct population. 


Facts are facts. If they choose to dismiss it, then so be it. Sometime I just think people want to believe good and not bad. 

Maybe they have to, to survive.

My wife would rather hide her head in the sand until I take care of the problem. She just can't deal with things going wrong, people dying, bills, cats bringing us gifts, flat tire, bills(yes I know), cable going out, electric going out, bills, banking, her father, bills, dogs tracking in dirt, husband tracking in dirt, grass on feet, politics, fox news, all News Media, ect. 

If the house needs painted, drain is clogged, carpet is dirty or something is needing fixed, she says, "the house is falling apart around us". She will start crying... *sigh* I hate that. We have two houses.. one new, one historically older. Guess which one we live in. :waiting: I might add, not my choice.

Anyways, lets put away our differences and agree the problem is there, what is the problem remains to be seen, we all believe what we want to. Let's just be civil in the discussion here after. Maybe in a discussion about what to do next. Everyone putting in their 2 cents and when the day is done, forming our own opinion and believe what we choose to believe.

God safe the World.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

beenovice said:


> I
> 
> Now I ask you all Bayer and other agri chemical companies representetives here :


I love this attack. Just because we disagree and want proof, we HAVE to work for Bayer et al. Maybe we prefer facts versus hunches and opinions.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Bodo said:


> I love this attack. Just because we disagree and want proof, we HAVE to work for Bayer et al. Maybe we prefer facts versus hunches and opinions.


Usually when I talk to people and the ones who are pro at the end I always find some hidden agenda. Most of the time I find out they use chemicals themselves and feel guilty...

Anyway I like it how you took out of context and now you are pushing this. No comment on this ?? :

You cannot throw packaging where pesticides were into the garbage can because it is considered dangerous waste ! Remember this is only packaging with no "contents" and you cannot put it in the garbage can beacuse of safety regulations.

Now I ask you how come it is perfectly safe to throw the contents of that package onto field where you grow food ? For me people, this does not make any sense ! 


Do you need proof that you have to seperate packaging of pesticides from other waste because it is toxic ? 

You expect a proof and me go digging on some scientific data which I don't understand.

Let me post again : 

Someone said in this very topic that beekeepers put chemicals into the hive and kind of suggested that we should look into this when talking CCD, diseases, etc ... ( even talking about drones problems with fertility )

Now I ask you all Bayer and other agri chemical companies representetives here :

When can we expect the "signs" to become visible on people ? The signs are already visible but some keep denying....
Did you see some commercials for agri chemicals from 50 years ago ? They were spraying people and all were happy laughing. It was healthy then. Is it healthy today ? I think we all know the answer..

How come we should only search for answers inside the hive and ignore the ones from outside demanding proof ?


----------



## France (Apr 5, 2007)

OOPS! I must correct myself - I Made a HUGE mistake! 

It was meant CITIES in the USA and not the whole USA. 

(A big thank you goes here to nit picking - for otherwise this BOO BOO could of went by us unnoticed by some of us...) A big thank you, again!
I do admit that I too eat crow, from time to time, but mostly due to forgetfulness or absentmindedness or whatever one wants to call it? 
I am a veeeery slow typist and my mind gets way ahead of my two-finger style.

And I should add that the Russian information on their richest people is a bit different than the American version. Especialy Forbes. 
(As you have read, wife of the Mayor of Moscow got a pile of money from lawsuit against Forbes? Heeee, that even helped putting her name on the list. 

I never was much of a "politician' or one for sly diplomacy or even for beating around a bush with a long stick to see if a rabbit could be flushed? 
I Tell it the way I see it. . . shhhh:
If some of you feel threatened by mare words - you have my sympathy...

Now I say AMEN to this debate for the second time...


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

beenovice said:


> Usually when I talk to people and the ones who are pro at the end I always find some hidden agenda. Most of the time I find out they use chemicals themselves and feel guilty...


I am not sure one can state most of the time, but I agree, but that goes with everything, My ex would jump if I asked a question, feeling and being guilty of, yet trying to put it back on me. Which by the way I didn't even THINK she would have an affair, let alone with my ex-best friend. *I don't miss her but I do miss him* lol


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

France said:


> OOPS! I do admit that I too eat crow, from time to time, but mostly due to forgetfulness or absentmindedness or whatever one wants to call it?
> 
> 
> ...


I too have eaten crow.... not as good as duck, turkey, ringneck or grouse. 

Oh I am so witty this morning.:applause:


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Now I ask you all Bayer and other agri chemical companies representetives here :

Wow, thats a poor statment.
Must be getting desperate on your arguements


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Ian said:


> >>Now I ask you all Bayer and other agri chemical companies representetives here :
> 
> Wow, thats a poor statment.
> Must be getting desperate on your arguements


*Poor is a man who can just read scientific papers and cannot hear the nature. *

Another one in the chemical friend bandwagon ? Take a look at some statements from your friends trying to put down arguments by saying what do you 2 hives guys know  But it is good. You can go on attaching yourself to one sentence but ignoring everything else. That is the way to do it....

I presented my arguments which are from real life and not from blank paper that was then filled with facts from some scientist who was told what to look for. I don't push no one to believe me but please this is beekeepers forum and do not ask a guy for scientific proof and try to put down his arguments and experience he saw with his own eyes, this way

*But I see that you all keep ignoring my question below that quote you posted ! I wonder why is that ? *

See you all in twenty years. I hope this thread will be around then.


Now you all guys(who demand scientific proof) can go and laugh at religious people who believe in God(without any scientific proof)...


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>I presented my arguments which are from real life 

As are alot of the rest of us


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

It is interesting how in this debate, now on nine pages, the post from Jack Grimshaw on first page went unnoticed....


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

let's clear a couple of things up here. france, i've asked you to clarify a few things, and you have declined to do so.

1. wrt "putting down those with 2 hives in their backyard". france attributed this to me. beenovice has now repeated it (and in the case of beenovice, i have no idea if he attributes this statemet to me or not...if he does, it is because he "heard it from france", if he does not, it's despite the fact that france misstated the facts, and did not bother to even conisider that he might have been mistaken, even when i pointed the fact out to him). i did not say this....it was another poster in this thread.

2. wrt "correcting yourself" wrt the number of billionaires...that would be overstating things. you acknowledged the fact that you were wrong...if you were to correct yourself, you would not have needed me to correct you first. you may see this as "nit picking"...but bear with me...it is entirely relevent.

