# A possible explanation for CCD



## Stromnessbees (Jan 3, 2010)

Some studies have reported that summer bees rather than winter bees were found in colonies going into the winter. The difference is in the smaller fat reserves, leaving summer bees with much shorter lifespans. 
When the fat reserve is used up, a bee leaves the colony to die away from the hive.
Lots of bees leaving at the same time leave behind an empty hive, the beekeeper calls it CCD or Marie Celeste or dwindling disease. 

The trigger for winter bee production in a healthy colony is the shortening of daylength after the summer solstice, June 21st. 
Depending on your type of bee, winter bee production should commence soon or slightly later after that. 


*If the colony is under the influence of neurotoxins, like neonicotinoids, the bees might not be able to perceive the change of daylight and continue production of summer bees. *

It has already been proven that neonicotinoids reduce the memory of bees in field studies (reutrn rate of foragers) and in the lab (training experiments).

A compromised memory would make perception of daylight changes impossible, and as many colonies are exposed to neonics at the *critical time of year for winter bee procuction*, we should look into this possibility more closely.


*sources of neonics that could therefore be responsible for CCD:*

@ fields of corn/maize
@ flowering trees like lime trees on golf courses and in parks, where the lawn/turf has been treated with the pesticides
@ other treated crops flowering around midsummer and after
@ contaminated water (runoff) that bees collect for brood rearing


Comments?


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

Stromnessbees said:


> Some studies
> Comments?


please post links to these studies


----------



## JClark (Apr 29, 2012)

Stromnessbees said:


> A compromised memory would make perception of daylight changes impossible


This is a very big assumption that is probably untenable. Memory has nothing to do with the innate response to shortening day length. Responses to day length are usually triggered by the decrease/increase of chemical cues that cross a pre-set threshold causing up/down regulation of different genes that then, ultimately, act to change behavior. It is the exposure to light (or specific wavelengths) that either breaks down the chemical cues or aids in the synthesis of these cues. Bees don't "remember" how long the previous day was like they remember the timing and source of a resource.

I don't really know how bees translate day length into action but I do know that changes to day length affect insects in general at the hormonal level--allowing the establishment of circadian rhythms and the triggering of overwintering strategies. Often, when it comes to overwintering strategies, the strategy is in response to the exposure of a previous generation (I would guess not in bees, though, as only the queen lays eggs).


----------



## Stromnessbees (Jan 3, 2010)

wildbranch2007 said:


> please post links to these studies


The seeming lack of body reserves has repeatedly been mentioned in studies I have read over the years, but is usually attributed to other factors like varroa or malnutrition.
e. g. here:


> Adult bees, which are infested by V. destructor as pupae, *do not fully develop physiological features typical of long-lived winter bees *compared with non-infested workers [6]–[8], making it unlikely for them to survive until spring and contribute to the build-up of the colony in early spring [2]. To date, however, the relation between the lifespan of individual bees and colony losses for different levels of V. destructor infestation has not been tested.


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0036285
There are other quotes, but it would take me a while to find them again. 

I am proposing the *effects of neonics on the ability of bees to determine seasons* as an alternative explanation.


----------



## Stromnessbees (Jan 3, 2010)

JClark said:


> This is a very big assumption that is probably untenable. Memory has nothing to do with the innate response to shortening day length. Responses to day length are usually triggered by the decrease/increase of chemical cues that cross a pre-set threshold causing up/down regulation of different genes that then, ultimately, act to change behavior. It is the exposure to light (or specific wavelengths) that either breaks down the chemical cues or aids in the synthesis of these cues. Bees don't "remember" how long the previous day was like they remember the timing and source of a resource.
> 
> ...


It is a theory and it needs testing, of course. 

That shouldn't stop us from debating it here, adding our own observations. 

Daylight perception is based on chemical reactions, so is memory. 
Add unnatural chemicals and the whole system can be upset, possibly cancelling out natural triggers.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Memory," in ethology, usually refers to a form of mental recall of past individual experience. The only bees that would live long enough to remember a past shortening of day length would be queens.

