# Bayer Neonics - Game Over?



## Budster (Mar 24, 2006)

"bogus articles on the internet claiming Bayer is the bogey man of bees"

Doesn't Bayer make some of the mite treatments we use? I remember distinctively the word "Bayer" on some mite strips at one time?


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

Bud Dingler said:


> - which either says it was so toxic, that any exposed
> bees died (outside the hive) and as such weren't available for sampling, ...


Which could explain why large numbers of bees disappear quickly and are never able to bring contaminated pollen back to the colony.

Could you re-post the correct link, I would love to read the rest of the report. I read this portion a couple of times and I get the impression that Jerry is not *completely* ruling the chems out, but stating the fact that it is not found in notable percentages in the wax, pollen or remaining bees. His conclusions are based on what's left in the colony.


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

> More importantly, no residues of any of these chemicals were found in any of the analyzed bees - which either says it was so toxic, that any exposed bees died (outside the hive)


Given the known history of this particular pesticide... this would be my guess. I find it rather funny though that the researcher comes to the opposite conclusion based on... ? But that's Bee-L for ya... ought to be renamed Bee-S.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I think the conclusion makes a fair amount of sense.

Neonicotinoids are applied as seed treatments (March, April, May) or as foliar treatments (usually July or August).

The losses (CCD) that some claim may be caused by neonicotinoids appear weeks or months later.

The explanation has been that the bees store the pollen or nectar containing the neonicotinoids, and only when they get around to using those stores are they poisoned by the chemicals.

If neonicotinoids are so lethal in trace amounts that the bees couldn't make it back to their hives, seems to me that the losses would occur either right after application of the chemicals (spring to mid summer) or at bloom of the flowers (summer). CCD strikes much later. If neonicotinoids are being stored and still have an effect on bees, the chemicals should show up in analyses of pollen, nectar and wax in the hives, right?


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

easier link to download published paper

http://tinyurl.com/yc4a8fp

to read online

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc...0.1371/journal.pone.0009754#pone-0009754-t004

Here's an idea. Read the whole paper and look at the tables of data before drawing some conclusions of your own. 

We already have some misinformation in this thread from people who clearly made no effort to comprehend this important report from the CCD working group.


----------



## Blackwater Bee (May 1, 2008)

I recall a lecture from Mary Ann Frazier at a State Beekeepers Meeting in NJ on the findings thus far ( 2008 ) at the time that Neonics were not even an issue, the amount found in all the subjects ( pollen, wax, honey, bees collected ) were very low or non-existent, however the chemical found with the highest concentrations in all of their studies was Coumaphos, but that alone does not explain the cause of CCD she says.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

"that any exposed
bees died (outside the hive) and as such weren't available for sampling,"

So they did not sample the very subset of bees in the hive that first show the symptoms of poisoning? If I was a smart bee, and I had picked up a load of poison, I would not come home to poison my sisters. but rather die in the field.

The research on the in-hive samples may be sound, but it sure seems like they did not do a complete job. I know of a study where the researcher took the studied hive to an area with limited forage except for a field a moderate distance away. He then sampled the dead bees in that field. His results where dramatically different from the samples taken from inside the hive.

I'd say it's time for a "do over", no short cuts.

There is only one thing worse than no information - bad information.

Roland


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Roland said:


> I'd say it's time for a "do over", no short cuts.
> 
> There is only one thing worse than no information - bad information.
> 
> Roland



Are suggesting that these people cut corners and produced BAD information? Have you read the paper and studied their methodology?

I have known about this paper for months and was keenly awaiting it.

It is not an easy read so here are some of the highlights, with my comments   

> We have found unprecedented levels of miticides and agricultural pesticides in honey bee colonies from across the US and one Canadian province. The data contained here is the largest sampling of pesticide residues in N. American bee colonies or worldwide to date, and represents a cost of nearly $175,000 for the analyses alone.    

(me: this kind of comprehensive testing is very expensive)   

> Most noteworthy were the very high levels of the fungicide chlorothalonil in pollen and wax as well as ppm levels of the insecticides aldicarb, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos and imidacloprid, fungicides boscalid, captan and myclobutanil, and herbicide pendimethalin. With an average of 7 pesticides in a pollen sample, the potential for multiple pesticide interactions affecting bee health seems likely. 

(me: fungicides are a real problem for bees, may be causing unforeseen effects)   

> Almost all wax and pollen samples (98.4%) contained two or more pesticide residues, of which greater than 83% were fluvalinate and coumaphos. Clearly, substantial residues of these bee-toxic pyrethroid and organophosphate compounds prevailed together in most beehives sampled. Chronic exposures to high levels of these persistent neurotoxicants elicits both acute and sublethal reductions in honey bee fitness, especially queens, and they can interact synergistically on bee mortality.    