3. i can only assume that since you (france) have not clarified your statements about "having german roots", that you meant what i think you meant (a thinly veiled accusation that i was "acting like a nazi").

perhaps i should explain that while you were writing that, i was at yom kippor services. that at the temple that my familly goes to they break jewish law on yom kippor, they read from a damaged torah scroll. this particular scroll was the center of jewish life in a town in czechoslovakia. the scroll was hidden to protect it from the nazi's, but they found it. it was collected by a nazi general (along with all kinds of jewish artifacts) in order to create a museum of "an extinct people".

i have thick skin, and i'm not fazed by what you said...but the extreme ignorance, carelessness, and insult you display by implying that a jew is acting like a nazi says quite a bit about your approach to the "Truth". i would be surprised if you would have made this remark if you had known i was jewish...and that's exactly the point. you spoke before you knew of what you were speaking. you quoted statistics without checking them. you attriubted quotes to me that i never said...and persisted in doing so even after i corrected you. ...and we are simply supposed to "take your word" ...or anyone's for that matter in cases where we can easily verify such things.

now, with that said, i think beenovice and i are "like 2 ships passing in the night". i don't doubt that the environment in his area is in bad shape. i don't doubt that he has bees that are killed by pesticides. if in fact the political situation is as bad as what france implied, then there seems little anyone can do. if you (as a people, as beekeepers) cannot report problems without severe retaliation, then i don't know what to say or what to suggest. i think there are issues with sending samples to the states from other countries...but if you can get samples to the lab in italy and have them send me the results, i will speak as loudly about this issue as i do on any. this is important stuff...but it's important to get the facts straight...and these are facts that are obtainable for the value of less than 10 hives. a small price to pay if indeed you think the truth is "locked up".

here in the states there have been many people trying to correlate pesticides with the die off we are seeing here (ccd). the only substances found in virtually 100% of the samples (including in trapped pollen and commercial foundation) were fluvalinate and coumaphos. many here blame imidacloprid specifically, yet very little has been found in the hives (and perhaps there needs to be more work collecting foraging bees). the perception is that it's farmer applied chemicals that are most problematic, yet the data seems to indicate that beeekeeper applied chemicals are more likely contributory. you should view the video of maryann frazier on our website (like the part where she talks about fluvalinate being 1000 times more toxic to bees when combined with some commonly used fungicides). there are also some newer videos, but i have yet to get them dl'd , edited, or even permission to post them online...but i'm working on it. this may be entirely different than what is seen in slovenia....but without data who can say?

the idea that i'm being "greased", or somehow an apologist for the chem industry is laughable. i've been threatened for my views. i've done nothing but promote chemical free beekeeping. i've traveled on my own dime to speak on the topic. i've written articles....yet somehow you think that because i'm more interested in finding the "Truth" than in your own agenda (no matter how good an agenda it is), that i'm an evil prostitute for the chemical companies.

despite what has been said here, i have not made fun of anyone. this is a deadly serious issue we are discussing. it's just as important that the right action be taken as it is for some action to be taken.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

beenovice said:


> It is interesting how in this debate, now on nine pages, the post from Jack Grimshaw on first page went unnoticed....


it would be more interesting to hear what about this article you think is interesting. read it carefully first....it doesn't say as much as you think it says.

deknow


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

deknow : 
I wasn't replying directly to you ( regarding novice beekeepers - it was some other poster ) but to all that are still blind and do not see what is going on. It might also be a problem that we in Europe didn't experience CCD on such scale. I don't even know if we did experience it...so we might be talking about different thing here but do check that link that Jack Grimshaw posted on first page of this topic ! 

But ! I do know we experienced huge amount of dead bees because of pesticides. Strong proof is all the court cases where Bayer is compensating for damage  
In my country, laboratory results showed poisoning due to misapplication in one case. The thing is that at the same time at least 3 other huge bee die-offs happened exactly the same way in rural areas but the laboratories could not find anything !!! Only similarity was the way bees died. But only in one out of dozen it was proven that pesticides are to blame. The other cases were due to alleged illegal treatments for varroa and what not. They blamed it on beekeepers ! 

At this very moment we are still waiting for results of experiment in controlled environment ( beehives on corn fileds closed with a net - this is happening couple of kilometres from my home! ). They promised the results in winter. 

Now let's go this way. Even if we forget about this. Let me ask you what you think of new stuff that is coming out of Bayer where on their labels it clearly states that it is : 

- not dangerous for adult bees

but

- dangerous for larvae and brood when adult bees bring pollen and nectar from treated plants ( I wonder how healthy adult bees will come out of that larvae and brood ? )

Please I would really like to hear your opinion on this one. Bayer itself says it is dangerous and that does not prevent them to sell to farmers who grow plants where bees are gathering nectar and pollen.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

deknow said:


> it would be more interesting to hear what about this article you think is interesting. read it carefully first....it doesn't say as much as you think it says.
> 
> deknow



Let me quote it for you ! 



> *The use of clothianidin and other insecticides of this class has "increased dramatically" over the past few years and they are now the most widely used group of insecticides in the United States, Frazier says.
> 
> "Their uses include: seed treatments for corn, cotton, canola and sunflowers; foliar sprays of fruit, nut and coffee crops; granular, and liquid drench applications in turf, ornamentals, fruit crops and in forests," she explains.
> 
> ...



Look ! Crazy scientists from Universities ! 



> *Scientists have not yet pinned down the cause of colony collapse disorder but they believe it is linked in part to pesticides.*
> 
> Penn State research has documented more than 70 pesticides in pollen and bees, information that was presented Monday at a national American Chemical Society meeting in Philadelphia.
> 
> ...


It is the same everywhere. The scientists cannot get their heads together and find out the real cause but some of them are also pointing to the same spot as simple beekeepers who saw what pesticides can do in real life, real time!

For gods sake ! This thing is in the whole plant now. In the leafs ( insects killed by contact as advertised by Bayer itself ), in the pollen and nectar ( as Bayer itself claims that it is dangerous to bees ) !
What other proof you need ?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

beenovice said:


> deknow :
> I wasn't replying directly to you ( regarding novice beekeepers - it was some other poster )


that's good, you are a better reader than france.





> ... do check that link that Jack Grimshaw posted on first page of this topic !


i read it, and i read these stories when they first came out. the nrdc is suing for information. this doesn't mean that the information they are suing for even exists. there is no specific document named.. read the report carefully...what do you think it actually says?



> But ! I do know we experienced huge amount of dead bees because of pesticides. Strong proof is all the court cases where Bayer is compensating for damage


i don't know how your legal system works, but here, it's common (especially for big corps) to settle out of court, or to plead to sufficent facts in order to avoid a costly trial, or to avoid the publicity of what else might come out in a trial. i don't know the details of these cases, or of the independence of your courts, the pressures they may or may not bend to....but history is riddled with courts ruling against good science.




