# CCD conclusions



## tarheit (Mar 26, 2003)

I don't disagree that mites aren't a problem in some areas, and some are shortcutting treatments (short-cuts, bad timing, sheep dip, etc.). But I don't buy the bit about using old treatments to save money:

old:
Checkmite @7.50/hive (4 strips- 1 per 5 frames of bees)
Apistan @7.30/hive (4 strips- 1 per 5 frames of bees)

or new:
Api Life Var @3.55/hive (3 wafers)
Mite-Away II @3.10/hive (1 treatment)

I just fail to see how the new is more expensive than the old (yes, api-life var, and even api-guard take more than 1 treatment, so they are effectively closer to checkmite/apistan than the purchase price indicates) I also don't see with numberous treatments out there now, why many just don't rotate treatments to help prevent such resistance.

(That's not to mention the many unapproved treatments that may be even cheaper, etc.)

Are big commercial guys still stuck on using Apistan/checkmite?


-Tim


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I just love these "experts" from the other side of the freakin'
planet, who have yet to see even a single case of CCD 
take us all to school on what the cause is, and what everyone
did (and/or is doing) wrong to "cause it".

Never heard of this self-proclaimed "specialist", but I'll bet
serious money that he has yet to even read the basic
literature on the issue. It seems clear that he wants
to ignore what evidence we have, which certainly points
to more than (or something other than) a mite-control
issue.


----------



## suprstakr (Feb 10, 2006)

*Wow*

World about to end.For the first time I TOTALY agree with you.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

tarheit said:


> old:
> Checkmite @7.50/hive (4 strips- 1 per 5 frames of bees)
> Apistan @7.30/hive (4 strips- 1 per 5 frames of bees)
> -Tim


I have a friend who is "retired" from commercial beekeeping and now has about 40 colonies. He lost 3 over winter.

He says that we need to get away from our computers, stop reading the books and magazines and get out and work our bees. Good old fashioned beekeeping managment is his "cure".

He uses one Apistan strip in the fall and one in the spring and grease patty in the fall. He raises lots of comb honey on his 40 colonies and doesn't extract at all.


----------



## Gregory and Susan Fariss (Aug 19, 2006)

Jim Fischer said:


> I just love these "experts" from the other side of the freakin'
> planet, who have yet to see even a single case of CCD
> take us all to school on what the cause is, and what everyone
> did (and/or is doing) wrong to "cause it".
> ...


Agreed. There are differences he doesn't address. Where are the bee corpses? Why won't other colonies rob from affected hives? 

Susan


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

You can talk about "strips" all day long. But if your in any way relating some amount of "strips" to what commercial guys are using and placing in their hives, then lets get on board with reality. How do you equate any number of strips when its not strips being used. Its panty liners, shop towels, and other made strips soaked with pure Mavrik, and other off label chemicals.

You can't sit here on beesource and relate to strips per frame, or even break it down to old/new treatements. Even if a beekeeper who for several years poured the stuff in like candy, and has now decided to "come clean" in some manner....the damage has already been done.

For those who have never had the pleasure of seeing some bigger operators in practice, it would surprise you to what has been used over the years and even recently.

Certainly for anyone inspecting, working, or observing big operations with deadlines, contracts, and bills on the lines.....apistan and checkmite would be rather mild forms of contamination. But reality is they are not mild. They contaminate comb, and whether its queen viability, or suppressed immune systems, or super mites, the damage is done. And if you face facts that a treatment many more times more damaging than any apistan or checkmite strip has been used in the past, than what the impact?

I'm not trying to paint broad pictures. But having discussions about CCD and discussing strip amounts...is a little off the path that most large operations have taken over the years.

Do I believe comb contamination equates to CCD? Not directly. But it certainly isn't helping the situation.

I even question is the answers by some were even close to the truth when asked about CCD. There is a whole lot of bad comb out there,...thats for sure.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I still have deadouts from last winter that have not been touched by robbers. Not that I have CCD, but I question this whole "bees don't rob out" stuff. I wonder if its a casual observation made a few times, and now grown to "etched in stone" status. Seems that much depends on whether bees rob or not. But it also seems the "wieght" given to this point is getting heavier all the time.