(me: the most widespread pesticide contamination comes from miticides added by beekeepers, which can harm bees in the long run)   

> The affects of chronic exposure to pyrethroids, organophosphates, neonicotinoids, fungicides and other pesticides can range from lethal and/or sub-lethal effects in brood and workers to reproductive effects on the queen. Attempts to correlate global bee declines or CCD with increased pesticide exposures alone have not been successful to date. It seems to us that it is far too early to attempt to link or to dismiss pesticide impacts with CCD.   

(me: all of these things together can have a negative effect on bees, brood, and the queen. However, pesticides can't be directly linked to CCD)  


* * *  If neonics were the main culprit in mass bee die-off, these people would have discovered it. Why? First, because they are not biased and did not set out to prove anything. Second, the credentials of these people are impeccable. Their thinking has not been twisted by Bayer, and they have no hidden agenda to promote. They are trying to find out the truth behind bee losses. 

Finally, the way it was funded is instructive:   

> Funding was received from the Florida State Beekeepers, National Honey Board, Penn State College of Agriculture Sciences, Project Apis mellifera (PAm), Tampa Bay Beekeepers, The Foundation for the Preservation of Honey Bees, and the United States Department of Agriculture Critical Issues program. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


----------



## Jeffzhear (Dec 2, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> > "...Most noteworthy were the very high levels of the fungicide chlorothalonil in pollen and wax as well as ppm levels of the insecticides aldicarb, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos and imidacloprid, fungicides boscalid, captan and myclobutanil, and herbicide pendimethalin. With an average of 7 pesticides in a pollen sample, the potential for multiple pesticide interactions affecting bee health seems likely.
> 
> (me: fungicides are a real problem for bees, may be causing unforeseen effects)"


I am curious, what do I do?
I have a blueberry grower who wants me to pollinate. I asked him last week what he will spray during the bloom. He said " Pristine (Boscalid + Pyraclostrobin), Ziram, Captan and Elevate (Fenhexamide). He also told me that he checked with the Cornell Cooperative Extension, or maybe it was with Cornell directliy and all of these fungicides pose little risk to honey bees. I wrote the names down and decided to check for myself. When I looked up Captan on the net one of the articles I read said that Captan at field doses has caused brood damage. When I read your post Peter I got worried. I would rather not pollinate his blueberries then harm my bees.

So, is it reasonable to recommend to the grower that he not spray any pesticides or fungicides during the bloom, or is this impractable? How necessary is it for blueberry growers to spray fungicides during the bloom?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Hi Jeff

I think the solution to the problem of chemicals killing bees has to be worked out between beekeepers and growers. Trying to pass laws to tie growers hands is pointless, and counterproductive. 

That said, what do we do? I think the burden of proof is on the grower, to show that the chemicals are necessary and that they won't harm the bees. 

You don't say if you are charging a fee. I would adjust the fee according to his willingness to adjust his spray schedule. Many of the fungicides are applied while the plants are blooming because they are "non toxic" to bees.

However, there is ample evidence that the fungicides are being stored in the hives will long term consequences. If the bees tank 6 months later, you will have a hard time proving the blueberry pollination was the bullet.

Pollination is something I haven't gotten into, but I think that growers should be much more careful about what they do to your bees, because they need bees to pollinate. 

This is going to have to be a give and take between grower and pollinator. Try to keep an open dialogue.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Jeff has homed in on one of the key findings in the new report. I would worry less about neonics and more about chlorothalonil. This is sprayed on blooming almonds, cherries, cranberries, blueberries, etc. Growers are told that it is safe for bees because it doesn't kill them outright. But what it does when stored in hives is the question.



