# LEAKED EPA allows bee toxic pesticide ? ccd ?



## lighto (Jul 27, 2010)

http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-12-10-leaked-documents-show-epa-allowed-bee-toxic-pesticide-


----------



## MastoDon (Nov 29, 2010)

This is a sobering article. Apparently, the sole field test upon which the EPA based its permission for Bayer to market its pesticide was terribly, and obviously, flawed to the point of meaninglessness.
What chance to ordinary people have in the face of this sort of government duplicity and corporate greed?


----------



## ChristopherA (Jul 20, 2010)

I sent the information to Drudge Report maybe it will get some heaslines.

I also contact my Senate and Congression Reps and say What the Heck???

I suggest all do the same. It is only one report however things need to be taken a little more seriously I do believe.


----------



## PCM (Sep 18, 2007)

Seem like some where I read corn pollen wasn't a main source of pollen for bees, it was way down on their list of choices.

Course I have been wrong before !

:lookout: PCM


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

my understanding is that sweet corn really isn't heavily worked by bees. Maize and other 'field corn' is visited a lot more though. These are especially affected by the pesticides referred to in the article.


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

Links to more information:

http://www.cbgnetwork.org/3613.html

http://www.cbgnetwork.org/3035.html


----------



## Panhandle Scott (Jul 11, 2009)

PCM said:


> Seem like some where I read corn pollen wasn't a main source of pollen for bees


Even if it isn't lots of times you will see flowering weeds surrounding a farm field that attracts bees. Those plants are probably getting doused with chemicals just as much as the corn from overspray and drift.

I will be passing this article on to our ag agent as well as the ag commisioner.


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

The approvals for clothianidin (Bayer) and imidacloprid (Bayer) were suspended after mass death of bees in Bayer's home country of Germany.

Source: http://www.cbgnetwork.org/2518.html


----------



## jrbbees (Apr 4, 2010)

If the stuff move up though the plant to be incorporated in the pollen then think what the plant puts in the sweet corn it self before we eat it.

Cancer here we come!!


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

The EPA stated the following in its Pesticide Fact Sheet issued for "Conditional Registration" in May 30, 2003.

"Clothianidin is highly toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis (LD50 > 0.0439 µg/bee). It has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen. In honey bees, the effects of this toxic chronic exposure may include lethal and/or sub-lethal effects in the larvae and reproductive effects in the queen."

The EPA also stated:

"Clothianidin is expected to present acute and/or chronic toxicity risk to endangered/threatened birds and mammals via possible ingestion of treated corn and canola seeds. Endangered/threatened nontarget insects may be impacted via residue laden pollen and nectar. The potential use sites cover the entire U.S. because corn is grown in almost all U.S. states."


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


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

Panhandle Scott said:


> Even if it isn't lots of times you will see flowering weeds surrounding a farm field that attracts bees. Those plants are probably getting doused with chemicals just as much as the corn from overspray and drift.
> 
> There is no comparison between the herbicides that you are speaking of, with the pesticide that this article is about. There has never been any proof that they, (24d and roundup ane other derivates of them) harm in any way our bees. To the contrary my personal experience is that they do not.
> 
> ...


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

December 8, 2004 Arvesta Corporation requested the EPA amend established tolerances for residues the insecticide clothianidin in or on grapes at 0.5 parts per million (ppm), raisins at 1.0 ppm, and potatoes at 0.1 ppm.

June 16, 2004 Bayer CropScience requested the EPA amend established tolerances for residues of the insecticide clothianidin in or on sorghum, grain at 0.01 ppm, sorghum, forage at 0.01 ppm, and sorghum, stover at 0.01 ppm.

December 14, 2005 Bayer CropScience requested the EPA amend established tolerances for residues of the insecticide clothianidin in or on cotton, undelinted at 0.01 ppm, and cotton, gin byproducts at 0.01 ppm.

December 13, 2006, upon completing review of the current clothianidin database, the EPA concluded that the appropriate tolerance levels for clothianidin residues in or on pending crops should be established as follows: Sorghum, grain at 0.01 ppm, sorghum, forage at 0.01 ppm, sorghum, stover at 0.01 ppm, cotton, undelinted seed at 0.01 ppm, cotton, gin byproducts at 0.01 ppm, grape at 0.60 ppm, potato at 0.05 ppm, and potato, granules/flakes at 0.08 ppm. In addition, the proposed tolerance for raisins was withdrawn because based on available processing data, a tolerance for this commodity is not needed.

December 13, 2006 the EPA also established time-limited tolerances for combined residues of the insecticide, clothianidin, in or on beet, sugar, roots, and beet, sugar, tops at 0.02 ppm. These tolerances expire and were to be revoked on December 31, 2009. The beet tolerances are being established in response to a regional crisis exemption request on behalf of Colorado, North Dakota, and Wyoming under FIFRA section 18 for the emergency use of clothianidin as a seed treatment on sugar beet seeds to control the beet leafhopper, which is a vector of the beet curly top virus in certain sugar beet growing regions throughout the western United States.

The Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 2006 sates:

"Because the tolerances are being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether clothianidin meets EPA’s registration requirements for use on beet, sugar, roots, and beet, sugar, tops or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be appropriate."


Source: http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2006/December/Day-13/p20898.pdf


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

valleyman said:


> That is what happens in Washington and other governing bodys. Money under the table and/or perks is what is driving this countrys rules and laws.


Bayer gave $473,716 to candidates in the 2010 election.*

To view Bayer Fundraising/Spending by Cycle go to:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2010&strID=C00281162


To view a breakdown of Bayer Corp Contributions to Federal Candidates by year go to:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00281162


To view a breakdown of Bayer Corp Campaign Expenditures by year go to:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00281162


* _as provided by the Center for Responsive Politics_


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

greengecco,
Thank you for substantiating what I said. this country is dying from the epidemic of greed. Pure and simple GREED with no retribution because not nearly enough people are paying attention because they are to wrapped up in their own world. sorry to rant, but it worries me!!


----------



## Beesrfun (Sep 13, 2010)

*Epa!!!*

Look at this article
http://www.fastcompany.com/1708896/...-knowingly-allowed-use-of-bee-toxic-pesticide


----------



## PAbeek (Aug 16, 2010)

Leaked Memo Sheds Light on Mysterious Bee Die-Offs and Who's to Blame


http://www.alternet.org/story/14915...erious_bee_die-offs_and_who's_to_blame?page=1


----------



## Magnum12 (Nov 25, 2010)

Is this true? If so, yet another sad story to add to the other ones.

Do you think this will provide the steam to get something done or will money continue to pave the way? 

In my own selfish way, I am glad I just got into this because I can imagine how those who have lost businesses and livelihoods to this may feel. 

And why is it we appear to be so far behind Germany and France, to name a few? 

Obviously the pesticide, is for the "greater good".

:ws


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

Magnum12 said:


> Is this true? If so, yet another sad story to add to the other ones.
> 
> Do you think this will provide the steam to get something done or will money continue to pave the way?
> 
> ...


----------



## PAbeek (Aug 16, 2010)

Hate to say it but your right this country is done. We the people have been sold out by the very people we elected. Only thing we can do now is Vote them all out or revolt. A 106 year old family owned grocery store near me just announced there done at that the end of the year. Why there flanked by the corporate big boys on both sides.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

This is getting into Tailgater content. Keep it to beekeeping please.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

Are any of the posters aware that the original CCD team and people like Randy Oliver have looked deeply into the Bayer systemic question and found little evidence that they have caused a widespread bees collapse or is the source of CCD? 

While there are handful of scientists still looking at the Bayer chemicals in regards to honeybees, the initial wave of concern and research is over. This story is not very interesting really as the majority of crops that clothidian is used on are NOT visited by honeybees. 

With that said yes it looks like the registration was botched and more work needs to be done. My point is if anyone thinks this is going to blow open some huge conspiracy and coverup by Bayer that results in a conclusion that BAyer is the source of all bee losses I think you're sadly mistaken. In fact Bayer has been very open and accessible and formed a round table of beekeepers and researchers that met a couple of times a year to go over concerns and develop further testing that beekeepers would like to see done. People like Randy Oiliver, Dave Mendes and Jerry Bromenscheck whom are widely respected are part of this round table. 

Oh and btw how many beeks have or still use Checkmite? Its made by Bayer and thousands of beekeepers around the world willingly put it into there hives even though we do have a huge pile of research that shows that long term residues are extremely damaging to honeybees. 

This pile of research about Checkmite is huge while there is nothing really about Clothidian finding its way into hives and attaining a level thats harmful to bees. The massive Maryam Frazier study of combs, honey and pollen from CCD hives found little to no Bayer chems in facts not even in the top 25 chemicals found in hives. Instead the top 5 chemicals found in CCD hives 4 of them are beekeeper applied chems and one of them is Bayers Checkmite. 

But that never seems to elicit the same passionate postings like the speculative rants here on some supposed EPA missing document that implies a massive coverup blah blah blah.


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

I agree almost entirely with your concept that we at times are our own worst enemy. That is why I am treatment free. However when spring arrives if i see evidence of Nosema i will treat for it, and if I see an advance of SHB I will use traps. I don't consider those treatments just common sense practices. 
Now if the clothianidin is in the plant as has been reported then there would be no residue in the hive, because the bees would never make it back to the hive. Therin being the reason why there is no bees left in the hive like is reported with CCD. 
No, I do not believe that Bayer is the only one responsible for the problems that we encounter in todays bee keeping world. As I have made plain I do not trust the reports that come from some of these studys, because they get watered down or ignored in too many cases.
We as humans are susceptible to being bought. ALMOST all can, some just have a higher price. the people with money know this and know how to approach their prey.


----------



## USCBeeMan (Feb 7, 2009)

England's Beekeeper Association's boardmembers passed a resolution last year in favor of Bayer. That's despite that the large majority of it's members were against the resolution. I am a member of their site and get emails once in a while. It's interesting to see what's happening on the other side of the pond. The beeks over there believe there is a strong tie between Bayer's product and CCD.


----------



## ChristopherA (Jul 20, 2010)

Well after reading an article yesterday it looks like credits for corn ethonal might be coming to an end. I dont know how this will affect corn production (if this chemical is the problem), things may change in the coming years.


----------



## bjoynes (Jun 20, 2010)

Is this the product they use to protect the seed from a worm eating the seed?

Bryn


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

USCBeeMan said:


> The beeks over there believe there is a strong tie between Bayer's product and CCD.


Some of the more vocal beekeepers certainly do, but those who spend any amount of time looking at the available peer reviewed evidence think otherwise.
There is nothing like CCD in the UK in spite of the fact that we have neonicotinoids in widespread use.
Colony numbers have actually increased from 40,000 to 120,000 in the last 30 months and that is according to the BBKA's official figures.
There are a few thousand queens imported each year but most of that increase has been natural via existing stocks.


----------



## Magnum12 (Nov 25, 2010)

Bud Dingler said:


> blah blah blah.


I am sorry that I didn't know that you had been blah, blah, blahing this for over two years.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-222902.html

That is my fault. 

If this situation appears to be above board to you then that's great. What I read said that the pesticides in question had become registered and approved through invalid testing which would be the same as no official means. So the EPA couldn't do the testing and couldn't even oversee the testing? I know that I just get to read what the media feeds me but I am losing more and more faith in the EPA (local dumps) and this just fuels the issue. Skepticism on all fronts. Who am I to believe? They guy telling me she is an Italian queen? The guy telling me MegaBee is good for my bees? The various claims on mite treatments? What I read online? YOU telling me story is not very interesting? It is easy to feel mislead these days. Right now, this story is interesting to me because I am new to it. Given all of the specials on TV I would venture to say that more people know about it now than ever before soooo.......... I think that bee awareness is a good thing. 

As Dennis Miller would say, "You are your own best bet."

In the two years of testing, what conclusions then have been made about CCD? I haven't read anything implicating the miticides and while I agree that we people don't always adhere to best practices, this too isn't the cause (apparently). 

I think many would like to hear about the CCD research. Where do you suppose it is?


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Bud Dingler said:


> This pile of research about Checkmite is huge while there is nothing really about Clothidian finding its way into hives and attaining a level thats harmful to bees. The massive Maryam Frazier study of combs, honey and pollen from CCD hives found little to no Bayer chems in facts not even in the top 25 chemicals found in hives. Instead the top 5 chemicals found in CCD hives 4 of them are beekeeper applied chems and one of them is Bayers Checkmite.


Which is precisely why I and others have gone treatment free. That, in addition to the resistance developing against treatments by the mites, etc.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

bjoynes said:


> Is this the product they use to protect the seed from a worm eating the seed?
> 
> Bryn


NO! 
We are way past protecting the seed. This product, clothidinian, actually grows into the plant itself, and will kill the worm that eat on the ear, and the bees that might collect pollen off of it. 
That being said, corn is a self/wind pollinatinated plant. So I doubt that the bees feast on the corn pollen. But who knows, maybe during a dearth the corn pollen may be a good source for them. What about canola and other flowering plants that are planted for harvest? Like I said earlier this can be a reason with CCD there are no bees left, not even dead ones. If the foragers do not return then do the nurse bees enmass take up foraging?


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

Like all neonicotinoids, it is a systemic pesticide. When applied to the seeds of plants it spreads itself throughout all plant tissues, yes all plant tissues. 

:s Do your research and ask questions.

Do neonicotinoid seed treatments leave residues in the soil? How persistent are neonicotinoids in the soil? Do systemic pesticides affect bee friendly plants growing in contaminated soil? Can contaminated residues become wind-borne during dry weather tilling? How do systemic pesticides crossover into consumer products? What are the current tolerances for neonicotinoid residues in corn gluten meal and soybean meal? Are the allowed tolerances for meal higher than the tolerances for treated seed? What are the sources of the ingredients in the products you feed? Are the ingredients in the products you feed routinely tested for pesticide contamination?

Caveat emptor! :scratch:


----------



## PCM (Sep 18, 2007)

For all you worry warts;

Guess who test the prescription drugs YOU take. 

Clue - It isn't the FDA ! :doh:

:lookout: PCM


----------



## lighto (Jul 27, 2010)

Bud Dingler said:


> Are any of the posters aware that the original CCD team and people like Randy Oliver have looked deeply into the Bayer systemic question and found little evidence that they have caused a widespread bees collapse or is the source of CCD?
> 
> While there are handful of scientists still looking at the Bayer chemicals in regards to honeybees, the initial wave of concern and research is over. This story is not very interesting really as the majority of crops that clothidian is used on are NOT visited by honeybees.
> 
> ...


