# Has Seed Coating Changed? CCD gone for Good!



## Haraga

Without debating my answer. No.


----------



## JConnolly

Since you're speculating... Suppose we can target just one so called "pest" and eliminate it without affecting any other insect? Now haven't we dramatically altered the ecosystem by eliminating one species of bug? If so, then haven't you affected the other insects anyways? Suppose the pest you eliminated was a major food source for a beneficial predatory insect, arachnid, or anura (frog/toad/etc). Now the predators start to die off. With the predators gone a different pest that was previously well controlled by the predators now has no natural enemy and begins to reproduce without natural constraints. What if the new population is a carrier of a virus that can affect other beneficial insects, a virus that until now was limited simply by being carried by a small population. But that population has exploded, and with it the virus. Meanwhile, we discover that the pest we eliminated favored snacking on a certain fungus along with the seed we were trying to protect. Now the fungus starts to spread. Whether you are tinkering with evolution or playing god (depending on your -ism) there are many variables, and so far our track record just hasn't been very good. Kinda begs the question, "what is a pest?"


----------



## umchuck

ck out NWNJ Beekepers, they just had a speaker name I think was Tom Jodczak Maine state apiarist, hes been on the job since late 80s to this day he said they have never seen a dead out caused by neonic's and he was seeing CCD back in the early 90s up on Prince Edward Island he gets to see the bees after almonds in cali and citrus, he says most dead outs are either varroa or nosema. the video is like 45 minutes but very interesting.


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> Without debating the cause of CCD. Just a what if.
> 
> If a corporation even thought it was a possibility they would do what ever it took to avoid this. Reduction of active ingredients could reduce the exposure to non target insects and still be effective against pests.


Uninformed wishful thinking. 

Why would they do this when there is absolutely no proof that pesticides (I assume that you are talking about neonics) are not the cause of CCD? Furthermore, CCD is a completely undefined problem; other than your bees are dead and you are looking at somebody to blame.

As far as reducing the amount of pesticides, neonics are already used in tiny amounts as compared to organophosphates and other old delisted pesticides. So what is the problem?


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

FlowerPlanter said:


> Without debating the cause of CCD. Just a what if.
> 
> If a corporation even thought it was a possibility they would do what ever it took to avoid this. Reduction of active ingredients could reduce the exposure to non target insects and still be effective against pests. Additives to reduce dust, keeping the product from drifting. The corporation wouldn't even have to know for sure. It might just be logical steps any company would take with any product. Then CCD might just disappear without a trace.
> 
> If this is the case we will not see CCD again!


Seeing as how the same symptoms of collapse and die-off (that today some are calling "CCD") were observed and described centuries before the invention of Monsanto and neonics and other chemical pesticides, this seems very unlikely.



umchuck said:


> ck out NWNJ Beekepers, they just had a speaker name I think was *Tom Jodczak* Maine state apiarist, hes been on the job since late 80s to this day he said they have never seen a dead out caused by neonic's and he was seeing CCD back in the early 90s up on Prince Edward Island he gets to see the bees after almonds in cali and citrus, he says most dead outs are either varroa or nosema. the video is like 45 minutes but very interesting.


That's Tony Jadczak, he is very knowledgeable. I expect to be talking with him sometime in the next few weeks.

Last night I met with a guy who knows Tony well. We discussed an accidental "experiment" in which 40 hives were inadvertently left in a yard in GA and received no attention for a season. 25 of those were wiped out- the post mortem did indeed indicate varroa as the primary culprit. The remaining hives that survived, apparently did so because they swarmed and interrupted the brood/mite life-cycle.

Short of introducing a genetic alteration to the bee that causes them to produce a substance toxic to mites (or at least, makes them unpalatable), I think that varroa is here to stay and treating for it/controlling it must be one of the primary concerns for those who keep bees. In my opinion, attempts to breed bees that are "resistant" to mites are...misguided...at best. The natural evolution of some bees, which has allowed them to coexist with mites, took place over a huge time-scale. To think that such an occurrence can be mimicked by artificial substituting artificial selection in place of natural selection, over the relatively puny life cycle of humans (and without introducing an undesired trait) smacks of either hubris or ignorance. A propensity to swarm seems to me to be the most effective "natural" solution to coexistence with mites, but this trait is inimical to those who wish to keep bees to produce a surplus crop of honey and requires more labor and attention on the part of the keeper, which would drive up the cost of the product.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

>Without debating my answer. No. 
Not even a possibility, a corporation won't even take precaution? 

>absolutely no proof that pesticides (I assume that you are talking about neonics) are not the cause of CCD
The cause of CCD is unknown/unproven at this time. and if CCD does not show up again it will remain that way.

>As far as reducing the amount of pesticides, neonics are already used in tiny amounts as compared to organophosphates and other old delisted pesticides.
As with any pesticide/herbicide the dose is measured to give 100% effectiveness with a wide range of pests, weeds, in every possible environment there is plenty of room to adjust the dose and still be 100% effective. You can see this with roundup, the rate it is applied to crops often exceeds what is actually needed, look at the drift on the edges where the wind has blown the spray. You still get 100% effective kill rate in the crop and enough extra to kill weeds sometime 2' away depending on wind.


----------



## beemandan

FlowerPlanter said:


> Without debating the cause of CCD.





FlowerPlanter said:


> >Without debating my answer. No.
> Not even a possibility, a corporation won't even take precaution?


And you said....without debating.....and who's the first to start a debate?


----------



## FlowerPlanter

Still without debating the cause of CCD. 

Will a corporation take precautions?
Just found this;
https://www.bayercropscience.us/news/press-releases/2013/growers-rave-about-new-planter-lubricant

Bayer; "its new seed application technology, which is designed to further reduce potential dust exposure to honey bees during a typical planting process"


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> Still without debating the cause of CCD.
> 
> Will a corporation take precautions?
> Just found this;
> https://www.bayercropscience.us/news/press-releases/2013/growers-rave-about-new-planter-lubricant
> 
> Bayer; "its new seed application technology, which is designed to further reduce potential dust exposure to honey bees during a typical planting process"


Is there a problem with Bayer doing this?


----------



## wildbranch2007

if they changed the active ingedient they would have to get a new label, anyone seen a new label


----------



## gjt

In my opinion, and without debate :lpf: . . .

Your initial and follow up comments have several logical fallacies.

You explicitly state that you do not wish to engage in debate, then when the response does not fit your world view, you began a debate.
You make a causality between (presumably) seed coating and colony collapse disorder. Yet, there are even in the group that fervently believes CCD is caused by agricultural chemicals, there is a wide range of conjectures what causes CCD.

In essence, a setup question. That is, "have you stopped beating your wife? You may only answer 'yes' or 'no'."

There is serious regulatory and testing requirements for any chemical that is used in the agro business. A "simple" change would require potentially millions of investment just to get it on the shelves.

If you truly believe that agricultural chemicals, specifically seed coating causes CCD, may I suggest an alternate approach? It would bring you more credibility.

Research the chemicals used for seed coating. Research how those chemicals interact with soil, plant, flowers and nectar. Research how those chemicals interact with insects. Once completed, publish your empirical scholarly paper for peer review. Even if I disagreed with your conclusion, I would consider your work respectable. 

Just a thought.


----------



## Nabber86

wildbranch2007 said:


> if they changed the active ingedient they would have to get a new label, anyone seen a new label


They did not change the active ingredient, it is an inert dust control technology using poly wax rater than talc or graphite. 

The article also says that Bayer announced very favorable field trial results of its new seed application technology. They are a long way from relabeling and we don't even know if it will be needed.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

gjt said:


> You explicitly state that you do not wish to engage in debate, then when the response does not fit your world view, you began a debate.


I don't see anywhere that was said, do you?



gjt said:


> "have you stopped beating your wife? You may only answer 'yes' or 'no'."


Truly your on the wrong forum



Nabber86 said:


> Is there a problem with Bayer doing this?


It is a good thing, Only good can come from it. What compelled them to do this we will never know.

Do you think CCD is gone for good?


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> It is a good thing, Only good can come from it. What compelled them to do this we will never know.
> 
> Do you think CCD is gone for good?


I am going to have to bow out of this one. I can't tell what the point is that you are trying to make. 




Regarding gjt's wife question, when we were kids the joke was; Do your parents know that you are retarded?


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

Nabber86 said:


> I am going to have to bow out of this one. I can't tell what the point is that you are trying to make.


Yep, if points cannot be made and responded to in a logical manner and with apt reasoning, it's pretty much done.


----------



## gjt

FlowerPlanter said:


> I don't see anywhere that was said, do you?


You wrote -


FlowerPlanter said:


> Without debating the cause of CCD.[...]





FlowerPlanter said:


> Truly your on the wrong forum


 I was attempting at a striking analogy, to demonstrate the logical trap.

Either way, my intention was not to rile but to point out the predicament you, probably unintentionally put people in while discussing (but not debating) the topic with.

I do not believe anyone has a definite answer what is/was the source of CCD, therefore who can answer if it "is good for good"?


----------



## FlowerPlanter

I was not looking for a CCD debate there are plenty of those, which apparently that's all you get when you make a CCD thread.

I was simply keeping an open mind and looking at different possibilities, just “what if” 

“What if” a corporation thought it was a possibility, could they have taken precaution to protect themselves and their products. That was the question. I later found out they have taken precaution to prevent dust drift specifically to protect bees. In Bayer’s link from above.

Is it possible they made any of these changes to reduce dust round about the time CCD stopped?


----------



## Oldtimer

FlowerPlanter said:


> Do you think CCD is gone for good?


Still without debating here's a what if.

What if we continue to have these 3 ingredients - bees, varroa mites, and people.

What is the chance that some time, some place, someone will "find" some CCD?


----------



## D Coates

Oldtimer said:


> What is the chance that some time, some place, someone will "find" some CCD?


Ohhhhh, ohhh, oh, me, me, me (Horseshack quote from Mr. Kotter. How about that from the way back reference category?)

Someone will claim to "find" it, then will require/demand copious amounts of money, resources, and political power given to fix a problem that has yet to be defined, understood or even proven to actually exist.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

FlowerPlanter said:


> I was not looking for a CCD debate there are plenty of those, which apparently that's all you get when you make a CCD thread.
> 
> I was simply keeping an open mind and looking at different possibilities, just “what if”
> 
> “What if” a corporation thought it was a possibility, could they have taken precaution to protect themselves and their products. That was the question. I later found out they have taken precaution to prevent dust drift specifically to protect bees. In Bayer’s link from above.
> 
> Is it possible they made any of these changes to reduce dust round about the time CCD stopped?


Are you intentionally ignoring the point I made?

The "what if" makes no sense. The very same observations and symptoms that are currently called "CCD" have been reported for hundreds of years before the existence of Monsanto, widespread commercial pesticide use, seed coatings and "neonics"; therefore, it is completely illogical to presume that any changes Monsanto or any other company might make, even if they disappeared completely, would eliminate "CCD".

If bee colonies collapsed _before_ these things existed, then there is absolutely no reason to think that eliminating them will prevent colonies from collapsing.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

BadBeeKeeper said:


> The "what if" makes no sense.


The "what if" is the basis of ALL SCIENCE!
What if the world was round? Could you take a ship and not fall off? Would you burn the person that suggested it? Where would you be if "what if" was never asked?



BadBeeKeeper said:


> symptoms that are currently called "CCD" have been reported for hundreds of years


From USDA site; "While the descriptions sound similar to CCD, there is no way to know for sure if those problems were caused by the same agents as CCD."



BadBeeKeeper said:


> *then there is absolutely no reason to think *


I beg to differ, the world would still be flat!
:ws:


----------



## D Coates

Someone is bored. I'm out.


----------



## Dominic

BadBeeKeeper said:


> Are you intentionally ignoring the point I made?
> 
> The "what if" makes no sense. The very same observations and symptoms that are currently called "CCD" have been reported for hundreds of years before the existence of Monsanto, widespread commercial pesticide use, seed coatings and "neonics"; therefore, it is completely illogical to presume that any changes Monsanto or any other company might make, even if they disappeared completely, would eliminate "CCD".
> 
> If bee colonies collapsed _before_ these things existed, then there is absolutely no reason to think that eliminating them will prevent colonies from collapsing.


Cancer has existed for a very long time, since before smoking cigarettes started. By your logic, smoking can't cause cancer.

Different causes can result in similar symptoms. Quackgrass can invade a field by spread of seeds. Doesn't mean that it can't also invade a field if you disk it, by root growth.

Additionally, just because one something can have varying results doesn't mean that it isn't causal to any of them. Saying "neonics don't cause colony collapse because region X uses them and they don't have any problems" is like saying "seeds aren't an effective way to propagate sunflower, because when sown into concrete it did not allow for viable plants". That's why the scientific method relies on control groups, because external factors can come amplify or camouflage the phenomenon that is being studied.

The argument that CCD-like symptoms existed hundreds of years prior to the appearance of criticized products, and thus said products can't cause CCD, is a fallacious and incredibly weak argument. Not only for the reasons stated above, but also because said problems were *absent* since hundreds of years.


----------



## Dominic

umchuck said:


> ck out NWNJ Beekepers, they just had a speaker name I think was Tom Jodczak Maine state apiarist, hes been on the job since late 80s to this day he said they have never seen a dead out caused by neonic's and he was seeing CCD back in the early 90s up on Prince Edward Island he gets to see the bees after almonds in cali and citrus, he says most dead outs are either varroa or nosema. the video is like 45 minutes but very interesting.