There are many secondary deseases being found that outbreak after CCD has a foothold. Nosema, EFB, and others. Maybe the bees are smart enough to stay clear of some hives, no matter what the reason. I find it interesting that so much is suggested or not suggested by this observation.


----------



## Gregory and Susan Fariss (Aug 19, 2006)

BjornBee said:


> I still have deadouts from last winter that have not been touched by robbers. Not that I have CCD, but I question this whole "bees don't rob out" stuff. I wonder if its a casual observation made a few times, and now grown to "etched in stone" status. Seems that much depends on whether bees rob or not. But it also seems the "wieght" given to this point is getting heavier all the time.
> 
> There are many secondary deseases being found that outbreak after CCD has a foothold. Nosema, EFB, and others. Maybe the bees are smart enough to stay clear of some hives, no matter what the reason. I find it interesting that so much is suggested or not suggested by this observation.


Is there anything in the deadouts to rob?  I haven't experienced CCD myself, so I can only comment on what I have read. (Which is what I have done.) Since robbing is one of the ways EFB is spread, it seems unlikely EFB would be a reason the bees would not rob, if they indeed won't. Media does tend to grab a statement and run with it though. Is anyone on this board part of the CCD working group? A victim of CCD? It would be interesting to know the answer to this question that BjornBee has raised.
Susan


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Yes, I'm not sure that I believe that this is all related to varroa either. Likewise, the only thing not benefitted by comb culling is the bottom line, and even that is may be helped by comb culling. Just out of curiosity, do migratory keepers cull 20%/year as most of us have been told to do? Is this still the recommend cull rate, and has CCD been seen in new equipment?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Aspera said:


> Just out of curiosity, do migratory keepers cull 20%/year as most of us have been told to do?


I don't know any migratory beekeepers who are doing this. Maybe I need to get out more.

When I get together w/ other commercial migratory beekeepers I don't hear anyone talking about culling comb.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

sqkcrk,

I know several large migratory beekeeepers who cull old combs. They will occassionally sell some nucs, and it seems that some old stuff gets culled out.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

BjornBee said:


> sqkcrk,
> 
> I know several large migratory beekeeepers who cull old combs. They will occassionally sell some nucs, and it seems that some old stuff gets culled out.


I know you don't like to name names, or at least I've gotten that impression, but what about David Hackenberg? I've never gotten the idea that he culls combs specifically even if he sells nucs.

I thought that the threead was talking about actually actively picking out 10 or 20 % of ones combs and getting rid of them, one way or another. 

Of those beekeepers who I have been around during nuc making time I don't know of any who have presorted cull combs to put into the nuc boxes. We/they usually build the nucs with the combs at hand.

I'm sure that my experience is just that and that their are probably examples that are different. What is commonly done by the average beekeeper, who ever that is, may be and probably is different from what I have experienced.

If I remember, I will take a poll amongst my commercial beekeeping buddies and see what the consensus is.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Aspera said:


> Yes, I'm not sure that I believe that this is all related to varroa either. Likewise, the only thing not benefitted by comb culling is the bottom line, and even that is may be helped by comb culling. Just out of curiosity, do migratory keepers cull 20%/year as most of us have been told to do? Is this still the recommend cull rate, and has CCD been seen in new equipment?


I was thinking about this some more yesterday while driving here to Ohio. 

One guy I know, in NY, runs about 2400 colonies and sells about 1600 nucs annually. So, doing some math, a two deep colony of his has 18 or 19 frames per each hive plus one or two feeders which gives him about 43,200 deep combs.

I don't know how many of his nucs are three framers, quite a few if I remember correctly. But lets say that they are all 5 framers, that would be 8,000 deep frames.

Which turns out to be about 18%, if I did my math correctly.

So, I guess I know at least one operation of size that does "cull" about 20% of it's comb annually. Bjorn is correct.

Thinking of the other beekeepers of size that I know, most of them don't sell very many, if any, nucs. So they aren't actively culling their comb.