----------



## lighto (Jul 27, 2010)

http://www.grist.org/i/assets/Memo_1.pdf


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 
0FFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND 
TOXIC SUBSTANCES 
MEMORANDUM 2/20/03 
Subject: EFED Risk Assessment for the Seed Treatment of Clothianidin 600FS on Corn and 
Canola (PC Code 044309; DP Barcode: D278 1 10) 

Att. : page 5 of 91 End Use Product
This chemical has properties and characteristics associated with chemicals detected in ground 
water. The use of this chemical in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water 
table is shallow, may result in ground water contamination. 
This compound is toxic to birds and mammals. Treated clothianidin seeds exposed on soil surface 
may be hazardous to birds and mammals. Cover or collect clothianidin seeds spilled during 
loading. 
This product is toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where 
surface water is present or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark. Do not 
contaminate water when disposing of equipment wash waters. 
This compound is toxic to honey bees. The persistence of residues and the expression of 
clothianidin in nectar and pollen suggests the possibility of chronic toxic risk to honey bee larvae 
and the eventual stability of the hive.


----------



## USCBeeMan (Feb 7, 2009)

Here is the email I received from Biobees.com in the UK. There is also a link to a POD cast if you want to hear it.

Dear Ken,

Insecticides are a hot issue in beekeeping: the British Bee Keepers Association is refusing to sever its ties with pesticide manufacturers despite pressure from many of its members, and it seems that some recent CCD research has been compromised by the influence of the same corporations, determined to protect their profits no matter what the cost to nature.

The subject of my latest podacst is Dr Henk Tennekes, who was born in The Netherlands, and after graduating from the Agricultural University of Wageningen in 1974, he performed his Ph.D. work at Shell Research Ltd in the UK. He later worked for 5 years at the Cancer Research Centre in Heidelberg, Germany.

The culmination of Dr Tennekes' research was his recent discovery that the way the neonicotinoid insecticides work has much in common with that of chemical carcinogens - cancer-causing agents.

When he realized the dire consequences of environmental pollution with these insecticides, he decided to write a book to warn the general public about an impending catastrophe.

The title of Dr Tennekes book is: The Systemic Insecticides - a Disaster in the Making. You can read more about him and his book at www.disasterinthemaking.com 

This is an issue that should concern all beekeepers, everywhere. Neonicotinoids are being sprayed on a wide range of crops worldwide, and right now they could be putting at risk a number of species of insects, as well as the birds, fish and other creatures that depend on insects for food.

We could just sit back and let this happen. But then, what are you going to tell your grandchildren when they ask, "Where have all the bees gone?"

You can listen to my interview with Henk Tennekes at http://biobees.libsyn.com or search for 'Barefoot Beekeeper' on iTunes.

Best wishes,
Phil Chandler
www.biobees.com


----------



## lighto (Jul 27, 2010)

WOW!

To illustrate just how poisonous the neonicotinoids can be, imagine - if you will - an Olympic-size swimming pool, 50 metres by 25 metres, containing two and a half million litres of water - that's 2,500 metric tonnes - or over half a million UK gallons - or about two thirds of a million US gallons. With that picture in mind, imagine taking just one tablespoon of a neonicotinoid insecticide - just one tablespoon - and adding it to that Olympic-size swimming 
pool. 

Once that tiny amount of chemical has dispersed into the water - and despite the almost unimaginably small quantity of active ingredient in any single drop, that entire swimming pool is now toxic to bees. 
Source :
http://biobees.libsyn.com/


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

The analogy about the swimming pool leaves out the fact that whilst most of the neonics are posionous to bees in their liquid form right before application that's not the concern as few if any bees will be exposed to this while its being applied. 

The real concern in the bee world is the metabolites that are formed in the plant that are spread to the plant tissues, nectar and pollen that the bees could ingest. Posting some EPA document that tells us these chemicals in their liquid form are poisonous misses the whole point of concern. 

Numerous studies now exist that document the level of metabolites that can kill a honey bee and also the typical level found in plants after application. Frankly most of the levels found in crops are way below the amount found to harm honeybees. Folks that's why these chemicals are still on the market and has nothing to do with politics of big corporations. 

The often made claim that typical field residue ingestion of these systemic chemicals by bees makes them lose their navigation skills also is also not supported by the scientific evidence. 

Whats really ironic about this is that the systemics are mostly nicotine derivatives that in the general environment are much less harmful then the organophosphates they are replacing in agriculture. Organophosphates stay active on the surface of the plant and are extremely poisonous to honeybees for up to a week after application. What I'm saying is if you know anything about agricultural insecticides you would know that the systemics move us a little closer to sustainable agriculture and away from a more posionous alternative. Beekeepers should be happy these chemicals are used so widely or our bees would be exposed to more poisonous substances on a frequent basis.


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

Bud Dingler said:


> Beekeepers should be happy these chemicals are used so widely or our bees would be exposed to more poisonous substances on a frequent basis.


Is the future of bees in the hands of the pesticide lobby?

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248488


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

The science won't be settled on this forum. The relative toxicity of organophosphates vis-a-vis nicotinoids isn't the issue raised by the O.P. Liquid form v metabolites is a question the answer for which lies beyond our expertise, and even beyond the available data. What we are able to recognize and react reasonably and capably to is the flawed nature of this EPA registration and review process. The substance was registered through a clearly flawed process that was clearly based on a study that the EPA later rejected. Ergo the substance should not have been registered, yet EPA continues to defend the registration. If science is on the side of the substance and other nicotinoids, let the science establish that through a proper study, as required by law, and as was clearly not provided in this registration process. All the rest of our armchair discussions about the scientific merits either way are just farts in the wind, folks. The point is, the EPA is for SOME reason refusing to do its job and to follow the law.


----------



## DoubleB (Sep 23, 2006)

OBAMA had nothing to do with this mess. Preach your politics elsewhere. This is about bees.


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

Respectfully to Bud Dingler,
Your #36 post in my humble opinion is a statement from someone who does not understand the way Bayer is using these nicotinoids. I would suggest that you go back and read some of the facts, then repost what you think about Bayer.


----------



## PCM (Sep 18, 2007)

After reading every ones posts in this thread, it is obvious that;

THERE IS NOT A CHEMIST IN THE BUNCH !

:lookout: PCM


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

Just copied this from another place,may be of interest,may not as rather old.


Imidacloprid triggers nosema infection
Wondered if you had seen this important research from France.
Dr. Cedric Alaux's team at Abeilles et Environnement, Laboratoire
Biologie et Protection de l’Abeille, Site Agroparc, 84914, Avignon, France, published the attached paper in the Journal of Environmental Microbiology late in 2009.

This appears to show that minute doses of Imidacloprid act as an immune system suppressant in bees - and specifically, Imidacloprid enhances infection by Nosema in the studied colonies.

Research announced recently in France by Cedric Alaux and his colleagues - "Interactions between Nosema microspores and a neonicotinoid weaken honeybees (Apis mellifera)" , can be downloaded from this link:

http://sd-1.archive-host.com/membres...al_EM_2009.pdf



Quote:
"Global pollinators, like honeybees, are declining in
abundance and diversity, which can adversely affect
natural ecosystems and agriculture. Therefore, we
tested the current hypotheses describing honeybee
losses as a multi factorial syndrome, by investigating
integrative effects of an infectious organism and an
insecticide on honeybee health. We demonstrated
that the interaction between the microsporidia
Nosema and a neonicotinoid (imidacloprid) significantly
weakened honeybees. In the short term, the
combination of both agents caused the highest individual
mortality rates and energetic stress."

Bees that were both infected with Nosema
and exposed to imidacloprid at concentrations encountered
in the environment showed the highest mortality
rate.

This seems to be the missing piece of the jigsaw in terms of how Neonicotinoid pesticides act synergistically with infections like Nosema - by weakening the bees' immune system.


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

PCM said:


> After reading every ones posts in this thread, it is obvious that;
> 
> THERE IS NOT A CHEMIST IN THE BUNCH !
> 
> :lookout: PCM


I agree. But I do try to digest the facts and then deal in facts. I would never pretend to be a chemist. Shucks, I don't even understand how the bees process their nectar into honey.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

True, I'm not a chemist... but here's a question for a chemist:
If neonicotinoids become part and parcel with the plant, in order to kill the pest that feeds on the plant, and get into the pollen, and is toxic to bees which may or may not visit the plant (e.g. corn), what is happening to those of us who enjoy corn on the cob? Or any other form of corn? What is the toxic level, or the levels of accumulation from the foods we consume, in _our_ bodies? 

Logic and common sense seem to indicate if a plant becomes toxic to a pest which consumes said plant, that same plant would be toxic to a human being. Better living through chemistry? :ws
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

There are other ways in which these neonicotinoid pesticides can kill honeybees, not just by the nectar or pollen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Nsn4KvjwM
The corn doesn't even have to be blooming to kill honeybees.
The poisoned foraging bees don't even make it back to the hive.


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

Beekuk, 
Do you know who makes Imidacloprid? And I agree with the jest of your post if my understanding is correct. the weakened bee from one or the other is much more susceptible to the other. Thereby, the combination being lethal. But one or the other could be lethal on it's own. Correct?


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

*Do you know who makes Imidacloprid*

Bayer crop science...


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Omie said:


> There are other ways in which these neonicotinoid pesticides can kill honeybees, not just by the nectar or pollen:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Nsn4KvjwM
> The corn doesn't even have to be blooming to kill honeybees.
> The poisoned foraging bees don't even make it back to the hive.


All that video shows is that is you take a drop of water laced with poison in a pipette and feed it to a dehydrated bee in a cage it will die.

Surely it is not news that insecticides kill insects. (including bees)
We all know that.
The issue is whether neonicotinoid pesticides contribute in a major or a minor way, or maybe not even at all, to current bee problems and that video adds nothing to the debate.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

jonathan said:


> All that video shows is that is you take a drop of water laced with poison in a pipette and feed it to a dehydrated bee in a cage it will die.
> Surely it is not news that insecticides kill insects. (including bees)
> We all know that.
> The issue is whether neonicotinoid pesticides contribute in a major or a minor way, or maybe not even at all, to current bee problems and that video adds nothing to the debate.


I totally disagree with your dismissive view- the video shows that the neonic pesticide is saturated throughout the plant in such a way that when the plant exudes its morning moisture in the form of water droplets, these very droplets are deadly for insects such as bees and butterflies etc that would naturally drink the droplets as a water source. Older applied types of pesticides do not become part of a plant's every molecule to the extent where the very dew exuded from the plant during its lifetime would kill a honeybee within a minute or two.
Imagine thousands of acres of these corn fields all offering up their poisoned morning dew 'offerings' to foraging honeybees who fall dead shortly after drinking.
The video shows that there are ways in which these neonic pesticides can poison large numbers of honeybees even aside from nectar/pollen gathering- ways we might not find obvious at first. So your last sentence doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

valleyman said:


> Respectfully to Bud Dingler,
> Your #36 post in my humble opinion is a statement from someone who does not understand the way Bayer is using these nicotinoids. I would suggest that you go back and read some of the facts, then repost what you think about Bayer.


I'm sorry Sir but I was one of several beekeepers with a research background whom was invited to see CCD firsthand and I traveled with bee researchers during the winter of 2007 in CALI. I have a M.S. in Material Science and worked for a Fortune 500 research lab for 15 years. 

I have a vast knowledge of pesticides and honeybees. 

If you have some technical savvy you are drawing from lets hear it, rather then some vague slam. 

My reality and others on the front line (not from the LazyBoy recliner) is that mites and viruses are still the numnber one killer. This Bayer story is kinda old and only gets the uninformed granola munchers excited. 

I mean really do we really think that the top bee researchers in the USA, the EPA and USDA are completely out of touch?


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

forget it. changed my mind.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

Bud Dingler said:


> I mean really do we really think that the top bee researchers in the USA, the EPA and USDA are completely out of touch?


In touch with 'who' is the question.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Omie said:


> Imagine thousands of acres of these corn fields all offering up their poisoned morning dew 'offerings' to foraging honeybees who fall dead shortly after drinking.


Have you ever seen bees taking water like this?
Surely it would be the simplest thing in the world to record and demonstrate on such a scale.
I did see a video on you tube claiming to show a bee taking guttation water from a leaf but the water on the leaf looked more like it was from irrigation rather than guttation.
Why would they take droplets of poisoned water in preference to water from other sources such as puddles or pond edges or irrigation channels.

The video shows someone poisoning a bee with a drop of liquid offered from a pipette. No more, no less.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Omie said:


> In touch with 'who' is the question.


After the Bromenshank controversey, we pretty much know that Bayer is funding research either directly, or indirectly (by funding honey boards, etc. , which in turn fund research).

U.S. researchers aren't about to bite the hand that feeds them.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

jonathan said:


> The video shows someone poisoning a bee with a drop of liquid offered from a pipette. No more, no less.


The liquid was exuded from the corn seedling leaves, and gathered with the pipette and then offered to the bee to drink. The bee drank it and died within a minute or two. The corn seedling was grown from neonic-treated seed, it was not treated with any other pesticides. They didn't just take a drop of water from the sink and add neonic pesticide to it. The water exuded from the corn plant killed the bee that drank from it within minutes. No more, no less.
If you choose to say the video is faked or lying, well that's up to you.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

jonathan said:


> The video shows someone poisoning a bee with a drop of liquid offered from a pipette. No more, no less.


The liquid was exuded from the corn seedling leaves, and gathered with the pipette and then offered to the bee to drink. The bee drank it and died within a minute or two, exhibiting classic tremor signs of pesticide poisoning. The corn seedling was grown from neonic-treated seed, it was not treated with any other pesticides. They didn't just take a drop of water from the sink and add neonic pesticide to it. The water exuded from the corn plant leaves killed the bee that drank it within minutes. No more, no less.
If you choose to believe the video was faked or lying, well that's up to you.


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

I'm hoping that I can resist the urge to post on this subject after I finish this one.
Johnathon,
In my opinion Omies post wasn't supposed to mean that the bees were all dying from drinking dew. It meant simply that the effects of the pesticide can be that far reaching.
It has been posted here that it could be even entering our food supply. Does any person with any common sense think that it isn't.
Anyone here that thinks that the EPA is doing a good job really doesn't know what goes on in the real world.
Number one they don't have enough manpower to begin to do the job that we expect of them. You can figure out why the manpower is depleted.
Number two what manpower that is there is controlled by our HONEST politicians.
I spent a lot of years of my life watching factory waste, products being doctored with chemicals all of which was harmful to the human race. I only seen the EPA issue a citation one time, and that is when the company called them in to show them what had happened. The rest of the time, which were very few, that they inspected, they were taken only where the company wanted them to go. Just like the USDA food/meat inspection it is almost nonexistant as their numbers have been depleted. I'm sure you can figure why.
In conclusion, anyone that thinks that large companys like Bayer is honest, hasn't never, or just refuses to live in the real world. People it takes tax dollars to get things and no one wants to pay any!!!