> Here we describe a new phenomenon, entombed pollen, which is highly associated with increased colony mortality. Entombed pollen is sunken, capped cells amidst ‘‘normal”, uncapped cells of stored pollen, and some of the pollen contained within these cells is brick red in color. … the increased incidence of entombed pollen in reused wax comb suggests that there is a transmittable factor common to the phenomenon and colony mortality. In addition, there were elevated pesticide levels, notably of the fungicide chlorothalonil, in entombed pollen. The fungicide chlorothalonil. Chlorothalonil was found in 100% of the samples of entombed pollen, but only in 45.5% of samples of normal pollen
> 
> from: "Entombed Pollen": A new condition in honey bee colonies associated with increased risk of colony mortality. By Dennis vanEngelsdorp , et al


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

More info on fungicides



> Fungicides usually are not a cause of concern for honey bee poisoning. At labeled field application rates, captan sometimes is associated with larval and pupal mortality. Honey bee broods are lost at a time when the colony population should be expanding. Studies by staff at the USDA Bee Lab in Weslaco, TX, show that honey bee impacts due to captan are related to formulation. These results suggest that it is not the captan itself, but other ingredients in some formulations, that cause developmental problems. These findings are under review for publication.
> 
> Iprodione (Rovral) is another fungicide of concern. During studies at University of California–Davis, some honey bee larvae died when exposed to iprodione. Others develop into large, robust pupae that do not develop into adult forms. Other dicarboximide fungicides might affect bees similarly, but such effects have not been determined experimentally.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

Kieck said:


> I think the conclusion makes a fair amount of sense.
> 
> Neonicotinoids are applied as seed treatments (March, April, May) or as foliar treatments (usually July or August).
> 
> ...



Yeah but this paper isn't just discussing CCD... neonics as a cause for CCD has already been debunked by the fact that several countries that have banned neonics prior to the discovery of CCD have still had heavy CCD losses; but to say that pesticides can't cause pesticide losses, as this paper seems to conclude is going way beyond that and seems to be based on nothing, and seems pretty ridiculous anyway. Then again, maybe I read a little too much into it and maybe the researcher only meant that they are not a factor in CCD... but that in no way means that they are safe for the bees. In fact, a couple of european countries banned them specifically because they were killing off the bees. 

On the other hand, even if the paper only meant to address neonics as a cause in CCD, even though as I said above that is already debunked, the paper couldn't even hope to address the main critics who charge that neonics cause the workers to not be able to find their way back to the hive, thus depleting the worker population which would cause the nurse bees to transition to workers sooner thus depriving the hive of enough nurse bees to raise enough brood to keep the hive from crashing for more than a few months. Since the research excluded dead field bees, it can't hope to address that criticism of neonics.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

A poster said: "but to say that pesticides can't cause pesticide losses, as this paper seems to conclude is going way beyond that and seems to be based on nothing, and seems pretty ridiculous anyway"

Did you actually read the paper? 

The paper is a survey of pesticides found in bees, wax, and pollen and appears to draw few if any conclusions as to what the pesticide levels mean. Its a survey......


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

The report says plainly



> The high frequency of multiple pesticides in bee collected pollen
> and wax indicates that pesticide interactions need thorough
> investigation before their roles in decreasing bee health can be
> either supported or refuted.


Several people have mentioned that the study was a complete waste of time and money because they didn't sample dead bees in the field. Trouble is, nobody has found these dead bees. In the good old days of the 70s and 80s, the bees died in a big pile in front of the hive.

Some parasites cause their hosts to disperse widely in order to spread. This could be what's happening. Or, they are simply all getting lost (from neurological disorder caused by virus and/or pesticides).


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Bingo!!! Peterloringborst - thank you.


----------



## be lote (Mar 26, 2008)

problem with some fruit is you gotta rotate fungicides.


----------



## Eyeshooter (Mar 8, 2008)

I met and spoke with Mary Anne Frazier at the New Hampshire Beekeepers Association meeting yesterday in Northwoods, NH. She presented the results of this paper at our meeting and spoke about the synergistic effect of fluvalinate, coumaphos and chlorothalinate. Her data was well presented and the talk was extremely interesting. 

Regardless of whether you believe it's the synergistic effect of combined pesticides/fungicides or follow the French studies of imidacloprid and the neonics, I believe CCD has yet to be found in hives that follow a non-treat regimen. Does anyone have any additional information about no-treat hives?
I believe she stated she had not looked at them. 

Mary Anne did speak of an apple orchard study she had participated in where pollen was collected from returning foraging bees prior to them re-entering the hive. If I understood her correctly, and I believe I did, the collected pollen (that had never been in a hive) showed levels of fluvalinate and coumaphos, showing the bee had transferred those levels to the pollen during collection. Furthermore, the researchers then collected pollen from mason bees in the same orchard that had never been in a hive and found detectable levels of both chemicals in that pollen. Her thought was the honey bees had left a chemical residue during their visits to the same bud. 

Makes you really want to reach for the Apistan and Mite Check doesn't it?

John


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Eyeshooter said:


> I believe CCD has yet to be found in hives that follow a non-treat regimen.