The lack of fat reserves that may contribute to losses due to _Varroa_ usually leaves dead bees in the hives. CCD is characterized by a disappearance of bees. The idea that pesticides may interfere with bees' instinctive behaviors at different times of the year is worth investigating, but I wonder if the symptoms here are really consistent with CCD.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I doubt that you will see all of the symptoms that define CCD, such as no wax moths or robbing in dead hives. I am sure that there is some effect, but Hackenberg showed that CCD was a pathogen by irradiating half the dead hives in a group, then installing bees in all. The irradiated hives thrived, non-irradiated hives died. 

Game over, please try again.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Stromnessbees (Jan 3, 2010)

Roland said:


> I doubt that you will see all of the symptoms that define CCD, such as no wax moths or robbing in dead hives. I am sure that there is some effect, but Hackenberg showed that CCD was a pathogen by irradiating half the dead hives in a group, then installing bees in all. The irradiated hives thrived, non-irradiated hives died.


The Hackenberg irradiation story is from 2007. 

If it was effective then everybody would be doing it by now ...


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Stromness: Are you open to considering all scientific evidence or do you only follow leads that fit your hypothesis?


----------



## JClark (Apr 29, 2012)

Stromnessbees said:


> It is a theory and it needs testing, of course.
> Daylight perception is based on chemical reactions, so is memory.
> Add unnatural chemicals and the whole system can be upset, possibly cancelling out natural triggers.


If only things were that simple. I'd argue that response to changes in day length has nothing to do w/ memory so there is nothing to test but don't really see the point. I'm not discounting any possible human pesticidal causes for CCD but would rather do a lit review before I profess my own opinions (I am not familiar w/ all the work that has been done).

I do think, however, the idea that natural systems have a "balance" is a misguided view that may cause misinterpretation of observations. Systems are better thought of as a collection of competing entities that really have no regard for the other entities (my opinion only). The tension between these competing entities are perceived, by us, at one point in time as an "equilibrium". Hence, when we perturb one facet of the system the advantage/disadvantage line shifts, and we think it is out of "balance". The fact is, equilibriums are constantly shifting--just as climates are always changing. Change would still happen even if our species did not exist (despite how important we think we are). That being said, our footprint obviously has it's own effect on the systems in which we live. To think we could avoid disturbing systems and still survive is naive, I think. We're kind of ****ed if we do and ****ed if we don't.

Anyway, to get back on topic, by this line of logic, unnatural chemicals obviously will have influences on systems just as much as natural chemicals will but I am in no position to conjecture what these influences are, good or bad. Just keeping track of what I do individually and what the response of my particular bees are. Everything I do has an effect, just trying to learn to minimize the negative and maximize the positive. Am glad that, in my location, I don't really have to worry about what influences neonics, GMOs and the like may have on my hives. The only corn pollen my bees get are from my sweet corn. Happy to say I have seen no difference between pollen from se, sh2, or su sweet corn. Bees seem to do fine.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Sromness - you do not "cleanse' all hive bodies every season? Hmmmmm.... oh well. Maybe the sucessfull do and just don't talk about it.

Crazy Roland
Linden Apiary, est. 1852


----------



## Stromnessbees (Jan 3, 2010)

Roland said:


> Sromness - you do not "cleanse' all hive bodies every season? Hmmmmm.... oh well. Maybe the sucessfull do and just don't talk about it.


Just to clarify:

I have never had a disease problem or CCD in any of my hives. 
I scrape boxes clean between use, that's all that I need to do, as I live in a disease free area where no pesticides are used, so my bees are extremely healthy.

I am addressing the problem of CCD in a general way, and after studying it for a long time I am certain that neonicotinoids are the cause. 

The problem has always been, how to explain the sudden disappearance of bees during the winter months. 
A friend of mine living in an agricultural area who has his bees close to home, observed them leaving the hives and not returning. That was at the onset of winter. The dwindling of his previously strong colonies lasted for about 10 days, and he was left with nearly empty boxes - typical of CCD. 
And yes, he had treated and checked for varroa. 