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Omie said:


> The liquid was exuded from the corn seedling leaves, and gathered with the pipette and then offered to the bee to drink. The bee drank it and died within a minute or two,


I don't believe that it was faked but I don't believe it proves anything other than you can pass a poison through a plant and feed it to a dehydrated bee via a pipette to kill it.
If you can show that bees gather guttation water containing pesticide in preference to other available water sources in a real life situation that would be of interest and would be worrying.
It's important not to latch onto shoddy experiments in some kind of afan to prove that pesticides cause current bee problems. Thay may do but that kind of 'experiment' adds absolutely nothing.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

> The liquid was exuded from the corn seedling leaves, and gathered with the pipette and then offered to the bee to drink. The bee drank it and died within a minute or two. The corn seedling was grown from neonic-treated seed, it was not treated with any other pesticides. They didn't just take a drop of water from the sink and add neonic pesticide to it. The water exuded from the corn plant killed the bee that drank from it within minutes. No more, no less.
> If you choose to say the video is faked or lying, well that's up to you.


I think this type of example is kind of like crying fire in a movie theater. Did the insecticide kill the bee? Of course it did. Is this a plausible real world example? No. 

A corn seedling is going to have the highest concentration of insecticide. As the plant grows the concentration will decrease because of increased plant biomass.

What is the likelihood of a bee drinking guttation from a corn seedling? I would say very small. It takes specific environmental conditions to create guttation, it is not a daily occurance. Dew is much more common. Also, the time of year bees would encounter corn seedlings is when there usually are desireable pollen and nectar sources available. There is not much to attract bees to a field full of corn seedlings.

Trying to ban every substance that is toxic to bees is not going to happen. Whether we like it or not farmers are going to use pesticides. They are in the business to make money and will protect their crops as they deem necessary. But, most will also do what they can to mitigate impact on our bees if they have options and know about them.

Tom


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

The burden of proof, under law, is not with the bee, it's with the pesticide producer. Pesticides can't be sold ("registered") unless they are proven safe. In THIS case, the study that supported registration was subsequently rejected by the EPA, but the registration wasn't revoked. That's the crux of the issue, here. There is a pesticide that is known to be, and admittedly, toxic to bees, that was granted registration without the required supporting study.


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

Re Read these two posts by Pilgarlic56. This is the issue!!




Pilgarlic56 said:


> The science won't be settled on this forum. The relative toxicity of organophosphates vis-a-vis nicotinoids isn't the issue raised by the O.P. Liquid form v metabolites is a question the answer for which lies beyond our expertise, and even beyond the available data. What we are able to recognize and react reasonably and capably to is the flawed nature of this EPA registration and review process. The substance was registered through a clearly flawed process that was clearly based on a study that the EPA later rejected. Ergo the substance should not have been registered, yet EPA continues to defend the registration. If science is on the side of the substance and other nicotinoids, let the science establish that through a proper study, as required by law, and as was clearly not provided in this registration process. All the rest of our armchair discussions about the scientific merits either way are just farts in the wind, folks. The point is, the EPA is for SOME reason refusing to do its job and to follow the law.





Pilgarlic56 said:


> The burden of proof, under law, is not with the bee, it's with the pesticide producer. Pesticides can't be sold ("registered") unless they are proven safe. In THIS case, the study that supported registration was subsequently rejected by the EPA, but the registration wasn't revoked. That's the crux of the issue, here. There is a pesticide that is known to be, and admittedly, toxic to bees, that was granted registration without the required supporting study.


----------



## Magnum12 (Nov 25, 2010)

Bud Dingler said:


> I'm sorry Sir but I was one of several beekeepers with a research background whom was invited to see CCD firsthand and I traveled with bee researchers during the winter of 2007 in CALI. I have a M.S. in Material Science and worked for a Fortune 500 research lab for 15 years.
> 
> I have a vast knowledge of pesticides and honeybees.
> 
> ...


I get it. You are convinced that the pesticides aren't responsible for the CCD problem.

I am sure there are some PhD scholars working on this. We are still in a big mess. 

Out of the 87 solicited hives in our local group (just 21 individuals surveyed), one individual admitted to using Hard mite treatment on 10 hives, another Soft treatment on 14 and another organic on 8 hives. The rest were treatment free. Out of 87 hives over 33% perished last year. What does that data tell you? Everyone is looking for the answer. Everyone except for you, right? Your hives are healthy and have no problems. You might spend more time helping everyone achieve your level of proficiency. Not your nature?

For someone who sees this subject as old and uninteresting you devote way too much time to it. What is your agenda? 

I think it is more likely for a tree hugger to start a hive than the average citizen. I don't know what you have against environmentalists and I don't really care. Your bees too will fail given a bad environment. 

You are not on my front line, I am not on your side, I am on the side of the bees and beekeepers.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Recent headlines claim a link between Clothianidin and CCD, but no such link has ever been demonstrated. In Germany its effect on overwintering has been studied and no effect on the overwintering ability of honey bees was found.

In the first project year honey and bee bread samples were specifically analysed for imidacloprid residues of treated oilseed rape sites. This crop is intensively treated with plant protection products and oilseed rape pollen and nectar are very attractive for bees.

Within the framework of the German Bee Monitoring Project winter losses of bee colonies were evaluated from the database of 120 beekeepers and 1200 bee colonies by assessing the following parameters: data on the apiary, strength of the colonies in autumn and spring, honey yields, residues in bee bread (stored pollen), bee disease analysis.

1. Between oilseed rape sites and non-oilseed rape sites no differences were found for colony losses neither for the overwintering quotient (= colony strength in autumn divided by colony strength in spring). 

2. Highly significant correlations were found between winter losses and the Varroa infestation levels in autumn. The risk for colony loss increases with the number of mites in the colony in autumn.

3. Similarly the correlations between the infection with ABPV and DWV in autumn and winter losses were significant.

SOURCE: "Periodical honey bee colony losses in Germany: preliminary results from a four years monitoring project"


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

We conducted a long-term investigation to ascertain effects on honey bee, Apis mellifera L., colonies during and after exposure to flowering canola, Brassica napus variety Hyola 420, grown from clothianidin-treated seed. Colonies were placed in the middle of 1-ha clothianidin seed-treated or control canola fields for 3 wk during bloom, and thereafter they were moved to a fall apiary. 

There were four treated and four control fields, and four colonies per field, giving 32 colonies total. Bee mortality, worker longevity, and brood development were regularly assessed in each colony for 130 d from initial exposure to canola. Samples of honey, beeswax, pollen, and nectar were regularly collected for 130 d, and the samples were analyzed for clothianidin residues by using high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection. 

Overall, no differences in bee mortality, worker longevity, or brood development occurred between control and treatment groups throughout the study. Weight gains of and honey yields from colonies in treated fields were not significantly different from those in control fields. Although clothianidin residues were detected in honey, nectar, and pollen from colonies in clothianidin-treated fields, maximum concentrations detected were 8- to 22-fold below the reported no observable adverse effects concentration. Clothianidin residues were not detected in any beeswax sample. 

Assessment of overwintered colonies in spring found no differences in those originally exposed to treated or control canola. The results show that honey bee colonies will, in the long-term, be unaffected by exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola.


Exposure to Clothianidin Seed-Treated Canola Has No Long-Term Impact on Honey Bees. by G. CHRISTOPHER CUTLER AND CYNTHIA D. SCOTT-DUPREE 
Department of Environmental Biology, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Both pollination by bees and pesticide treatments are essential components of modern agriculture. Unfortunately, these two elements of agroecosystems are sometimes incompatible, with bees and the beekeeping industry having sustained losses through pesticide poisoning. 

Although use of systemic insecticide seed treatments is generally regarded a more ecologically sound alternative to foliar insecticide applications, systemic insecticides may be translocated to pollen or nectar during development of the seed-treated crop, meaning pollinators foraging on these plants could be exposed to toxin. 

Concerns of adverse effects of imidacloprid seed treatments on pollinators has been a subject of much debate (Schmuck et al. 2001, Maus et al. 2003, Faucon et al. 2005), but our knowledge of potential impacts of clothianidin, a new chloronicotinyl insecticide, on pollinators is minimal. 

In the current study we attempted to use a realistic, worst-case scenario for honey bee exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola. Seed was successfully treated with clothianidin at the highest recommended commercial rate for Canada and planted at a high seeding rate in 1-ha fields, ensuring ample forage for worker bees. 

Honey bee colonies were placed in the middle of canola fields during the bloom period, ensuring maximum exposure, and then they were moved to a fall apiary near bloom end. Little alternative forage was available to workers while in canola fields, and workers actively foraged on the canola. 

To assess potential long-term impacts, data were collected intensely over 130 d during summer and fall, and again in the spring. Overall, we found no differences between colonies from clothianidin-treated and control fields.

SOURCE: Exposure to Clothianidin Seed-Treated Canola Has No Long-Term Impact on Honey Bees.


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

Peter, I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to evaluate the study cited. If I were, the quotation you provide doesn't provide enough detail concerning methodology and data to do so. Scientific studies are subject to peer review. This study may stand up to peer review. It may have already been subject to substantial peer review. It may have been substantially refuted in the literature. We don't know, we are not scientists. The study originally provided by Bayer in its registration application claimed similar results, and was subsequently refuted. We do know this: EPA has repudiated the very study it accepted to approve the registration, and the registration stands, without an appropriate and legally required study. Lacking such a study, the substance shouldn't be registered.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> Peter, I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to evaluate the study cited. If I were, the quotation you provide doesn't provide enough detail concerning methodology and data to do so. Scientific studies are subject to peer review. This study may stand up to peer review. It may have already been subject to substantial peer review.


Do you want me to post the whole thing? It was published in the Journal of Economic Entomology in 2007 by scientist working in Ontario, Canada. They work for neither Bayer nor the EPA.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

You can read it here: http://www.grist.org/i/assets/bees_Guelph.pdf


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

I really don't. Scientific conclusions aren't drawn from a single study. The study must be taken in the context of the literature. Were there peer responses to this study? Attempts to duplicate the results? Were they successful? Are there other studies that yield conflicting results? The answers to all of these questions, taken together, allow qualified researchers to draw reasonable, defensible conclusions. I'm not a qualified researcher and I don't have access to the literature to answer all of these questions. To look at one study in a vacuum, without the context of the academic literature and peer reiview, isn't very useful, particularly to a lay person like me. The question I'm qualified to ask is the question previously put: Why is the EPA allowing a registration without the applicant having provided adequate support? That's the question this thread properly addresses.


----------



## Magnum12 (Nov 25, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> You can read it here: http://www.grist.org/i/assets/bees_Guelph.pdf


Isn't this the study that was being refuted for several reasons? One because of the proximity of the test fields?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> Why is the EPA allowing a registration without the applicant having provided adequate support? That's the question this thread properly addresses.


The study referenced is important research, conducted by independent experts and published in a major peer reviewed scientific journal. The long-term field study conducted in accordance with Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) by independent experts using clothianidin-treated seed showed that there were no effects on bee mortality, weight gain, worker longevity, brood development, honey yield and over-winter survival. 

The EPA reviewed and approved the study protocol prior to its initiation and it was peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Economic Entomology. Upon reviewing the results of the long-term trial, the EPA noted the study as "scientifically sound and satisfies the guideline requirements for a field toxicity test with honey bees."

Clothianidin is the leading seed treatment on corn in the United States and has been used extensively for over six years without incident to honey bees. Innovative seed treatment technology represents an environmentally sound approach to crop protection. Treating the seed provides a targeted and effective means of application that helps increase yields, safeguard our environment and ensure a sustainable means of crop production.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> I really don't. Scientific conclusions aren't drawn from a single study. The study must be taken in the context of the literature.


Of course. Would you like me to post the entire of body of literature on imidacloprid? Because I have it. Who has looked into imidacloprid and bees as much as I have? Most folks just read the stuff posted by incompetent journalists trying to sell advertising to their web sites based on the number of hits they receive. I wonder how many hits the "Journal of Economic Entomology" gets. Not many, I guess, since you can't read their papers unless you have a subscription. Well, I do. And when I share the info, people try to pick it apart without ever even looking at it.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Magnum12 said:


> Isn't this the study that was being refuted for several reasons?


Of course it's being refuted. All scientific papers are refuted, if they're read. If no one attempts to refute it, it's because nobody read it, nobody cared, didn't make any difference. The more controversial a study is, the more folks try to rip it to pieces. That doesn't therefore mean the work was not good! People are still trashing the work of Darwin, 150 years later!


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

From the link that opened this thread, an EPA memo: 

"A previous field study (MRID 46907801/46907802) investigated the effects of clothianidin on whole hive parameters and was classified as acceptable. However, after another review of this field study in light of additional information, deficiencies were identified that render the study supplemental. It does not satisfy the guideline 850.3040, and another field study is needed to evaluate the effects of clothianidin on bees through contaminated pollen and nectar. Exposure through contaminated pollen and nectar and potential toxic effects therefore remain an uncertainty for pollinators."

Look... again, I don't see any of us fruitfully debating the science. I haven't yet seen anyone posting with credentials sufficient to the task. I won't debate the science. But the question of registration without the legally required study remains.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> Look... again, I don't see any of us fruitfully debating the science. I won't debate the science.


Hmm. End of story?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> I haven't yet seen anyone posting with credentials sufficient to the task.


Man, go away from BeeSource for a year and when I come back, it's the same old "what are your creds?". Is there ANYONE at BeeSource who has the credentials to leap your apparently high bar?


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

Peter, I don't set the bar of qualification to judge academic works. Academe does that all on its own, with degrees that look something like "M.S.", "Ph.D.", et cetera. I'm not telling you not to engage in academic debates over the merits of arcane scientific research in a field in which you've earned no degree. I'm telling you I won't.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> I'm not telling you not to engage in academic debates over the merits of arcane scientific research in a field in which you've earned no degree.


As I said:


> The study referenced is important research, conducted by independent experts and published in a major peer reviewed scientific journal.


To say we are too stupid to evaluate science reflects on us, not on the scientists who do the work. For whom are they doing it? We need to look at the work and see if it allays our fears that the environment is being wrecked by scientists who care nothing for us. Will you sit back and say, how should I know, I don't read it and I don't debate it?


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

Alright, you've forced my hand. There are those with whom I'll debate it. Happy now? Good day, sir.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter,

Glad that you're back.

If you really want to see why banning neonicotinoids is good for beekeepers, you can look at the reduced hive losses that have occurred in europe recently because of that ban.