> In my country, laboratory results showed poisoning due to misapplication in one case. The thing is that at the same time at least 3 other huge bee die-offs happened exactly the same way in rural areas but the laboratories could not find anything !!! Only similarity was the way bees died. But only in one out of dozen it was proven that pesticides are to blame. The other cases were due to alleged illegal treatments for varroa and what not. They blamed it on beekeepers !


well, to what do you attribute this? corrupt or inept labs? political pressure (it would be hard to give creedence to the court cases you reference above if this is the case)....what do beekeepers use in the hive in your area? i personally think that in the u.s. that chems put in the hives by beekeepers are a large part of our problem. even legal treatments tend to be "pesticideds", and there are no legal treatments here in the states (besides perhaps sugar dusting) that have no negative effect on reproduction.



> At this very moment we are still waiting for results of experiment in controlled environment ( beehives on corn fileds closed with a net - this is happening couple of kilometres from my home! ). They promised the results in winter.


mmm, this will test the toxcisity of a corn only pollen diet, and whatever the corn is treated with....but again, this is not a real world situation. i'd eat rats if you locked me in a cellar with no food...but this does not prove that humans are at risk from eating rat poison if rats are poisoned (except in extreme circumstnaces). would the bees otherwise forage on the corn? would they avoid it? would they avoid whatever pesticide is used? no way to know with such a test.



> Now let's go this way. Even if we forget about this. Let me ask you what you think of new stuff that is coming out of Bayer where on their labels it clearly states that it is :
> 
> - not dangerous for adult bees
> but
> ...


uhhh, this isn't any different from any of the approved (hard or soft) mite treatments in this country:

mite away ii (formic acid)
http://www.masterbeekeeper.org/pdf/miteaway2.pdf


> Up to 14 days of brood mortality may occur in the initial stage of treatment, with single brood-chamber hives
> being more susceptible to damage than double brood-chamber hives.


apistan (fluvalinate):
http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/rdd/rdd_e9402-e.pdf


> However, bee mortality was only maintained at an acceptable level among those bees exposed to the lower concentrations of fluvaliate


coumaphos (jeff pettis has done some work yet to be published wrt to coumaphos in wax and brood mortality...it is more than significant). i do have a video tape of him discussing this.

thymol (apilife var)
http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-diseases/animals/varroa/paper/varroa-treatment-options.htm


> Adverse Effects: Increased adult bee mortality for thymol has been assessed at 9.5 bees/day over 10 days52, although in another study only young larvae survival was affected (74-87% v. 89-95% for controls), with no differences in sealed brood or adult survival 102


deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...you should do a little more research on what maryann frazier has been reporting...you can see a video of her telling this in her own (unedited) words on our website.

of all the pesticides they are finding, the only ones present in almost every sample were fluvalinate and coumaphos. the highest levels of anything they found was fluvalinate and coumanphos. what they found in the trapped pollen (that has never been in the hive, and had no exposure to fluvalinate and coumaphos in the field until picked up and packed by the bees) was fluvalinate and coumaphos. the substances they are finding in foundation is fluvalinate and coumaphos. these are beekeeper applied chemicals. they lead to beekeeper caused problems, and they can only be solved if beekeepers stop using them.

deknow


----------



## Galaxy (Jun 10, 2007)

Bud Dingler said:


> found in every single CCD case was fluvalinate and comaphous from long term use of these two miticides. there was no other common thread of chemical contamination in the combs from CCD hives.
> 
> furthermore these two chems and their metabolites were found at levels 1000:1 greater then most agricultural chems brought in by the bees. why would this be any surprise? When you routinely dump chems into a hive of course they are going to be more concentrated then some part per billion form the outside environment.
> 
> ...


I believe you are correct. I have spent quite a bit of time in Freiburg, Baden-Wurtenburg. Freiburg is the largest city in Germany that is controlled by the Green Party. There is no doubt that the Germans are influenced by the Greens.

That said, if they have lost 2/3s of their bees that is a tragedy. This is the Black Forest/Rhine River valley of Germany. Beekeeping is big there and you see lots of honig (honey) and bee products in all the markets. 

The best beekeeping museum that I have seen is in Münstertal, about 30 miles south of Freiburg. See: http://www.bienenkundemuseum.de/
and
http://www.breisgau-schwarzwald.de/muenstertal-bienenkunde.htm


----------



## Tom G. Laury (May 24, 2008)

*What's happening?*

Central valley Calif...Major cotton growing area...Systemic insecticides have been in use for a long long time...Yet the issue as to whether or not the nectar is toxic to bees has never to my knowledge been addressed head on.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Tom G. Laury said:


> Central valley Calif...Major cotton growing area...Systemic insecticides have been in use for a long long time...Yet the issue as to whether or not the nectar is toxic to bees has never to my knowledge been addressed head on.


Bayer says their pesticides are toxic to insects. Some even on contact ( that is the advertising thing - pests killed instantly ). 

New pesticides such as Movento are toxic to larvae and brood ( nectar and pollen ) but not toxic to adult bees. That is stated on the label of the product...I wonder what comes out from larvae and brood ?

They will not go and look at cotton since they are sure it does no harm. No evidence....the thing is that they look what they are told to look !


----------



## Tom G. Laury (May 24, 2008)

*Here's what they say:*

Do not apply while honeybees are actively foraging in the field.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

http://www.agrian.com/pdfs/MOVENTO_Label1a.pdf

Movento moves through plant vascular system. Once it is in the nectar and pollen it is toxic to bees. It does not matter when you spray. That is just so they will say : application error


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

beenovice said:


> It does not matter when you spray. That is just so they will say : application error


well, if this is _your_ attitude, how do you expect farmers to think any differently? again, i don't know what enforcement is like in your part of the world, but unless the products are being used "according to the label", it is impossible to know what the effects of on label treatment are on honeybees.

with that said, this just came across my radar:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/3n73ru85x6qk3r58/


> This study indicates that in agricultural areas with developed apiculture, useful information about the occurrence and the distribution of pesticide residues due to crop protection treatments can be derived from the analysis of randomly collected honey samples, used as bioindicators. It also shows that, very often, the chemicals used by apiculturists inside the hives in order to control disease are the main pollutants of the produced honey.