My theory, that  neonics comporomise the bees' system of recognizing the change of season, would explain it in a very straight forward way. 

It also explains other related phenomena, like the continued brood rearing very late in the season, which seems to precede CCD.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

Stromnessbees said:


> The problem has always been, how to explain the sudden disappearance of bees during the winter months.
> A friend of mine living in an agricultural area who has his bees close to home, observed them leaving the hives and not returning. That was at the onset of winter. The dwindling of his previously strong colonies lasted for about 10 days, and he was left with nearly empty boxes - typical of CCD.
> And yes, he had treated and checked for varroa.
> 
> ...


I've watched a few hives do as above, on dissecting the hives, found that they were lacking in pollen, so the bees had used up there bodies.
The on going investigation in the NFL about head injuries has interested me. After watching these hives I realized that all had entrances that were 3/8" and I noticed that the bees continually hit there heads while entering the hives. To test my theory I switched some of the hives to 3/4" opening, and others to small cell, since doing this I have not had any more problems with CCD like symptoms, and all the above hives are in heavy corn areas with neonics. I prefer the 3/8" opening so reluctantly I may have to invest in more small cell comb to prevent them from hitting there heads while entering. I haven't investigated how to write a paper on this, but with the quality of many of the papers I have read lately, I don't think that should present any problems. I have the same problem as most people doing CCD research, finding the missing bees with the head trauma is tough, and finding a mri small enough to use on them will probably prevent me from finishing the study.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Mike, the solution to your CCD problem is clear .... you need some signs at the hive entrance warning of the "LOW BRIDGE AHEAD". And where do you get such small signs? You use "microprinting" to make your own ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprinting

:lookout:


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Stromnessbees said:


> The Hackenberg irradiation story is from 2007.
> 
> If it was effective then everybody would be doing it by now ...


Not true at all. Many factors determine what methods are actually used. and effectivness is seldom at the top of the list. cost usually is.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Also worth pointing out that Stromness, Orkney is a varroa free area which makes quite a difference to how bees need to be managed.


----------



## Greg Lowe (Feb 3, 2012)

jim lyon said:


> Stromness: Are you open to considering all scientific evidence...


What do you consider to be scientific evidence?

All we really have are facts and observations. 

All facts have to be interpreted. 

That doesn't even require a scientist or a governmental entity. 

(Unless the conclusion desired is "more research is needed")


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Stromness: So you are contending that the only possible variable between your hives and your friends is exposure to Neonics even though you have already conceded that they were in an entirely different forage area presumably exposed to different nectar and pollen flows. How about other climactic conditions and specific location variables such as water sources, wind and sun exposure? Are all beekeeping equipment, methods and manipulations identical between your hives and your friends? And let's not so lightly dismiss varroa and the related viruses that they are known to spread. Tell us about you and your friends testing methods and results? Are you aware that there is no more classic sign of varroa mite stressed hives in collapse than seeing far more eggs and open brood than the reduced hive population can possibly care for? Tell us the body of experience that you and your friend (whose observations are a large part of your evidence) actually have. How many hives, how many years? Have either of you had much if any experience with bees prior to the introduction of Neonics? One final question. If I were to take the time to read through your 60+ posts here on Beesource would I find that you have participated in any other general bee discussion besides advancing your Neonic theories?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Quite a few beekeepers continue to advance the hypothesis that neonicotinoids are the sole cause for CCD. A quick scan through the threads on neonicotinoids here on Beesource will demonstrate just how frequently it is suggested.

Professional scientists have devoted large amounts of time and money to identifying a cause for CCD. With the emphasis on publishing in academia, and with the publicity that would accompany such a discovery, I think any number of scientists would have published such a simple result if evidence would have supported it.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Pretty interesting study on CCD and pathogens.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424165/