However, I haven't really looked into any research showing a correlation between the banning of neonics and a reduction in CCD cases in europe. Maybe the ban reduced the # of CCD hives; maybe it didn't.

Would you have any post, european neonic, ban papers showing a CCD reduction (or not)?

In my opinion, the EPA isn't the same agency that was created decades ago to safeguard our environment. The emergency approvals of various pesticides by the EPA, without credible scientific safety studies, illustrates how the EPA has been influenced by various interest groups (the good, the bad, and the ugly). In short, they need to be taken to task when required.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I think the situation in Europe has been completely misrepresented in the press. WIRED NEWS reports:



> Clothianidin, is manufactured by German agrochemical company Bayer, though it’s actually banned in Germany. It’s also banned in France, Italy and Slovenia. Those countries fear that clothianidin, which is designed to be absorbed by plant tissue and released in pollen and nectar to kill pests, is also dangerous to pollen- and nectar-eating bees that are critical to some plants’ reproductive success. -- http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/epa-clothianidin-controversy/


What they omit:



> The German government had initially banned clothianidin for use on maize and rapeseed, but the bans were lifted after the problem was resolved. Thus, this case doesn’t hold the answer for the problems observed in the US and other countries either.
> 
> The bans introduced in France left no significant mark on the bee mortality statistics. Either the French farmers found a way of bypassing the ban, or the banned substances weren’t causing that much harm after all. Due to the inefficiency of the ban in France, manufacturers including Germany-based Bayer are hoping to have it lifted very soon. -- Chemistry World | February 2010


Numerous studies in Europe have shown NO LINK between neonicotinoids and bee losses.



> In 1997, several beekeepers reported that colony death and weakness were the consequence of the use of imidacloprid for seed dressing. This product is indeed very toxic for bees as confirmed by laboratory and semi-field tests.
> 
> However, several field studies were conducted in France and elsewhere with colonies kept close to cultures issued from seeds dressed with imidacloprid. None has shown any adverse effect of this product.
> 
> ...


SEE ALSO:

The German bee monitoring project: a long term study to understand periodically high winter losses of honey bee colonies

Periodical honey bee colony losses in Germany: preliminary results from a four years monitoring project

Does Imidacloprid Seed-Treated Maize Have an Impact on Honey Bee Mortality?

Influence of Pesticide Residues on Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colony Health in France


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

The most significant report to come out is publicly available at PLoS

In 2010 they write



> Pesticide interactions among various mixures as well as with other stressors including Varroa and Nosema, beneficial hive microbes, and impacts on bee immune systems all require further study. *It seems to us that it is far too early to attempt to link or to dismiss pesticide impacts with CCD.*


SOURCE



> High Levels of Miticides and Agrochemicals in North American Apiaries: Implications for Honey Bee Health. by Christopher A. Mullin, Maryann Frazier, James L. Frazier, Sara Ashcraft, Roger Simonds, Dennis vanEngelsdorp, Jeffery S. Pettis
> 
> 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.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

If anyone is really serious about reading up on Neonics and Bees:



> A meta-analysis of experiments testing the effects of a neonicotinoid insecticide (imidacloprid) on honey bees. James E. Cresswell
> 
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/j7v320r55510tr54/


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

This interview with Dr Henk Tennekes is worth listening to as well.

http://biobees.libsyn.com/

http://www.disasterinthemaking.com/


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter:

The neonic coated maize seed ban has resulted in greatly reduced bee mortality in northern Italy (neonics are still sprayed on other crops in the south) as reported by Italian beekeepers.

I would say that Italian beekeepers have found a correlation between the neonic ban and colony health. Remember, it's statistically significant.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> Peter:
> 
> The neonic coated maize seed ban has resulted in greatly reduced bee mortality in northern Italy (neonics are still sprayed on other crops in the south) as reported by Italian beekeepers.
> 
> I would say that Italian beekeepers have found a correlation between the neonic ban and colony health. Remember, it's statistically significant.





> It does look like a resounding, spectacular success. During this year’s neonicotinoid-free maize sowing in Italy hardly a bee colony has been lost, bar a suspicious case where some leftover seed from last year may have been used. June 2009


Only one problem. What if the seed coating didn't kill bees? The fact that the bees did well after the seed coating was banned does nothing to prove that the seed coating was a real problem the year before.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Heh, heh.

I seem to recall that they found that the neonic seed coat would pulverize and then the resulting dust would cover bees (like pollen) and be blown to surrounding fields as well.

It's a formulation problem, no doubt. But, it's one heck of a correlation.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> Heh, heh.
> 
> I seem to recall that they found that the neonic seed coat would pulverize and then the resulting dust would cover bees (like pollen) and be blown to surrounding fields as well. It's a formulation problem, no doubt. But, it's one heck of a correlation.


This was true in some very isolated cases. It was a tragic accident but an accident nonetheless. Modern living is replete with risks, especially in the fields of agriculture and beekeeping. 

The margin of profit can be razor sharp, so farmers and honey producers are continually seeking to minimize their risks. Some beekeepers are fortunate enough to be independent of agriculture and vice versa. It is where these factions interact, which should be mutually beneficial, that problems arise. 

All of the blaming and shouting merely heightens the atmosphere of antagonism. Organizations like Bee Friendly Farming are trying to bridge this gap. 

beefriendlyfarming.org


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Not so fast Peter.

It was a material product defect in all of the neonic maize seed coatings, and the Italians caught them red handed. That's why it was banned in Italy.

In short, because of the product defect (friable neonic seed coatings forming a powder and no longer being in situ but blowing as dust across fields), Italian beekeepers suffered a measurable financial loss. This doesn't include the environmental impact on the Italian countryside.

Do you see why Bayer was negligent?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Right, but take the example of car companies. They have had numerous problems, like sticking gas pedals, defective tires, exploding gas tanks, etc. But we don't propose banning cars. Better, safer cars is what we demand. 

Neonicotinoids are marketed as better, safer pesticides. If you look back at all the pesticide kills over the past 100 years, times are a lot better than they were. "People who don't read history are condemned to repeat it."

But bottom line is this: in all studies done on the bee kill of the past ten years, they have documented the presence of varroa mites, viruses, new pathogens, and heavy residues from legal and illegal beekeeper applied chemicals. 

So, to single out neonics as the biggest and baddest is simply to put blinders on and run full speed ahead. I am NOT saying they are not a factor, not a concern. What I am saying is that you may ban them but the problems WILL NOT go away.

It is not any ONE thing.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I agree that there are worse assaults against honeybees than pesticides, but they are caused by globalization in general.

My thinking about the cause of CCD has evolved past neonics. I think that it's far worse than that. I still believe that the Maori et al. (2007) find is a key piece of evidence for the real cause of CCD. I also think that CCD is yet another symptom of something far more serious.

But I digress.

PS- You should have told the Beelogic guys that instead of selling beekeepers dsRNA, they should help them to indentify bees that are 'naturally transgenic' and therefore resistant to viruses.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I also think that CCD is yet another symptom of something far more serious.


Let me guess: Sunspots? Atheism? Fluorinated water?

Have you seen the recent "USDA Colony Collapse Disorder Progress Report, CCD Steering Committee"

Or is it suspect because the USDA is in league with Bayer Crop Science?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Why yes, I have read the report. I put it on my desktop only the other day. 34% estimated losses in 2010. It isn't getting better now, is it?

Here's the issue in a nutshell: what is the common molecular mechanism that ties together all of the findings? (HINT: part of it is the topic of the above PS)

By that I mean, what can cause bees to leave the hive, and keep going?

Now if you have a reference handy on the mode of action of neonics on insects (something molecular like inhibition of DNA methylation), I'd appreciate it.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> What can cause bees to leave the hive, and keep going?


Well, my own take is that any bee that is damaged, whether by parasite, virus, pesticide or "old age" will deliberately take itself out of the colony. That is, fly off and die. Altruistic suicide is the term for it. Any one of these factors or a combination of them can cause this phenomenon. If enough of the bees do it, the colony collapses, leaving the queen and brood. In a tropical climate, it would work. The colony could go down to a few thousand individuals and come back. Even here, in the summer, a colony can go from two frames to twenty in a matter of weeks. But in autumn, it is a death sentence.



> Now if you have a reference handy on the mode of action of neonics on insects (something molecular like inhibition of DNA methylation), I'd appreciate it.


Will work on it. I'm sure it's in there with 3900 other pdfs


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC

You are putting me on, right? You probably already know all about Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors.

PLB


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter:

I mean evidence showing that neonics also inhibits another molecular pathway. Something that can switch on genes that are normally methylated and therefore off.

There has been some research on how caste differention is determined by a handful of genes that are normally kept inactive by guess what? DNA methylation.

Neonics alone won't produce CCD as far as I know (unless you ask the french).

However, if there is some evidence showing inhibition of DNA methylation by neonics, then maybe there's more to neonics than just affecting one type of nerve receptor. I'm looking for a relationship between neonics and behavioral molecular switches, like DNA methylation because it ties in with some of the other possible causes of CCD. Inhibition of the RNAi pathway by pathogens is related to inhibition of DNA methylation as well. And thus, behavioral changes.

So if you do find that reference. it might help to tie things together.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Remember folks we are also eating this stuff in our food...what is the long term affect on us? Guess we'll find out in 20 years. DDT was hailed as great and would not harm us remember? I dont think they kill the bee..but you combine a weakoned immune system(insecticide) viruses(carried by mites) and add that to stress and nutrition (either monoculture or drought related) and you have a mess. remove the weakoned immune system and survival is much differant. From what I hear bees in some places are again falling apart much like yrs past....all when no new bees are hatching(shortened life span), weakoned immune system also leads to increased nosema levels.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> Peter: I mean evidence showing that neonics also inhibits another molecular pathway. Something that can switch on genes that are normally methylated and therefore off.


Yes, well, you are holding back some cards, WLC. I assume you are way ahead of me on this one. Are you talking about this?:



> The bulk of underlying molecular changes occur within the first 8 days of adult life, as attested to by microarray data. After this time she is competent to forage, even if she does not do so and remains as a nurse or a guard.
> 
> The day 8 time point also marks a salient transition in the brain in terms of the subtypes of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. At this time a late onset subtype receptor is activated which constitutes a major alteration in the cholinergic system, (where acetylcholine is the major transmitter in the olfactory network and is found in the Kenyon cells of the mushroom bodies).
> 
> ...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

That's a big piece of it.

However, I'm looking for the bee analogy to pesticide use, DNA methylation, and autism in humans.

Now if there is no such evidence for insects and neonics, then maybe the link to neonics and CCD that I'm looking for isn't there.


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

CCD related or not does not matter to me. If Clothianidin is toxic to bees, other insects. worms in the ground, the animals that eat those insects, the animals that eat the plant, it should not be on the market. No toxic chemical should ever be given use in the way this stuff has without serious research and tests done to evaluate all aspects of risk from its use, now and into the future at all levels. These chemicals and the way they are pushed onto the market are the result of pure greed. We dont need Clothianidin and can easily grow corn and other products without it.

The EPA needs to be restructured. The way The EPA works needs to be restructured. The way pesticieds are given approval need to be restructured. Bayer had more than ample time to do proper tests and studies on Clothianidin. What took so long. Maybe they did several studies and they all turned out bad for them so they just kept doing studies decreasing acreage or untill they were dealt a hand that worked for them like a better pollen source and flow so the bees did not even touch the acrage that would have effected the bees anyway.

For one Bayer's studies should not be the ones used to gain approval in the first place. Thats like letting a teenager give themselves their own drivers licence test. Let Bayer do the tests and then have independent companies repeat the tests to verify the results are not bias. I would also want the seed used in these test bought off the shelf from a ramdom supplier and not from bayer so they can be doctored to give better results. 

Who comes up with these approval processes. It is obviously not an average citizen because third graders could come up with a better solution for a viable system of checks and balances to insure risk to the public and natures health is not compromised.

We are truly the laughing stock of other countries. I am ashamed of our county. Sorry but I am.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

WI-beek said:


> I would also want the seed used in these test bought off the shelf from a ramdom supplier and not from bayer so they can be doctored to give better results.


Whoosh. Another conspiracy theory. Watch out for those aliens at the store.


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

Its not aliens at the store I worry about, its sheep.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Sheep?
That would be those who have jumped on the 'pesticides cause ccd' bandwagon without bothering themselves about the available evidence out there.
I am no supporter of Bayer or the wider pesticide industry, but blaming pesticides for current bee problems and invoking a new conspiracy theory every 5 minutes in not actually helpful.
Personalising the issue as opposed to looking at the facts on the table is also unhelpful.
Follow some of the links to the available research posted in the last few pages of this thread. You get more information from the papers than you do from most of the bulletin board crusaders.


----------



## seamuswildhoney (Jul 24, 2008)

I am not a lawyer although, I have beat lawyers in court more than once, if I was I would be all over this like a bad suit (pun intended) class action suit anyone, I smell money here. A classless move like that deserves lawsuit!


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

jonathan

This is not a CCD issure to me and I stated so. I dont believe it causes CCD. I dont know if it is a real risk too bee health when bees visit corn for pollen. What I do know is that the product seemingly was given a "put product on the market free of any health risk study" card and that really ticks me off.

The way Bayer played hooky providing a study and data and what study they finally did use to provide data to comply with the regulation spell "something stinks". They did not even use corn. I have seen bees work corn like no other for pollen. They could simply have stuck 50 colonies in the middle of a square mile of corn that one of their customers planted to get the data. Why all the delay, and then such small acreage of the wrong plant. Why do we allow a product with possible health risk, or environmental risk to go on the market when there is no emergency to warrant it?

If this product has the potential to cause serious harm to honeybee health I dont think it should be on the market. I would also like to see what this stuff does to insects and other life in the ground. If this stuff is put into the ground every year again and again what will happen? Bayer is making big bucks off this stuff and they need to prove it is safe. Not just say so.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

jonathan said:


> I am no supporter of Bayer or the wider pesticide industry, but blaming pesticides for current bee problems and invoking a new conspiracy theory every 5 minutes in not actually helpful.


Well put. I would just add: Not only is it not actually helpful, it's actually NOT HELPFUL! But then, some folks are not trying to BE helpful. Let's get it together!

PLB


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WI-beek said:


> Bayer is making big bucks off this stuff and they need to prove it is safe. Not just say so.


Apparently it doesn't make any difference what they do. There have been numerous studies showing that imidacloprid treated crops are not causing mass harm to bees and other pollinators. 

Neonicotinoids themselves are deadly poison to insects. The mode of action is to express in the plant, so that chewing insects will be killed. Traces of the product appear in the nectar and pollen.

These traces have _as yet_ not been proven to be harmful. Some people say they do cause harm, or that it will take longer for the effects to show up, or that when combined with nosema, they worsen its effect.