...now, this was in greece, not slovenia...but it is similar to what we have been finding here in the states.

several times you have complained that beekeepers are blamed because of what they put in the hives. several times i have asked you what you put in the hive (with no answer)....i assume you put something in the hives, no?

so, what is killing your bees? could it be an interaction between what you are using and what the farmers are using? if so, who's "fault" is it? without testing samples, there is no way to answer these questions...and it becomes convenient for you to blame the farmers, for the farmers to blame you....and for no progress to be made on any front....which allows all to keep complaining.

deknow


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

deknow said:


> well, if this is _your_ attitude, how do you expect farmers to think any differently? again, i don't know what enforcement is like in your part of the world, but unless the products are being used "according to the label", it is impossible to know what the effects of on label treatment are on honeybees.
> 
> with that said, this just came across my radar:
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/3n73ru85x6qk3r58/
> ...


It doesn't matter if it is interaction of two pesticides or something. The bees are killed and the land is getting contaminated. 

Oh and I am a farmer(was before than beekeepr - have lots of orchards) and I don't put anything into the ground or onto the crop and into beehives that I would not eat anymore. I did spray and what not earlier but found out it is not necessary....

Just out of curiosity. How come you keep ignoring the thing about packaging ( how it is not safe to just put it in the trash but the contents are safe to put into land ? ). Simple logic. The sooner we people realize it is not necessary to use all those chemicals the sooner we will be better. You remember how it was safe 50 years ago to spray things on people ( commercials in US ) ? What happened then ? 

Again I don't know what causes the CCD in US. Never did I say the Bayer is to blame. BUT considering experience, rate of disease in rural areas comparing to other areas and all safe equipment you have to use when treating seeds with pesticides I came to conclusion it is not good for ME. Not just for bees. 

Now you and some other guys are kind of suggesting that beekeepers are to blame too since they put what not into the hives and it is slowly contaminating everything. Would not this apply to land also being slowly contaminated and when can we expect the same results - for example cows dying because eating the crop contaminated with pesticides. We do agree that crop is contaminated with pesticides ? When will it show on people ? Take a finger and put it on your head and look at your children next time you go out and spray with unnecessary chemicals people ( not talking directly to you deknow since I don't know if you use it or not  ). My apples are better and bigger since I left the chemicals in the basement.....


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*misinformed*

this thread is full of such misinformation, I'm not sure its worth my time to chime in anymore.

basic understandings of the chemical composition and toxicity of the Bayer chemicals is missing from many posts. 

how many of you realize that the organophosphates which made up 90% of the insecticides used prior to the Bayer systemics are made from Sarin or Nerve gas molecules? 

For good reason there is a end date when these will be delisted in the USA around 2011. In fact the systemics Bee Novice makes out to be these terrible poisons are much friendlier to humans and the environment. of course folks with a maybe less then a high school background in science probably do not have the background to engage in a complex discussion of this issue. 

sure the bayer products in raw form are dangerous to bees.but bees rarely if ever see this raw form. one recent example was the misapplication in germany. 

the more sophisticated and informed discussion on the Bayer systemics involves the ppb residues found in nectar and pollen. the published science and there is plenty on these systemics and pollinators paints a fairly convincing picture of no to minimal effect. continued exposure and synergy with other external and internal hive chemicals may play a role and is being investigated. that is the crux of the INFORMED discussion. 

so BeeNovices wild unsubstantiated claims of poison on the land is laughable and has no scientific basis.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Bud Dingler said:


> this thread is full of such misinformation, I'm not sure its worth my time to chime in anymore.
> 
> basic understandings of the chemical composition and toxicity of the Bayer chemicals is missing from many posts.
> 
> ...


*Ok...so how come pollen and nectar from treated plants is dangerous to larvae and brood ( as per Bayer itself - http://www.agrian.com/pdfs/MOVENTO_Label1a.pdf ). * 

Scientists 50 years ago said it is not dangerous. Today they say it is dangerous. What will they say 50 years from now for current farming "silver bullets"? 

Oh and no need to be scientist to understand this : 



> A systemic pesticide moves inside a plant following absorption by the plant. With insecticides and most fungicides, this movement is usually upward (through the xylem) and outward. Increased efficiency may be a result.





> The World Health Organisation and the UN Environment Programme estimate that each year, 3 million workers in agriculture in the developing world experience severe poisoning from pesticides, about 18,000 of whom die.[2] According to one study, as many as 25 million workers in developing countries may suffer mild pesticide poisoning yearly.


a little more on pesticides : 



> According to researchers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), licensed pesticide applicators who used chlorinated pesticides on more than 100 days in their lifetime were at greater risk of diabetes. In a paper appearing in the May, 2008, issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, researchers said the associations between specific pesticides and incident diabetes ranged from a 20 percent to a 200 percent increase in risk. New cases of diabetes were reported by 3.4 percent of those in the lowest pesticide use category compared with 4.6 percent of those in the highest category. Risks were greater when users of specific pesticides were compared with applicators who never applied that chemical


I don't see the need for being scientist to understand all this...tell all those people how it is all safe and good for them....


You know....Asbestos was perfectly safe decades ago. Today all those people are dying


----------



## Alex Cantacuzene (May 29, 2003)

*Bayer Chemicals*

Hi, the use of those chemicals produced by Bayer and others has benefits and dangers. The dangers have not all been identified, I assume also for good reason......However, the lobby of the large grain producers, take a look at the expenditures in this country by that lobby, is working hard to maintain the status quo or better it for that industry. The Beekeeping Industry in that perspective is of no concern.............
As I read some of the European bee sites I notice that several of the governments of those countries are starting to ban much of these chemicals, particulary in Germany. There is fast growing public and government concern on the use, proper application or otherwise, of these chemicals and their effects. I just wonder if those goverments are acting on the research of scientists or are they going by hear-say? I wonder..................


----------



## Oldbee (Sep 25, 2006)

"Just out of curiosity. How come you keep ignoring the thing about packaging [how it is not safe to put it in trash but are safe to put into the land".- beenovice.

The packaging, whether it contained dust or liquid is in a Concentrated form. I suppose this is for the consideration of those workers [innocent] directly involved with dealing with trash in most/ some cases. Also, it is one way that it can be dealt with, without the chance that it will get into the ground water/environement; in a concentrated form.-OB.

"The sooner we people realize it is not necessary to use all those chemicals the sooner we will be better". beenovice.

I suppose 'we' could do that! Ban ALL chemicals [for awhile] and let the PEOPLE fall and die from starvation where they lay! -OB.
It's not that I like all these chemicals either, but it's the situation we are in regarding population and food resources.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

> This product is _*potentially*_ toxic to honey bee larvae through residues in pollen and nectar, but not to adult honey bees. _Exposure of
> adult bees to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops *can* lead to effects on honey bee larvae._ See the "Directions for Use"
> section of this label for specific crop application instructions that minimize risk to honey bee larvae.