Current evidence for a chemotoxic basis of CCD is equivocal. Honey bees have been exposed for many years to diverse anthropogenic chemicals, primarily agricultural applications aimed at reducing pest plants or arthropods. Chemical residues, including known insecticides, have been detected in bees and in hive materials (mostly wax and pollen) [11]. Recent evidence suggests the effects of low-level exposure to such chemicals range from impaired behavior (Henry et al., 2012) to lowered disease resistance (Alaux et al., 2012, Pettis et al., 2012), and further study of agrochemical toxicity is warranted. Nevertheless, neither individual chemicals nor overall chemical loads have been tied to increased risk of CCD; in fact, levels of the pesticides coumaphos and Esfenvalerate have been found at higher levels in control colonies as compared to CCD colonies


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I would suggest that the OP search for a paper by May Berrenbaum(from teh U of Ill.) around 2007. She tested to see if CCD was of chemical origins, or pathogen origins. I forgot her methods, sorry. The conclusions where that it was a pathogen, which supported Hackenbergs conclusion. 

A wise man above wrote:

I have the same problem as most people doing CCD research, finding the missing bees.

There is a report from a foreign country that analyzed those bee. The bees where placed in a "desert", 1/2 mile from a small cultivated nectar source. The author could not find any disease in the hives, but found plenty in the dead bees 1/2 mile away. Very simple, NOT very easy.

We saw CCD in 2005, 2006. Killed 90 percent for 2 years. Cleansed the hives and problems changed dramatically, and they made honey again. Don't forget the "don't make honey" CCD symptom. Do you have that?

So believe what you want.......

Crazy Roland


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

> We saw CCD in 2005, 2006. Killed 90 percent for 2 years. Cleansed the hives and problems changed dramatically, and they made honey again. Don't forget the "don't make honey" CCD symptom. Do you have that?


Roland, how did you cleanse your hives? radiation?


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

> (Henry et al., 2012) to lowered disease resistance (Alaux et al., 2012, Pettis et al., 2012),


The Henry et al study noted that a neonicotinoid pesticide impaired foraging with bees less likely to return but it exposed the bees in the study to a level of pesticide considerably above levels typically found in pollen and nectar.
Alaux and Pettis both documented an interaction between a neonicotinoid pesticide and nosema in a lab study but Pettis noted that what he found in the lab was not replicated at the colony level for some reason.
I don't know if Alaux also saw this or whether he looked for it.

The most convincing study I have seen which suggests that neonicotinoids are a problem is the Whitehorn et al (Dave Goulson, Stirling University) which found that exposure of Imidacloprid reduced the size of bumblebee nests and reduced the number of queens produced on maturity of the colony.
Goulson looks at bumbles rather than honeybees.


----------



## Stromnessbees (Jan 3, 2010)

I have followed the studies about CCD closely, and the evidence that neonics are the cause is overwhelming.
Many of those scientists that found otherwise have been exposed as having direct or indirect connections to the neonic manufacturers.

The question is no more *if *neonics cause CCD, it's _*how*_ do they cause CCD. 

As the bees' orientation has been shown to be compromised by neonics, isn't it plausible that their perception of day length could be compromised as well?


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

> The question is no more if neonics cause CCD, it's how do they cause CCD


How do you account for the many cases of CCD that had no exposure to neonics?


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

> How do you account for the many cases of CCD that had no exposure to neonics?


Yep.

Dee Lusby's bees for example



> Many of those scientists that found otherwise have been exposed as having direct or indirect connections to the neonic manufacturers.


Conspiracy gibberish.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Stromnessbees said:


> I have followed the studies about CCD closely, and the evidence that neonics are the cause is overwhelming.
> Many of those scientists that found otherwise have been exposed as having direct or indirect connections to the neonic manufacturers.
> 
> The question is no more *if *neonics cause CCD, it's _*how*_ do they cause CCD.
> ...


Lots and lots of things are plausible, the real question is what is provable. You say there is no question that neonics are the problem yet you only offer casual anecdotal observations. Things like "he saw them leave and they didnt come back". Would be an observation easily made by a child. I asked some pretty basic questions in my previous post and you have chosen not to answer any of them. Lets start with these simple questions and see if we get an answer this time. Have your "healthy" bees had the same level of exposure to varroa as your friends dwindling bees? How do you and your friends monitor mite levels and what did you find? Are your beekeeping practices and equipment identical. Are your forage and climactic conditions at least similar if not identical and here is the "biggie" that anyone wants to know before considering if your theory makes any sense at all. Have either you or your friend ever had any sampling done of any bees or bee products for traces of neonics and if so what levels were found of what chemicals.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

> Have your "healthy" bees had the same level of exposure to varroa as your friends dwindling bees?