Doing so could be benificial I suppose, but you'd have to weigh the cost/benefit ratio. Which I haven't.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

CCD Conclusion?

Have we beekeepers made as much of an over reaction to this "crisis" as the general public media?

Certainly the media attention to the plight of beekeepers has been mostly nice. I enjoy attention for what I do, don't you? 

But after all is said and done, won't more money be spent on print, tv and radio media than on Honey Bee Research? 

And aren't we beekeepers just going to keep on keeping bees the best we can, regardless of what is found to be the causetive agent(s)?

We may know now what has caused this recent problem, but are we going to change what and how we do what we do? Perhaps a little, but if it mostly works, probably not much.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> I was thinking about this some more yesterday while driving here to Ohio.
> 
> One guy I know, in NY, runs about 2400 colonies and sells about 1600 nucs annually. So, doing some math, a two deep colony of his has 18 or 19 frames per each hive plus one or two feeders which gives him about 43,200 deep combs.
> 
> ...


Maybe the net effect of CCD will be to turn the package bee industry into a nuc hive and woodware construction industry


----------



## simplyhoney (Sep 14, 2004)

No doubt old comb needs to go, but it takes time. We are seeing signs of problems this spring again. The bees came back from California in good shape, we split them, and any colony that had too much old comb/honey from 06 seems to be loosing the queen. It looks as though she was mated well, and has a few frames of brood in a very nice pattern but no eggs no young larva, no queen. I do believe that what ever it is mutated Nosema, or a new fungus, or whatever. It or it's spore is in the hive body. Sure hope we can figure out how to sterilize it. still searching for info on fumigating with Acidic Acid. Any leads will help.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

The head bee inspector in Maryland sez it's the weather. 



http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=1166229


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Jerry (the head bee inspector in MD) said no such thing!

He said that MD has had no cases of CCD that he has seen,
and that losses *in MD* have been due to the weather.

This does not imply that he thinks that CCD was caused by
"the weather". Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Jim Fischer said:


> Jerry (the head bee inspector in MD) said no such thing!
> 
> He said that MD has had no cases of CCD that he has seen,
> and that losses *in MD* have been due to the weather.
> ...



There's a reason I said "The head bee inspector in Maryland sez it's the weather.", rather than "The head bee inspector in Maryland sez that the weather is causing CCD in the state".


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Well, in a thread titled "CCD Conclusions", one expects to read
various, ummm.... (how to say it clearly?) *conclusions about
CCD* unless clearly stated otherwise.

Anyway, blaming the weather for colony losses is rather like
blaming the cat for a ruined dinner. Yes, the cat wanted to
be petted, but it was YOUR fault that you neglected dinner
to the point it burned.

The weather is inherently variable, so beekeepers should expect
to compensate for variations in the weather. Jerry was saying
(in a nice way) that beekeepers were asleep at the switch.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Interesting article on imidacloprid and other stuff.



> ...Well surely, knowing that bees are such an important part of the ecosystem, not to mention the economy, chemical companies and farmers alike wouldn’t just indiscriminately soak the countryside with a chemical that turns both bees and pests into convulsing, gibbering zombies, would they? There must be a fail-safe in there to prevent killing all the bees.
> 
> No, says Jerry Hayes, of the CCD Working Group. “Imidacloprid kills bad bugs and good bugs alike. It works on bees in the exact same way it works on all other insects.”
> 
> ...