First of all, nobody is clear on what CCD is, so it's hard to say who has it and who doesn't. But Jerry Bromenshenk is probably the one who knows the most about who has suffered from CCD-like symptoms. He has been collecting samples from all over for several years. 

He states very plainly that CCD is NOT correlated with treatments, or migratory beekeepers, or a particular type of bee type or anything. In other words, so-called organic beekeepers, small timers as well as conventional beekeepers with thousands of hives, -- all of these have suffered from large unexplained losses. Nobody is immune. 

At this point the jury is out on what the cause of these large losses is. It is certainly _plausible_ that miticides have caused bee health to decline. Without miticides, however, the losses might have been much worse. In the beginning of the varroa era, some beekeepers lost everything and quit beekeeping. It is also _plausible_ that neonics and fungicides in combination are causing colony collapse.

There is no proof of any of this. If there were a _direct correlation_ between a particular factor and CCD, I believe researchers and beekeepers would have seen it, proved it, and we would be talking about _that_ and what to do about it. However, instead, we are still scratching our heads. And no, I don't think it is a case of people not wanting to find the answer because then they lose their funding. That's nonsense

I think it is very likely that a distinct pathogen (virus) will be isolated in the very near future. The symptoms have always seemed to suggest something like this, at least to me. Unfortunately, a new or mutated virus will be a very hard nut to crack.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> He states very plainly that CCD is NOT correlated with treatments, or migratory beekeepers, or a particular type of bee type or anything. In other words, so-called organic beekeepers, small timers as well as conventional beekeepers with thousands of hives, -- all of these have suffered from large unexplained losses. Nobody is immune.
> 
> At this point the jury is out on what the cause of these large losses is.


While this may be a factual statement, it is also factual that when you do a hive count of CCD, the lions share of those hives come from migratory beekeepers. They are the ones taking the biggest hit.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry,
I am not sure what the point is you are making. Of course most of the hives that are affected belong to commercial beekeepers. That's hardly surprising since most of the hives in the country belong to commercial beekeepers. 

But beyond that, they are the ones most likely to suffer from heavy bee loss, since they are trying to make a living from bees. They are also the ones most vocal about the problem, and the ones who need the answers the most.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

This from the Washington Post Monday, March 15, 2010


> "Everybody is seeing [bee] losses this winter," said Dave Hackenberg, of Lewisburg, Pa. "This was probably the worst year ever."
> 
> Hackenberg said he and other major commercial beekeepers have seen "50 percent or better" losses since late fall and in the winter, when bees typically are clustered in a warm and fuzzy ball within the hive. "We started seeing losses in late October, early November -- and they just kept going through the middle of January," he said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eyeshooter (Mar 8, 2008)

Peter, I believe the point Barry is making is that the ones who put the most stress on their hives are the ones suffering the most losses. We all rely on commercial beekeepers for the food we eat and should be incredibly grateful and supportive of what they are experiencing. For commercial beeks to make a living, they often have to put their bees under more stress than I have to with my 5 hives sitting in my backyard. My point about untreated hives was that those who put the minimal amount of stress on their hives seem to be the least affected. Less stress usually equates to less susceptibility to losses via pests. etc. Yes, I am already aware that you think untreated hives are successful in part because of those who "responsibly" treat and that those of us who do not treat their hives would not be able to survive if it weren't for the others. Possibly so, however until that is proven, I believe we should agree to disagree.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Of course, commercial operations write off their losses as part of the cost of doing business. Individuals generally won't.

How the above affects the estimated loss is another issue.

I can see why it's frustrating for those involved not being able to get any clear cut answers to why those losses have occurred.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> Several people have mentioned that the study was a complete waste of time and money because they didn't sample dead bees in the field. Trouble is, nobody has found these dead bees. In the good old days of the 70s and 80s, the bees died in a big pile in front of the hive.


If no one has been collecting bees from treated fields with a butterfly net (like one would use to survey the insects in the field), then we have the wrong people doing the investigating.

deknow


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

It is my opinion that you are seeing more California Co-mingling Disease in migratory bees for the sole reason that they have a greater risk of exposure in the Almond groves of California. We are a family sedentary commercial operation, founded in 1852, that first saw losses in 2005. I personally saw sudden unexplained, equal, losses; in both formerly miticide treated hives, and untreated hives. 


Roland Diehnelt
Linden Apiary


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Deleted.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>It is not an easy read so here are some of the highlights, with my comments   


Thanks for the summary Peter,



just to comment,

They are just scratching the surface of viral infection of honeybees
I think there is more to the problem than meets the eye,
Drag the bees immune system down, how ever way you choose, and the virus will express itself, leaving us scratching our heads


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Eyeshooter said:


> My point about untreated hives was that those who put the minimal amount of stress on their hives seem to be the least affected.