Let me ask you this: there have been studies linking cell phone use with brain tumors. Has anybody gone after the cell phone companies or given up using cell phones yet? 

It is always easier to blame somebody else and try to force them to change, even if it means wrecking their livelihoods, than it is to examine what we are doing and change that.

PLB


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

The law places the burden of proof on the producer of the pesticide. Pesticides must be shown to be safe in order to be registered. There is a process, established by law, to show the substance to be safe. One of the requirements of that process is to provide a study "sufficient" to show the safety. In the case of clothianidin, the study provided was initially deemed "sufficient", and subsequently deemed "supplemental" (not sufficient). No sufficient study has been provided by the applicant. Some of us believe that since no sufficient study has been provided by the applicant the substance should not be and should not have been registered.
One might argue that the burden of proof should be on the EPA or the public to prove that a substance is not safe, and that until we have done so, the substance should be allowed. One is welcome to that position, but it's not the law.
One might argue that there are any number of studies of clothianidin or related neonics that would suggest or even prove that the substance is safe, and therefore Bayer shouldn't be required to provide the sufficient study required by law. That would invite chaos in the registration process.
One might argue that neonics are being unfairly scapegoated. Okay, but what does that have to do with the flawed, noncompliant registration of this specific substance?
Often I think people seem to disagree when they don't, because the argument isn't defined. Let me ask this: how does one support this specific registration, given that no sufficient study supporting its safety as required by law has been provided?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> Some of us believe that since no sufficient study has been provided by the applicant the substance should not be and should not have been registered.


Many believe that no study ever done by the applicant will be valid. So it's a bit of a Catch22, init?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> Let me ask this: how does one support this specific registration, given that no sufficient study supporting its safety as required by law has been provided?


That's a loaded question. In order to answer the question, I have to agree to accept the premise. If I don't agree with the premise, how can I answer the question? 

Who decides if it's sufficient, in any case? Again, Catch22. If no study could be deemed sufficient EVER, then you can't proceed.


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> Who decides if it's sufficient, in any case? Again, Catch22. If no study could be deemed sufficient EVER, then you can't proceed.


The EPA determines whether a study is sufficient. They do it all the time (too generously, in the opinion of many). One can't say that no study could be deemed sufficient, ever, when it happens routinely. In fact it happened in this specific case: the study was found to be sufficient, then, in an apparent reversal, it was found to be supplemental. We believe it is now incumbent upon EPA, again, to require Bayer to provide a sufficient study, or to reverse the registration.


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

Who decides if it's sufficient, in any case? Again, Catch22. If no study could be deemed sufficient EVER, then you can't proceed.[/QUOTE]

I hope at least 90% of people can read the information thats been provided and conclude that Bayers data in not sufficient. If not than we should just start spraying all the food at the super market with deadly poison, state that it has been sprayed with the given poison, that it may be toxic to your health and kill you or maybe not but until a competent study has been concluded it will be applied to food. Those of us that have common sense will live to see another day, and then from that time forward we who are left should be able to have sufficient data provided when asked for it.

You can defend any idea. But not reasonably.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> The EPA determines whether a study is sufficient. We believe it is now incumbent upon EPA, again, to require Bayer to provide a sufficient study, or to reverse the registration.


Huh? EPA determines, except when you don't accept their determination? Aren't we going around in circles a bit here? They approved it.


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

And it's fine with you that their approval stands on a study they deemed insufficient. I understand your position. You're entitled to it.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

No you don't understand my position. I never took a position. I am not "taking a position" but trying to get at the facts. 

Imidacloprid has been studied by hundreds of folks besides Bayer and the EPA, and according to most of these studies the product is far less risky than the products it replaces.

I have conducted no study and so am not an authority on this. We, as citizens, are duty-bound to weigh the facts and then judge.

PLB


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

So it's not okay with you that they've allowed the registration to stand? Let's be clear. You've not made up your mind?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> Let's be clear. You've not made up your mind?


Correct.


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

Chuckling. Fine. NOW I understand your position.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Response to National Honey Bee Advisory Board Letter on Imidacloprid
Registration Review

Dear National Honey Bee Advisory Board:

Bayer CropScience read with interest your public comment letter
dated March 17, 2009 to the EPA concerning the Agency’s
registration review of imidacloprid. We fully recognize the value
pollinators bring to US agriculture and the dedication of those in the
business of beekeeping. We empathize with those beekeepers that
have experienced extensive colony losses in recent years and
support research efforts to identify the underlying causes of this
syndrome. However, reliable research to date does not support the
contention that imidacloprid or other agricultural pesticides have
caused these losses and we feel compelled to comment on several
points that you raised.

You state that “Beekeepers from around the United States, and
around the world, have had persistent problems associated with the
use of the systemic pesticide imidacloprid”. This is simply not true.
Commercial use of imidacloprid began in the US in 1994.
Coinciding with the introduction of the sweet potato whitefly and
extreme resistance development in Colorado potato beetle to other
chemicals, imidacloprid-based products quickly became a market
leader in major crops including cotton, potatoes, and a broad array
of vegetables, many of which have been pollinated by bee colonies
supplied by members of your organization for years. These
introductions of imidacloprid-based products such as Admire® and
Provado® were NOT followed by any claims of harm to bee colonies
by beekeepers in the US. In fact, imidacloprid had been in
widespread use in US agriculture for more than a decade before the
syndrome now called “colony collapse disorder” began being
reported.

The first claim in the US that imidacloprid had harmed bee colonies
was the case in North Dakota that was brought to the attention of
Bayer in 2001. A group of beekeepers claimed that imidacloprid
used as a canola seed treatment harmed bees which foraged on this
crop. You describe this case, which formed the basis of the Bauer
et al. vs. Bayer Corporation lawsuit, in your letter to EPA as “the
largest incident” of “major incidents [that] have been reported by
beekeepers linked to imidacloprid.” It is surprising that you cite this
case as an imidacloprid incident since the allegations of Bauer et al.
were not proven. This is not just Bayer’s opinion. The United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, after
considering the evidence presented, granted Bayer’s Motion to
Dismiss this case in June, 2008. The analytical data you cite in your
letter were discredited based on the fact the analytical method used
to generate them was not scientifically sound. The original chemical
analysis by ADPEN Laboratories, Inc. which reported high levels of
imidacloprid in wax and honey samples from plaintiff’s hives also
showed high levels of imidacloprid in control samples that were
assumed to be chemical free. This was a red flag that the analytical
work was flawed, and indeed upon examining it further, it was
determined that the analytical method that was used was
inappropriate and unreliable for analysis of imidacloprid. ADPEN
repeated their analysis of plaintiff’s samples using a proven and
validated analytical method and found concentrations ranging from
<0.5 to 3.2 ppb. These are levels consistent with previous research
and do not support the conclusion that plaintiff’s bees were harmed
in any way by imidacloprid.

The remaining “beekeeper incidents” you list in you letter are
anecdotal with no definitive, reliable or scientific evidence linking the
colony dwindling or losses that were observed to exposure to
imidacloprid. There are many other possible explanations for these
losses. It is not clear to what extent these have been considered.

Recent research (for example, Cox-Foster et al., 2007, Science
318:283-287; Higes et al., Environmental Microbiology Reports
1(2):110-113; 2009) has shown that CCD-type losses are
associated strongly with presence of pathogens such as Nosema
ceranae and various viruses. Field observations also suggest it is
caused by an infectious agent and not a chemical. In the February
2009 issue of Bee Culture, Debnam et al. wrote: “Normally when a
strong colony is combined with a collapsed one from the same
apiary it also collapses. Once the symptoms start they seem to
affect most colonies in that apiary. We’ve seen CCD travel like a
wave through large holding yards.”

*There is no scientific evidence that CCD losses are associated with
imidacloprid exposure.* Researchers from Pennsylvania State
University (Dr. Chris Mullin, et al.) sampled wax and pollen samples
from hives of commercial beekeepers that were experiencing CCD
losses. Data presented by this team to the Entomological Society of
America in December 2007 showed no correlation between colony
losses and presence of imidacloprid residues. In fact, imidacloprid
was detected in <10% of the samples reported in this study. An
article by this research team entitled “What have pesticides got to do
with it?” published in June 2008 issue of American Bee Journal
doesn’t even mention imidacloprid at all! According to this article,
the chemicals of greatest concern are those applied by beekeepers
themselves – miticides targeting Varroa destructor, an introduced
parasite of the honey bee.

*All chemicals are toxic to bees when the dose is high enough and all
chemicals are safe to bees when the dose is low enough.* In the
case of imidacloprid, chronic testing with bee colonies has
established that no adverse effects are to be expected when the
concentration in pollen and/or nectar that bees are exposed to is <
20 ppb. Field studies have shown that when imidacloprid is applied
per label directions, concentrations in pollen and nectar of
agricultural crops are almost always below this no-adverse-effect
concentration. These field studies have NOT shown any harm to
bee colonies when imidacloprid is applied to agricultural crops per
label directions. This includes studies performed by university and
government scientists in Argentina, Canada, France, Germany, the
United Kingdom, and the United States. No pesticide has been
more thoroughly tested for safety to honey bees than imidacloprid.
Your letter advocates suspending registration of imidacloprid in the
US. *Suspending imidacloprid and/or other neonicotinoid
insecticides in the US will cause major hardship for farmers *(not to
mention consumers of fresh fruits and vegetables) and almost
certainly do nothing to improve the health of US bee colonies. 

*In France, no improvement in bee health occurred * as a result of the
suspension of Gaucho®. Recent reports of the French Food Safety
Agency (AFFSA) have concluded that Gaucho® played little if any
role in the massive bee colony losses that occurred in France during
the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. These reports conclude that the
main factors causing these losses were varroa mites, pathogens
(including viruses and Nosema ceranae), nutritional deficiencies,
and beekeeper use of unapproved miticides. Bee health monitoring
studies in Germany and Canada have also indicated biological
factors, rather than pesticides, are the main factors causing colony
losses.

Contrary to your intent, if enacted, the suspension of imidacloprid
registrations in the US is likely to have a negative impact on
beekeepers because growers will compensate for the loss of an
effective systemic control of insects by increasing the number of
broadcast spray applications of other insecticides. One seed or soil
application of a systemic insecticide typically replaces the need for
three or more foliar spray applications. Insecticide spray
applications have a much greater potential to cause bee kills and
subsequent hive damage. They also have a greater likelihood of
contaminating nearby terrestrial and aquatic habitats via spray drift
and storm water runoff.

Bayer CropScience welcomes a dialogue with the NHBAB and other
stakeholders who have an interest in ensuring risks to honey bees
and other pollinators are appropriately considered when pesticide
products are developed and undergo regulatory review. We hope
you agree that the best available science should be applied in order
to reach this goal. We are confident that when the best available
science is applied, the conclusion will be that the use of imidacloprid
per label directions does not cause an unreasonable risk to honey
bee colonies.

Sincerely yours,
David L. Fischer, Ph.D.
Director, Ecotoxicology
US Global Research and Development


----------



## Cyndi (Apr 26, 2005)

I posted this earlier this morning..but this thread was brought to my attention.... How's this for interesting reading??

http://gaia-health.com/articles351/...-extinction-supports-bayer-nerve-poison.shtml


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> Response to National Honey Bee Advisory Board Letter on Imidacloprid
> Registration Review


The Imidacloprid registration isn't the registration called into question in the OP's link, which deals with the Clothianidin registration.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

Magnum12 said:


> Out of the 87 solicited hives in our local group (just 21 individuals surveyed), one individual admitted to using Hard mite treatment on 10 hives, another Soft treatment on 14 and another organic on 8 hives. The rest were treatment free. Out of 87 hives over 33% perished last year. What does that data tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> It tells me the same thing that most of the posts on Beesource tells me. The beekeepers have no mite count data and they admit to no treatments and the bees most likely perished from mites and viruses. No rocket science going on here!


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

Those of you that are only posting in defense of Bayer are just wasting your keystrokes. Just like I am here, because you are not going to convince me or most of the other people on Beesource Forums. We believe that you are either part of the conspiracy, (Bayer/EPA) or are part of the cover up. Or my most favorite, just too educated to see the forest for the trees.
Goodby and good luck, with people like you'll we will need it.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

valleyman said:


> Those of you that are only posting in defense of Bayer are just wasting your keystrokes.


Just because we do not support your position does not mean we are supporting a particular product, company or agency.

While you may not think I see the forest for the trees you are wrong. My view is much larger than just bees, corn farmers, Bayer or the EPA. Focusing on anyone of these is just myopic. Banning one product or corporation is not going to save the bees. Relying on a federal agency to save the bees is foolish. Things will get worse not better. Only the beekeepers are going to be able to save the bees.

Tom


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

TWall said:


> Relying on a federal agency to save the bees is foolish. Things will get worse not better. Tom


Is this just the same old, hackneyed "the federal government can't get anything right" argument, or is it something more persuasive? Can you clarify? Thanks.


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

. Relying on a federal agency to save the bees is foolish. Things will get worse not better. Only the beekeepers are going to be able to save the bees.
Tom[/QUOTE]
Agreed. but saving the bees from a poisoned world probably is more than beekeepers are capable of. I, admitidly. Don't know the answers. I, also in past posts on this subject have tried to absolve the Farmers of any blame. Signing petitions and talking to our elected officials is all we can do, even though it falls on deaf ears. At least I did what I could, and sometimes it works.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

valleyman said:


> . I, also in past posts on this subject have tried to absolve the Farmers of any blame.


Pointing fingers at the "bad guys" doesn't do much, true, but letting folks off the hook because "they don't know any better" won't help either.

No saints in this brawl.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> The Imidacloprid registration isn't the registration called into question in the OP's link, which deals with the Clothianidin registration.





> Imidacloprid and clothianidin, when used as seed corn treatments
> for CFB control pose no risk to honey bees foraging
> on the crop. These findings suggest that
> a management program for sweet corn insect
> ...


SEE:
Contact and oral toxicity to honey bees (Apis mellifera) of agents registered for use for sweet corn insect control in Ontario, Canada. 2005. University of Guelph, Department of Environmental Biology, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Cyndi said:


> How's this for interesting reading??


Are you joking? With a headline like this:



> EPA May Allow Extinction of Bees: Supports Bayer's Profits from Nerve Poison


 --who would read it? Not me.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> Is this just the same old, hackneyed "the federal government can't get anything right" argument, or is it something more persuasive? Can you clarify? Thanks.


How do you expect a federal agency to save the bees? Getting the EPA to to ban one product is not going to save the bees, if you get them to ban one.

Any agency that is controlled by politicians is not going to save anything. There will always be some other group with more political clout and a different goal. Or, the next election cycle may change everything.