http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=1829


----------



## simplyhoney (Sep 14, 2004)

Jim,

Take it easy. You sound as frustrated as I do. Coyote, sorry but I really don't put a lot of stock into state inspectors. My state bee inspector still insists that the state that I winter in has no "CCD" Dispite the fact that I lost 300 out of 600 (give or take) colonies. They all had classic signs, no bees or a few that had a very small cluster and a queen and a patch of brood the size of silver dollar and full of honey. The odd thing in my situation is that when I saw that the bees were struggeling late last summer I took them to my winter ground early since they had recieved good moisture and the fall wild flowers were in go mode. Many of the colonies were drawing foundiation in the wintering area in the fall and got loaded with fresh desert honey. Most of yards in my wintering area are in the desert and far from agriculture. It has been my experience that above and beyond all other things a good honey flow will cure your bees faster and more efficiently than anything else. But despite the good forage the bees continued to dwindle. I buttoned them up in late october and, unlike many, I was rather prepared to find a large number that didn't make it. You could tell simply by their lack of progress in population on this late honey flow. Young adult bees continued to perish. In my mind this somewhat eliminate the insecticide theory. The bees had no reason to tap into stores at this time, and the nectar they were collecting wasn't AG nectar. If so many other beekeepers wouldn't have had the same problem I would have guessed that they were collecting nectar from a toxic plant, which is still a slim possibility, but many other beekeepers have similar problems all over the country. Spring in my part of the desert was cold, windy and miserable. No help. Only time will tell now.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

simplyhoney said:


> ... Coyote, sorry but I really don't put a lot of stock into state inspectors....


Not to worry, I'm just linking to interesting stories.



simplyhoney said:


> In my mind this somewhat eliminate the insecticide theory.


The article is interesting, and it reads as if the reporter did do some work on it. But it's also apparent that he _really, really_ wants the cause of CCD to be insecticides produced by big corporations.


----------



## simplyhoney (Sep 14, 2004)

yea, funny how our own biasis sometimes cloud our conclusions


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

simplyhoney sezs:
yea, funny how our own biasis sometimes cloud our conclusions

tecumseh suggest:
there is an old saying (can't really recall you first said it) that goes... the only thing you can be totally unbiased about are those thing in which you know absolutely nothing.

then simplyhoney adds:
Coyote, sorry but I really don't put a lot of stock into state inspectors.

tecumseh replies:
sounds like the federales haven't been of much assistance? I know it doesn't help much but I am sorry to hear of your loss. sounds like you did everything that was reasonable and prudent.


----------



## Scut Farkas (Jun 7, 2007)

coyote said:


> "Due to narrow profit margins, the older method of varroa mite control is used. Resistent mites quickly spread through the bees and massive death results. "Who is going to concede that they were negligent in their mite control?""
> 
> http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=2044


do mites explain why bee's leave and never come back?


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

No Mites wont cause bees to leave like the hives did with ccd....they had healthy brood patterns....mite counts WERE ZERO in most instances with a beekeeper I know who lost 75%. Some colonies had 1 mite on sugar rolls. BUT I CAN say without a doubt it wasn't mites, I fact I lost some colonies after I treated with apiguard in the fall and I already had a low mite count....1-3 in sugar rolls and after treatment couldnt hardly find a mite! If all of you wouyld look at imiadcloprid(sp) and its effects on insects....BINGO! I saw an area about 20 x 40 feet covered with dead bees(2-3 inches deep) in lake mead in Florida. Why would bees drown during a honey flow when they didnt need water? THey were totallly confused mentally! When it all comes to a end.....I can almost guarantee its goucho, admire ect! And I also know for a fact Bayer has threatened certain researchers with pulling research money if they dont back off.....and that pretty much came from a horses mouth! Futhermore the researcher who did alot of work in this is france had his research money pulled before he finsihed and he is convinced of what imiadcloprid does!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> And I also know for a fact Bayer has threatened certain researchers 
> with pulling research money if they dont back off.....and that pretty 
> much came from a horses mouth! Futhermore the researcher who did 
> alot of work in this is france had his research money pulled before he
> finsihed and he is convinced of what imiadcloprid does!

Can you name names?
Can you name names via e-mail, if you are uncomfortable doing so on
a "public" forum?

I can't imagine the same company that offered to participate to the
point of providing metabolite samples for free to also be threatening
the same folks to which the metabolite chemistry was offered, as
it would seem reasonable for them to want those researchers to
do the work, and thereby find Bayer "not involved".


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

>I lost 300 out of 600 (give or take) colonies. They all had classic signs, no bees or a few that had a very small cluster and a queen and a patch of brood the size of silver dollar and full of honey.<

Correct me if I am wrong, but...

I thought the classic symptom of CCD was a queen, a handfull of young bees, and combs full of brood...not a silver dollar sized patch of brood.