This is based upon what evidence ??? Working as a bee inspector, I have seen untreated stationary hives all over NYS. Dead.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Yeah but this paper isn't just discussing CCD... - SgtMaj


OK, right. So, go back to my post, mentally take out "CCD" and replace with "losses attributed to neonicotinoids," and see if the timing still fits. The losses that I see blamed on neonicotinoid poisonings occur at a far different time than applications of neonicotiniods.

And, if the researchers couldn't find residue of the pesticides in the hives, why blame those pesticides for the losses? (Side note: can you imagine if our justice system worked this way? "No evidence exists against you, but you must be guilty. You were not present at the scene. Therefore, we find you guilty!")



> In fact, a couple of european countries banned them specifically because they were killing off the bees. -SgtMaj


I'm not sure that is quite the way it worked. I believe the bans were more the result of political pressure by groups opposed to the chemicals than the result of actual evidence demonstrating that the chemicals were causing the losses among hives.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Kieck said:


> I'm not sure that is quite the way it worked. I believe the bans were more the result of political pressure by groups opposed to the chemicals than the result of actual evidence demonstrating that the chemicals were causing the losses among hives.


According to what I heard in FL at the ABF Mtng this point of view sounds about right, according to what the speaker from France said.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> If no one has been collecting bees from treated fields with a butterfly net (like one would use to survey the insects in the field), then we have the wrong people doing the investigating. -deknow


No net is needed to capture dead bees. Finding them can be a problem.

If you want to capture live bees for testing, why bother pursuing them in the field as they move from flower to flower? Just collect the workers returning to the hives.

Collecting at the hive would also eliminate the variable of "bees that return to their hives" versus "bees that have lost their navigation abilities and cannot find their home hives." Collecting bees at flowers would make such determination exceptionally difficult, I think.

This could get interesting if it is found that the live bees are carrying higher-than-expected amounts of chemicals in their systems and surviving despite the pesticide exposure.

Otherwise, it's likely to show that bees without exposure to lethal levels of insecticides are not killed by insecticides. I think we already know that, though.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Kieck said:


> If you want to capture live bees for testing, why bother pursuing them in the field as they move from flower to flower? Just collect the workers returning to the hives.


well, for over 2 years, people have been making the claim that foragers that are picking up neonics don't make it back to the hive....and this is used as "evidence" in the absence of finding neonics in the colony.

but of course we know that most of these colonies being followed are part of migratory operations where they are being placed in areas where the crop treatments are known (or knowable). if there is an imidacloprid treated soy field 1/4mile away from the colonies, and a researcher (or beekeeper) thinks they are picking up neonics and not returning to the hive, then you have to collect them in the field.

if you, as a homeowner, thought the water coming out of your tap was poison, yet you had a report from the local water dept that it was safe, your next course of action would be to test the water coming out of your faucet in your home...it's not very complicated.

i've been surprised that many of the european beekeepers i know claim neonic poisoning of their hives, yet aren't even interested in testing, even if it were free. there are all kinds of studies showing where the bees _could_ pick up these substances in the field, but almost nothing looking at what they actually do pick up.

the boogieman under the bed can be scary in the dark...but turn the lights on and you might find a pile of laundry, and the realization that the boogieman is only in your head.

i'm not saying that neonics don't kill bees...they do, and in some cases, they kill lots of bees. but blaming them on widespread die offs without finding bees that are picking this stuff up in the field is a rather large leap.

deknow


----------



## Eyeshooter (Mar 8, 2008)

peterloringborst said:


> This is based upon what evidence ??? Working as a bee inspector, I have seen untreated stationary hives all over NYS. Dead.


As I do not have the opportunity to see as many hives as you do, Peter, I can only reply based on my own experience and those with whom I speak. Are you seeing 30-50% of the non-treated, stationary hives dying as you mentioned with the commercial beekeepers? I certainly hope not...The 60 or so beekeepers I do speak with are not commercial and are averaging about 15-20% losses. No one has mentioned empty hives with no dead bees and only young bees left. Personally, I have been extremely fortunate and have not lost a hive yet, tho' I know my time is coming and do have a weak hive that probably will not make it as the queen is 2+ years old and may well already be gone. My initial question was did anyone know of any non-treated stationary hives experiencing losses with CCD-like symptoms, not that these hives cannot die from other causes. 