Since there are many areas of Scotland that do not have varroa, do you even have varroa in your hives?


----------



## beeman2009 (Aug 23, 2012)

Stromnessbees said:


> I have followed the studies about CCD closely, and the evidence that neonics are the cause is overwhelming.
> Many of those scientists that found otherwise have been exposed as having direct or indirect connections to the neonic manufacturers.
> 
> The question is no more *if *neonics cause CCD, it's _*how*_ do they cause CCD.
> ...


Stromnessbees,

As I am sure you have already seen, you opened the proverbial "can of worms.":no: I'm not saying I agree or disagree.:kn: I think at present all we have are some theories of what causes CCD, but that;s to be expected when a solution to a problem of this magnitutde arises. :scratch: When you make statements here like you have made, even refering to "scientists" as you did, add your supporting evidence or at least be ready to produce it when challenged. Like I said, I am not taking sides on this issue but fair is fair. If you offer comments such as these, which I did find quite interesting, everyone is justified to say "prove it" and you are obligated to do so. Just my thoughts, no more.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Many of those scientists that found otherwise have been exposed as having direct or indirect connections to the neonic manufacturers. -Stromnessbees


The scientists who work on these sorts of things are conscientious, hard-working sorts of folks. Simply the fear of being exposed by another scientist who wouldn't have the alleged sorts of connections would keep most anyone in academia from committing such fraud.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Camero7 - yes and no. We use something other than irradiation on all our old equipment, which is kept and worked separate from the all new bees and new equipment.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Stromnessbees (Jan 3, 2010)

beeman2009 said:


> When you make statements here like you have made, even refering to "scientists" as you did, add your supporting evidence or at least be ready to produce it when challenged.


As I said before, this thread is not about the 'if', it's about the 'how'. 

And it's not about varroa or hive disinfection either. 


As you seem to doubt what I said about some of the research, I will give you an example:



> *What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths *
> ...
> A cheer must have gone up at Bayer on Thursday when a front-page New York Times article, under the headline "Scientists and Soldiers Solve a Bee Mystery," described how a newly released study pinpoints a different cause for the die-off: "a fungus tag-teaming with a virus." The study, written in collaboration with Army scientists at the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center outside Baltimore, analyzed the proteins of afflicted bees using a new Army software system. The Bayer pesticides, however, go unmentioned.
> 
> ...


http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

jonathan said:


> Also worth pointing out that Stromness, Orkney is a varroa free area which makes quite a difference to how bees need to be managed.


 Interesting - they have CCD in varroa-free area? That against believe that varroa somehow involved in CCD. I did not know that irradiation prevents CCD. It sounded complicated,but in reality - most food in supermarkets are irradiated including strawberries etc. They have gigantic "facilitiesy" with usually cobalt-60 radioactive source and pass through the whole containers... it would not be difficult to irradiate beekeeping hardware if it will solve the issue.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

> Interesting - they have CCD in varroa-free area?


There is little or no evidence of CCD anywhere in Europe.
There are people who try and attribute any colony death to CCD if the colony ended up with a small dead cluster.
This can happen with both varroa and nosema especially over winter when a colony dwindles.

It is a real shame to see the smears against Jerry Bromenshenk being repeated.

Some people quote the science if it suits, and then go in for personal attacks against the scientist when the findings don't fit the prejudice. This conspiratorial attitude is really unhelpful to the debate.

I don't actually think that Gerry Bromenshenk's theory about the iridovirus is likely to stand up over time but to label him a Bayer stooge simply because he is not blaming neonicotinoids is a disgrace.