One man's first-hand experience is of little value. Multiple neonic-related hive losses have been proven over many years in Canada. There is no doubt over whether neonics can cause hive collapses, it has occurred often enough. Just because he never saw any doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I never saw a camel, but I don't doubt their existence. How many dead-outs did he send to a lab to get analyzed?



FlowerPlanter said:


> Still without debating the cause of CCD.
> 
> Will a corporation take precautions?
> Just found this;
> https://www.bayercropscience.us/news/press-releases/2013/growers-rave-about-new-planter-lubricant
> 
> Bayer; "its new seed application technology, which is designed to further reduce potential dust exposure to honey bees during a typical planting process"


That has nothing to do with CCD. I'm not even aware of any CCD cases in Canada, and that change is namely a result of increasing evidence that neonic dust (in Canada and elsewhere) is an important cause of hive loss when corn is planted. New lubricants and recommended seeding practices seek to reduce acute intoxication that would happen in Spring.

It has not eliminated the problem.


----------



## Nabber86

Dominic said:


> Multiple neonic-related hive losses have been proven over many years in Canada.


You are going to have to back up that statement. Source please.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

Oldtimer said:


> What if we continue to have these 3 ingredients - bees, varroa mites, and people.
> 
> What is the chance that some time, some place, someone will "find" some CCD?


We still have bees, varroa mites, and people. But no new confirmed CCD cases in US or Canada in the last few years. But anything can happen.

Bayer did announced their dust preventive technology specifically designed for honey bees round about the same time CCD stopped. It may or may not have anything to do with it.


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> Bayer did announced their dust preventive technology specifically designed for honey bees round about the same time CCD stopped.



Bayer announced that they performed _laboratory research and field trials_ of a new dust preventive technology. As far as I can tell, the practice has not gone into wide spread use***. How could something that hasn't happened yet correlate with a decline in CCD? 


***_Large scale field testing program in U.S. and Canada is inprogress. If successful our goal is to introduce for the spring 2014 market_.

Source: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2013/pollinsummit/Bill-Hairston-Talc-replacement.pdf


----------



## johno

In the last century there was this thing called disappearing disease, much the same as CCD of course no neonics at that time. So the sooner we stop blaming neonics maybe this thread will also disappear.
Johno


----------



## FlowerPlanter

It's been use on corn at least 3 years. With 2015 to be 4th crop year.

Link above, from EPA;

"The role of this extra dry product at planting time and it’s potential effect on the amount of dust released from the planter exhaust has been raised as a possible contributor to exposure of seed treatment active to bees."

"limited field trials with corn growers were conducted in 2012 to evaluate the effectiveness in commercial planters with positive results."

"Large scale field testing program planned by BCS in U.S. and Canada in spring of 2013."

"If successful our goal is to introduce for the spring 2014 market."

Also keep in mind that this technology was designed *specifically* for *HONEY BEES!* 

This is just one step by Bayer to help the honey bees. Is it possible they been working on other technologies as well? Has Monsanto taking any precautionary steps?

Is CCD Gone For Good?


----------



## AstroBee

Logical construct of the question aside, how could this possibly be a *bad thing*? Seems pretty obvious that if you reduce inadvertent spread of pesticide dust, then all pollinators will benefit in the immediate area. Will it end something that we really don't know what casues it, well I'll leave that to others to pontificate on.


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> It's been use on corn at least 3 years. With 2015 to be 4th crop year.


Do you even logic? You are confusing field trials with actual use of the dust control technology. 

*2012 -*_ Based on these promising lab studies, *limited field trials *with corn growers were conducted in 2012 to evaluate the effectiveness in commercial planters with positive results.

_*2013 -*_ Large scale *field testing program *planned by BCS in U.S. and Canada in spring of 2013. 

_*2013- *Initiated cooperation and testing with all major planter manufacturers• John Deere, Case New Holland, Kinze, Great Plains, AgcoWhite, Monosem, and Precision Planting.*2013 -* _All major planter manufacturers have agreed to conducttheir own evaluations to confirm performance in their planter designs. Confirmation of its *effectiveness needs to be confirmed under “real world” conditions* through various planter types. Large scale field testing program in U.S. and Canada is in progress. *If successful our goal is to introduce for the spring 2014 market.

*_*2014 - ??

2015 - ??

*2014 would be the first year that the new technology could possibly have be released for use in the farming industry. Their *goal* was to release it in 2014 and apparently they did not meet that *goal*. If they did meet their *goal* (introduction of the technology for use in the farming industry in 2014), Bayer would have announced that prior to the 2014 planting season. My guess is that they are still working with the major planter manufactures to gather data. So as it stands, the new technology has been used in the farming industry for anywhere of between 0 years and 1 year. Being that it is now the spring of 2015 and we haven't heard anything since 2013 (2 years ago to the month), it is is safe to conclude that it has not been released for use.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

Precautions by Bayer to reduce pesticide exposure to Honey Bees from their product. 
Your right we don't know for sure how many years they've used the dust technology. We also don't know any other steps they may have taken with their products to reduce dust/exposure in the past. We only know what they told us. But they clearly have had a desire for many years to reduces dust of their products *specifically for HONEY BEES.*

Monsanto also has taken precaution to help the honey bee. 
"Monsanto is a member of the Honey Bee Health Coalition facilitated by The Keystone Center, which brings together beekeepers, growers, researchers, government agencies, agribusinesses, conservation groups, manufacturers and brands, and other key partners to improve the health of honey bees and other pollinators."

Monsanto's newly (2011) purchased Beeologics has been studying CCD; "To date, control of CCD has focused on varroa mite control"

These two corporations are spending a lot of time, money and resources on an insect. It might just be logical precautions any company would take. Is it possible any of their precautions stopped CCD?

Is CCD Gone For Good?


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> These two corporations are spending a lot of time, money and resources on an insect. It might just be logical precautions any company would take. Is it possible any of their precautions stopped CCD?
> 
> Is CCD Gone For Good?


If CCD actually exists, the answer in no. The time, money and resources are just starting to get spent by Bayer. It's way too early to see any affects. What kind of impact are you going to see after a couple of years of field trial and zero industry use. Thanks for the August 2013 update from Bayer, but the "rave reviews" are still from field trials. 


As for Monsanto and Beelogics, they have formed think tanks, generated press releases, and have studied the problem, but they have not actively done anything; therefore, there cannot be any affects from their efforts either.


----------



## Dominic

Nabber86 said:


> You are going to have to back up that statement. Source please.


Namely: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/neonicotinoid/neonicotinoid-eng.php#a23

Plus the government representatives (the vets, the pesticide agency, the agriculture ministries) that give up updates on pesticide intoxication every year. For 2014, the provincial vet's report states that more than half of hive intoxication are the result of neonics.



FlowerPlanter said:


> Also keep in mind that this technology was designed *specifically* for *HONEY BEES!*
> 
> This is just one step by Bayer to help the honey bees. Is it possible they been working on other technologies as well? Has Monsanto taking any precautionary steps?
> 
> Is CCD Gone For Good?


They aren't doing squat "to help the honey bees". Pressure is mounting against them, they are just adopting superficial PR measures to save their asses and slow government reaction. They just want to maximize their sales, and doing such PR work confuses enough people to slow political retaliation.

It also has nothing to do CCD. I haven't seen one Canadian beekeeper association talk about CCD. It's just not a problem we seem to have. But neonics do kill and do weaken our colonies. The pesticide makers just want to patch up the acute intoxication issues so that they can go on to pretend that everything is fine and that chronic poisoning doesn't exist and that using it on 99% of the farmland when only 5-10% actually benefits from it is good farming.


----------



## D Coates

Dominic said:


> But neonics do kill and do weaken our colonies. The pesticide makers just want to patch up the acute intoxication issues so that they can go on to pretend that everything is fine and that chronic poisoning doesn't exist and that using it on 99% of the farmland when only 5-10% actually benefits from it is good farming.


It's proven if applied wrong it does cause problems. Heck, just about anything applied wrong can cause problems. 

However, if the rest of what you claim had any scientifically accepted and supported and repeatable findings for this there would be lawsuits like rain. 99% of farmland... Were did you get that statistic? only 5-10% actually benefits... Again, where did you get that statistic? 

Completely made up, like the rest of the soapbox statement?


----------



## Nabber86

Dominic said:


> Namely: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/neonicotinoid/neonicotinoid-eng.php#a23
> 
> Plus the government representatives (the vets, the pesticide agency, the agriculture ministries) that give up updates on pesticide intoxication every year. For 2014, the provincial vet's report states that more than half of hive intoxication are the result of neonics.


The information that you linked from Health Canada specifically measured "Dead bee" reports that represent the estimated number of dead bees observed in front of affected colonies in an individual beeyard. Note they use the term *observed. *Who "observed"; the beekeepers? Why weren't the bees counted? Sounds like an easy way to overestimate dead bees. 

Anyway, if you look at Figure 3, the number of dead bees that were "observed" were between 500 and 1,000 per incidence, over a 3-year period. These numbers hardly represent _*proven *__*hive losses*_ as you claimed in post 1239631


Dominic said:


> Multiple neonic-related hive losses have been proven over many years in Canada.


Any number of dead bees is bad, but elevating 500 to 1000 dead bees to the status of proven lost hives is hyperbole and is not using the data objectively.


----------



## Dominic

D Coates said:


> It's proven if applied wrong it does cause problems. Heck, just about anything applied wrong can cause problems.
> 
> However, if the rest of what you claim had any scientifically accepted and supported and repeatable findings for this there would be lawsuits like rain. 99% of farmland... Were did you get that statistic? only 5-10% actually benefits... Again, where did you get that statistic?
> 
> Completely made up, like the rest of the soapbox statement?


How does one "apply wrong" a pre-treated seed? Dust deflectors and improved lubricants are a new thing, and both only target a fraction of the neonic problem: the dusts at seeding.

There ARE lawsuits...

But lawsuits against such large corporations... whose fooling themselves? Money pays justice. They can afford a long and drawn-out legal battle with appeals all the way to the supreme court. And besides, what are they to be sued for? They complied with the pesticide agencies' requirements. It's not _their_ fault if our governments settle for industry-made research and agree to accept new substances with very little info on them. As far as bees go, you just need to measure how much of your pesticide kills adult bees, put that number in your registration papers, and there you go. They don't care if it's toxic or not. They don't care about the impacts on the brood. Or the queen. Or the hive dynamics. DL50 for an adult foraging bees, that's all they care to know.

Risk? Ontario. EPA saying neonicotinoids offer to advantage to soy, and even harm beneficial insects. 95% of fields don't have enough pests to warrant treatment in Québec, and yield difference between treated and untreated fields is not statistically different.

99% of corn acreage would have been more accurate than "farmland". I misspoke for that. Source: OMAFRA link above.

The impacts of neonicotinoid on non-target flaura, including birds, mammals, and pollinating arthropods are well documented. These have been shared on BeeSource and are really not all that hard to find, if you really want to inform yourself. 

My sources are crackpot anonymous websites that claim GMOs will make you grow a third eye, it's government agencies and researchers.



Nabber86 said:


> The information that you linked from Health Canada specifically measured "Dead bee" reports that represent the estimated number of dead bees observed in front of affected colonies in an individual beeyard. Note they use the term *observed. *Who "observed"; the beekeepers? Why weren't the bees counted? Sounds like an easy way to overestimate dead bees.
> 
> Anyway, if you look at Figure 3, the number of dead bees that were "observed" were between 500 and 1,000 per incidence, over a 3-year period. These numbers hardly represent _*proven *__*hive losses*_ as you claimed in post 1239631
> 
> Any number of dead bees is bad, but elevating 500 to 1000 dead bees to the status of proven lost hives is hyperbole and is not using the data objectively.


The way the system works is that a beekeeper who suspects pesticide poisoning gathers samples and calls the authorities to have them analyzed. Many samples don't give conclusive results because the pesticides degrade too fast in the dead bees. For the mortality count by the PMRA, my understanding is that their agents would then go on the field to count bee mortality. In 2014, two thirds of insecticide intoxication in Québec were attributed to neonics. That report will soon be public. The page I shared is a little old, the updated 2014 numbers show that despite spring intoxication reports being lower, the total incidents for the year were higher than the year before. The preliminary report suggested they were going down.

The PMRA is under heavy heat from beekeepers and other organizations for its sloppy handling of the neonic issues. The documents seem to be hard to track down... Their own representative came to the last beekeepers' meeting to talk about how his organization had "sent the pesticide companies back to do their homework". In truth, what happened is that since the companies did not provide all of the proper information, but they agreed to grant them temporary registration nonetheless. Then, when the companies provided the requested information, and the PMRA realized it was bad and incomplete, they extended the temporary registration... And again... The guy was not loved by the audience. Many wanted to sue the PMRA itself, but the legal advisers stated that suing a government agency complicates things incredibly.

I've heard multiple beekeepers state that they lost important numbers of hives, and that the lab results showed neonics. Now if the government agencies don't make this info easy to find, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


----------



## Nabber86

Dominic said:


> The way the system works is that a beekeeper who suspects pesticide poisoning gathers samples and calls the authorities to have them analyzed. Many samples don't give conclusive results because the pesticides degrade too fast in the dead bees. For the mortality count by the PMRA, my understanding is that their agents would then go on the field to count bee mortality. In 2014, two thirds of insecticide intoxication in Québec were attributed to neonics. That report will soon be public. The page I shared is a little old, the updated 2014 numbers show that despite spring intoxication reports being lower, the total incidents for the year were higher than the year before. The preliminary report suggested they were going down.
> 
> The PMRA is under heavy heat from beekeepers and other organizations for its sloppy handling of the neonic issues. The documents seem to be hard to track down... Their own representative came to the last beekeepers' meeting to talk about how his organization had "sent the pesticide companies back to do their homework". In truth, what happened is that since the companies did not provide all of the proper information, but they agreed to grant them temporary registration nonetheless. Then, when the companies provided the requested information, and the PMRA realized it was bad and incomplete, they extended the temporary registration... And again... The guy was not loved by the audience. Many wanted to sue the PMRA itself, but the legal advisers stated that suing a government agency complicates things incredibly.
> 
> I've heard multiple beekeepers state that they lost important numbers of hives, and that the lab results showed neonics. Now if the government agencies don't make this info easy to find, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.