Like you, I would not be at all surprised to learn that CCD is caused by a new or variant parasite and that takes me back to my comment about less stressed bees being _hopefully_ less susceptible. I look forward to following the research.

John


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...for instance, i hear a lot about bees being poisoned in corn fields where neonics are used. there are studies showing negative effects if the bees are forcefed in a cage treated pollen. there are studies that show neonics showing up in gutteration water. ...but as far as i know, no one has sampled bees from the corn fields to determine if in the field they are actually picking up neonics, and if so, in what amounts. of course it's the beekeepers that have access to the bees to sample (not monsanto, not bayer). this isn't rocket science.

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Eyeshooter said:


> Are you seeing 30-50% of the non-treated, stationary hives dying


Yes, that's what I am saying. Why do beekeepers treat for mites, anyway? Because the bees die if they don't. 

When mites first hit 90-100% wipe out was common. The guys that kept the bees alive were the ones using Apistan. Then it stopped working. Nowadays there are enough mite resistant bees around that some folks have quit using miticides. Lucky them! 

Others have not been so lucky. I saw one case where the guy had two bee yards, 15 hives in each. Never moved them, except when making splits. He used some natural mite treatment made of wintergreen and vaseline, I think. Lost all but two hives, one winter. 

When I worked at the Dyce Bee Lab we set up a yard of twelve that we bought from a guy with "resistant bees". We didn't treat them at all, we wanted to see how they did. They built up good, made a ton of honey, then all died. 

That's what I know about mites around here. If you don't control them, they control you. Your mileage may vary ...


----------



## organicfarmer (Sep 26, 2007)

researchers' integrity, Peter ?
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/14314.shtml
http://ecmaj.com/cgi/content/abstract/170/4/477

Have we looked into who funds the Penn State School of Ag ? Just a random example of course


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

One of the keys to saving the honey bees is finding a solution to Colony Collapse Disorder. Pennsylvania State University and University of California at Davis have two of the world´s leading honey bee research facilities. Join Häagen-Dazs® ice cream in supporting their research through direct donations.


Pennsylvania State University 

Pennsylvania State University, College of Agricultural Sciences
Penn State is one of the leading universities addressing the many issues facing the beekeeping industry. Gifts from the Häagen-Dazs® brand provide immediate funds for research, education and outreach, and student training, synergizing the collective activities in sustainable pollination at Penn State.

http://www.helpthehoneybees.com/#helpdonate


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

organicfarmer said:


> researchers' integrity, Peter ?


No matter how extensive the research, there will always be those who prefer a conspiracy theory.
If neonicotinoids are not the main cause of CCD, and it has been looking that way for some time, clinging to this idea is counter productive in terms of where research funding should be going.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

organicfarmer said:


> researchers' integrity, Peter ?
> Have we looked into who funds the Penn State School of Ag ? Just a random example of course


Maybe you should check before you even make such a suggestion. Most of the CCD research fundiing is from the USDA. A bit from Ben and Jerry's ice cream. Some from beekeeping organizations.
What were you expecting? Bayer? Not likely.


----------



## Jeffzhear (Dec 2, 2006)

Jeffzhear said:


> I am curious, what do I do?
> I have a blueberry grower who wants me to pollinate. I asked him last week what he will spray during the bloom. He said " Pristine (Boscalid + Pyraclostrobin), Ziram, Captan and Elevate (Fenhexamide)... Peter I got worried. I would rather not pollinate his blueberries then harm my bees.
> 
> So, is it reasonable to recommend to the grower that he not spray any pesticides or fungicides during the bloom, or is this impractable? How necessary is it for blueberry growers to spray fungicides during the bloom?


Following up: Thanks to Ramona for her PM. Also to Peter B.

I finished my "white-paper" and delivered it to the grower with my recommendation that he not spray the fungicides from one week before the bloom until I got my Honeybees out. He was very nice, accepted my report with references and basically told me to hit the road in a nice kind of way. He explained that it was essential to spray those fungicides during the bloom, and there is little else that is effective. He said the blight last year (in NY) was devestating to the "organic" farmers and tomato's and they lost 20% because of it. He would rather rely on the native bees (bumble bees in particular) and skip pollination by honeybees altogether.

So, now I know. Organic farmers can't make any money, according to him. The fungicides which he said were harmless and endorsed by Cornell as being safe don't appear to be. Blueberries and yield don't matter if the fungicides don't kill what they need to. He did say that the early morning fog during the bloom is bad which is why he needs the fungicides, among other reasons he gave me. I'm not a blueberry farmer so I didn't understand the bad things he was talking about when it comes to blueberry farming.