----------



## JClark (Apr 29, 2012)

Stromnessbees said:


> As I said before, this thread is not about the 'if', it's about the 'how'.
> 
> 
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm


Wasn't going to step in this mess again but this kind of thinking pisses me off. Just because Bayer supplied some of the funding in no way suggests the results are cooked. The only way to disprove the data is to re-do the experiments--not question funding sources. Being an Army entomologist I am well aware of the assumption that the science is somehow invalid because the DoD or a Corp funded the work. All research I have conducted was never influenced by the wishes of the funders. The funding was happily taken so I didn't have to fire anyone and, in fact, hire more folks in a developing nation. Data was distilled according to my personal interpretations and published/being published as such. If the funding sources (to include the DoD) don't like the results that is their problem, not mine.

In this overly litigious, sue happy, liberal society the last thing most corporations want to do is cover things up. In fact, the funding is usually supplied to figure things out before huge problems arise. The problem w/ the potential link of CCD to any one source is the huge scope of the variables (as pointed out above). Even hives kept under identical conditions will have a % die off due to chance alone. The trick is to figure out if there is more mortality than would be expected by chance alone--hence the use of statistics.

Perhaps the lawsuit was dropped because the work he did trying to prove a link led him to the opposite conclusion? A real scientist would admit this but a political hack would keep pushing the talking point. We seem to have a lot more of the latter these days.

What are your qualifications? Are you educated in entomology, biochemistry, or any hard science (past the run of the mill bachelors degree) or do you get all your facts from CNN? Trust me, if there were a conspiracy here the New York Times would have been the first to show how "evil" Bayer is as objective editors have long since left this "news" outlet.

There is nothing wrong w/ your hypothesis but the fact that it is a hypothesis means the debate IS still on the "IF" question. Based on my cursory knowledge I would be willing to bet that mite loads may be 50% of the cause. Perhaps chronic exposure to neonics is enough to push them past the point of no return in terms of survival in some situations but the point is that this is not the case in ALL situations. This suggests that CCD is not solely the result of evil, greedy, corporations hell bent on destroying humanity to make a buck. This kind of simple thinking is destroying our society but that is another debate.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Nice posts Jonathan and jclark. Stromnessbee clearly is more interested in chasing down pet theories and casting aspersions on a good bee researcher who has spent his career doing so much for our industry. I dare say Jerry wouldn't have based a study on two sets of hives when only was was exposed to varroa as Stromnessbee has offered up as evidence. Time might be better spent proving the existence of Nessie or Chemtrails.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> Time might be better spent proving the existence of Nessie or *Chemtrails*.


Deja Vu, _again_! :lookout: _Stromnessbees _posted this _chemtrails _thread in 2008 ... 

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...nt-human-health-amp-bees&highlight=chemtrails

:ws:


----------



## Stromnessbees (Jan 3, 2010)

.
I can see that several posters here really don't like the topic of the thread and desperately try to derail from it. 


Let's try to get back to the topic ...

There are not only unusual phenomena observed in honeybee colonies, they are noticed with bumblebees as well:

Some of them seem to be unable to recognize the seasons, just like the honeybee colonies:


> *Scientists investigate phenomenon of the 'winter bees'*
> 
> It is one of the sounds of summer, but now the buzz of the bumblebee is becoming increasingly familiar in deepest winter – at a time when the insects should be hibernating.
> ...
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wi...nvestigate-phenomenon-of-the-winter-bees.html


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Interesting news story, Stromnessbess, but the scientists in the story speculate about some factors and pesticide use wasn't among the factors in the story.

Certainly pesticide use has hurt bumblebees. Pesticide use hurts honeybees. But the connection between pesticides and CCD, I thought, is what you wish to persuade others in this thread.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

Stromnessbees said:


> .
> I can see that several posters here really don't like the topic of the thread and desperately try to derail from it.


no most posters like topics when facts are posted. I have read many papers saying neonics can't bee shown as a problem, you don't show anything except what you think, now should I listen to the people doing the papers or you. I opt to listen to the people that know what they are talking about, like Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Might want to consider that bumbles react differently to neonics than honey bees.