Not much of a study if they let the beekeepers report there own "observations", eh? I can't believe Health Canada took they time to do that level of analyses on such lousy data. 

I am not arguing with you on the rest of the stuff. No doubt about it, neonics do kill bees. But as I said up above, 500 to 1000 self-observed dead bees does not constitute proven hive losses. It is as simple as that.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

FlowerPlanter said:


> The "what if" is the basis of ALL SCIENCE!
> What if the world was round? Could you take a ship and not fall off? Would you burn the person that suggested it? Where would you be if "what if" was never asked?


"What if..." is fine, in some cases...but the original conjecture was asking if eliminating one element that came into being long after symptoms were reported that appear to be the exact same symptoms of "CCD" would eliminate the symptoms that are being called "CCD".

And the answer is, unarguably, "No."

So, the "What if..." in this case makes no sense whatsoever.



Dominic said:


> Cancer has existed for a very long time, since before smoking cigarettes started. By your logic, smoking can't cause cancer.


That was not my logic at all, not by any stretch of the imagination. My logic, used on your example above would be "The elimination of smoking would not eliminate cancer." It's really very, very simple.



> The argument that CCD-like symptoms existed hundreds of years prior to the appearance of criticized products, and thus said products can't cause CCD, is a fallacious and incredibly weak argument. Not only for the reasons stated above, but also because said problems were *absent* since hundreds of years.


I absolutely *did not say*, nor did I even imply, that "these products" can't/don't/won't cause "CCD".

Talk about "fallacious arguments"...

The ONLY point I was trying to make, is:

_If *A* existed before *B*,
then the elimination of *B* DOES NOT EQUAL the elimination of *A*._

Another way:

The set of *A* exists independently of the set of *B*.

The set of *B* does not contain the set of *A*.

The set of *B* may, or may not, OVERLAP the set of *A*.

In either case, the non-existence of the set of *B* DOES NOT EQUAL the non-existence of the set of *A*.

_____________________________

That's it, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

My head is starting to ache. The best thing about banging your head against a wall, is that it feels so good when you stop. I think I need to stop looking at this thread, because I'm having a wicked desire to say things that would get me banned.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

Nabber86 said:


> If CCD actually exists.


If you don't believe "CCD actually exists" you will never see any affects! 

EPA's description; symptom of CCD. Even Monsanto acknowledges CCD and they even acquired Beeologics to study CCD. The very fact that CCD has not been seen in several year shows that is exists. 

What I am saying (just a possibility) "What if" one of the many precaution made by Bayer and or Monsanto have cured CCD? And that's the reason we have not seen it for several years.



Nabber86 said:


> The time, money and resources are just starting to get spent by Bayer.


 Just the time, money and research just to develop the idea of dust technology years prior to the first trials. Then can you even imagine how much time, money and resources they used for a "*large-scale field studies – covering more than 40,000 acres *– throughout North America with growers and in collaboration with major planter manufacturers in the U.S. and Canada." That ain't no PR
And also don't forget Monsanto's purchase of Beeologics in 2011. More PR?



Nabber86 said:


> As for Monsanto and Beelogics, they have formed think tanks, generated press releases, and have studied the problem, but they have not actively done anything; therefore, there cannot be any affects from their efforts either.


So they have buildings, labs just filled with scientists doing nothing?
But they actually have; Monsanto's purchase of Beelogics and all the time, money and resources spent; *"To date, control of CCD has focused on varroa mite control, sanitation and removal of affected hives, treatment for opportunistic infections (such as Nosema) and improved nutrition."* This come directly from Beeologics site. 

What, were you expecting they would find pesticides at fault?


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

FlowerPlanter said:


> The very fact that CCD has not been seen in several year shows that is exists.


Holy crap on a cupcake! What??!!

Let's try this:

_The very fact that unicorns have not been seen in several years shows that they exist._

Ummm, no, that one doesn't work.

_The very fact that leprechauns have not been seen in several years shows that they exist._

Nope, that one isn't working either.

_The very fact that aliens from outer space have not been seen in several years shows that they exist._

Nah, can't get that one to make sense either. One more...

_The very fact that Thor, the God of Thunder, has not been seen in several years shows that He exists._

I give up.

:facepalm:





FlowerPlanter said:


> What I am saying (just a possibility) "What if" one of the many precaution made by Bayer and or Monsanto have cured CCD? And that's the reason we have not seen it for several years.


*"What if" the symptoms of epilepsy are caused by demon possession, and Catholic priests have taken the precaution of exorcising all of the demons, and it has cured epilepsy. And that's the reason we have not seen it for several years.*


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> If you don't believe "CCD actually exists" you will never see any affects!


CCD is a catch-all phrase for “I lost my colonies and I don’t know why”. I don’t believe that there has ever been a consensus as to what it is and how it is caused.



FlowerPlanter said:


> Just the time, money and research just to develop the idea of dust technology years prior to the first trials. Then can you even imagine how much time, money and resources they used for a "large-scale field studies – covering more than 40,000 acres – throughout North America with growers and in collaboration with major planter manufacturers in the U.S. and Canada." That ain't no PR And also don't forget Monsanto's purchase of Beeologics in 2011. More PR?
> So they have buildings, labs just filled with scientists doing nothing?


You can spend millions, generate PR, and do all the studying that you want. None of this will solve a problem unless the findings are implemented. I think this is where you are really missing the boat. Let’s use a little analogy and see if you can get a handle on this:

Monsanto spends $100,000,000 on infrastructure, research, field trials, and lobbying to get Roundup Ready soybeans to market. But they have not released the technology yet, so nobody is using Roundup on their fields. Did they spend a lot of time and money? Yes. Has Roundup had any effect on the environment? *NO, because it has not been used yet.* Is this making any sense to you at all?

Now let’s do a little replacement: 

Bayer spends $10,000,000 on infrastructure, research, field trials, and lobbying to get a new seed coating technology for the treatment for CCD to market. But they have not released the technology yet, so nobody is using it. Did they spend a lot of time and money? Yes. Has the new seed coating technology had any effect on the number of CCD cases? *NO, because it has not been used yet.*

Let’s try another one:

In an effort to control lead exposure in the environment, the EPA spends $10,000,000 on infrastructure, research, and field trials. Based on all this effort, they determine that tetraethyl lead in gasoline is a huge route of lead exposure in the environment. But they have not yet outlawed the use of leaded gasoline, so it has no effect on the environment. Did they spend a lot of time and money? Yes. Has all that effort reduced lead exposure in the environment? *NO, because it has not been banned yet.*

After decades of fighting with car manufactures and big oil, the EPA finally bans the use of leaded gasoline. Did they spend a lot of time and money? Yes. Has all that effort reduced lead exposure in the environment? *NO, because it just got banned and there are no results to look at yet.*

After years of restricting and banning the use of leaded gasoline, lead levels in the environment show a dramatic decline. Did they spend a lot of time and money? Yes. Has all that effort reduced lead exposure in the environment? *FINALLY YES! – Because leaded gasoline has not been used for years and there is a consistent set of data that proves it. *


----------



## FlowerPlanter

Badbeekeeper; You talk about "unicorns" and "leprechauns".
But you did not even address the fact that Monsanto and Beeologic both defines CCD. As well as USDA, EPA and probably ever scientist on the planet.

So absolutely *"The very fact that CCD has not been seen in several year shows that is exists."*
The fact that it's well documented by from 2003ish to 2012ish. There more scientific studies on CCD than anyone could count... There has been more time, money and resources to study CCD just by Monsanto alone *then you could even imagine!*

But if you prefer to talk about "unicorns and leprechauns" and ignore the fact that CCD exists; *you WILL NEVER see any effects from something you ignore!*



BadBeeKeeper said:


> *then there is absolutely no reason to think*


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> *"The very fact that CCD has not been seen in several year shows that is exists."*


I was told Santa existed by all the people in authority in my life when I was younger. NORAD tracked his movements, the weather people talked about his route. I sent him letters and even got a few back. Come Christmas, the symptoms of Santa were all under my tree, in my stockings, missing cookies, an empty cup that once had milk in it and bits of carrots left from what I gave to the reindeer. I never actually saw him though. I've not seen or had Santa symptoms for a few decades now.

But you're telling me because of this, this is proof he exists?

Sweet!, Merry Christmas!


----------



## jonathan

LOL D Coates. I always wondered where those carrots went. Maybe Bayer stole them.


----------



## D Coates

jonathan said:


> LOL D Coates. I always wondered where those carrots went. Maybe Bayer stole them.


Wait a second. What if I accidentally fed them GMO carrots with Neonics? Wholly molly... maybe I weakened the reindeers immunity they weren't able to make it over a mountain pass. Santa could have gone down in the Rockies because of Bayer or Monsanto? That could be exactly why I've had no Santa symptoms for the past few decades. There's no proof if this, but that could be the very evidence to show it exists.

My brain hurts...


----------



## Nabber86

D Coates said:


> Wait a second. What if I accidentally fed them GMO carrots with Neonics? Wholly molly... maybe I weakened the reindeers immunity they weren't able to make it over a mountain pass. Santa could have gone down in the Rockies because of Bayer or Monsanto? That could be exactly why I've had no Santa symptoms for the past few decades. There's no proof if this, but that could be the very evidence to show it exists.
> 
> My brain hurts...


Obviously neonics and GMOs are what cause Rudolph's nose to glow red.


----------



## jonathan

Watch out for those roundup ready Santas.
They have developed resistance to disbelief and are hard to get rid of.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

So lets recap:



gjt said:


> "have you stopped beating your wife? You may only answer 'yes' or 'no'."





BadBeeKeeper said:


> Holy crap on a cupcake! What??!!
> The very fact that unicorns...
> The very fact that leprechauns...
> The very fact that aliens...
> I give up.





D Coates said:


> I was told Santa existed...
> this is proof he exists?
> Sweet!, Merry Christmas!





jonathan said:


> LOL D Coates. I always wondered where those carrots went. Maybe Bayer stole them.





Nabber86 said:


> Obviously neonics and GMOs are what cause Rudolph's nose to glow red.


Really! That's the best you can do? Argue every detail associated with this discussion! Then deny CCDs existence!

If CCD does not exist they why are you *lurking* around on Beesources's "CCD/Noenics" Page looking at CCD threads?

You might be in the *wrong forum*, search; *"how to be nice to your "wife"* forums, "*unicorns & leprechauns"* forum and yes I am sure there is a *"Santa"* forum TOO 

*Which btw are very poor examples *of something that doesn't exist. I can walk into almost any store in America and purchase a card, book or figure of these items. I would then have something tangible in my hand that ever person on the planet would know who or what it is.

Again this is "not a CCD debate" See post #1
The issue we are discussing is *"Has Seed Coating Changed? is CCD gone for Good?"*


----------



## D Coates

GMO glowing reindeer noses and Round-up ready Santa's. Proof you never know where threads will lead on Beesource. 

Wait, if that's proof and it's been seen recently is that proof that is doesn't exist? ...I've got clean up my office, my brain just exploded.


----------



## jonathan

Flowerplanter.
Europe uses neonics and has never had cases of CCD
Australia has neonics but no varroa and has some of the healthiest bees on the planet.
The Lu paper which attempted to link CCD to neonics is one of the worst pieces of junk science ever published.

That is why people are having a laugh. 

Unexplained massive bee losses have been happening since the mid 19th Century as outlined in the brief summary paper by Engelsdorp et al.
Neonics arrived on the market in the early 1990s.
Neonics can cause problems for bees when misapplied especially through planter dust but the evidence linking them to CCD is zilch.
Apparently there have been no certain cases of CCD in the US for about 2 years now and it is such a nebulous condition that many are skeptical that it is anything other than PPB.


----------



## Dominic

Nabber86 said:


> Not much of a study if they let the beekeepers report there own "observations", eh? I can't believe Health Canada took they time to do that level of analyses on such lousy data.
> 
> I am not arguing with you on the rest of the stuff. No doubt about it, neonics do kill bees. But as I said up above, 500 to 1000 self-observed dead bees does not constitute proven hive losses. It is as simple as that.


Beekeepers signal problems, then the agency inspectors come over to log it. We'll have to disagree... how else would you do it? The government isn't going to buy 10 000 hives just to run a sample. The beekeepers know their bees, and thus are the best-placed to report any incident, incidents which are then confirmed by impartial agents from the government. I can't think of a better way. If someone tells you he lost a bunch of hives, and he has a government paper confirming that the collected bees were poisoned by neonics... how can you not consider this proof that neonics kill hives? What more do you need than independently-verified lab results from dead colonies?



BadBeeKeeper said:


> "What if..." is fine, in some cases...but the original conjecture was asking if eliminating one element that came into being long after symptoms were reported that appear to be the exact same symptoms of "CCD" would eliminate the symptoms that are being called "CCD".
> 
> And the answer is, unarguably, "No."
> 
> So, the "What if..." in this case makes no sense whatsoever.


This is turning into a semantics debate, which is pointless. I don't even think we are disagreeing significantly.