This is off of the Movento sheet. Seems like NOONE knows what it may or may not do. So you can't say that it's labeled as hazardous to bees...


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

From another Movento sheet : 



> This product is TOXIC to bees through direct contamination of pollen and nectar. DO NOT
> apply this product during crop flowering period or when flowering weeds are present in the field,
> orchard or vineyard.
> 
> ...


Twisted around so that no one really knows or understands....

And they say the thing moves through plant vascular system. 

All in all ... toxic to bees, people, other beneficial insects....but no one really knows how, what and when ? Enough for me to see there is something wrong....

Just like it is enough for a believer to believe in God just like that, without scientific proof.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*get INFORMED! Bee smart!*

Seriously this discussion has degenerated into unsupported emotional claims with no basis. The damage that is done from this kind of misinformation is that many many novice and experienced beekeepers are not improving their own mite control or overall health of their bees as they perceive the bogey man is Bayer and they have no control over their destiny. The reality is there are more succesfull beekeepers world wide keeping bees without contaminating their own brood comb and not having massive losses then there are beekeepers losing operations and having large unexplained losses. Reading some of the fiction on this site supplied by well intentioned but misinformed beekeepers one would think that the world wide bee population is in a death spiral.


So enough of the unsubstanitated claims. 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...40655C3D6EA207&[email protected]&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]


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

Good Stuff, Bud.

Too bad people will only see that he works for Bayer and not look at the Science.


----------



## France (Apr 5, 2007)

Eaglerock,

it is amazing how a mountain can grow from a molehill?!

To all who are so quick to jump on the dark side? 
I too am at least 50% German and please forgo what happened sixty some years back. 
My mention of German was actually in a sense - which we all are so quick to forget. They are known to be smart, good thinkers, handy, good machinists, etc... In short, good with hands and mind and proud to flaunt it. . . .

Now I got to run... I am home only for few hours and must go on the road again. . .
Sorry, but I must miss all the fun?!




Eaglerock said:


> France,
> German roots mean nothing. It is like comparing Obama to his roots. I have german roots, so I guess because of Hitler we should be cast out. Having said that, I also am Irish, we all know what has happened there. I might add that I am also English, Portuguese, Mohegan and French Canadian.


----------



## Eaglerock (Jul 8, 2008)

France said:


> Eaglerock,
> 
> My mention of German was actually in a sense - which we all are so quick to forget. They are known to be smart, good thinkers, handy, good machinists, etc... In short, good with hands and mind and proud to flaunt it. . . .
> 
> .


Yes, and Japanese are known for electronics, and so on. I never said that my being part German was bad, nor did I say they were stupid. If I did, then I would be stupid, and that's just stupid. LOL 

However, if you are 50 % German and I am only 1/5 German....then that would make you stupider than I... Just Kidding...


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/jee/2008/00000101/00000006/art00004

http://esa.confex.com/esa/2008/techprogram/paper_35068.htm

A little reading for 2009


----------



## Alex Cantacuzene (May 29, 2003)

An interesting fact is that when you read the German beekeepers Internet sites and other European beekeeping sites and the actions those governements have taken in relation to the insecticides and their consequences, it appears that they are taking the reports from the beekeeping industry serious. It is essentially a question of who is the "most" right. Of course, there is the small item of who has the deepest pockets. Maybe the actions of these governments could be called political but also seeing them as actions without basis in fact or hysterical is a bit far fetched in my opinion. Does anyone remember DDT? Take care and have fun


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

*Couple of questions*

Came to this discussion late. 

Does anybody know what the resultant concentrations of neonics in honey that is made from tainted nectar? I would assume that as moisture is evaporated from the nectar, whatever is in the nectar becomes more concentrated?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

beenovice said:


> http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/jee/2008/00000101/00000006/art00004


can someone check my math?

the article cited:


> the lowest effective concentration was found to be 50 μg/liter.


a liter of water weighs 1kilogram...i think they are talking about sugar syrup, should be heavier, no? ...but let's stick with the water weight for now, as we don't know the weight of the syrup used.

1 billion micrograms=1 kilogram

so, "the lowest effective concentration was found to be 50 μg/liter." equates to 50ppb? if the syrup were heavier, then it would be a lower ppb? we can assume (i think) that the syrup isn't twice the weight of water for a given volume (ie, less than 16lbs/gallon)...even if it was twice the weight, it would be 25 ppb?

can someone check my math?

according to wikipedia:


> Bayer CropScience results show that the maximal dose for which no effect was observed was 20 ppb, while the amount of residue in parts of the plant available to the insect (aerial parts) was below 1.5 ppb.


...so this study largely seems to agree with bayer's own reports? ...except that it is very unlikely that the syrup used to cut the imidacloprid weighed 16lbs/gallon. so the bayer study actually showed more sensitivity than the study cited, no?

the question remains, what concentrations do the bees encounter? if concentration of the nectar increased the concentration (which it might...i have no data), wouldn't we have seen this in testing dead out colonies?

it would be much more helpful (i think) to study what is actually found in hives, or in bees foraging on treated crops. we know imidacloprid will kill bees...it's an insecticide. the question is, what do the bees encounter under various circumstances?

deknow


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

http://firenze.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/4468701?ref=rephpsp4

New research in University of Padova, Italy - Professor Vincenzo Girolami

Use http://translate.google.com to translate from Italian to English. 

Pretty disturbing. They analyzed the juice the corn ( treated with neonicotinoids ) provides which bees gather as a water source in the morning before the sun dries it. No one thought of that earlier huh ? 

I guess for some even now this will not be enough ?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

That's all good and well, but I work in research in corn pretty frequently. The results don't square with my experience.

1) Over the last four years, I've typically spent 6 to 12 hours per day, three days a week in June, July, August, September and early October in corn fields in South Dakota. That time has been spent counting insects for research purposes. During that time, I've kept track of the times that I've observed honey bees in corn as well. I have never witnessed the behavior described (collecting "juice" or sap from corn plants, whether for a water source or not). I have seen a few bees gathering pollen from corn, but only when other sources of pollen were in short supply. That collection of pollen occurs in later July to early August, if the climate conditions limit other sources of pollen.