Ultimately, the only one that really cares about bees are the beekeepers. Instead of trying to get products banned beekeepers would get farther ahead working with researchers to develop treatment strategies that reduce the impact on bees.

Tom


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

TWall said:


> Instead of trying to get products banned beekeepers would get farther ahead working with researchers to develop treatment strategies that reduce the impact on bees.


That's right. Add to that, working with farmers and growers to choose products that won't harm bees. But they need facts from researchers and beekeepers. They can't just drop a product because somebody thinks it MIGHT be bad. Need proof.


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

Any agency that is controlled by politicians is not going to save anything. There will always be some other group with more political clout and a different goal. Or, the next election cycle may change everything.

Ultimately, the only one that really cares about bees are the beekeepers. Instead of trying to get products banned beekeepers would get farther ahead working with researchers to develop treatment strategies that reduce the impact on bees.

Tom[/QUOTE]

Agreed. It is beyond my comprehenson that we can make the bees resistant to the poisons that are being thrown at them, and it's not just Bayer. There are also others that haven't been investigated or discussed. 1st one to come to mind is Syngenta.


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

Is any one of you really making the case that the federal government shouldn't be involved in approving pesticides? What then? We rely on the voluntary efforts of the chemical/pesticide producers? Really? If that's the level of the dialog here, I'm going back to the homebrew forum.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Ultimately, the only one that really cares about bees are the beekeepers.


Fortunately, this is not true. Honey bees and other pollinators have friends in many quarters these days, and many of these people are trying to raise the conversation to a new, intelligent, thoughtful level. 

It can never be a simple matter of THEM vs US. The world consists of ALL of us, including birds, bees, rats, snakes, and ebola virus. Human beings, for better or worse, are a key player in the evolution of life on this planet. 

Before, evolution simply *proceeded* with only natural selection as its guide. Now (again, for better or worse) it has US participating in the evolutionary process. 

We cannot blithely sit back and say "well, whatever, it goes how it goes" nor can we stomp and shout to try to get things the way we think they should be. We can work it out, but let me tell you neighbor, it is gonna be WORK.

PLB


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

peterloringborst;602554
We cannot blithely sit back and say "well said:


> I have actually found something that I can agree completly with you. this is the point that I have been intending to make. We have to start somewhere. signing petitions is only a drop in the bucket/ocean.
> Also from another post you made about the farmers not being innocent, I agree. However the farmers are working on a very thin profit margin. Many are just doing their best to avoid bankruptcy. So no they in most cases don't know about the poison, and most wouldn't care if they knew. They have to get as much production as possible for them to survive. In conclusion I don't think that any of the chemical companys are not making huge profits. Especially Bayer. My bet would be that their PROFITS ar in the billions.


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

valleyman said:


> In conclusion I don't think that any of the chemical companys are not making huge profits. Especially Bayer. My bet would be that their PROFITS ar in the billions.


Bayer AG Annual Report 2009

Bayer CropScience Subgroup Report 2009


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

I would like to add that the Euro-Dollar exchange can and has reached E1 =USD1 1/2.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Is Bayer AG's profitability relevant to this issue?


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

Barry Digman said:


> Is Bayer AG's profitability relevant to this issue?


In response to the previous claim that a change would wreck the livelihood of Bayer AG it is relevant to understand the extent of that impact.



peterloringborst said:


> It is always easier to blame somebody else and try to force them to change, even if it means wrecking their livelihoods, than it is to examine what we are doing and change that.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

Barry Digman said:


> Is Bayer AG's profitability relevant to this issue?


IMO the only thing that seems relevant is whether or not the pesticides in question are causing or are partly causing CCD.


----------



## Magnum12 (Nov 25, 2010)

Bud Dingler said:


> Magnum12 said:
> 
> 
> > Out of the 87 solicited hives in our local group (just 21 individuals surveyed), one individual admitted to using Hard mite treatment on 10 hives, another Soft treatment on 14 and another organic on 8 hives. The rest were treatment free. Out of 87 hives over 33% perished last year. What does that data tell you?
> ...


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

Are bees in areas where the pesticides are used dying more than where they are not being used? Are pesticide residues found more in CCD hives than in those that are still healthy? If the answer to these questions is YES, then that is a strong indication that pesticides are the cause of CCD. If the answer is NO, then that is a strong indication that pesticides are not the cause of CCD. That is the logic that matters.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

heaflaw said:


> That is the logic that matters.


In a black and white world, things are either black -- or white. In the real world, it is not so simple. Toxic chemicals are everywhere now. PCBs have been found to concentrate in the bodies of people living near the Arctic circle, far from the modern industrial cities. 

States have sued other states over the harm that air pollution has caused when it has drifted over state lines, water systems, especially in the west, link dozens of states together -- sharing polluted water like junkies share needles. Where does one problem stop and another begin? 

On the other hand, France banned neonicotinoids ten years ago, and their bees did not make a miraculous recovery. CCD is pretty clearly a multi-causal phenomenon. People want simple answers, ones they can memorize like phone numbers. 

Life was never simple and it is only gonna get more complicated.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

Peter:

How close is the following to being correct?

The current evidence to the cause of CCD points to a combination of several viruses with Nosema, stress of being moved often and possibly pesticides being contributing factors. Varroa mites come into play because their bites on bees leave an easy entrance for viruses.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

I read the article linked in the intro and my eyes glassed over when I read
"When regime change came to Washington in 2008, many of us hoped that an EPA under Barack Obama would be a better parent. EPA Director Lisa Jackson inherited quite a mess from her predecessor, and she faces the Herculean challenge of regulating greenhouse gases against fierce Republican and industry opposition". 
I've also been following the neonic story-line somewhat and cannot see anything past isolated correlations. So far, the virus/nosema connection seems the most correlative but it is still a working hypothesis that must pass Koch's postulates. I'm not sure that this is guaranteed because we still don't have a honeybee cell line to work with nor do we have specific-pathogen-free bees. To make matters worse, if IIV turns out to be a player the researchers couldn't verify a particular IIV type which means even a longer delay. Since many picornaviridae are implicated, trying to figure out the contributions of each and their virility and pathogenicity will take years. The scientific method has its strengths but speed is not one of them. The etiology of CCD will take many years to unravel so speculation will fill the void.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

heaflaw said:


> How close is the following to being correct?


I think you have pretty fairly boiled down what we think at this point. Moving bees around the country is definitely a factor, although unfortunately that doesn't exempt stationary beekeepers due to the contagious nature of these pathogens. 

I have been in beekeeping since 1974, and I watched how the industry has changed. When the mites came on board (tracheal, varroa) everything changed. Many beekeepers lost their bees and quit. Mite treatments allowed beekeeping to rebuild, but then they stopped working.

Meanwhile, it appears, virus levels began to rise because of the weakened state of the hives. Chemical treatments, while keeping bees alive by killing mites, also harmed the colonies. It's like chemotherapy in humans: you can cure cancer with it, by the side effects are very bad.

So, when the tide changed again depends on whom you talk to. In 2006 CCD was named, but many beekeepers had been having severe losses on a regular basis all along. What was different was the symptoms, the severity and the apparent contagious nature of CCD. 

Even if it is "caused" by trucking bees around, us local folks are affected by it. The migratory beekeepers no doubt have extra tough mites, viruses, and nosema, which spill over into our hives. I am NOT blaming them, these are just observations. 

So, this built up over time, and any one of these things COULD be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Using the human condition as an example again: you have folks with AIDS, they usually have tons of other complications. Which is the one that finally kills them? 

Sorry to be so long winded, but in the final analysis, we don't really know why this is happening now, and in this particular way. Nothing has been entirely ruled out (except alien abduction) and nothing in particular seems to be the MAIN THING.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I'm still sticking to my "main thing" from 2008.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=304699&postcount=18

"Hey, you left mine out: "From all the evidence so far, the most effective "treatment" out there is to not be migratory." "

Check out the numbers:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004341374_bee11m.html


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> I'm still sticking to my "main thing" from 2008.


:ws

I would suggest in the most polite -- but at the same time the most strenuous -- way, that to hold on to an assumption is like hanging on to Windows 95.

Bad then, worse now.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Why an assumption? Do you have numbers that prove otherwise? Don't read into what I'm saying. We don't know what the cause is, but if you go by the numbers, I think I'm sitting safely. Even you just said "Moving bees around the country is definitely a factor,"

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=305226&postcount=25


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

This summer, when Jeff Pettis told the conference at Penn State that migratory beekeeping was not an issue, I stood up and said: migratory beekeeping has always been a factor, since it moves stuff around and affects the stationary beekeeper just as much as anyone else. 

He replied that he was referring to the act of moving hives, as not being a serious enough stressor to see the kinds of symptoms we are seeing. This is true, of course, since bees have been trucked for a century now. 

Before that they were moved on trains, crossed oceans in sailing ships, moved on barges up the Nile. So that cannot be the MAIN THING. 

Finally, that's something we can do nothing about. We can't stop migratory beekeeping even if we wanted to, or even if we proved it was the main problem. You can keep your bees in one spot but that won't prevent you from getting the next bug that comes down the pike. Like tropilaelaps, or the invertebrate iridescent virus.



> MSP (Mass spectrometry-based proteomics ) revealed two unreported RNA viruses in North American honey bees, Varroa destructor-1 virus and Kakugo virus, and identified an invertebrate iridescent virus associated with CCD colonies. -- PLoS One 2010


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I agree with everything except the "finally" part. As I said, no one knows the cause of CCD, but we do have data that shows the lion share of infected hives come from migratory beekeepers. Until the cause is known, there is more a possibility that whatever it is comes from some part of the migratory practice, as not.

You mention stationary being affected by migratory in your "finally." Until it can be proven otherwise, data shows you're less likely to get CCD when stationary.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

Of course migratory beekeeping and package bees are the vector for Colony Comingling Disease otherwise known as CCD. 

In fact the Aussie bees are also suspect as the source of a new virus. 

How many from the bayer conspiracy crowd know that Imid had been around in the USA for over a decade before anyone in Bee Land even took notice? 

Look pesticides kill bugs but when used per the label and responsibly they can be safely used around bees. Jeez what do you think the bees which do pollination get exposed to? If all of those bees were dying outright from Ag crop exposure how many beeks would do almonds or pollination? 

My family has grown apples in SE MN and Wisco for almost 100 yrs and kept bees too. We understand farm chems and work around them safely. The neonics are used in our orchards (800 acres) and we have not had any unusual losses. 

Thats not to say that pesticides do not kill bees and that the neonics in different situations (crops, soil and climate, and application practices) do not in isolated instances also cause losses. If you think every application of neonics results in a dead hive I disagree from my 50plus yrs of experience. Pesticides and conventional ag is a fact of life. Get over it and find ways to work around it safely like most successful beekeepers do. 

For those of you with less bee experience, gather round the woodstove and listen closely. 

Varrora is and will be the number killer of bees. They are tricky little buggers and without constant monitoring their populations can get out of hand without the beekeeper noticing. Then the virsuses like deformed wing take hold and the colony is in trouble. Treating too late in the fall and the winter bees are ruined and most likely the colony will not make it til spring. Beekeepers who never take a mite check (sugar or alcohol roll) get easily hoodwinked by the latest EPA wikileaks hurrah or the latest Bayer story when their bees are dead and they don't have a logical explanation other then they are not a very good or informed beekeeper.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> data shows you're less likely to get CCD when stationary.


Sure, but what good is that? Data show I am less likely to get sick if I don't go in to work. After a while of that, they'll find somebody else to do my job. 

Unless you can live in total isolation, you have to deal with the real world. That's where I go every morning. Don't know about the rest of y'all.


----------



## winevines (Apr 7, 2007)

peterloringborst said:


> He replied that he was referring to the act of moving hives, as not being a serious enough stressor to see the kinds of symptoms we are seeing. This is true, of course, since bees have been trucked for a century now. before that they were moved on trains, crossed oceans in sailing ships, moved on barges up the Nile. So that cannot be the MAIN THING. .


I know very little about this, and I have not read this whole thread .... but I always figured it was not the physical moving alone that made migratory bees more suseptable to disease and parasites, CCD, and what not, but it was the moving plus all the other factors involved in migratory beekeeping such as forcing them to work too hard too early in the winter, feeding them monoculture nectar and pollen sources, higher exposure to pesticides and fungacides, etc. Is any of that true?
I have also never understood how it is OK to take bees in winter and move them... doesn't that shake up the hive and the cluster- or if they are all palletted up on a big truck, maybe there is plenty of heat. I did preface this by saying I know very little about migratory operations.... more like nothing at all.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

reply to winevines:

I agree that moving bees that are clustered is probably a disaster. The thing is, these changes have happened gradually. Back in the 1970s almonds were pollinated by California beekeepers, with some Arizona boys joining in. 

Basically, you were taking good bees and moving them into almonds for a few weeks. Unless the weather was really bad, they did OK, maybe gained weight. Over time, the demand grew so beekeepers started coming in from out of state. 

A lot of these bees are in the dark of winter, and bringing them into spring overnight is a bit of a jolt, but actually its beneficial. Like spring break: you go to Florida, you get a sunburn, but you are glad to be out of the ice.

Many keepers began to convert to getting their main income from pollinating. But most still moved into crops and back to natural areas, so bees were not "monocropped" and had a variety of food sources. 

Nowadays, hives are moved by the thousands, instead of hundreds. Moved from state to state, instead of county to county. Pollinate five or six different crops, which are covered with insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. 

All the same, when CCD was labeled, it _appeared_ as if something was different, maybe a new pathogen or (as the French insist) a new insecticide. Nobody was able to nail it, though. We discovered IAPV and nosema ceranae and both were thought for while to _be the cause._

I agree with the concept that migratory beekeeping is harmful to colonies, but I have seen no facts, and Jeff Pettis dismisses it as unlikely to be the real problem. Anyway, it's like driving cars. Everybody knows you are safer walking, but I have to go 15 miles to work every day, can't walk 30 miles.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

I too suspect that the harm to bees in migratory commercial operations is not so much in the physical moving/trucking of the hives, as it might be from forcing them to forage on only one plant at a time- monoculture agriculture where hundreds of acres are dedicated to one single crop only and bees are deposited in the middle of the crop to 'work' it. This surely must be nutritionally limiting to the bees, possibly making them more susceptible to everything that takes a toll on their health- mites, viruses, pesticides, fungi... It would be as though we were forced to eat only carrots for one month, then only lettuce the next month, then only bananas the following month. Wouldn't we eventually become sickly as well on such an unnatural kind of diet?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> Unless you can live in total isolation, you have to deal with the real world. That's where I go every morning. Don't know about the rest of y'all.