Now for a few questions for ya'll (In my Northern accent).

Wouldn't the native bees be impacted by the fungicides? I suppose few people monitor them, so how would we know?

What do all the big commercial pollinators do? Pollinate anyway and take their chances? Maybe not every grower has fog to worry about and doesn't need to put down fungicides during the bloom?

I made a command decision to walk away and keep the bees I was going to pollinate his blueberries with, home - a yard that is 2.5 miles from his berries...unless I can come up with something I can convince him with to keep him from spraying during the bloom.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

Wouldn't the native bees be impacted by the fungicides? I suppose few people monitor them, so how would we know?

you are correct. very little data is collected even on the populations of native pollinators much less how they are affected. 

chemical poisoning in humans or insects is a matter of dose. a smaller pollinator would presumably need a smaller dose then of a chemical to be lethal or sublethal. 

What do all the big commercial pollinators do? Pollinate anyway and take their chances. 

yes - then again many of them use chemicals for mite treatments that studies show cause problems in honeybee reproductive health. the study i posted at the beginning of this thread is misused and abused by many kinds of people with different agendas. 

here is one example 

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=3364

the author of this "story" conveniently neglected to note that Imid was hardly found in any of the samples. when i posted a polite and well documented comment noting this fact, it was deleted. some people want to believe what they want to believe I guess. 

some others just go by the science and the facts.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

hi jeff,

none of this surprises me in the least. read the testimony that dave mendez gave to congress:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ony&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
...note the 7000ppb of fungicides found in his hives after pollinating cranberries.

also, don't be fooled...organic farmers use fungicides as well, as do small "organicish" farms that sell locally.

deknow


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Bud Dingler said:


> you are correct. very little data is collected even on the populations of native pollinators much less how they are affected.


There is ample, scientific evidence that many are in serious decline.


----------



## Jeffzhear (Dec 2, 2006)

Bud and Deknow,

Thank you for the links.

It makes you want to stand up and yell "Wake Up America!"

Glad I never ate those blueberries from that growers location. You know, come to think of it...I have 9 blueberry bushes 2.5 miles from his fields and I picked and ate a boat-load of berries last year. They were delicious and come to think of it, I have never sprayed them with anything. And they are 200 feet from the rivers edge and subjected to all the same fog as the grower up river... 

In reality, I am sure the growers have real issues, and I don't know how to fix their problems and pollinate at the same time...so, I'll just not pollinate.


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

> They were delicious and come to think of it, I have never sprayed them with anything. And they are 200 feet from the rivers edge and subjected to all the same fog as the grower up river...


BC grows a good amount of blueberries. Some of the farmers spray regularly and others spray only when they think it is necessary and still some never spray. All get good crops. I think fear of losing a crop (payment of loans) can make people do things that may not be necessary.
You and your bees will be much better off not going to those berries.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>I think fear of losing a crop (payment of loans) can make people do things that may not be necessary.

Its all in the way we figure threasholds


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Two Points of View on Pollinator Decline

Abundance and Diversity of Native Bumble Bees Associated with Agricultural Crops: The Willamette Valley Experience 

Sujaya Rao andW. P. Stephen

There are widespread concerns about declining populations of bumble bees due to conversion of native habitats to agroecosystems. Certain cropping systems, however, provide enormous foraging resources, and are beneficial for population build up of native bees, especially eusocial bees such as bumble bees. In this review, we present evidence of a flourishing bumble bee fauna in the Willamette Valley in western Oregon which we believe is sustained by cultivation of bee-pollinated crops which bloom in sequence, and in synchrony with foraging by queens and workers of a complex of bumble bee species. In support of our perspective, we describe the Oregon landscape and ascribe the large bumble bee populations to the presence of a pollen source in spring (cultivated blueberries) followed by one in summer (red clover seed crops). Based on our studies, we recommend integration into conservation approaches of multiple agroecosystems that bloom in sequence for sustaining and building bumble bee populations.

Besides the abundance of food resources provided by blueberry and red clover crops, other factors such as production practices also facilitate build up of bumble bees and other native bees in the Willamette Valley. While each crop is routinely subjected to pesticide sprays, there are few devastating pests perhaps due to the diversified nature of the agricultural landscapes. Except for one blueberry orchard where organic practices were adopted, all other blueberry and all red clover seed fields in our studies were cultivated using herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides. However, pesticide applications were avoided during bloom or implemented at night to minimize negative impacts on honey bees, thus indirectly benefitting bumble bees too.