What you are describing would more likely be tracheal mite damage if it were happening in the spring, here in Vermont.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

The problem with the "CCD Survey" effort is that it fails to
collect the sort of epidemiological data that would help to
isolate such cases, where losses are perhaps explainable by
causes other than "CCD", and confirm the symptoms for 
those cases that appear to be "CCD".


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

Seems to me Jim that the CCD Survey was more about making beekeepers feel good than generating some ground shaking conclusion... a garbage in-garbage out kind of process. perhaps it is just my cynical attitude in regards to the researcher who compiled the survey? most time when I finally figure out who writes someone check I can pretty much determine the conclusion before the fact. 

Or perhaps it is just an excellent way of allowing the evidence to age gracefully without any of the perps becoming implicated?


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

My info on was at Penn State.....where Bayer asked them to back off> This came to me directly from a person I trust who knows the researchers very well. The researcher in france wrote a article about how he was pulled off the research project before he was finished as all his signs were pointing to the insecticide. I found the article on the internet by searching bee kills, imiadcloprid ect. Do you really think Bayer would cooperate when BILLIONS of dollars of sales are at sake? Have big companies ever cooperated? Did the tobacco companies lie? Its all about MONEY$$$$$$ Bayer could care less about the beekeeper as long as we dont get in their pocket!!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I have discussed this "Bayer had sent someone to stop Penn State from looking" point awhile back with those close to the research..

Can I confirm that Bayer representatives were at Penn State? I am told that chemical company reps are constantly at PennState. They have a top notch extension department that conduct testing and research all over the place. Whether it be developing a new line of flowers or testing seed, they have small farms and testing plots everywhere. Much of this testing is with support, funding, and assistance with a host of representatives from companies.

So was Bayer officials at Penn State? Sure. They are there many times throughout the year. This is confirmed.

I heard they spoke to "one" person. Now this one person has become "Penn State" and "them".

For someone to slander not one person but an entire research department or university, based on standing behind secrecy of some unknown person entitiled "this person", is a little much.

Penn State is not the only one looking into this connection with Bayer products. And if there was more then rumors, urban legends, and gossip involved, then the bee industry should seek outside assistance from independent sources and provide funding for such.

With as many people looking at the same information and doing seperate testing, I don't think having one person appraoched at Penn State would keep the ball from rolling.

Sutton, you throw in your own bias and POV, while indicating that an entire university is willing to cover up and somehow to be involved in a conspiracy. For you to make such accusations, would it be too much to ask while you are doing this, that perhaps you can come forward with your "phantom" source, and provide facts, details, and additional information?

Is it out the realm of possibility that a Bayer representative after finding out that Penn State was looking at their product, made a visit to Penn State? If I was calling the shots at Bayer, I know I would have someone make a visit. I could even see Bayer asking that they use good judgement in letting rumors and leaks portray Bayer in a bad light. (Seems the indictment and the proof that Bayer was guilty was a little premature prior to any real results. Yet the "Hackenburg's bandwagon" claimed GUILTY! from the start.) But this is a far cry from Bayer threatening, or "paying" off Penn State officials or researchers. 

I think the grapes on this grapevine of rumors has been in the sunlight a little too long.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...seems to me that "insecticide poisining" would be any easy one to test...why would you trust "researchers" to do this testing if you thought they were being bought off. go to home depot, buy some stuff, and spread it around (or even in) a hive, and see if you can reproduce "ccd symptoms".

also, the oft repeated claim that bees don't rob out ccd hives, if accurate, seems only the start of looking at things.
-will they take "ccd honey" (ccdh) out of a feeder inside a hive?
-will they take ccdh from an open feeder?
-will they take non ccdh from equipment that was used on bees that did suffer ccd?
-if you put out honey frames in the open near hives (both ccdh and non ccdh), will they open feed on one and not the other?

all of these are inexpensive tests that can be done with virtually no funding.

bees are not humans, there is no ethical problem with exposing a hive (or 100) to toxins to see if the ccd symptoms are present....yet what we seem to be seeing is that the ccd working group is taking samples from affected hives, and asking for funding to have them tested....while also claiming that they are being paid directly by affected operations, and therefore need to keep their observations confidential....these two positions are incongruent (at least from my perspective).