2) Having researched other insects in corn, I can state with confidence that seed treatments (the neonicotinoids used in corn) do not affect aphid populations in corn by the time aphids start colonizing corn in mid to late July. Compare that with the times that I've observed bees in corn fields. Keep in mind, too, that aphids are far smaller than honey bees and will be affected by smaller amounts of chemicals.

Bear in mind that neonicotinoids don't stick around forever, either. They degrade with time. Fairly rapidly at that. So, based on the assumptions from this paper and your comments, you're believing that a few milligrams of neonicotinoid coated on corn seeds in early May will still be around and in high enough concentrations sometime months later to harm bees? If you can demonstrate such things, I know numerous farmers who would be thrilled to find such easy, inexpensive and long-lasting treatment options to control pests in their crops. Doesn't work that way for other insects. Why would it for honey bees?


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

So what now. The research that was done on University of Padova is what ? Biased ? Not good ? Falsified ? Proves nothing because you were counting aphids ?
Get real man. More and more people in science find the same results here in Europe. Even more of those are becoming more and more suspicious.

I guess for some it will never be enough...


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>you're believing that a few milligrams of neonicotinoid coated on corn seeds in early May will still be around and in high enough concentrations sometime months later to harm bees? If you can demonstrate such things, I know numerous farmers who would be thrilled to find such easy, inexpensive and long-lasting treatment options to control pests in their crops. Doesn't work that way for other insects. Why would it for honey bees? 


Just thought you might want to read this statment again,


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

beenovice, the translate.google.com link refuses to translate the italian to english. Can you provide a translated link to the research document? I would like to read and understand this research. In 2007 I lost two hives to CCD, both of which were right beside a big cornfield. I know bees collect aphid excretions and produce honey from this "honey dew" (in german the honey is called "waldhonig" (forest-honey)). Thanx


----------



## Durandal (Sep 5, 2007)

Translator works just fine...

Here is a direct link to the translated page:

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Ffirenze.repubblica.it%2Fmultimedia%2Fhome%2F4468701%3Fref%3Drephpsp4%0D%0A&sl=it&tl=en&history_state0=

There is no research tagged. Its simply a news article and a poorly edited video.

I am a farmer and beekeeper and have a fairly well rounded liberal arts background and I am in no ways a scientist or holder of a PhD, but I would not use this article as "proof" for anything.

Its a news article and a rather horribly edited video that SHOULD have been shown in its entirety. You have no idea what types of pesticides are being used (neonic alone is not enough) who manufacturers it, whether it was used properly, what kind of seeds were being used, how many tests were done in the trials, etc...).

But hey, if that is all it takes to prove something I guess I am one of those doubters. I also think the world is round and not 6000 years old and the sun is at the center of the solar system. Call me crazy.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

db_land :

Hi, I don't think paper is online. Check the video and text...try this : http://translate.google.com/transla...timedia/home/4468701?ref=rephpsp4&sl=it&tl=en

The paper was presented on Professional Italian Beekeepers Conference that took place in Sorento, Italy from 21st-26th January. 

Durandal :

Read above. The conference just ended.....Please don't ask me to put a link, deliver or translate the paper. There are names in the article, conclusions and where research was done.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> So what now. The research that was done on University of Padova is what ? Biased ? Not good ? Falsified ? Proves nothing because you were counting aphids ? -beenovice


First, let's see the peer-reviewed journal article presenting the results. Not a news story in the popular media, but an honest-to-goodness journal article.



> Hi, I don't think paper is online. -beenovice


OK. Can you provide a citation for the paper, please? I'll look up the paper version in a library.

As far as "proves nothing because [I was] counting aphids," aphids were not and are not the only insects I track in corn. Tell you what, though: if you haven't already, why don't you spend thousands of hours on foot in corn fields observing and tabulating insect activity, and report what you find. I'll wager that you find very little honey bee activity.


----------



## Durandal (Sep 5, 2007)

> Durandal :
> 
> Read above. The conference just ended.....Please don't ask me to put a link, deliver or translate the paper. There are names in the article, conclusions and where research was done.


So you have NOT read the data just the article? Not trying to be offensive here, just trying to figure out why you are sourcing this as proof with what I would consider a certain amount of vitriol. You conclusions are form this article? Just curious.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Durandal : 
Nope my conclusions are not from this article. My conclusions are from a report of Franc Šivic who was president of organization commity of Apimondia 2003 which took place in Ljubljana, Slovenia who was in direct e-mail contact with Professor Barbattini from Udine University ( Italy ). His report is posted on our beekeeping organization website. I find it hardly to believe that beekeeping authority such as Frans Šivic would make things like this up huh. For you I don't know. 

Kieck : 
Again please don't ask me to find you any papers, links or translate. If you want to know you will eventually find out. If not I don't really care.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Again I said it many times on these forums when pesticides came up. I don't know if this is what is causing CCD but I am always saying that pesticides ( neonicotinoids ) are huge danger for bees and should be banned completely. 
*Today we have a proof that it really kills bees.* *And it kills them in minutes** ! *


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Again please don't ask me to find you any papers, links or translate. If you want to know you will eventually find out. If not I don't really care. -beenovice


At this point, you're advocating your point of view. If you can't back it up by at least providing the references you cite, why should anyone believe what you write?



> Hey it's your work to spend thousands of hours or something in corn fields not mine . . . -beenovice


The reason I brought it up was to demonstrate that I have some experience in this area. I have spent time there. I do not see bees there. I could make claims that bees in the middle of the ocean are likely die of salt poisoning, but would you really see bees there? Sure, sap extracted from very young corn plants that have been treated with neonicotinoids may contain levels of neonicotinoids that could damage insects. And, sure, if you deliberately fed that sap to honey bees, the honey bees might be affected, too. But how likely are bees to feed on that source? And in the numbers implied to be a cause of CCD? Also, collecting neonicotinoid-laced fluids from corn plants as water sources would make CCD likely to show up when that fluid is being collected, not weeks to months after the corn has been harvested.

The claims just don't add up as a cause of CCD.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I don't know if this is what is causing CCD but I am always saying that pesticides ( neonicotinoids ) are huge danger for bees and should be banned completely.
> Today we have a proof that it really kills bees. And it kills them in minutes ! -beenovice


By the same reasoning, we need to ban all pesticides, gasoline, diesel fuel, soap, water, flyswatters, human hands, . . . the list goes on and on.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

From someone looking from the outside, I tend to take the side of someone with actual hands on experience with the work. Reading news links and passing on new articles or second hand information holds doesnt hold much weight,


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Yea and Italian beekeepers and University professors unlike Kieck never saw corn field, let alone a bee.