"If bee colonies collapsed _before_ these things existed, then there is absolutely no reason to think that eliminating them will prevent colonies from collapsing." was your statement.

In your last message, you talk about eliminating collapse. In the prior one, you talk about preventing collapse. Some collapse can be prevented without eliminating all collapse.

I took your original message as meaning that handling neonics differently would not prevent any collapse, while you seem to have taken my message as meaning that handling neonics differently would prevent all collapse. I believe neither interpretation of each other's messages was correct. If I have ever written anywhere that all of the bees' problems could be solved by banning neonics, I was not properly expressing myself, for it is not my belief.

Note that when I talk about colony collapse, I do not talk about CCD. I talk about hives with thousands of dead bees at the entrance and whose population crash beyond its ability to climb back.



Nabber86 said:


> CCD is a catch-all phrase for “I lost my colonies and I don’t know why”. I don’t believe that there has ever been a consensus as to what it is and how it is caused. [/B]


Just because some people blame all of their ills on "CCD", or use it to describe just about anything, doesn't mean CCD isn't a real thing. It has pretty well defined and broadly-accepted symptoms.



EPA said:


> Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) [is] defined as a dead colony with no adult bees or dead bee bodies but with a live queen and usually honey and immature bees still present. No scientific cause for CCD has been proven.


Note that issues in Canada raised against neonics are *not* about CCD. They are about hive loss in spring, increased vulnerability to diseases and pests, decreased queen fertility, and increased winter mortality, mainly, plus loss of wild pollinators and other non-target organisms.



FlowerPlanter said:


> So they have buildings, labs just filled with scientists doing nothing?
> But they actually have; Monsanto's purchase of Beelogics and all the time, money and resources spent; *"To date, control of CCD has focused on varroa mite control, sanitation and removal of affected hives, treatment for opportunistic infections (such as Nosema) and improved nutrition."* This come directly from Beeologics site.
> 
> What, were you expecting they would find pesticides at fault?


Rather, labs full of people looking for red herrings... You just quoted it yourself, the only things they are looking at are things they can't be blamed for themselves. If the goal was truly to protect the bees, then they'd be looking into the effects of pesticides and GMOs as well. When one truly seeks the solve a problem, one doesn't exclude any avenues of investigation right off the start. Makes you wonder if Beeologics' original activities were going in directions that worried Monsanto, leading them to buy it out and reorient the research.

And _of course _Beeologics now places the blame of viruses. Weren't they bought out when they made an anti-viral discovery? After all, that's what they sell.

These guys run businesses. They don't spend millions of dollars out of kindness.


----------



## Dominic

jonathan said:


> Flowerplanter.
> Neonics can cause problems for bees when misapplied especially through planter dust but the evidence linking them to CCD is zilch.


Define "misapplied". Because bee losses resulted when the products were being used *exactly as labelled*. They have been changing the labels, but that doesn't make the previous incidents the farmers' faults.

Regardless of whether they can cause CCD or not, they can cause colony weakening and collapse, and a number of other well-identified symptoms (decreased queen fertility, increased viral replication, increased susceptibility to nosema, decreased foraging efficiency, and so on).


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> Again this is "not a CCD debate" See post #1
> The issue we are discussing is *"Has Seed Coating Changed? is CCD gone for Good?"*


The 2nd question you asked opened this whole can of worms. The direct implication is seed coating caused CCD. There's simply *no* proof of that.

Just because there's a CCD forum does not mean CCD exists either. No one is lurking. Personally I'm here to learn the latest findings and refute things I believe are inaccurate. If no one shows an alternative explanation or pokes holes in weak data it can be taken as gospel and perpetuated.

Nabber86 has clearly pointed out the seed coatings aren't yet in use and others (myself included) have questioned the existence of CCD. Then the whole glittering jewel of a humorous quote *"The very fact that CCD has not been seen in several year shows that is exists."* showed up. 

That is some funny stuff!


----------



## jonathan

Dominic said:


> Define "misapplied".


It's in the very quote you highlighted.

Excessive planter dust in part due to poor binding agent on the seeds and also poor design of the seed planter which expels dust directly into the air.
The expelled dust is highly toxic.

The Austrailian example where there are tons of neonics used without significant bee losses is the elephant in the room for those who see neonics as a big issue for honeybees.
But of course they can cause problems for bees. Any insecticide can, especially those which are sprayed.
Just not the smoking gun which some would claim.


----------



## jonathan

Someone mention leprechauns?

[video]https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153077791972200&pnref=story[/video]


----------



## AstroBee

See: http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ts-of-Imidacloprid-on-Honey-Bee-Colony-Health


----------



## Nabber86

jonathan said:


> It's in the very quote you highlighted.
> 
> Excessive planter dust in part due to poor binding agent on the seeds and also poor design of the seed planter which expels dust directly into the air.
> The expelled dust is highly toxic.


I don't think that excessive planter dust is a misapplication. It is a result of the current planting technology. When Bayer, or whomever, releases the new seed planting technology, it is accepted by the government, and written into regulations, only then will creating excessive dust be a misapplication.


----------



## Nabber86

AstroBee said:


> See: http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ts-of-Imidacloprid-on-Honey-Bee-Colony-Health



How many times is that study going to be dragged out? The only thing that it proves is that feeding bees a sugar solution that is dosed with pesticides, harms/kills bees. They same results were obtained in 2009, 2010, and 2011. At least the results are repeatable.


----------



## AstroBee

My bad. I saw the date published (March 18, 2015) and thought it was a recent study.


----------



## Nabber86

It is a rehash of studies that were performed in 2009, 2010, and 2011. It's been dragged out several time before. 

Not saying it is ****ing, but as has been pointed out time and time again, feeding bees neonics harms bees. I see no reason to keep on doing these feeding studies. Why don't they spending their efforts on some new approach?

Edit: Just saying that they should try looking at other things that may provide better insight.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

>Then the whole glittering jewel of a humorous quote 
*"The very fact that CCD has not been seen in several year shows that is exists."*
Glad you like it.

>Europe uses neonics and has never had cases of CCD
Not according to wiki. Do you have anything that supports what your saying?

>Australia has neonics but no varroa and has some of the healthiest bees on the planet.
You could be right, I have not read any CCD cases from AU, If this is the case then we need to ask why? They don't import bees, that could be an importance fact (no mite, no viruses...) Do they import their row crop seeds from Bayer/Monsanto? Is it the same seed as used here in the US? Same farming practices? Do they keep bees near these crops during planting? flowering?...

And also who know about Hawaii? Did they have any CCD? Do they import bees? Do they row crop corn, soy...? Same coated seed?

>The Lu paper which attempted to link CCD to neonics 
Have a link?

>Makes you wonder if Beeologics' original activities were going in directions that worried Monsanto, leading them to buy it out and reorient the research. And of course Beeologics now places the blame of viruses. 
Very possible

Here's a few more things from wiki that may or may not show a round about time line of the use of these seed coating and increase of usage. 

"In 1985, Bayer patented imidacloprid as the first commercial neonicotinoid."
"During the late 1990s, primarily imidacloprid became widely used. Beginning in the early 2000s, two other neonicotinoids, clothianidin and thiamethoxam entered the market"

"Neonicotinoids have been registered in more than 120 countries. With a global turnover of €1.5 billion in 2008, they represented 24% of the global market for insecticides. After the introduction of the first neonicotinoids in the 1990s, this market has grown from €155 million in 1990 to €957 million in 2008. Neonicotinoids made up 80% of all seed treatment sales in 2008."


----------



## D Coates

Wiki as a quotable source? Now I see the lens through which the humorous quote "*The very fact that CCD has not been seen in several year shows that is exists."* has to be viewed to appear logical. That quote would be a great signature except some readers may miss the circuitousness humor of it and take it seriously, making the user of the quote appear illogical. 

Australia? They've got the same pesticide stuff we do here and they've got the same farming practices. No real bee problems but then again they don't have mites.

Hawaii? No soybean or corn crop farming (land is too expensive) there. No bee problems there to my knowledge either. The mites just showed up the in the past couple years if I remember correctly though.

The final quotes from Wiki. So what? There's no proven direct causal relationship between "CCD" and neonics, only innuendos and speculation to this point.


----------



## jonathan

>Europe uses neonics and has never had cases of CCD
Not according to wiki. Do you have anything that supports what your saying?

I can't prove a negative! I can't prove there are no leprechauns in Europe either.
But hey, CCD if it exists at all, is a US thing.
Wiki is nonsense a lot of the time. Use Google scholar or IBRA for bee research on the net.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

jonathan said:


> >Europe uses neonics and has never had cases of CCD
> I can't prove a negative!


They why did you say it?
Sorry but I will trust wiki before I trust "I can't prove a negative!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8219202.stm
"CCD was first identified in 2006. In the winter of 2007-8 more than a third of US bees were lost. Similar losses have been reported in *Europe*, giving rise to fears that CCD is a global problem."

"CCD has caused huge losses of colonies in the USA and has been found in parts of *Europe* but so far it hasn't been detected in the UK."

http://www.ibtimes.com/colony-colla...cticides-harsh-winters-increase-honey-1582734
"Researchers have again linked the unexplained decline in honey-bee populations *worldwide*, a phenomenon known as colony-collapse disorder (CCD), to a certain class of insecticides called neonicotinoids."

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-bee.html
"The problem has also hit bee colonies in *Europe*, where regulators are considering a ban on a type of pesticides that some environmental groups blame for the bee collapse."



jonathan said:


> I can't prove there are no leprechauns in Europe either.


Still looking for leprechauns? 
Maybe you should back up what you are saying before you treat it as fact!


----------



## jonathan

Keep on trusting wiki then and I will keep on reading the peer reviewed research, something absent from any of the opinion piece quotes above.
There is no CCD in Europe, never has been, and I believe the last case found in the US was about 2 years ago.
What we do have in Europe, same as the US, are anti neonic lobby groups who often make any old claim to further their cause. Some of them might even contribute to wiki!
CCD as defined has a specific set of symptoms. It is not a catch all term for general high levels of colony losses.
And as a matter of fact colony numbers in Europe increased by 7% between 2005 and 2010 as described by Breeze et al in a paper last year. Some collapse.
Can't prove a negative is an expression used to point out a logical fallacy. 
You can't prove to me that there is not an invisible octopus rotating in front of your head. (although I strongly suspect that there is not!)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

But what if that octopus only has *7 *'arms'? Doesn't that show that seed coating _has _changed?


----------



## D Coates

The first thing that was posted on this thread was:



FlowerPlanter said:


> Without debating the cause of CCD. Just a what if


Yet, the heading "Has Seed Coating Changed? CCD gone for Good!" clearly insinuates CCD is directly caused by Neonics. Something that's clearly not been proven at all. Yet, there is to be no debate? 

Come on now. This is Beesource, one does not get to crawl up on a soapbox and postulate on their personal beliefs but then gets to say there's not to be any debate. Possibly the wise quote below should be followed.



FlowerPlanter said:


> Maybe you should back up what you are saying before you treat it as fact!


----------



## FlowerPlanter

Rader Sidetrack said:


> But what if that octopus only has *7 *'arms'? Doesn't that show that seed coating _has _changed?


If you had a lot of 7 armed octopus in proximity to where coated seed were used, you might want to look at it.


----------



## D Coates

Rader Sidetrack said:


> But what if that octopus only has *7 *'arms'? Doesn't that show that seed coating _has _changed?


No. Don't be foolish. On wiki it clearly states, "6 armed octopi proves the seed coating has changed".


----------



## FlowerPlanter

D Coates said:


> No. Don't be foolish. On wiki it clearly states, "6 armed octopi proves the seed coating has changed".


If you had a lot of "6" armed octopus in proximity to where coated seed were used, you might want to look at it.


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> If you had a lot of "6" armed octopus in proximity to where coated seed were used, you might want to look at it.


What are we looking for? Octopi drop their arms like lizards drop their tails. Like lizards it's a defense mechanism and they grow back. Is a predator being looked for or are neonics be insinuated as causing this? 

I'm already searching wiki for Round Up ready Santa's.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

D Coates said:


> I'm already searching wiki for Round Up ready Santa's.


Santa again Really?


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> Santa again Really?


Trusting and defending wiki as for source material and thinly insinuating 6 or 7 armed octopi could be the result of Neonics? I'm having a little fun being just as ludicrous. 

Jonathan's "Round-up ready Santa's" reference was pretty funny.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

This is just a "What if" (post #1)
Again there is no proof that CCD is caused by pesticides. (post #7)
Also without knowing the cause of CCD you can't rule it out. 

Your right wiki is not a good source; here is the EPA link. One of many neonics registered and used prior to CCD found on EPA registration site. You can search each of the Neonicotinoids on EPAs site (acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, thiamethoxam, acetamiprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine) and see registration info also increasing use on new crops yearly.

Again there is no proof that CCD is caused by pesticides. (post #7)

Monsanto's purchase of Beeologics to study CCD. 

It does ask the question if *"Beeologics' original activities were going in directions that worried Monsanto, leading them to buy it out and reorient the research. And of course Beeologics now places the blame of viruses."*

Both Monsanto and Beeologics list *pesticide* among other things as possible causes of CCD;
Monsanto; lists USDA report causes of CCD; including pathogens or diseases, poor nutrition and *pesticides*. *On their site*
Beeologics; “Various factors such as mites and infectious agents, weather patterns, electromagnetic (cellular antennas) radiation, *pesticides*, poor nutrition and stress have been postulated as causes.” *On their site*

A clear desire by Bayer to reduce dust specific for honey bees before CCD disappeared with research that could have taken it back even years before that. 