this seems to me to be basic, cheap, research that could easily narrow the focus.
deknow


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Bojorn bee

I think you misinterperted what I was saying. I am not slandering Penn ST. In fact from my source Bayer asked Penn St to back off....Penn St refused! What I was told Penn St told Bayer was that Bees were more important than research $$. Now if you think big corporations wont try to get a researcher to back off if they suspect of know s omething negative ma come up....well you gotta lot to learn...it happens every day. It just so happens alot(most) of universities get their research $$ from big corporations like Bayer. NOw if alot your money comes from Bayer and something like CCD happens where Bayer may be responsiable have you been on another planet or something to be so naive to believe Bayer wouldnt try to get a researcher to back off? Come on $$$$$$talks.....happens every day. I NEVER SAID ANY RESEARCHER at Penn St would do that only that Bayer had asked them to! If you sold 1.3 BILLION last year.....wouldnt you try to keep your product on the market as long as possiable? BIG MOney controlls our researchers to a certain degree by what they get money to research....along with our political system....YOu dont think if lets say Phillip Morris USA(KRAFT, tobacco, ect) gave senator x amount of $$ he is not going to vote their way???? If you believe this is not true.....well you better get your head from its hidding place! Do some research on here and you will find where the researcher that was doing research on imiadcloprid (sp) in Europe never got to finsih....and HE WAS CONVINCED IT WAS imiadcloprid! Im not trying to belittle you.....you just got to try to realize $$$ talks an dBayer (or any other big corporation) only cares about PROFITS!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

What you do sutton is assume that each person should connect all the dots and see it as clearly as you. But in todays world, as you noted with the relationship between universities, researchers, and big business, that money does talk.
On this very site, comments about tainted research, big business shakedowns, profit motives and the lack of trust in companies like Bayer, all muddy the water. And in the middle of this converstaion and mindset, you are eager to throw in your "Bayer confronted or leaned on researchers from PennState". But somehow you always forget to mention the last part "PennState researchers said NO WAY!"

So your little part and comment goes a long way in adding to the grapevine chatter of conspiracists, the anti-everything crowd that see any data with skepticism and disdain.

Then you go as far as make parallel comparisions of cigarrette companies and others who were less than honest in the past, with this conversation. Asking me to pull my head out while assuming and painting with broad brushes, and again giving some the fodder to claim wrongly that something is dirty in the research thus far presented by the bee industry.

I would find it proper the next time you mention a Bayer official asking for something from a PennState researcher, that the response and reaction from the research community be considered worth adding. Anything less adds to the distrust and only fuels a fire where none is.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Sorry Bojorn, Not very good at English/expressing myself at times....or typing for that matter as you can see! What I was trying to say is Bayer was leaning in Penn state to back off and not look at imiadcloprid, I didnt mean to imply that they(researchers) would give false results......only that Bayer doenst even want it looked at and may pull reasearch $$ for research in other areas not realted to bees . Form what iI was told.....thats exactly what happened! If you really look at all the differant beekeepers that were affected, the differant areas, the differant mite treatments, enviroment ect.....there are not alot of common threads. I first thought Mites or mite related....but after looking at all the facts/input factors and possiable causes AND the reaction imiadcloprid causes in insects it is very possiable or should I say the likely cause. Testing the bees with the fungus, weakened immune system ect all points to imiadcloprid as it causes weakened immune systems along with behavioral abnormalities. I'm point my finger at Bayer and not at researchers! I do realize I'm not going to convience you of my view....and I have looked at all other reasons.....but we will wait and see ....guess one us will eat crow.....If I loose Ill send you a pic with feathers in my mouth....but you must agree to do the same if I'm right! THere are alot of other colonies that died due to low stores, crazy winter weather and mites.......but those of us who lost colonies to ccd....well my bet is goucho, provo, admire and the other systemic insecticides are the cause!


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

This report suggests pesticides as the main culprit. He also addresses contaminated comb. They're running experiments.