The real world for most of us here is where we have our hives sitting right now. I guess you're not open to the possibility that the CCD problem is linked to practices employed by migratory beekeeping.

Time will tell.

Tell us, is your real world migratory beekeeping? I don't think it is. How many of your stationary hives have succumbed to CCD?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Omie said:


> forcing them to forage on only one plant at a time


Honestly, how often is this done? Most beekeepers I know aren't near any crops, and those that are work in areas where there are just as many wild patches as cultivated ones. Bees are "mono-cropped" on pollination contracts, but usually only for a few weeks, then they are moved off to better areas. 

There is no evidence that I have seen that honey bee colonies are nutritionally deprived on a regular basis. It is easy to add highly nutritious supplements, in any case, and commercial beekeepers do this on a regular basis.

This whole mono-cropping thing is a buzz word used by people that don't get out and about much. Give some examples.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> Over time, . . .
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I agree with the concept that migratory beekeeping is harmful to colonies, but I have seen no facts, and Jeff Pettis dismisses it as unlikely to be the real problem. Anyway, it's like driving cars. Everybody knows you are safer walking, but I have to go 15 miles to work every day, can't walk 30 miles.


Just because you have to drive to work doesn't change the fact that it's still safer to walk. I think I'm pointing out the obvious with migratory beekeeping, yet many get uptight saying such a thing.

Facts . . . I'm giving you the obvious facts, numbers. In time, I believe it will prove to be something directly related to managing practices of migratory beekeeping.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> many get uptight. Facts . . . I'm giving you the obvious facts, numbers.


Not uptight here. By the way, where are these numbers? Maybe I missed that.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

You didn't miss them. They're the same numbers you use. Only one set of numbers, unless those making the numbers are keeping two log books.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> Until the cause is known, there is more a possibility that whatever it is comes from some part of the migratory practice, as not. Until it can be proven otherwise, data shows you're less likely to get CCD when stationary.


You see, this is where you lost me. Are you advocating something here? 

Are you suggesting beekeepers not move bees? That's fine, unless you want to go to a different area, to make more honey or pollinate. 

Are you suggesting forget about making more honey or pollinating, stay home? That's fine, except some folks keep bees for a living.

Or, are you suggesting that we somehow put a stop to migratory beekeeping or at least keep them out of our areas. Because, that's not OK with me.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Varrora is and will be the number killer of bees. They are tricky little buggers and without constant monitoring their populations can get out of hand without the beekeeper noticing. Then the virsuses like deformed wing take hold and the colony is in trouble. Treating too late in the fall and the winter bees are ruined and most likely the colony will not make it til spring. Beekeepers who never take a mite check (sugar or alcohol roll) get easily hoodwinked by the latest EPA wikileaks hurrah or the latest Bayer story when their bees are dead and they don't have a logical explanation other then they are not a very good or informed beekeeper


Bottom line, spoke very well.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Gee, why would it be a really bad idea to transport hives back and forth across the US while Honeybees are under assault from invasive pests and pathogens?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007264

They've found evidence of IAPV, ABPV, KBV in a freshwater lake in Maryland.

Maybe some folks don't want their freshwater contaminated by Dicistroviruses?


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Honestly, how often is this done? Most beekeepers I know aren't near any crops, and those that are work in areas where there are just as many wild patches as cultivated ones. Bees are "mono-cropped" on pollination contracts, but usually only for a few weeks, then they are moved off to better areas.


Certainly there is not very much large scale mono-cropping done in NY- we simply don't have the uninterrupted expanses of production acreage one sees in the midwest, California, etc. Like you, most beekeepers I know are located where there is a variety of crops and wild forage available within a few miles of their hives.



> There is no evidence that I have seen that honey bee colonies are nutritionally deprived on a regular basis. It is easy to add highly nutritious supplements, in any case, and commercial beekeepers do this on a regular basis.


If commercial honeybees were not nutritionally deprived, then why are beekeepers spending money on 'highly nutritious supplements, on a regular basis', as you say they are doing? This logic makes little sense to me. Beekeepers are having a tough time these days with bees getting sick and dying- why would they be wasting money on unnecessary nutritional supplements? If they _are_ needed, then it's because there _are_ malnutrition issues in large commercial beekeeping.

We really don't know 'everything' about natural bee nutrition yet- we don't know all the micro ingredients, enzymes, bacteria, that are elements of natural nectar and pollen or present in a healthy bee's gut or in the hive, that each play a part in maintaining bee health. Expecting commercial bee supplements to solve all nutritional gaps seems to me rather like expecting vitamin pills to totally make up for a junk food diet. We do know that bees need _varied_ natural sources of pollen and nectar to maintain optimal health. 
Bees can't live and thrive on corn syrup and commercial pollen patties for long periods of time- _balanced natural nutritional plays a vital role in bee health_. Do you dispute this? If you don't, then we cannot simply dismiss the nutritional influences inherent in different types of beekeeping and bee losses.
Bees might not be dying of malnutrition, but nutritional gaps might well cause bees to become more susceptible to various diseases, pests, and toxins.



> This whole mono-cropping thing is a buzz word used by people that don't get out and about much. Give some examples.


A put-down, usually followed by endless links to someone else's articles and studies. But you know, for every study you cite, there are studies that conclude the opposite... and those you simply dismiss. I've observed that playing a tennis match of 'study citing' goes nowhere except round and round.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> If commercial honeybees were not nutritionally deprived, then why are beekeepers spending money on 'highly nutritious supplements, on a regular basis', as you say they are doing? This logic makes little sense to me. Beekeepers are having a tough time these days with bees getting sick and dying- why would they be wasting money on unnecessary nutritional supplements? If they are needed, then it's because there are malnutrition issues in large commercial beekeeping.


Feeding supplements is usually done to get bees to build up early before there is a steady stream of fresh pollen. Additionally it may stimulate the bees at any time, leading to better colonies. 

Using supplements is not an indication of malnutrition. Just like people tend to supplement their diet with vitamins. Maybe they don't need them at all, or maybe they help them to have a more robust immunity.

You're right, it would make no sense to waste money on unnecessary supplements, but commercial beekeepers are not soft in the head. if they shell out thousands of bucks for this stuff, they must see a benefit.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> A put-down, usually followed by endless links to someone else's articles and studies. But you know, for every study you cite, there are studies that conclude the opposite... and those you simply dismiss.


I entered this thread because I am sick and tired of seeing ridiculous statements get endlessly repeated and go unchallenged. 

This the second time someone has personally criticized me today. The third time I will simply leave the forum. 

I would suggest that we just stick to the facts, and leave personal style out of the discussion altogether. 

PLB


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> I entered this thread because I am sick and tired of seeing ridiculous statements get endlessly repeated and go unchallenged.


Well, when I see a statement such as "This whole mono-cropping thing is a buzz word used by people that don't get out and about much. "- it strikes me as critical, dismissive, patronizing, and yes, as a 'ridiculous statement' as well. For better or worse, mono-crop agriculture effects much more than just beekeeping and bee health, in vastly complex ways. 
I think we need to be mutually respectful of everyone's beliefs and input here- discussion is a two way street, not a lecture. Everyone here is a beekeeper and their ideas should be heard respectfully no matter what their background and experience. I hear insightful ideas daily from BK's of _all_ levels and credentials here. I always assume that I might well be wrong about something, or not know all the facts- but I think this holds true for all of us!
Until the CCD 'mystery' is completely solved, I feel it is a big mistake to dismiss any idea as being ridiculous.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Omie said:


> For better or worse, mono-crop agriculture effects much more than just beekeeping and bee health, in vastly complex ways.


Which crop? How?

PLB


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> if they shell out thousands of bucks for this stuff, they must see a benefit.


Exactly! The point made by Omie. The equation looks like this:

supplements = "healthy" bees
no supplements = unhealthy bees


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

> Exactly! The point made by Omie. The equation looks like this:
> 
> supplements = "healthy" bees
> no supplements = unhealthy bees


I thought pollen substitutes were often fed to encourage earlier brood build up? Not to make sick bees healthy?

Maybe one of the commercial beekeeper could comment on when and why they feed supplements?

Tom


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> Exactly! The point made by Omie. The equation looks like this:
> supplements = "healthy" bees
> no supplements = unhealthy bees


Not what I said, not what I meant. Supplements can be applied to healthy normal colonies to boost production. Supplements can be applied to healthy normal colonies as insurance against bad weather and a shortage of pollen during the crucial brood rearing period. No need to paint it in black and white. Health is a continuum ranging from glorious vigor to being at death's door. Pollen supplements won't help in the dying and they probably are wasted on the tip top colonies. It's there in the middle where you'll see benefit. Especially in the spring when flowers come and go in succession and there is always a chance of an ice storm or blizzard in April (at least here).


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I know what you said, it's the what you meant part that is hard to get at.



> Feeding supplements is usually done to get bees to build up early before there is a steady stream of fresh pollen. Additionally it may stimulate . . .


"usually done" and "may"



> Using supplements is not an indication of malnutrition. . . Maybe they don't need them at all, or maybe they help them to have a more robust immunity.


And yet, it very well could be an indication of malnutrition.



> Maybe they don't need them at all


flies in the face of



> it would make no sense to waste money on unnecessary supplements, but commercial beekeepers are not soft in the head. if they shell out thousands of bucks for this stuff, they must see a benefit.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> You see, this is where you lost me. Are you advocating something here?


I don't think so. Sharing how I see it.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Boy, you really sliced and diced that one. Let's take the example of vitamin pills and supplements. If you are sick, vitamins aren't going to cure you, we know that. 

Healthy people take vitamins. Why, if they are already healthy? The "may" get some benefit from them, that we can agree upon. Obviously, they won't make up for a poor diet, and they won't make a wonder boy out of runt.

But vitamins and food supplements "may" fill in gaps in the weekly food intake, especially in winter when fresh fruits and vegetables are scarce. They "probably" also can enhance the health of a normal individual, boosting the immune system and helping to build a reserve. 

These same principles would apply to pollen supplements. The fact that Mr. Beekeeper is buying pollen supplements is simply NOT an indication that he has some sort of a problem. They probably see clear benefits, but without side by side comparison, it would be hard to prove. 

Most professional beekeepers aren't running field tests any more than most dairy farmers are. They want maximum results, so they do everything they can. I simply don't understand why folks want to BLAME beekeepers when the bees don't do well. Sometimes it's their fault but certainly not usually and definitely not always. 

By the way, the words may, probably, appear to be, etc. are the stock and trade of scientists. Science generally attempts to explain things, knowing full well that a better explanation is right around the corner. It's not that things "may" change; it's for sure they will!

PLB


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Omie said:


> discussion is a two way street, not a lecture.


Hey, I am a professional writer, this is how I write when I am not getting paid for it. You want better writing, 's gonna cost you.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

The link between neonicotinoids (Gaucho, Poncho, etc.) and bee mortality has been studied for more than ten years. 



> Mad-bee-disease?
> 
> Sublethal effects of imidacloprid (Gaucho) on the behaviour of honeybees
> 
> ...


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Hey, I am a professional writer, this is how I write when I am not getting paid for it. You want better writing, 's gonna cost you.


Hey, I get paid for writing too, though usually I get paid for drawing. (what _ever_!) But with all due respect, I'm not talking about writing articles or books, I'm talking about _discussion_. This is a discussion forum, and discussion involves people exchanging views back and forth, an interaction. Discussion is not a lecture nor is it a series of declarations and dismissals.
So, if some members have views about pesticides or EPA actions or CCD that don't coincide with some other members' ideas, they should be able to express those views without them being dismissed as 'ridiculous statements' by anyone- professional writer or professional scientist or professional Grand Poo-bah or whoever else!


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Peter,

I have often wondered if excess pollen substitute actually acts as a diluent more than a source of nutrition. Our hives have fairly high concentrations of different chemistries (as evidenced by the double mass spec study) and a protein diluent may help reduce the toxic levels associated with contaminated pollen alone. I am not suggesting that I believe this, but I can't help but ponder. Also, rapid and consistent brood rearing may help the bees run from viral loads even though it could exacerbate the mite problem. Some viruses in the picornaviridae are quite temperature sensitive and increases in temperature due to artificial stimulation may also slow the growth of some viruses.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

> With increasing concentration in the range indicated above, imidacloprid causes not only a reduction in the foraging activity of the treated bees, but also induces trembling dances by which the foraging bees discourage other worker bees from foraging


'Trembling dances'....quite familiar to anyone who has sprayed bugs with Raid. The trembling 'dances' I've seen are usually followed by inability to walk and then death.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Recent work from Spain fails to show a link between neonics and honey bee die off




> Short communication.
> 
> The detection of Israeli Acute Paralysis virus (IAPV), fipronil and imidacloprid in professional apiaries are not related with massive honey bee colony loss in Spain
> 
> ...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Recent work from Belgium showed no link between corn (maize) treated with neonics and honey bee die offs:




> Since 1999, in Europe, Belgian beekeepers have observed abnormal increases in overwintering mortality in honey bee colonies (Lefebvre and Bruneau 2005, Haubruge et al. 2006). Similar observations have been made in other European and North American countries (Faucon et al. 2002, Otten 2003, Vanengelsdorp et al. 2007).
> 
> Our study does not support the involvement of maize treated with imidacloprid in the observed mortality-related problems that affect honey bees in Belgium. However, nutritive scarcity in the environment must be further studied. The very large number of samples containing acaricides, especially ineffective (tau-fluvalinate) or prohibited (rotenone, bromopropylate) materials, to control V. destructor along with apicultural practices highlighted during beekeeper interviews suggest the inadequacy of the methods used for mite control.
> 
> ...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Study done at the University of Maryland fails to find negative effects due to neonicotinoids on honey bees



> Colony collapse disorder (CCD) has caused much concern among beekeepers nationwide. While the specific causes are still unknown, many believe that honey bees have reached a tipping point wherein the colony can no longer protect itself from multiple stresses. One possible stressor is exposure to pesticides used within the hive as well as those used on plants that bees visit for nectar and pollen.
> 
> Of the potential exposure to pesticides outside the hive, the sublethal effects of the neonicotinoid insecticides on honey bees have been the focus of intensive discussion and research studies in recent years. Many beekeepers and scientists believe that this class of pesticides is a primary stress factor responsible for CCD, although there is no conclusive scientific evidence to directly link neonicotinoids with the disorder.
> 
> ...


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> You can keep your bees in one spot but that won't prevent you from getting the next bug that comes down the pike.


We're not talking about the next bug, this is about CCD.

You still haven't answered my question about your stationery hives. Have you had any loss to CCD? Have any of your friends that keep stationery hives had loss to CCD? If so, what percentage? None of the beekeepers I know that are non-migratory have had CCD.