If a corporation were to change the inert ingredients in a product there is no reason for them to re-label their product, let alone tell anyone they changed it or when they've changed it. 

Is CCD Gone For Good?


----------



## Dominic

jonathan said:


> It's in the very quote you highlighted.
> 
> Excessive planter dust in part due to poor binding agent on the seeds and also poor design of the seed planter which expels dust directly into the air.
> The expelled dust is highly toxic.
> 
> The Austrailian example where there are tons of neonics used without significant bee losses is the elephant in the room for those who see neonics as a big issue for honeybees.
> But of course they can cause problems for bees. Any insecticide can, especially those which are sprayed.
> Just not the smoking gun which some would claim.


As another has said, and as I said in the message you quoted, you can't blame a product's dangers on its misapplication if it used exactly as described on the label.

Australia is not proof of anything. Do you have any study to support that Australia's bees are among the healthiest in the world, or are you just taking Bayer's word for it?

"If X has no visible impact in Y, then X has no impact anywhere" is a double fallacy. First of all you mistake the lack of observed impact for a lack of any impact whatsoever, and then you assume that things will always have the same impact world-wide as they do in a tiny part of it.

A huge number of factors could contribute to masking effects of neonics in Australia without making them harmless altogether. Yet, I'd really like to see a serious study about how healthy their bees are, because all I hear about Australian bees is basically how weak and fragile they are.



FlowerPlanter said:


> This is just a "What if" (post #1)
> Again there is no proof that CCD is caused by pesticides. (post #7)
> Also without knowing the cause of CCD you can't rule it out.
> 
> Your right wiki is not a good source; here is the EPA link. One of many neonics registered and used prior to CCD found on EPA registration site. You can search each of the Neonicotinoids on EPAs site (acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, thiamethoxam, acetamiprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine) and see registration info also increasing use on new crops yearly.
> 
> Again there is no proof that CCD is caused by pesticides. (post #7)
> 
> Monsanto's purchase of Beeologics to study CCD.
> 
> It does ask the question if *"Beeologics' original activities were going in directions that worried Monsanto, leading them to buy it out and reorient the research. And of course Beeologics now places the blame of viruses."*
> 
> Both Monsanto and Beeologics list *pesticide* among other things as possible causes of CCD;
> Monsanto; lists USDA report causes of CCD; including pathogens or diseases, poor nutrition and *pesticides*. *On their site*
> Beeologics; “Various factors such as mites and infectious agents, weather patterns, electromagnetic (cellular antennas) radiation, *pesticides*, poor nutrition and stress have been postulated as causes.” *On their site*
> 
> A clear desire by Bayer to reduce dust specific for honey bees before CCD disappeared with research that could have taken it back even years before that.
> 
> If a corporation were to change the inert ingredients in a product there is no reason for them to re-label their product, let alone tell anyone they changed it or when they've changed it.
> 
> Is CCD Gone For Good?


I have yet to see any solid proof that neonics cause CCD, but I have seen plenty of proof that neonics cause harm to bees.

Beeologics gives as much credence to the possibility of pesticides causing CCD as they do to cellphones. They say:



> Various factors such as mites and infectious agents, weather patterns, electromagnetic (cellular antennas) radiation, pesticides, poor nutrition and stress _have been postulated_ as causes [by undisclosed third parties]. *To date, control of CCD has focused on varroa mite control, sanitation and removal of affected hives, treatment for opportunistic infections (such as Nosema) and improved nutrition.* No effective preventative measures have been developed to date.


Beeologics does not look at pesticides, nor GMOs. Do either of these cause CCD? I don't know. But I do know that when one seeks an answer to a tough problem, one doesn't disregard any potential avenues from the go.

As for Bayer's new lubricant, they had no choice. Had they not done that, their product would have remained on Canadian shelves for very little time (and elsewhere as well, I presume). This way, not only they get to keep their product, but they also get to pretend that they fixed all of the issues around them, and that miraculously their product is now harmless. It was a very cheap and easy fix that helped maintain sales. There's nothing that will make me believe this move was done out of anything but self-interest.


----------



## jonathan

Dominic said:


> Australia is not proof of anything. Do you have any study to support that Australia's bees are among the healthiest in the world, or are you just taking Bayer's word for it?


Yes, I was thinking of the Overview report on bee health and the use of neonicotinoids in Australia published by the Australian Government Veterinary medicines authority in Feb 2014.

http://archive.apvma.gov.au/news_media/chemicals/bee_and_neonicotinoids.php

Here are a couple of quotes from the document:



> On the basis of information available to it, the APVMA is currently of the view that the introduction of the neonicotinoids has led to an overall reduction in the risks to the agricultural environment from the application of insecticides.





> This view is also balanced with the advice that Australian honeybee populations are not in decline, despite the increased use of this group of insecticides in agriculture and horticulture since the mid1990s.


----------



## Dominic

jonathan said:


> Yes, I was thinking of the Overview report on bee health and the use of neonicotinoids in Australia published by the Australian Government Veterinary medicines authority in Feb 2014.
> 
> http://archive.apvma.gov.au/news_media/chemicals/bee_and_neonicotinoids.php
> 
> Here are a couple of quotes from the document:


I don't see anything in that document to prove that Australia's bees are amongst the healthiest in the world, or that Australian bees do not suffer from neonics. It also speaks a whole lot more about what happens beyond Australia than what happens within it. But let's not forget that Australia doesn't have varroa. If anyone's claiming that varroa doesn't affect bee populations, I'm pretty sure they are a minority...

The wording seems is also a position of compromise: they don't conclude that neonics are without risks, but rather that their available information suggests that they pose less risk than what was used before.

If neonics were only used in the rare situations they are helpful to the farmer, instead of in a prophylactic way on almost all corn and canola and on a growing proportion of other crops (farmers often not even having the option of choosing their hybrids without neonic treatment), there'd be a ton less of it in the environment and a lot less people concerned with them. The only people who benefit from that are the pesticide makers. Legislation of the likes of what Ontario is seeking to adopt is fully justified.


----------



## jonathan

Dominic said:


> But let's not forget that Australia doesn't have varroa.


Exactly. That's the big issue. Neonics is more of a sideshow in comparison.


----------



## D Coates

Dominic said:


> If neonics were only used in the rare situations they are helpful to the farmer, instead of in a prophylactic way on almost all corn and canola and on a growing proportion of other crops (farmers often not even having the option of choosing their hybrids without neonic treatment), there'd be a ton less of it in the environment and a lot less people concerned with them. The only people who benefit from that are the pesticide makers. Legislation of the likes of what Ontario is seeking to adopt is fully justified.


Who's going to make the decision if using it is going to be helpful to the farmer if it's not the farmer? A bureaucrat? If the product is not desired then why do farmers pay a premium for seed containing it? Farmers have more money than brains? Nope, they're business folks who don't want to deal with insect problems and weed problems and will pay premium for it. They've got bills to pay and they're trying to make product the most economically to make the most profit for themselves and their families. 

Some folks see profit as a dirty word. It's not, it's what makes the world go 'round. If there's a robust unexploited market for non neonic seeds I'd recommend hopping all over it. However, you're going to have to make a profit to stay in business. Invariably, snarky folks may accuse you of only wanting to make a profit, but you'll know the truth.



Dominic said:


> But let's not forget that Australia doesn't have varroa. If anyone's claiming that varroa doesn't affect bee populations, I'm pretty sure they are a minority...





jonathan said:


> Exactly. That's the big issue. Neonics is more of a sideshow in comparison.


 There's the smoking gun. Spending all this time on Neonics, GMO's and CCD is a waste of time.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

>Who's going to make the decision if using it is going to be helpful to the farmer if it's not the farmer?
>why do farmers pay a premium for seed containing it?
They must to compete. The farmer plows closer to fence rows, uses more herbicides, pesticides all for more crops. Which all equates to more product per acre which in turn means lower prices per bushel which makes farmer have to grow more. It's a vicious circle. With higher fuel/equipment prices adding more pressure on the farmer. Industry does not care if they are buying or selling an inferior product (GMO/pesticide/herbicide residue foods), Industry only care about the dollar, if raw materials are low they make the most money. 

It's the walmart loop, if you work at walmart you can't afford to shop any where else.


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> >Who's going to make the decision if using it is going to be helpful to the farmer if it's not the farmer?
> >why do farmers pay a premium for seed containing it?
> They must to compete. The farmer plows closer to fence rows, sprays more herbicides, pesticides all for more crops. Which all equates to more product per acre which in turn means lower prices per bushel which makes farmer have to grow more. It's a vicious circle. With increased fuel prices adds more pressure on the farmer. Industry does not care if they are buying or selling an inferior product (GMO/pesticide/herbicide residue foods), Industry only care about the dollar, if raw materials are low they make the most money.
> It's the walmart loop, if you work at walmart you can't afford to shop any where else.


Yes, the poor framers. If only they listened to your advice, they would be saved from a vicious circle. After all, you know what's best for their interests.


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> Industry does not care if they are buying or selling an inferior product (GMO/pesticide/herbicide residue foods), Industry only care about the dollar, if raw materials are low they make the most money.


That's simply not true. If it were, why not simply open a business selling a superior product and put the "Industry" out of business? Don't we all care about the dollar? Don't we all have to compete? Could others accuse you of only caring about the dollar when you price shop for the best deal on beekeeping supplies? Crawling too high on a soapbox leaves one vulnerable.

If raw materials are low that doesn't automatically mean "Industry" gets to make the most profit. If you've got a competitor sitting in the same product space with a similar product your margin is going to be low as you both fight on price. Competition is what keeps prices low. The most profit is made when you can differentiate your products and sell them for a premium on being superior. This opportunity is perfect for folks to put their money where their mouth is and create a company that's non GMO, Neonic etc. Again, you're going to have to make a profit. Snarky folks will claim this company only cares about the dollar too, but you'll know better. Profit is what makes the world go 'round.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

>That's simply not true. If it were, why not simply open a business selling a superior product and put the "Industry" out of business?
"organic" which has taken a small portion of the market. People do not want to pay the extra cost.
Just like walmart, people don't want to pay for US made so they buy china crap that breaks and is painted with lead, in the long run it cost US jobs and lower standard of living.

>If raw materials are low that doesn't automatically mean "Industry" gets to make the most profit.
Grains are at a 5 year low, fuel also at a 7 year low. Has your bread or cereal dropped in price? even a penny? what about pork, how much did ham drop? even a penny? How about milk...Who is getting that money? Not the Farmer.


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> Grains are at a 5 year low, fuel also at a 7 year low. Has your bread or cereal dropped in price? even a penny? what about pork, how much did ham drop? even a penny? How about milk...Who is getting that money? Not the Farmer.


The farmer makes more profit, because fuel is cheaper. The price of fertilizer closely tracks the price of fuel, so the farmer makes more profit from low fertilizer costs as well. 




FlowerPlanter said:


> Grains are at a 5 year low, fuel also at a 7 year low. Has your bread or cereal dropped in price? even a penny? what about pork, how much did ham drop? even a penny? How about milk...Who is getting that money? Not the Farmer.



Based on a article dated September 2013? What the heck does that have to do with the current price of corn in Ohio? Where do you come up with this crap?


----------



## jonathan

more of those pesky facts!


----------



## FlowerPlanter

Tell the farmer that.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lower-corn-soybean-prices-hit-u-s-farm-incomes-1423586652

http://www.agriculture.com/news/crops/grain-prices-profits-move-lower_2-ar46289

http://www.pbs.org/pov/foodinc/film_description.php

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/post-gmo-economy/

http://www.agweb.com/article/low-grain-prices-not-just-affecting-farmers-betsy-jibben/

So exactly are "farmer makes more profit, because fuel is cheaper. The price of fertilizer closely tracks the price of fuel"?


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> Tell the farmer that.
> 
> 
> So exactly are "farmer makes more profit, because fuel is cheaper. The price of fertilizer closely tracks the price of fuel"?


You subtract the cost of fuel and fertilizer (plus other numerous costs) from the cost per bushel to get profit. Cost per bushel can remain static, yet profits can increase if fuel and fertilizer costs go down. Fuel and fertilizer costs have gone down, this drives the cost to produce a bushel down, the markets react to this by offering less per bushel.

Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between cost of production, gross income, and profit.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

Nabber86 said:


> Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand


Really?
*Have I slandered you in any way?*

Did you even read the link above? From The Wall Street Journal, Agriculture.com, PBS *they must not understand either?* 

Washington Post"Though *lower fuel prices *will help farmers control the cost of growing their crops, other factors could mean farmers *won’t* see an *increase in profit margins*."

The Midwest's Vast Farms Are Losing a Ton of Money This Year
"(a bumper crop has driven down corn prices to their lowest level since 2006), and input costs (think seeds, fertilizers, pesticides) have gotten so high, that they're losing $225 per acre of corn and $100 per acre of soybeans."
"large-scale commodity farming is a *vicious* business—farmers are caught in a vice between a small handful of buyers (Archers Daniels Midland, Cargill, Bunge) that are always looking to *drive crop prices down*, and a *small handful of input suppliers *(Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Syngenta, etc) always looking to push the *price of seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides up.* It's no wonder, as Iowa State's Hart has shown, that the *"long run profitability" of such farming is "zero."*

Here's an article that ties in what I've been saying in post #82 and #85
http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/are-1000-acres-part-time-work

“One of the most difficult factors for many 1,100-acre or less farmers to accept is that, unless they have livestock, they're probably underemployed. *Thirty years ago, 1,000 acres was enough to support Dad, me and three hired men.*

“*But with new technology*, equipment and products like *Roundup Ready soybeans*, I can farm 1,100 acres, run an independent seed dealership and still have time to be active in commodity groups like NCGA.
*"Improvements in technology simply accelerate the pace among farmers who adapt to their advantage and those who don't."*
“Farmers have to understand that *there's not much chance to make a living on a 1,000-acre* farm without supplemental income or non-commodity crops. *You can count on one hand the number of farms in our area that don't have an outside job* or enterprise to go along with their farms.”