"Walter Sheppard and other researchers at Washington State University say that rather than being driven off by cell phone frequencies – as some have suggested – its more likely that the bees have simply been poisoned."



http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/06/honey_bees.html


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Well Duh....

Lets see, the odds of cell phones or poisoning. Hmmmm....cell phones or poisoning. Cell phones.........poisoning......?????

"it is more likely......" What a concept for the research community. Now laying odds, and basing statements on "likely".

Heck, I'm no researcher from Washington State University, but it does not take alot of intelligence to figure the odds, and what the likelyhood when comparing between the two, cell phones or poisoning.

Glad that research money is making all the difference.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

suttonbee man sezs:
What I was told Penn St told Bayer was that Bees were more important than research $$. Now if you think big corporations wont try to get a researcher to back off if they suspect of know s omething negative ma come up....well you gotta lot to learn...it happens every day. It just so happens alot(most) of universities get their research $$ from big corporations like Bayer.

tecumseh replies:
at one time the land grant institutions were finance largely thru federal and state tax monies. this tradional finacing of university research began to change in the 1980's when corporate money slowly became more and more important as the political determine decision was made to slowly wean the land grant institutions from tax monies (if you have children and are paying university tuition at this time you know this quite directly). researchers who hope to acquire future resources KNOW that future funding is dependent on how current research is spun. at one time I 'reviewed' research done here in the late 1970's where a 'first class' researcher (he was department head) slanted his studies of plant response to fertilizer application. it souldn't require a rocket scientist to figure out who paid for this research. the net effect of this kind of poorly construct research was fertilizer application at a greater level than economical justifiable and quite likely increased environment damage to water resoures (the total cost of this degradation cannot be calculate but will be paid for socially).

Tip: if you are a member of the research community and are foolish enough to point out that research conclusion determined before the fact (and slanted toward a view acceptable to the commercial interest providing the research dollars) expect to have you head served to you on a platter.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Well said tecumseh


----------



## simplyhoney (Sep 14, 2004)

The bees I described as having a sivlerdollar patch of brood were checked in early spring. There is no way they would have had hives full of brood yet. Infact, usually at this time of year(early Feb.), in my wintering locations, most of the colonies haven't started brooding up yet. Most of the colonies had no bees just full of honey. If you read my posts from last Sept. and October you will see that as soon as I saw there was a problem I started checking for mites using several methods. i.e. sugar rolls, ether rolls, drone brood checking, and I even treated one large colony with Maverick and got a very minimal mite fall. I am convinced that the death of the colonies were not DIRECTLY related to mite infestation. I would be open to listen to theories that involve mites as a vector. In some of my other posts you may recall that I have stated that the equipment that was left from the dead outs was not robbed for a very long time and much of it was never robbed, in addition this spring it seemed as though you could not cultivate bees on this "contaminated" equipment. 
At anyrate we have a good honey flow now and most of the bees seem to be getting healthier, just growing slowly.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

>I started checking for mites using several methods. i.e. sugar rolls, ether rolls, drone brood checking, and I even treated one large colony with Maverick and got a very minimal mite fall.

Try using a sticky board, a better gauge of mite population.

And try the ''T'' chem for the mite drop.

>I am convinced that the death of the colonies were not DIRECTLY related to mite infestation. 

If you are brood less with old bees, a small amounts of mites can do alot of damage.


>I would be open to listen to theories that involve mites as a vector. 

What I have been doing is trying to keep the mites at bay, but to raise tons of brood in the fall/winter to out run them.This has worked well for me ,BUT is alot of extra work.

One thing I see is common on this topic is, mites are not to blame..., I have them under control..., I would not under estimate the mite problem!

If ones looks back, as we saw the chems starting to fail
( CheckMite & Apistan ect..) we also saw beekeepers living in denial. Now, it's seems to be a blame game of sorts.

Most have seen my bees in ABJ or pics here, But let me tell you, when I come out of the almonds I have the mites.

So, If every one is so clean how come in late March I see mites everywhere I look??? Not just mine, but all over. 
I think we need to revisit this area with a new look.

Just my two cents worth.

I'm so broke I cant afford to pay attention.


----------