In this thread you have all the references you need. Names, names of the universities, professors who did the study, where study was presented. You can contact those people if you want or dig for more info if you are interested but don't expect me to do the work for you.

I understand this is on the other side of the world but I cannot help you in your ignorance of what is going on around the world and I personally don't have time to search and translate it for you. Either take it or leave it.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Kieck, do young corn plants secret sap/liquid the way it appears in the video? Is the secreted liquid sweet and/or might it attract bees? If this liquid is laced with neonicotinoids, does the corn eventually harvested from these plants contain some level of neonicotinoids? Is it possible that HFSC manufactured from this corn also contains neonicotinoids at some level? I hope you don't mind so many questions, but it seems you may have the expertise to answer. Thanx


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Yea and Italian beekeepers and University professors unlike Kieck never saw corn field, let alone a bee. -beenovice


I'm not saying that, and I'm sure others aren't either.

The point is, though, that lab studies can be run on these sorts of things without verifying that the same thing is going on under field conditions. Did you know, for example, that if you pull a hive of bees into a laboratory and feed them nothing but honey and corn pollen, they will end up dying? From that, you _could_ conclude that corn pollen is toxic to bees, but that's not really the case. First, bees do not collect all that much corn pollen in the field. And, secondly, limiting diets of bees to single sources of pollen of any sort will tend to produce similar results.

I could do the same by showing that if honey bees collect gasoline as a "water source," they're likely to die. Again, that doesn't mean that such a thing is likely to happen in the field.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Kieck : 

Bees do visit corn and feed on water on leaves. They do it very early in the morning until sun dries it up. That water is so called corn sweating. 

Today it is proven that water from corn sweating ( from corn treated with neonicotinoids ) is deadly to bees.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Kieck, do young corn plants secret sap/liquid the way it appears in the video? -db_land


At times, under certain weather conditions, yes. Similar to dew from lawn grasses. And the same conditions that would cause corn plants to do such things would cause other plants (like lawn grasses) do excrete similar fluids.

In my experience, that happens very early in the morning, at temperatures and at times when most bees are not actively foraging, and at times when very few if any bees are actively collecting water.



> Is the secreted liquid sweet and/or might it attract bees? -db_land


Very minutely sweet, I would expect. I've never tasted it, but I would anticipate that it would be pretty "watery." Far less sweet than nectar, almost certainly. Bees would be more likely attracted as a source of "water" than of "sweet," I think.



> If this liquid is laced with neonicotinoids, does the corn eventually harvested from these plants contain some level of neonicotinoids? -db_land


This liquid may contain some neonicotinoids, depending on the level of treatment. The standard neonicotinoid seed treatments coat each seed with either 1.25 mg of neonicotinoid, or 0.25 mg per seed of neonicotinoid. That chemical doesn't increase, so the total amount of neonicotinoid -- assuming every last little bit of it is taken up by the plant -- in the plant is 1.25 mg. And that's at the high rate.

Now, remember that that product breaks down with time. So, by the time the plant has reached three weeks old, some of that chemical has degraded, and that tiny amount initially applied has been diluted across the entire plant. As the plant continues to grow, that dilution becomes even greater.

At some level, corn harvested from these plants probably do contain neonicotinoids. But that level is likely parts per trillion, or maybe parts per billion.

Despite the publications claiming persistence of neonicotinoids in the environment, I will vouch that in greenhouses, plants can be sprayed with imidacloprid or clothianidin to eliminate aphids, and can be successfully recolonized by aphids one day later. Again, that's in a greenhouse, dealing with aphids, but it gives some idea. We have used imidacloprid deliberately for research purposes to do exactly that: remove aphids one day with the intention of recolonizing with a different group of aphids the next. Works very well.



> Is it possible that HFSC manufactured from this corn also contains neonicotinoids at some level? -db_land


Like my answer to the questions above, yes, it's possible. And if HFSC is concentrated, any contaminant would similarly be concentrated.

From research experiments, I can tell you that the amount of toxins present in corn produced by various "natural" fungi are far greater and potentially far more dangerous than the trace amounts of neonicotinoids that may show up under detailed analyses.

Oh, and by the way: the bee shown twitching in the video shows symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning. If you have a hive that is poisoned by neonicotinoids, the symptoms of acute poisoning in that hive will be similar to acute poisoning by any other pesticide. You'll find piles of dead bees in front of the hive. Not the symptoms attributed to CCD.



> Bees do visit corn and feed on water on leaves. -beenovice


Maybe occasionally. I've never witnessed it in person. Have you?



> They do it very early in the morning until sun dries it up. -beenovice


I rarely see bees collecting any water that early in the day. Usually, I see them collecting water long after the dew has dried in the morning.



> Today it is proven that water from corn sweating ( from corn treated with neonicotinoids ) is deadly to bees. -beenovice


Maybe, although we do not know from the video how the plants were treated with neonicotinoids or at what levels.

Did you notice, too, that in the video, the liquid from the corn plants was presented to the bees with no other options? The bees were not out foraging for it; it was given to them directly.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Thanks much for your replies Kieck. How does the neonicotinoid seed coating affect aphids sucking on the young corn plants? Is the concentration enough to kill the aphids? I know that bees collect the secretions of aphids and that these secretions are very sweet. Is it possible that this could be harming the bees? Assumming the bees make honey from this aphid "nectar", would the neonicotinoid concentration in this honey be high enough to affect the bee's central nervous system? Thanx


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> How does the neonicotinoid seed coating affect aphids sucking on the young corn plants? -db_land


It doesn't. Aphids cannot successfully colonize very young corn plants. Corn plants naturally produce compounds that act as deterents to insects, and aphids will not successfully colonize young corn plants.

Corn plants have to be approaching tasseling before aphids can successfully colonize them, seed treatment or not.



> Is the concentration enough to kill the aphids? -db_land


Not by the time the aphids colonize the corn plants, the concentration is not. And treated or not, the number of aphids is not statistically different between the two during the season.

Foliar treatments are a different matter. But that's the same as any other spray.



> I know that bees collect the secretions of aphids and that these secretions are very sweet. -db_land


Yes, but I think this collection is less common than most beekeepers assume. I've been around hundreds of millions of aphids, of numerous species, in a wide variety of habitats. Everything from the massive number of aphids in corn and soybean fields to aphids on elm trees to aphids feeding on native prairie forbs. And while I've occasionally seen honey bees apparently collecting honeydew, it's been rare.

Ants on the other hand actually "farm" aphids. Including on agricultural crops treated with neonicotinoids. Yet those ant colonies (and they do persist from year to year on the edges of fields) do not seem to suffer from CCD or die from exposure to neonicotinoids.