FlowerPlanter said:


> *They must to compete.* The farmer plows closer to fence rows, uses more herbicides, pesticides all for more crops. Which all equates to more product per acre which in turn means lower prices per bushel which makes farmer have to grow more. It's a *vicious circle*.


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> "Organic" which has taken a small portion of the market. People do not want to pay the extra cost.


Ohhh, those pesky market forces. "Organic" is more expensive because more is lost to pests, the plants don't produce as much, more rots before it can get to market, and it's labor intensive. That labor is the most expensive thing in the US (SS, FICA, Healthcare, standard insurance, disability, govt. paperwork, etc.) on top of the actual wage the employee actually sees. This is especially true if you're going to be paying more than the decried Walmart wages. Even the "Organic" businesses have to show a profit to stay in business.

Are those consumers who don't want to pay the extra cost for Organic only "caring about the dollar"? 

Bottom line, most consumers don't buy the hyped Chicken Little GMO and Neonic claims and let their voice be heard via their wallet. For those who do, they speak with their wallet too by supporting businesses that offer those products. That's the beauty of free market forces. Again, profit MUST be made to stay in business though, even for "organic" businesses.

However, I'm truly saddened by the apparent lack of understanding of real world economics that's displayed in various posts.

As for Walmart, I'm not a fan of them and I don't shop there. (It's that pesky free market thing again.) But they employ many people and ironically, just today they announced a raise for all of their lowest paid employees.


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> Really?
> *Have I slandered you in any way?*


Slander? No need to. You have proved yourself deficient in so many subjects that it is hard to list them all. Now we can add English language to the list.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

Nabber86 said:


> Slander? No need to. You have proved yourself deficient in so many subjects that it is hard to list them all. Now we can add English language to the list.


WOW!
Good one!


----------



## D Coates

As not found on Wikipedia

Slander
Noun: 
1. The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

Not sure where someone's reputation was damaged by any recent action here. 

The


FlowerPlanter said:


> "*The very fact that CCD has not been seen in several year shows that it exists*"


 quote kind of took care of that earlier.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

D FlowerPlanter said:


> "*The very fact that CCD has not been seen in several year shows that it exists*"


CCD has been well document, studied, recognized for a number of years. *Even defined by Monsanto and Bayer!* 

But you ignore it's existence then debate the causes of CCD.


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> CCD has been well document, studied, recognized for a number of years. *Even defined by Monsanto and Bayer!*
> 
> But you ignore it's existence then debate the causes of CCD.


I don't debate the causes of CCD. I question it's actual existence. If it's so recognized how has it only shown up as symptoms that appear to have gone away on their own without anything changing right after the media hype died down? It's never been even close to identified, isolated, replicated, understood, much less treated. With all that said, "CCD" now appears as the loosely defined catch all whipping boy for activating the anti-neonic crowd whenever any bee deaths are claimed. A prime example of this is the very thread header here.

You quote both Monsanto and Bayer as proof that CCD exists. But both also said their Neonic products don't cause it. Why are they such a good source that you use them as proof that CCD exists, but heartless/soulless "Industry" that only cares about the dollar when they say their product(s) didn't cause it?


----------



## FlowerPlanter

D Coates said:


> I don't debate the causes of CCD. I question it's actual existence.


So you're just hypothesizing?


----------



## Nabber86

I have found the answer! Excess of Mn in the environment is the cause of CCD:


_Incidentally, in August 2013 we issued a press release about the possible role of manganese in CCD. This recent publication supports this claim with details._ 

From this fine scientific web site: https://science-in-water.com/us/bees/news-other-information/189-press-release-29-august-2013.html


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> So you're just hypothesizing?


Seriously? I've been very clear on that.

As not found on Wikipedia *hypothesis*

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

The difference here is someone attempted to present CCD as being linked to seed coatings as fact in the thread heading but then quickly tried to set the ground rules that no debating/questioning was to occur.


Nabber86, I got that preposterous email this morning to and thought of this goofy CCD thread as well. Claim you've found the cure for "CCD" and you'll get some sales from the uninformed.


----------



## Dominic

jonathan said:


> Exactly. That's the big issue. Neonics is more of a sideshow in comparison.


Different problems that manifest differently and have different impacts. Just because varroa causes more honey bee colony losses than neonics doesn't mean neonics don't pose any problems.



D Coates said:


> Who's going to make the decision if using it is going to be helpful to the farmer if it's not the farmer? A bureaucrat? If the product is not desired then why do farmers pay a premium for seed containing it? Farmers have more money than brains? Nope, they're business folks who don't want to deal with insect problems and weed problems and will pay premium for it. They've got bills to pay and they're trying to make product the most economically to make the most profit for themselves and their families.


Ag technician reports rubber stamped by agronomists? That's how scouting and IPM is usually handled by mid to large farms. They send out ag technicians (often students) out in the fields to scout for pests, and then an agronomist compares the result to a pre-defined standard to recommend, or not, the use of a treatment. It's not complicated. It's not "bureaucrats" or "The Government". And it usually pays itself. If the farmer doesn't scout the field himself, or pay people to do it for him, then no, it is not the most economical choice to make a profit for his family to simply treat all-around. Blind treatments cause the continued application of pesticides where they are not needed and where they are not useful (resistant pests). The quest for maximum profit demands that you make sure you really need to use a product, and that you then evaluate the effect of the product to make sure it worked and that you don't need another. Scouting, scouting, scouting.

Also, most seed suppliers have been offering treated hybrids systematically for a while, now. When growers wanted untreated hybrids, they simply couldn't find them. Due to mounting pressures, the seed suppliers are starting to offer non-treated seed once more, but that wouldn't have happened without the beekeepers stepping up. Thing is, the difference in price for treated and untreated seed used to be pretty steep, which served as a pretext to hike seed prices, as now the untreated seeds are only about 5$ cheaper (there was even cases where they were more expensive!). The seed suppliers would force the farmers to pay more for less!



D Coates said:


> Some folks see profit as a dirty word. It's not, it's what makes the world go 'round. If there's a robust unexploited market for non neonic seeds I'd recommend hopping all over it. However, you're going to have to make a profit to stay in business. Invariably, snarky folks may accuse you of only wanting to make a profit, but you'll know the truth.


It's one thing to have farmers looking to make a living from their family farms, it's another to have the seed suppliers and pesticide makers to use their position of oligarchy over the market to dictate the terms the farmers will work with and cheat the normal market rules. When the suppliers are willing to go through the extra work of fabricating a pesticide and then applying it on seeds, and then sell it CHEAPER than they would have otherwise, there's abuse in the system.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

Nabber86 said:


> If CCD actually exists, the answer in no.


You're not even making a hypothesis, you're claiming this as fact. Got anything to support this claim? 

But now you have another possible cause to CCD *when you just said it does not exist?*;



Nabber86 said:


> I have found the answer! Excess of Mn in the environment is the cause of CCD:


But at least you're on the subject of CCD instead of *slanderous* and *derogator personal slams*;



Nabber86 said:


> Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand





Nabber86 said:


> You have proved yourself deficient in so many subjects that it is hard to list them all. Now we can add English language to the list.


This came right after you realized you were wrong when you said;


Nabber86 said:


> The farmer makes more profit, because fuel is cheaper. The price of fertilizer closely tracks the price of fuel, so the farmer makes more profit from low fertilizer costs as well... Where do you come up with this crap?





FlowerPlanter said:


> Washington Post"Though *lower fuel prices *will help farmers control the cost of growing their crops, other factors could mean farmers *won’t* see an *increase in profit margins*."
> 
> The Midwest's Vast Farms Are Losing a Ton of Money This Year "(a bumper crop has driven down corn prices to their lowest level since 2006), and input costs (think seeds, fertilizers, pesticides) have gotten so high, that they're losing $225 per acre of corn and $100 per acre of soybeans."
> [/B] It's no wonder, as Iowa State's Hart has shown, that the *"long run profitability" of such farming is "zero."*






FlowerPlanter said:


> So you're just hypothesizing?





D Coates said:


> Seriously? I've been very clear on that.


So it's ok for you to hypothesize about CCD *but not ok for someone else to do the same* if it goes against your hypothesis?


----------



## Oldtimer

Nabber86 said:


> I have found the answer! Excess of Mn in the environment is the cause of CCD:
> 
> 
> _Incidentally, in August 2013 we issued a press release about the possible role of manganese in CCD. This recent publication supports this claim with details._
> 
> From this fine scientific web site: https://science-in-water.com/us/bees/news-other-information/189-press-release-29-august-2013.html


Oh it's Manganese, oh boy was I the sucker. Always thought it was mushrooms. 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/01/23/how-mushrooms-can-save-bees-our-food-supply/


----------



## jonathan

Dominic said:


> Different problems that manifest differently and have different impacts. Just because varroa causes more honey bee colony losses than neonics doesn't mean neonics don't pose any problems.


That's why I said neonics is more of a sideshow in comparison. I didn't say they were benign.


----------



## Nabber86

Oldtimer said:


> Oh it's Manganese, oh boy was I the sucker. Always thought it was mushrooms.
> 
> http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/01/23/how-mushrooms-can-save-bees-our-food-supply/


Or cell phones: http://inhabitat.com/its-official-cell-phones-are-killing-bees/bee/


----------



## Nabber86

Here is one of the best articles that I have seen in a long time. I agree with it 100%

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...ably-arent-killing-honeybees-and-1-thing-that


----------



## camero7

Thanks, I agree. Get rid of varroa and most other problems disappear.


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> But at least you're on the subject of CCD instead of *slanderous* and *derogator personal slams*;


As D Coates said:

*slan·der*

_noun _LAW



*1*. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.




My statement is not false, therefore by definition, it cannot be slander. You have damaged your reputation all by yourself. You don't need any help.


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> So it's ok for you to hypothesize about CCD but not ok for someone else to do the same if it goes against your hypothesis?


Not at all. Question away. However, you presented the "CCD" link to seed coating as a given fact in the very title. "Has Seed Coating Changed? CCD gone for Good!" Then you took it upon yourself to stifle additional questioning in your very 1st statement with


FlowerPlanter said:


> Without debating the cause of CCD.


 Then you finished up the very 1st statement with this.


FlowerPlanter said:


> If this is the case we will not see CCD again!


That's the huge difference you seem to keep ignoring. 

Keep spinning. The old saying my grandfather used to use comes to mind. The more rope you give a fool the better the knot they'll tie for themselves.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

"Has Seed Coating Changed*"?"*"

"Without debating the cause of CCD. Just a what *"IF"*."
"I was not looking for a CCD debate there are plenty of those"

"*"IF"* a corporation even thought it was a *POSSIBILITY* they would do what ever it took "

"It *"MIGHT"* just be logical steps any company would take"

"*"IF"* this is the case we will not see CCD again!"

"Do you think CCD is gone for good *"?"*"


----------



## D Coates

"*Has seed coating changed?*" is a question and would have been a fine launching point for your hypothesis all by itself. However, "*CCD gone for good!*" is a statement. It's how you ended the thread title. It directly linked seed coating as the cause of CCD as a proven. It's clearly not. Yet, the first sentence stated by you in this thread is "Without debating the cause of CCD". This is Beesource, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too especially when you fling something unproven/inflammatory like that out there.

It's semantics. Words mean things. You've been called on the carpet for it. Still defending it with references from Wikipedia and additional statements that are equally ludicrous and creeping further out on a limb does more to slander your name than anyone else's perceived personal slams. Keep spinning if you wish but this is becoming tedious.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

D Coates said:


> The old saying my grandfather used to use comes to mind. The more rope you give a *fool* the better the knot they'll tie for themselves.


*Who was your grandfather talking to?*

"Examples";
"*Only a fool would ask such a silly question*.";



D Coates said:


> Ohhhhh, ohhh, oh, me, me, me (Horseshack quote from Mr. Kotter. How about that from the way back reference category?)





D Coates said:


> I was told Santa existed ... Sweet!, Merry Christmas!





D Coates said:


> Wait a second. What if I accidentally fed them GMO carrots with Neonics? Wholly molly... maybe I weakened the reindeers immunity they weren't able to make it over a mountain pass. Santa could have gone down in the Rockies because of Bayer or Monsanto? That could be exactly why I've had no Santa symptoms for the past few decades. There's no proof if this, but that could be the very evidence to show it exists.
> My brain hurts...





D Coates said:


> GMO glowing reindeer noses and Round-up ready Santa's. Proof you never know where threads will lead on Beesource.
> Wait, if that's proof and it's been seen recently is that proof that is doesn't exist? ...I've got clean up my office, my brain just exploded.





D Coates said:


> No. Don't be foolish. On wiki it clearly states, "6 armed octopi proves the seed coating has changed".





D Coates said:


> I'm already searching wiki for Round Up ready Santa's.


*Your grandfather is a wise man!!!*


----------



## D Coates

You're no longer even discussing the issue now. Those clearly intentionally humorous quotes are the best you can respond with? Why did you not post any of the other equally humorous posts from other members? Finally realizing you were wrong appears to have made this personal to you.

You're supposedly concerned about being slandered but your true colors show when frustrated.