Zoology (Jena). 2012 Dec;115(6):365-71. doi: 10.1016/j.zool.2012.05.003. Epub 2012 Oct 6.
Differential sensitivity of honey bees and bumble bees to a dietary insecticide (imidacloprid).
Cresswell JE, Page CJ, Uygun MB, Holmbergh M, Li Y, Wheeler JG, Laycock I, Pook CJ, de Ibarra NH, Smirnoff N, Tyler CR.
Source

Biosciences, College of Life & Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Geoffrey Pope Building, Stocker Road, Exeter EX4 4QD, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Abstract

Currently, there is concern about declining bee populations and the sustainability of pollination services. One potential threat to bees is the unintended impact of systemic insecticides, which are ingested by bees in the nectar and pollen from flowers of treated crops. To establish whether imidacloprid, a systemic neonicotinoid and insect neurotoxin, harms individual bees when ingested at environmentally realistic levels, we exposed adult worker bumble bees, Bombus terrestris L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), and honey bees, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), to dietary imidacloprid in feeder syrup at dosages between 0.08 and 125μg l(-1). Honey bees showed no response to dietary imidacloprid on any variable that we measured (feeding, locomotion and longevity). In contrast, bumble bees progressively developed over time a dose-dependent reduction in feeding rate with declines of 10-30% in the environmentally relevant range of up to 10μg l(-1), but neither their locomotory activity nor longevity varied with diet. To explain their differential sensitivity, we speculate that honey bees are better pre-adapted than bumble bees to feed on nectars containing synthetic alkaloids, such as imidacloprid, by virtue of their ancestral adaptation to tropical nectars in which natural alkaloids are prevalent. We emphasise that our study does not suggest that honey bee colonies are invulnerable to dietary imidacloprid under field conditions, but our findings do raise new concern about the impact of agricultural neonicotinoids on wild bumble bee populations.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

PMID:
23044068
[PubMed - in process]


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

And a recent Spanish study reports:

J Econ Entomol. 2010 Dec;103(6):1964-71.
Overview of pesticide residues in stored pollen and their potential effect on bee colony (Apis mellifera) losses in Spain.
Bernal J, Garrido-Bailón E, Del Nozal MJ, González-Porto AV, Martín-Hernández R, Diego JC, Jiménez JJ, Bernal JL, Higes M.
Source

IU CINQUIMA, Analytical Chemistry Group, University of Valladolid, E-47071 Valladolid, Spain. [email protected]
Abstract

In the last decade, an increase in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colony losses has been reported in several countries. The causes of this decline are still not clear. This study was set out to evaluate the pesticide residues in stored pollen from honey bee colonies and their possible impact on honey bee losses in Spain. In total, 1,021 professional apiaries were randomly selected. All pollen samples were subjected to multiresidue analysis by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (MS) and liquid chromatography-MS; moreover, specific methods were applied for neonicotinoids and fipronil. A palynological analysis also was carried out to confirm the type of foraging crop. Pesticide residues were detected in 42% of samples collected in spring, and only in 31% of samples collected in autumn. Fluvalinate and chlorfenvinphos were the most frequently detected pesticides in the analyzed samples. Fipronil was detected in 3.7% of all the spring samples but never in autumn samples, and *neonicotinoid residues were not detected.* More than 47.8% of stored pollen samples belonged to wild vegetation, and sunflower (Heliantus spp.) pollen was only detected in 10.4% of the samples. A direct relation between pesticide residues found in stored pollen samples and colony losses was not evident accordingly to the obtained results. Further studies are necessary to determine the possible role of the most frequent and abundant pesticides (such as acaricides) and the synergism among them and with other pathogens more prevalent in Spain.

PMID:
21309214
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Camero, So is that saying Honey bees react differently or that Honey bees don't react? Reacting differently does not mean there is any better consequence. it could be the same effect for a different reason. no reaction. is a much better situation.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Daniel Y said:


> Camero, So is that saying Honey bees react differently or that Honey bees don't react? Reacting differently does not mean there is any better consequence. it could be the same effect for a different reason. no reaction. is a much better situation.


Here's the quote:


> Honey bees showed no response to dietary imidacloprid on any variable that we measured (feeding, locomotion and longevity).


----------