> Is it possible that this could be harming the bees? -db_land


Doubtful, I think. Keep in mind that aphids are far smaller than bees. The same concentrations per mass of neonicotinoids to cause problems would mean that far fewer molecules would be needed to harm the aphids. Dead aphids produce no honeydew.



> Assumming the bees make honey from this aphid "nectar", would the neonicotinoid concentration in this honey be high enough to affect the bee's central nervous system? -db_land


Possibly, and I wouldn't say that it couldn't be, but I would say that the set of circumstances necessary to have such a thing happen seems highly illogical to me.

While I can't absolutely rule out pesticides as a minor contributing factor to CCD, if pesticides are the cause, CCD should be a year-round event. If honey contaminated with trace amounts of neonicotinoids is the culprit, the experiment should be fairly simple: bees given honey from colonies that have collapsed from CCD should also collapse from CCD, and bees given honey deliberately tainted with trace amounts of neonicotinoids should express the symptoms that characterize CCD.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Kieck

I'm just courious.....since you do so much research....what/ who do you work for?


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"Yes, but I think this collection is less common than most beekeepers assume." Kieck

This can vary by location, but we have had years where "honeydew" from scale and aphids were the primary nectar source for the season, so commonness is relative.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

jbj writes:
commonness is relative.

tecumseh:
from your description... rather than relative I would have said location dependent.

for example: relative might be more descriptive of the quantity of 'honeydew' ant vs honeybees might collect from aphids.


----------



## 2ndCharter (Jan 22, 2009)

Last night I finished reading A Spring Without Bees. While the writer seems to have compiled smaller articles and is sometimes repetitive with his information, I found it informative. There is much supporting evidence presented that shows why IMD produced by Bayer is probably the cause of CCD. Furthermore, the author has given some opinion as to why there is conflicting evidence due to poor controls, insufficient sample sizes, lack of follow-on testing and bias. It appears from this that sub-lethal doses ~ 6 PPB (yes, that's parts per billion) can cause this "intoxication" that can lead to collapse.


Disclaimer: I am just a mere mortal, not a scientist nor have any affiliations with the author, publisher or any named parties in the book.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Three questions, having not read the book myself:

How does the author account for imidacloprid (I assume that's what you mean by "IMD") being used for more than a decade before CCD showed up, especially since the concentrations blamed are so very low?

I have heard of very few losses attributed to CCD this year (correct me if I have that wrong), yet the amounts of neonicotinoids including imidacloprid were very similar but slightly higher in 2008 than in 2007 or 2006. How would CCD decrease if the relationship between CCD and imidacloprid is simply cause-and-effect?

Similar losses dating back at least 50 years or more (and well before the development or use of neonicotinoids) were called "fall dwindling disease" or similar names. How does the author distinguish some of those earlier cases from CCD?


----------



## 2ndCharter (Jan 22, 2009)

Kieck said:


> Three questions, having not read the book myself:


I'm too old to be able to do anything other than generalize a book even after immediate digestion. If I had those questions going into the book, I may have been able to answer them for you.

If you don't have time to read it yourself, I'd suggest looking closely at the French study instead of something coming out of Penn State or any other university that has a lab funded by a chemical manufacturer.

OMB Watch had an article about the EPA withholding information but the salient bits are that in Europe, they have enough evidence that IMD is at fault to ban its use.


> September 9, 2008 Vol. 9, No. 18:
> 
> *EPA Withholds Pesticide Information While Bees Die*
> 
> ...


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

2ndCharter said

"There is much supporting evidence presented that shows why IMD produced by Bayer is probably the cause of CCD. Furthermore, the author has given some opinion as to why there is conflicting evidence due to poor controls, insufficient sample sizes, lack of follow-on testing and bias."

I respectfully disagree: 

This book is a piece of tabloid trash, the author uses small town newspapers and opinions from beekeepers as his sources. Far from a rigid scientific overview of CCD and Imid the book is a joke. The author presents no credential of his own as to his ability to analyze the science behind his claims. 

For a better researched and sourced book try Fruitless Fall by Rowand Jacobsen which discusses Bayer and also highlights Keith Webster and the russian bees. 

The Bayer Witch Hunt is sponsored by ABF which is full of hypocritical brood comb contaminators. In public some members bash Bayer and then in their bee yards use illegal and unlabeled mite treatments. 

At Penn State, Maryann Fraziers study showed beyond a shadow of doubt that beekeeper applied chemicals show up in wax and pollen at levels 100 times any agricultural chems brought in from the surrounding environment. Her study showed that a very small number of brood combs from CCD afflicted hives had any Imid or Bayer chems residues. The samples that did had very low levels. 

A Spring Without Bees unearths no new scientific data to overcome the damming evidence from Fraziers study. Its nothing but speculative junk science. 

There is a study forthcoming any day now that fed isolated colonies Imid in pollen patties when they had no access to outside pollen. They had 3 sets of hives in the study. 

* no Imid in pollen patty
* Moderate Imid levels in pollen patty like found in agricultural crops
* High Imid levels in pollen patty way over what's found in a typical ag application 

Results showed no differences in the 3 sets of hives for bee mortality. While I agree that Imid should be studied relative to its effects on bees in the scientific world no such evidence currently supports the myth that Imid is the source of CCD.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*In the EU*

the Green party has some REAL support in the political world. Thus vague evidence is enough to sway governments to ban a chemical with even week evidence. 

Also the their credit, they have adhere to the Precautionary Principle which is something our EPA and government could learn from. Do a google search on that phrase to learn what that principle is. 

I see no reports that EU beekeepers are having any less amount of bee losses in countries which have banned Imid and other systemics. 

The EU bans prove nothing although I do support it and admire it.

I am simply saying that while I am against the use of systemics there is no real science to show we have a big problem either.


----------



## 2ndCharter (Jan 22, 2009)

Bud Dingler said:


> This book is a piece of tabloid trash, the author uses small town newspapers and opinions from beekeepers as his sources.


That's a pretty broad sweeping generalizing considering the author directly cites studies. I think Thomas Jefferson would have disagreed with you on your point regarding beekeeper's opinions as he felt that you can learn much from observation.



Bud Dingler said:


> At Penn State, Maryann Fraziers study showed...


I myself am skeptical of anything coming from PSU considering they get direct funding from Bayer and Bayer uses PSU as a breeding ground for future hires.

Off topic, my step-brother's grandfather was named Bud Dingler. You have any relatives in Tallapoosa, GA?


----------