----------



## jonathan

I always find it difficult to have a discussion with someone with no sense of humour.
Some of the off the wall banter can be the most enjoyable part of a bee forum.
These discussions generally follow a similar pattern.
If you don't buy into the Neonic as Devil Incarnate argument you get ridiculed, then there is a loss of temper, and finally you get accused of being a shill in the payroll of Bayer or Monsanto or Kim jong il.

And whether or not CCD ever really existed, I don't think anyone has slipped a change in the formula of seed coatings into the mix without trumpeting it.
The emerging problem with neonics relates to other pollinators, not honeybees. Honeybee colonies seem to cope fine with neonics but some other pollinators appear to be less robust.


----------



## Oldtimer

Is "what if?" a new arguing technique or something?

I've seen it popping up more often recently, mostly in another forum I'm on, and I've noticed a standard formula for it and the way the OP handles the ensuing thread.

The OP starts the thread with a seemingly innocent, open minded question, being "what if xxxx?". Other people then post to the discussion, but the OP posts to rebut anything anyone says that is contrary to xxxx, and it soon becomes apparent the OP has firmly decided that xxxx is a fact. But avoids having to answer any awkward questions by claiming to not be pushing an agenda but rather "just asking a question", or "just wondering", "what if".

I saw a perfect example of this on the other forum recently when the OP posted what if Schumman Resonance is important and should we be putting shchumman resonance amplifiers on top of beehives to counteract CCD. I'll not post a link to the thread publicly but anyone interested the thread did actually happen I'll pm a link if anyone requests.

Anyhow the outcome was predictable, people overwhelmingly rubbished the idea, which forced the OP to show his true colours, he had accepted the need for schumman resonance amplifiers on beehives as a necessary step to block CCD, and became increasingly angry and abusive at what he perceived as peoples ignorance, eventually getting a public reprimand from the moderator, thread locked, and the guy left the site.

I give this example as a more extreme way the seemingly innocent "what if" question is being increasingly used as a precursor to try to steer a debate the direction the OP wants, without the OP needing to supply any proof of his assertions cos he is only claiming to be asking a question.


----------



## Nabber86

Forget the part about *CCD Gone for Good....*


The seed coatings have not changed, so none of this matters.


----------



## Nabber86

Oldtimer said:


> Is "what if?" a new arguing technique or something?
> 
> 
> The OP starts the thread with a seemingly innocent, open minded question, being "what if xxxx?". Other people then post to the discussion, but the OP posts to rebut anything anyone says that is contrary to xxxx, and it soon becomes apparent the OP has firmly decided that xxxx is a fact. But avoids having to answer any awkward questions by claiming to not be pushing an agenda but rather "just asking a question", or "just wondering", "what if".


I can put up with OPs lack of logic and critical thinking skills; it is laughable and easy to spot. What I really find intolerable is OPs attitude that farmers are bumbling dufuses that indiscriminately apply excessive amounts of pesticides. More likely than not, a modern farmer will have a degree in agronomy from their State-U. They know the economics, meteorology, biology, animal husbandry, and countless other subjects that most of us barely have a grasp of; they live this stuff. Nobody is going to cut into their profit by spending money on machinery, pesticide, fuel, and fertilizer that is not needed. There are even high-tech electronics and GPS that can track and adjust planting, pesticide/fertilizer application, and irrigation. 

And the "poor farmer is controlled by the Big Ag oligarchy and is forced to make poor decisions" BS is just that; utter BS. 

The keyboard farmers know everything and don't hesitate to tell an expert what they are going wrong. It is a shame that some people have this attitude.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

Nabber86 said:


> Slander? No need to. You have proved yourself deficient in so many subjects that it is hard to list them all. *Now we can add English language to the list*.





Nabber86 said:


> Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand





Nabber86 said:


> You have damaged your reputation all by yourself. You don't need any help.





Nabber86 said:


> I can put up with OPs lack of logic and critical thinking skills





Nabber86 said:


> As D Coates said:
> *slan·der*
> _noun _LAW
> [*]*1*. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.


It's *ironic* and humorous that you *both* pointed out English language but you* both *used the wrong meaning of the work, slander was used as a verb. *Which you both failed *to list.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander
"transitive verb"
": to make a false spoken statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone"

Also see 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander;
*"Using slander is really not an intelligent way to bolster your own argument."*


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Can we get back to those 7 armed octopi, please?


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> It's *ironic* and humorous that you *both* pointed out English language but you* both *used the wrong meaning of the work, slander was used as a verb. *Which you both failed *to list.


Humorous how? https://www.google.com/search?q=slander&gws_rd=ssl It's both so what? It means the same thing, but can be used differently in a sentence Bottom line, no was slandered. Attacking the grammar of those who disagree in an attempt to appear more intelligent? It's garbage. Trying to split grammatical hairs to bolster your argument doesn't help your cause, but you've sure tied yourself a pretty knot there.

No longer even addressing the dubious reason for the thread altogether? The whole thread was a thinly veiled attempt to link "CCD" and Neonics as a harmless "what if". There was an agenda being pushed from the very beginning that was clear from the original thread title. You've still not addressed that but after everything else you've ignored I don't expect you to. You also made it very clear you wanted no additional discussion (unless it agreed with you). It's Beesource, there are no private soapboxes to spout stuff from. Anything you say you'd better be ready to defend.



FlowerPlanter said:


> "Using slander is really not an intelligent way to bolster your own argument."


 I couldn't agree more. You're the one who's claiming it's been used. It's clearly not bolstering your argument, now is it?


----------



## FlowerPlanter

D Coates said:


> I couldn't agree more. You're the one who's claiming it's been used. It's clearly not bolstering your argument, now is it?


Can you show me one example where I slandered you?

*Though so!*


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> Can you show me one example where I slandered you?
> 
> *Though so!*


As has been pointed out several times, nobody has slandered anyone in this thread. You could make a case for ad hominem attack, but claiming slander is a misunderstanding of the term.





FlowerPlanter said:


> *"Using slander is really not an intelligent way to bolster your own argument."
> *


The above quote is obvious, however you are ignoring the more important converse meaning: Falsely _*claiming*_ slander is really not an intelligent way to bolster your own argument


----------



## Nabber86

While we are talking about English, I feel compelled to post the following (forgive me):

Octopus comes from the Greek word oktopous and the correct plural form is octopuses; or to be overly pedantically - octopodes***. The term octopi is hypercorrect**** and is based on an attempt to pluralize the word using incorrect assumptions as to the word’s origin (i.e., the mistaken notion that octopus is derived from Latin rather than Greek roots).

***Octopodes follows the Ancient Greek plural oktṓpodes

****Interestingly enough, the term _hypercorrect_ may look like a synonym for _overly correct, _but the definition of the word is “incorrect because of a mistaken idea of standard usage”. So if you think hypercorrect means overly correct, you are being hypercorrect. 

:banana::banana::banana:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

_Nabber86_, that was more _useful and informative_ than the whole preceding 121 posts!  The only improvement I could suggest would be a supporting reference*.


*this reference, at least, suggests octopuses and octopi are equivalent as a plural for octopus


----------



## Nabber86

Rader Sidetrack said:


> :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
> 
> _Nabber86_, that was more _useful and informative_ than the whole preceding 121 posts!  The only improvement I could suggest would be a supporting reference*.
> 
> *this reference, at least, suggests octopuses and octopi are equivalent as a plural for octopus


Of course I did my homework and you don't get a better reference than YouTube: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFyY2mK8pxk (take special note the last three lines of her talk). 

And best source of all sources (Wiki):_There are three plural forms of octopus__: octopuses [ˈɒktəpəsɪz], octopi [ˈɒktəpaɪ], and octopodes [ˌɒkˈtəʊpədiːz]. Currently, octopuses is the most common form in the UK as well as the US; octopodes is rare, and octopi is often objectionable._

And lastly, the grammar police: 

http://grammarist.com/usage/octopi-octopuses/

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/270/what-is-the-correct-plural-of-octopus


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

>> and octopi is often objectionable.

Objectionable?? :scratch: Now that is just _slander_! :lpf: Octopi deserve a fair shake just like everyone else you meet. 


And from Nabber's own reference ...


> Still, while the use of octopi can’t be justified on an etymological basis, it is not wrong. It is old enough and common enough to be considered an accepted variant.
> 
> http://grammarist.com/usage/octopi-octopuses/


:wiener::wiener::wiener:


----------



## jonathan




----------



## Barry

OK everyone, let's get back to the subject of the thread.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

FlowerPlanter said:


> "Has Seed Coating Changed*"?"*"
> 
> "Without debating the cause of CCD. Just a what *"IF"*."
> "I was not looking for a CCD debate there are plenty of those"
> 
> "*"IF"* a corporation even thought it was a *POSSIBILITY* they would do what ever it took "
> 
> "It *"MIGHT"* just be logical steps any company would take"
> 
> "*"IF"* this is the case we will not see CCD again!"
> 
> "Do you think CCD is gone for good *"?"*"


You are ignoring the fact that the symptoms which are currently being called "CCD" were reported long before Bayer, Monsanto, neonics, pesticides and chemical fertilizers existed.

Even if we go so far as to say that "CCD" exists, it existed before, without Bayer/Monsanto, etc.

If it existed before them, without them and their influence, then it can STILL exist without them and NOTHING that they do with "seed coatings" will change that. Even if Bayer/Monsanto, neonics, seed coatings, pesticides and fertilizers were completely eliminated _it would have absolutely no effect on the existence of "CCD"._

To postulate that changing seed coatings will eliminate "CCD" is ludicrous and makes no sense whatsoever. No "what if" will change that.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

BadBeeKeeper said:


> You are ignoring the fact that the symptoms which are currently being called "CCD" were reported long before Bayer, Monsanto, neonics, pesticides and chemical fertilizers existed.


Ignoring it? Not even close, this was addressed in *post number 22 *(I guess you did not read any of the previous post or did you ignore them too?)

USDA; " While the descriptions sound similar to CCD, there is no way to know for sure if those problems were caused by the same agents as CCD. "

There is a* possibility *that CCD is the same thing as seen previously in history and it would be among many on the top of the list. (disappearing disease, IAPV, a different virus, pesticides, fungicides, mites and or a combination...just to name a few) The very fact that the cause of CCD is unknown you can't rule out any of them.

But as you said yourself "*there is absolutely no reason to think*" and without thought you ruled out anything you did not believe in.

Weather you believe in it or you ignore it, pesticide is a *possible cause of CCD*. And there are teams of scientist and universities trying to prove and disprove this *possibility*.



BadBeeKeeper said:


> Even if Bayer/Monsanto, neonics, seed coatings, pesticides and fertilizers were completely eliminated it would have *absolutely* no effect on the existence of "CCD".


"absolutely"
*PROVE IT?*
*Thought so!*


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> Can you show me one example where I slandered you?
> 
> *Though so!*


Is "Thought so!" your new buzz phrase? 

Uh,... I think that pretty knot you've got may be cutting off some vital blood flow you definitely need. At no point did I ever claim to have been slandered by you. Conversely at no time have you been slandered by anyone else in this thread. You brought it up in a weak attempt to deflect actual questions without answering them and are currently trying to bolster your argument by claiming "victim" status. Had anything close to slander occurred the moderators would have deleted the post and notified the respective poster. 

Bottom line. 1. No change to seed coating has occurred. 2. "CCD" has never been understood, isolated, replicated, or medicated, yet incidences of "CCD" have dropped off the radar all on their own.* 3. There is no proven link between "CCD" and Neonic seed coatings. You keep ignoring all of this.

The very thread title showed your bias and you're still not addressing it. You say you want to consider "what ifs" yet you only appear to want to hear from those who agree with you. "What if" the OP had an agenda axe to grind all along but because the discussion isn't going his way he attempts to play the victim card to ignore actual questions? 

Personally, I'd have dropped this thread long ago but it put on full display the lengths and denials some will go to push their personal anti-neonic agenda. Many (but definitely not all) on the anti-neonic side use innuendos, half truths, veiled anti-corporate/profit attitudes, critical thinking appears optional, have socialist leanings with little understanding of the capitalist system, don't directly address questions, and get very defensive when things don't go their way. This thread has been like an all you can eat buffet line of that.


* I question if CCD has become a convenient catch all for bee deaths and an easy way to try rally the anti-neonic base. But that's for a different thread.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

D Coates said:


> Is "Thought so!" your new buzz phrase?


Absolutely!



D Coates said:


> Bottom line. 1. No change to seed coating has occurred.


Very possible.
*Prove it? 
Thought so!*




D Coates said:


> 2. "CCD" has never been understood, isolated, replicated, or medicated, yet incidences of "CCD" have dropped off the radar all on their own.*


Absolutely! I agree with this 100%



D Coates said:


> 3. There is no proven link between "CCD" and Neonic seed coatings


Absolutely! I agree with this 100% 



D Coates said:


> * I question if CCD has become a convenient catch all for bee deaths and an easy way to try rally the anti-neonic base. But that's for a different thread.


Yes it is very possible and I am sure it has happened and could happen in the future. But for now CCD has disappeared. While *anti-neonic rallies continues and are as strong as ever*. *American media continue with all the anti-neonic rallies *but CCD has stopped. Anti-neonic bans in Europe, reductions in other contries. All of a sudden the *"convenient catch all for bee deaths" of CCD has stopped?* While we still see some of the highest winter kills ever. 

Is CCD is gone for good?


----------



## Nabber86

I know, right?


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> *Prove it? Thought so!*


Prove no seed coating change has occurred? Prove a negative? That's not how it works. If it was, I could claim you're an idiot and it would be true until you could prove you're not. (It's not "slander", I'm merely using it as an example.) You are the one who has made the claim here. Therefore the burden is upon you to prove it.