* * *

Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers 

Simon G. Potts1, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer2, Claire Kremen3, Peter Neumann4, Oliver Schweiger5 and William E. Kunin2

Pollinators are a key component of global biodiversity, providing vital ecosystem services to crops and wild plants. There is clear evidence of recent declines in both wild and domesticated pollinators, and parallel declines in the plants that rely upon them. Here we describe the nature and extent of reported declines, and review the potential drivers of pollinator loss, including habitat loss and fragmentation, agrochemicals, pathogens, alien species, climate change and the interactions between them. Pollinator declines can result in loss of pollination services which have important negative ecological and economic impacts that could significantly affect themaintenance of wild plant diversity, wider ecosystemstability, crop production, food security and human welfare.

Plant biodiversity in most regions of the world has also undergone rapid change in recent decades. Where highquality data sets have been compiled [70], local plant diversity appears to have declined in most sites and most habitats. These declines seem to have affected obligately outcrossing animal-pollinated plant populations in particular as they rely entirely on insect pollen vectors [18], suggesting a general decline in floral resources for pollinators. Indeed, in the UK, there is evidence that 76% of forage plants used by bumblebees declined in frequency between 1978 and 1998 [71]. Recent research has begun linking these floral shifts to pollinator dynamics, both in controlled experiments [24] and in the field [22,71]. If wild floral resources have decreased, the planting of mass-flowering crops such as oilseed rape and sunflowers could provide valuable resources for pollinators [72]. However, such superabundant resources are only available for brief periods of time and as a consequence they might have little effect in sustaining viable pollinator populations [63].


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

Peter, that's very interresting. Do you have a link to those full studies and papers? I'd like to read them if they are online anywhere, or if they aren't online but have been published in a periodical, could you point me to which one(s)? Thanks.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

The first one is here

The second one is copyrighted, available to subscribers only here


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

http://www.ufz.de/data/Potts et al 201012437.pdf

Is this the paper?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC;523014 Is this the paper?[/QUOTE said:


> Well, yes, you sly dog


----------



## virginiawolf (Feb 18, 2011)

*Are there areas of the US or Re: Bayer Neonics - Game Over?*

Are there areas of the US or in other countries that are completely cut off from modern use of pestcides for many miles around where hives could be brought to see if the losses of bees would stop. Shouldn't that be a control that the EPA/USDA does to do a comparison to see if their conclusion after testing pestcides has merit? I read alot of this but don't quite see how thorough the testing is. Theses statistics seem to be a matter of national security.I've seen very little media coverage on this but after reading this and seeing some youtube videos and getting involved with beekeeping It's surprising that at least in my experience I've kind of had to dig to see the picture of a potential pollinationless future. Where do the farmers and beekeepers and state and federal environmental experts congregate to try to work on solutions. Is the federal government scrambling to help sove this? 
I've only just started to read and learn about the losses of bees going on and I'm stirred up from reading this. If someone tested hives in regions un molested by modernization seems like that would tell alot. Maybe it's done I just haven't found that yet in the stuff I've seen.
Stirred up, Virginia


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Jeffzhear said:


> I am curious... How necessary is it for blueberry growers to spray fungicides during the bloom?


This is one question you need to answer yourself. Without knowing the pesticides, the timetable for applying them, and the economic threshold that triggers the use of these pesticides, how can you make an informed decision on the risks to your bees and therefore what it is worth to you for your bees to pollinate blue berries? 

I am sure we all look both ways before pulling into traffic from a stop sign.
Isn’t understanding pesticides and their use as important?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Are there areas of the US or Re: Bayer Neonics - Game Over?*



virginiawolf said:


> Are there areas of the US or in other countries that are completely cut off from modern use of pestcides for many miles around where hives could be brought to see if the losses of bees would stop. Shouldn't that be a control that the EPA/USDA does to do a comparison to see if their conclusion after testing pestcides has merit?


Dee Lusby's colonies are fairly isolated (some more than others), never medicated with anything, and never fed sucrose, HFCS, pollen subs, or other artificial feeds. This is as good a control as anyone could expect...and a stone's throw from a USDA bee lab.

Research out of the Tucson Bee Lab (nothing new, this research dates back to the early 70's and is hosted on their own server) indicates that unfed, unmedicated, not-exposed-to-pesticides bees have little to no yeasts found in their guts. As far as I can tell, the newer research on gut microflora finds yeasts in virtually all guts. You do the math.
http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/unit/publications/PDFfiles/686.pdf

deknow


----------