FlowerPlanter said:


> While *anti-neonic rallies continues and are as strong as ever*. *American media continue with all the anti-neonic rallies *but CCD has stopped. Anti-neonic bans in Europe, reductions in other contries.


This proves what? The media is on board so it proves it's true? Neonic bans in Europe have worked (source please)? How did CCD stop here, yet nothing changed? So doing nothing here worked just as well as banning Neonics in Europe?



FlowerPlanter said:


> All of a sudden the *"convenient catch all for bee deaths" of CCD has stopped?* While we still see some of the highest winter kills ever. ?


Where are these claimed kill numbers coming from? Better question, what's actually causing them? Where's the proof? You seem to have already convicted before trial or any evidence has even been presented.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

D Coates said:


> Prove no seed coating change has occurred?


You said it as fact.
*So prove it!
Thought so!*



I asked a question, "Has Seed Coating Changed?"
Then I later found it has or least they been working on it. 
Bayer Dust technology with the intent on using it by...


----------



## D Coates

FlowerPlanter said:


> You said it as fact.


No it's got a question mark at the end. Therefore it's a question. 

Yes, Bayer is working on new technology but it's not been introduced therefore any correlation between it and "CCD" is moot. That's been pointed out long ago and you're still ignoring it. 

No sources to support your bold claims in #131?


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> I asked a question, "Has Seed Coating Changed?"
> Then I later found it has or least they been working on it.
> Bayer Dust technology with the intent on using it by...


Yes, you finally got one thing right. They are _working_ on it and intend to use it. But as pointed several times over these many pages, the new technology has not been implemented. Therefore; seed coating has not changed, yet. How can something that has not yet changed affect anything else?

EDIT: And one last thing: They (Bayer) are not working on a new _seed coating_ technology. They are working on a new _seed lubrication_ technology. Lubrication is not a coating. Therefore, a change in seed coating is not even being worked on. How can something that is not even being worked on affect anything else?


----------



## D Coates

Nabber86 said:


> They (Bayer) are not working on a new _seed coating_ technology. They are working on a new _seed lubrication_ technology. Lubrication is not a coating. Therefore, a change in seed coating is not even being worked on.



(In my best Flowerplanter impersonation that skips logic, ignores questions, leaps to illogical conclusions, and loves bold type.) 

Yea, but... but if *they're working on something* it's proof that *they're responsible for CCD!*

*Prove it?
Thought so!*


----------



## Nabber86

Yes it is!

No it's not!

Yes it is!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y


----------



## Redneck

We can always go back to the Bible to get our answers. " The Love of Money is the Root of all Evil." Our chemical companies buy off our agriculture schools in the way of grants, so most will say or do anything to keep that money coming. I continue to lose bees that are located very near a corn field. This past year I lost about 20 hives and some five frame nucs. Three other locations didn't have this type of bad luck. All apiaries were managed the same. The only difference was this three locations had no farming near by. You may say and believe what you may, but I will not locate any more bees near this corn operation.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

******* said:


> I continue to lose bees that are located very near a corn field. This past year I lost about 20 hives and some five frame nucs. Three other locations didn't have this type of bad luck. All apiaries were managed the same. The only difference was this three locations had no farming near by. You may say and believe what you may, but I will not locate any more bees near this corn operation.


I have a cornfield located right across the creek from me. I cannot attribute any hive losses to it- most are traceable to my own mismanagement, particularly when I neglect to manage mites.

I planted a good sized stand of corn myself, here. The bees were not particularly attracted to in. In fact, it was rather rare to see any bees in the corn, once in a while there would be one or two checking it out but that was it. Kind of hard to blame corn if the bees don't like it and don't do anything with it.


----------



## D Coates

******* said:


> "The Love of Money is the Root of all Evil." Our chemical companies buy off our agriculture schools in the way of grants, so most will say or do anything to keep that money coming.


Chemical companies offer grants to help agricultural schools cover operational cost and offer reasonable tuition, but it's called buying off? What if they didn't offer grants, would they be accused of being heartless, cruel, only caring about the bottom line and "the love of money"? See how it's a no win situation for them depending on how it's spun? They can't prove a negative so they get conveniently tarred by their opponents in the court of public opinion though there's no proof. Imagine, if someone started a rumor of you like that. How would you try to prove a negative?



******* said:


> I continue to lose bees that are located very near a corn field. This past year I lost about 20 hives and some five frame nucs. Three other locations didn't have this type of bad luck. All apiaries were managed the same. The only difference was this three locations had no farming near by. You may say and believe what you may, but I will not locate any more bees near this corn operation.


As may you. No worries, we're free to do as we wish. I've got an apiary that's 40 yards from +500 acres of corn/soybeans (depends on year), and another yard that's a mile or so from corn/soybeans. I've noticed no difference and I'll set up where it's convenient and secure with no regard to corn/soybeans. Like BadBeeKeeper as soon as I take my eyes off mite control is when I have overwintering trouble. That and I've got to watch nucs more closely for severe dearths to ensure they don't weaken and get robbed out.


----------



## camero7

> as soon as I take my eyes off mite control is when I have overwintering trouble


amen


----------



## Nabber86

******* said:


> We can always go back to the Bible to get our answers. "The Love of Money is the Root of all Evil." Our chemical companies buy off our agriculture schools in the way of grants, so most will say or do anything to keep that money coming. I continue to lose bees that are located very near a corn field. This past year I lost about 20 hives and some five frame nucs. Three other locations didn't have this type of bad luck. All apiaries were managed the same. The only difference was this three locations had no farming nearby. You may say and believe what you may, but I will not locate any more bees near this corn operation.


Several things are problematic with your analyses:



The sample size is too small to yield statistically significant data
There are no controls on the experiment
You suffer from observation bias
Anecdotal information is not data
I hesitate to say that there is even correlation here, but even if there was, correlation does not imply causation
You use the term luck in your analysis. Science is not luck.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

D Coates said:


> Bottom line. 1. No change to seed coating has occurred.


No question mark there!

You said it as fact.
*So prove it!
Thought so!*



Evolution of the products and seeds themselves are *changing yearly*.
Just like any other product you buy, the next year model is always better;

USDA; "Every year new varieties of agricultural and vegetable seed enter channels of commerce.
New varieties of seed can provide farmers and home gardeners with a wider selection of
seed."

Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and Syngenta... all competing for a market share, they must compete to survive, this is never end cutting edge technology that is changing every year;

https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/products/soybean/seed-treatments/
"A new nematicide/insecticide component* of our 2015 Pioneer Premium Seed Treatment offering is especially effective against soybean cyst nematode. 
In 2 years of DuPont Pioneer Research testing across 30 locations, varieties treated with the Pioneer Premium Seed Treatment package including the new nematicide/insecticide* yielded 1.0-3.5 more bushels per acre on average than untreated varieties from low to high SCN infestations."

http://www.croplife.com/equipment/the-birth-of-bayer-seedgrowth/
"There has been very explosive growth in seed treatment the past 10 years,” 
"Bayer CropScience has launched a new name for its seed treatment business called Bayer SeedGrowth."

http://www.seedgrowth.bayer.com/coatings
"Bayer SeedGrowth™ Coatings can point to *decades of leading-edge* experience and outstanding expertise in *seed-applied technologies*"
"*Reducing dust emissions by up to 95%*"
"*a truly global brand*
In line with the global scope of Bayer SeedGrowth™, *its global film coating brand*, Peridiam, offers solutions for virtually all crops, e.g. corn, cotton, canola, cereals, rice, sunflower, vegetables, soybean and pasture. By offering different coating solutions tailored to differing market needs,"
"SeedGrowth™, Poncho/VOTiVO4. This seed treatment for corn and soybean combines a trusted seed-applied insecticide with a revolutionary, complete nematode protection on the seed."
"at Bayer SeedGrowth™ results in outstanding innovations, such as EverGol™3"
"innovations such as Poncho®2, EverGol®3 or Peridiam™ have continued our tradition of innovative seed treatment products."

http://www.monsanto.com/products/documents/2013-acceleron-corn-brochure.pdf
new products

http://www.cropscience.bayer.com/en/Products-and-Innovation/Brands/SeedGrowth.aspx
More new seed treatment products from Bayer

http://www3.syngenta.com/country/us...denharvest/Pages/golden-harvest-corn-new.aspx
"Breakthrough traits and state-of-the-art technologies"

http://www3.syngenta.com/country/us/en/agriculture/seeds/corn/nk/Pages/nk-corn-new.aspx
"NK corn *has changed *because so have the times"
http://www.syngentacropprotection.com/Seed_Treatment/
Lots of *new seed treatment *from Syngenta too

http://www.syngentacropprotection.com/News_releases/news.aspx?id=185533
"Syngenta announces *52 new corn hybrids for 2015 *planting season"


http://www.syngentacropprotection.com/Insecticides/default.aspx
list of Syngenta pesticide a lot of *new products*


Cant seem to find any old products or labels older than late 2010s that are still in use.
seems they are constantly changing/evolving.


*So absolutely* "Has Seed Coating Changed?" *Yes*
And it continues to change.
*And I can prove it!*




D Coates said:


> No sources to support your bold claims in #131?


http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572#losses

"GMOs May Feed the World Using Fewer Pesticides";
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/fewer-pesticides-farming-with-gmos/
"In the late 1990s, the agriculture corporation Monsanto began to sell corn engineered to include a protein from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, better known as Bt. The bacteria wasn’t new to agriculture—organic farmers spray it on their crops to kill certain insects. *Today more than 60% of the corn grown within the United States is Bt corn*. Farmers have adopted it in droves because it saves them money that they would otherwise *spend on insecticide *"

http://naturalsociety.com/how-biote...eatening-the-environment-and-humankind-alike/
Chart that shows the increased use of BT and HT on many crops.

An other hypothesis; BT HT crops may be displacing other pesticides, this open up another possibility it was the GMOs that saved the bees from neonics and CCD. The time line seems about right with the disappearance od CCD.

But either way
*So absolutely* "Has Seed Coating Changed?" *Yes*
And it continues to change.
*And I can prove it!*


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> No question mark there!
> 
> USDA; "Every year new varieties of agricultural and vegetable seed enter channels of commerce.
> New varieties of seed can provide farmers and home gardeners with a wider selection of
> seed."
> 
> https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/products/soybean/seed-treatments/
> 
> 
> http://www.croplife.com/equipment/the-birth-of-bayer-seedgrowth/
> "
> 
> http://www.seedgrowth.bayer.com/coatings
> 
> 
> http://www.monsanto.com/products/documents/2013-acceleron-corn-brochure.pdf
> 
> http://www.cropscience.bayer.com/en/Products-and-Innovation/Brands/SeedGrowth.aspx
> 
> 
> http://www3.syngenta.com/country/us...denharvest/Pages/golden-harvest-corn-new.aspx
> 
> 
> http://www3.syngenta.com/country/us/en/agriculture/seeds/corn/nk/Pages/nk-corn-new.aspx
> 
> http://www.syngentacropprotection.com/Seed_Treatment/
> 
> 
> http://www.syngentacropprotection.com/News_releases/news.aspx?id=185533
> "Syngenta announces *52 new corn hybrids for 2015 *planting season"
> 
> 
> http://www.syngentacropprotection.com/Insecticides/default.aspx
> 
> *So absolutely* "Has Seed Coating Changed?" *Yes*
> And it continues to change.
> *And I can prove it!*


You call that proof? Press releases, blanket statements, blogs, and what amounts to magazine articles? You will have to do better than that. Please provide a reference that indicates when a new seed coating actually went into use and then provide your reasoning as to how it affected honeybees.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

Nabber86 said:


> You call that proof? Press releases, blanket statements, blogs, and what amounts to magazine articles?


You better *look again*, most of the proof come *directly from *the seed coating *manufactures web sites!**Bayer, Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont*
And also from *USDA*

So yet Again you *ignore what you don't want to believe!*

*So Absolutely* "Has Seed Coating Changed?"* Yes*
And it continues to change.
*And I did prove it! *


----------



## Nabber86

FlowerPlanter said:


> You better *look again*, most of the proof come *directly from *the seed coating *manufactures web sites!**Bayer, Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont*
> And also from *USDA*
> 
> So yet Again you *ignore what you don't want to believe!*
> 
> Absolutely "Has Seed Coating Changed?" Yes
> And it continues to change.
> *And I can prove it! *




Well I guess we need to add reading comprehension to the list.


----------



## D Coates

Well if you already had the answers, then why did you ask the original question? Oh that's right, this has been a convoluted attempt at a soapbox all along. No actual discussion no actual proof, just standard links to websites and outlandish claims. I guess the belief is if you throw enough manure at the wall something is bound to stick.

This is similar to the open feeding of honey thread you started. http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...m-Unknown-Source&highlight=open-feeding-honey You already had your answers, you were just trying to make some drama. Petty people, petty minds, petty actions


----------



## FlowerPlanter

D Coates said:


> Well if you already had the answers, then why did you ask the original question?


Did not have that answer at the time, as soon as I found any supporting information I posted it here. You all kept me on my toes, kept me digging. (at least when we stayed on the subject)

To which I learned a lot more than when I started.



D Coates said:


> This is similar to the open feeding of honey thread you started. http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...m-Unknown-Source&highlight=open-feeding-honey You already had your answers, you were just trying to make some drama. Petty people, petty minds, petty actions


*Not at all*, here's the update you might want to read it; "*What Advice Would You Give to Someone*" 

And I will be the first to admit *your advice in that thread was right on*, and give credit where *credit is due!*


----------