----------



## Magnum12 (Nov 25, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> Study done at the University of Maryland fails to find negative effects due to neonicotinoids on honey bees


I am sure that you have read this (it appears to be a comprehensive editorial):

"CCD – still anybody’s guess?

So, are we closer to understanding why honey bee colonies are collapsing? The recent consensus isn’t very encouraging. An overview of CCD published in PloS One proclaimed itself to be “the first comprehensive survey of CCD-affected bee populations that suggests CCD involves an interaction between pathogens and other stress factors” (‘Colony Collapse Disorder: A Descriptive Study’, Dennis vanEngelsdorp et al., PloS One vol. 4(8): e6481). They concluded that CCD must be multifactorial and complex since, “Of 61 quantified variables (including adult bee physiology, pathogen loads, and pesticide levels), no single measure emerged as a most-likely cause of CCD. Bees in CCD colonies had higher pathogen loads and were co-infected with a greater number of pathogens than control populations, suggesting either an increased exposure to pathogens or a reduced resistance of bees toward pathogens.”

In other words, we still don’t really know what’s happening but bees are likely to continue disappearing in large numbers and with inevitable consequences for plant pollination."

http://www.lab-times.org/editorial/e_173.html

As noted it seems to be multiple culprits which is why I don't understand how someone can hang their hat on one reason but if it is in fact multiple factors and since we can't request all mites off the premises, since we can't get nosema eliminated why wouldn't it be natural to go after stress factors that we can eliminate? 

While I infer the stationary vs migrating argument, I think that the data might be lacking for all of the stationary hives especially the mom an pop hives as it is impossible to describe/inspect/report all of the failures of those vs the field of collapsed migratory hives. I wonder if the data collected from all of the BK associations (those that put forth the effort) is collected and analyzed? If not, it should be. 

As far as the mites, we made the mistake of treating them like a flea but I never really understood why, just as with your pet, you would use something which is that lethal and endanger the life of your pet. The fact that they adapt and become tolerant has pushed us off of those treatments, thankfully. As I posted, ~53% of mite treated hives (hard and soft chemical) in my local area perished.

The push with miticides, to me, is similar to the fight against pesticides in that we want quick results, often at the expense of others.


----------



## PCM (Sep 18, 2007)

Reading all this certainly proves one thing;

It's going to be a long hard winter for Human's, who have nothing else to do.

:ws

:lookout: PCM


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> We're not talking about the next bug, this is about CCD.
> 
> Have any of your friends that keep stationery hives had loss to CCD? If so, what percentage? None of the beekeepers I know that are non-migratory have had CCD.


My friends with stationary hives have _all_ suffered severe losses. Whether or not to call it CCD, I don't know. Nobody knows what CCD is -- _exactly_

It's a set of symptoms, and I have seen many of these symptoms for ten years, hives crashing down to a few bees and a queen, etc.

Having done inspections for NYS, I wouldn't say that there was a definite difference between migratory and stationary hives. 

Large scale beekeepers often have better bees than small scale, but quite as often they have the worst, due no doubt to having _too many hives to take care of_

So, no, I don't think the stationary vs migratory argument carries much weight. Other than the fact that migratories tend to pick things up and carry them around. We locals get all of their problems soon enough. Nosema, small hive beetle, etc. Did we catch CCD from them? Only _if_ it's contagious.


----------



## Magnum12 (Nov 25, 2010)

PCM said:


> Reading all this certainly proves one thing;
> 
> It's going to be a long hard winter for Human's, who have nothing else to do.
> 
> ...


I had a farmers market last weekend and I am assembling hives as we speak. I checked my hive yesterday and contacted some fellow beekeepers. 
What are you doing?
Merry Christmas


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Magnum12 said:


> I am sure that you have read this


Hi 

I received the link to LAB Times. I think it's ironic that they bemoan the influence of Ag companies over science while stating gleefully:

"The mixture of content, spirit and language apparently works to make both Lab Times and www.labtimes.eu a good read as demonstrated by steadily rising reader counts and click rates"

How much influence does the quest for "reader counts and click rates" have over the reporting of important issues? Quite obviously the dreadful, lurid, catastrophic, dire reports receive _a lot more hits_ than thoughtful, circumspect, tentative, in-depth analysis. Boring.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

It's going to be impossible to pin you down on this I see. 



peterloringborst said:


> My friends with stationary hives have _all_ suffered severe losses. Whether or not to call it CCD, I don't know. Nobody knows what CCD is -- _exactly_


Okay, let's not use this as an excuse. CCD symptoms are fairly well defined now. Certainly all those working on this have this much to show for their data collecting? Using that definition, were those losses in line with CCD?



> Having done inspections for NYS, I wouldn't say that there was a definite difference between migratory and stationary hives.


What are you talking about here? Are you saying, "those hives that were clearly diagnosed with CCD, you saw no difference in percentages between migratory and stationary."?


----------



## Magnum12 (Nov 25, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> Hi
> 
> I received the link to LAB Times. I think it's ironic that they bemoan the influence of Ag companies over science while stating gleefully:
> 
> ...


OK, well one thing for sure, people don't seem to be able to agree on ANYTHING. 

Merry Christmas


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Barry said:


> What are you talking about here? Are you saying, "those hives that were clearly diagnosed with CCD, you saw no difference in percentages between migratory and stationary."?


I never saw " hives that were clearly diagnosed with CCD". Never have.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Magnum12 said:


> OK, well one thing for sure, people don't seem to be able to agree on ANYTHING.
> 
> Merry Christmas


My friend Allen Dick likes to say "If _everybody_ is agreeing, nobody is _thinking_"

Happy Chanukah! :gh:


----------



## PCM (Sep 18, 2007)

Magnum12 said:


> I had a farmers market last weekend and I am assembling hives as we speak. I checked my hive yesterday and contacted some fellow beekeepers.
> What are you doing?
> Merry Christmas


Being 71 years of age, I've cut back to a 80 head cow/calf operation so I'm not doing much any more.

Merry Christmas & Best Wishes

:lookout: PCM


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

peterloringborst said:


> I never saw " hives that were clearly diagnosed with CCD". Never have.


It's no wonder why I usually stay out of these discussions.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

Barry,

A lot of people with science backgrounds don't like to talk in absolutes. I spent 30 years in research and only became more cynical as time marched forward. I could write a book about all the times current dogma was overturned. It almost becomes a game to catch colleagues in the act of taking a stand. Slide presentation are filled with wiggle room so you don't get your head torn off for overselling a point. Likewise, I find myself prefacing almost every conclusion with perhaps and maybe. 
With that said, I plan on taking bees into almonds this year but recognize the potential risk of exposing my bees to a huge bee brothel.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

HVH said:


> ...I plan on taking bees into almonds this year but recognize the potential risk of exposing my bees to a huge bee brothel.


A huge bee brothel...man, that certainly gives flight to one's imagination! :lpf:
Regards,
Steven


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

It's painful when the beast of Man’s unsustainable ways comes a gnawing.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

greengecko said:


> It’s bad when the beast of Man’s unsustainable ways comes a gnawing.


A huge stretch to automatically assume from a quote that states it's not known what's caused the die offs to accuse man's unstustainable ways. I guess some people just don't feel right unless they are feeling guilt. Can you image the guilt some of would have felt when the ice age came and went even though we had nothing to do with it?

I find the signature incredibly ironic.


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

D Coates said:


> I find the signature incredibly ironic.


As do I with yours so I will leave now...


----------



## soupcan (Jan 2, 2005)

We went thru the CCD " thing " a few years back.
Lost over 60% the 1st year & 30+% the next year.
It will tear you apart if you let it!
Bottom line is that we a humans on this earth have I feel " invented " something that has started this entire mess.
As to what it is I am not sure but I am not a tree hugger by any means.
But if we keep adding what ever & when ever we like to our seeds we plant to kill every bug that may or may not be in the soil, I just don't see how that can continue or just plain be any good for everyone involved!!! 
My 2 cents worth plus change.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

If CCD can't be explained why is it assumed that humans created it? And if humans created CCD why did it seem to go away, or at the very least has receded drastically. We've done nothing new and nothing has been outlawed here to my knowledge. I really don't have the answer so I'd like to know the logical thinking here.

On the flipside, can you imagine where we'd be if we could not introduce or create anything new without knowing and testing to ALL potential ramifications? Industry and any advanced economy would cease. We'd still be living in huts and dying in our 30's and watching the majority our children die off from starvation, exposure, and diseases we can't fight because no one wanted to risk their capital by creating testing something for +30 years (product gestational cycle) hoping for a successful product introduction.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

D Coates said:


> And if humans created CCD why did it seem to go away, or at the very least has receded drastically.


Has CCD receded drastically? I haven't heard about that- is this really true?
I thought US bees were still losing an average of 30% of colonies each year.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Omie said:


> Has CCD receded drastically? I haven't heard about that- is this really true?
> I thought US bees were still losing an average of 30% of colonies each year.


You are right:



> The Apiary Inspectors of America (AIA) and USDA-ARS Beltsville Honey Bee Lab conducted a survey to estimate winter colony loses for 2009/2010. Over 22.4% of the country’s estimated 2.46 million colonies were surveyed.
> 
> A total loss of 33.8% of managed honey bee colonies was recorded. This compares to total losses of 29%, 35.8% and 31.8% recorded respectively in the winters of 2008/2009, 2007/2008 and 2006/2007.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

Attention: Bayer Conspiracy Folks, over at BEEL Randy Oliver noted an interesting "fact"

" there are virtually no incident reports of pesticide problems ever filed by beekeepers, which means that from a legal standpoint, the problem doesn't exist" 

wow some folks here are making this chem out to bee the nuclear warhead of bee killing pesticides but not one beekeeper has apparently filed a National Pesticide Information Center's Ecological Pesticide Incident
Report .

here's the link for those interested. 

http://community.lsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-LSOFTDONATIONS.EXE?A2=ind1012&L=BEE-L&D=0&P=312989


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

Hey Bud.

I just want Bayer and the EPA to do what they are supposed too. This whole thread has gone nuclear and off topic. 

Bayer did a poor study and took forever. The EPA seemingly dont care or is incompetent. 

Does this pesticide have anything to do with CCD? Probably not! Does it matter? Does it change the fact that a poor study was done? Should pesticides be given the benefit of any doubt?

We may never know what CCD is or what has causes it. We should do everything we can to protect the bees though. Asking for pesticide regulation is not overboard. Asking to make sure they are safe and proven safe by some realistic studies is not asking to much either. Bayer makes enough money to provide these studies without losing their profit potential to any real degree. To defend Bayer over this particular study seems incompetent to me. All they were asked to do was provide a realistic study, were given ample time, and they took advantage of both.


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

Bud Dingler said:


> Attention: Bayer Conspiracy Folks, over at BEEL Randy Oliver noted an interesting "fact"
> 
> " there are virtually no incident reports of pesticide problems ever filed by beekeepers, which means that from a legal standpoint, the problem doesn't exist"
> 
> ...


Now Bud, let's tell the complete story. Snippet quotes can be misleading. Randy's posting goes on to say:

_>>In the National Pesticide Information Center's Ecological Pesticide Incident Report summary to date THERE IS ONLY ONE SINGLE INCIDENT REPORT THAT NAMES CLOTHIANIDIN as a possible contributor.

>>And guess who filed that report? Yours truly!

>>Some of us just blow hot air. Some of us actually do our homework, file actual reports, and collect actual data.

>>Randy Oliver--sick of this_

Perhaps more should follow Randy's example.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

greengecko said:


> Some of us just blow hot air. Some of us actually do our homework, file actual reports, and collect actual data.
> 
> Perhaps more should follow Randy's example.


Which one? just blow hot air -or- collect actual data.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WI-beek said:


> This whole thread has gone nuclear and off topic..


The topic is " LEAKED EPA allows bee toxic pesticide ? ccd ? "

Is Clothianidin more harmful to bees than a host of other products? Does it have anything to do with CCD? Have we nailed these questions? If we have, we can fold 'er up.


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

peterloringborst said:


> Which one? just blow hot air -or- collect actual data.


:applause:

Ecological Pesticide Incident Reporting Thread

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248729


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

A follow-up to the report that originally started this thread:

Update: Bayer responds to criticism of its potentially bee-killing pesticide


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

The article doesn't include some important information (deliberately, I suggest):



> Clothianidin is the leading seed treatment on corn in the United States and has been used extensively for over six years without incident to honey bees. Innovative seed treatment technology represents an environmentally sound approach to crop protection. Treating the seed provides a targeted and effective means of application that helps increase yields, safeguard our environment and ensure a sustainable means of crop production.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

What is often overlooked is that Bayer has been on the front line of varooa control. Beekeepers avoided millions of dollars of losses by using Bayer mite control products. Admittedly, these products are hard chemicals, and we all are trying to move away from them, but in the real world thousands of beekeepers would have gone bankrupt without the products (Checkmite, Bayvarol). It's a simple issue of supply and demand. Beekeepers wanted to kill mites, Bayer wants to sell products.

Now Bayer is working on an innovative natural mite control product:



> The product is based on the innovative Entostat™ technology, a food grade powder refined from a natural wax which is sustainably harvested from a particular species of palm tree, combined with the miticidal active ingredient thymol. After being spread directly onto the top of the frames, bees start to clean the powder out of the hive. It adheres to their bodies via electrostatic attraction. As they move throughout the hive, the powder is distributed to other bees and onto the framework of the hive, including open brood cells.
> 
> “Bayer is aware of its responsibility as a producer both of crop protection products and of bee health products”, said Dr. Franz-Josef Placke, Head of Development at Bayer CropScience. “Therefore, we are investing in research and development to provide beekeepers with sustainable solutions to improve the health of their bees and beehives.”


----------



## Magnum12 (Nov 25, 2010)

They are working on new mite treatments because there is much money to be made there.

For someone who claims to be "undecided", you certainly a do a lot of Bayer promoting.

Merry Christmas


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Magnum12 said:


> They are working on new mite treatments because there is much money to be made there.


What's wrong with making money? If there is no financial incentive, do you think there will be improvements in mite controling techniques (chemicals, hygenic queens, resistant bees, etc)?. Bayer (as well as my company) is not a social organization, we survive, employ others, and create inovative products because of profits derived from continually innovating our products to meet the customers desires.


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

peterloringborst said:


> The article doesn't include some important information (deliberately, I suggest):
> 
> Quote:
> Clothianidin is the leading seed treatment on corn in the United States and has been used extensively for over six years without incident to honey bees. Innovative seed treatment technology represents an environmentally sound approach to crop protection. Treating the seed provides a targeted and effective means of application that helps increase yields, safeguard our environment and ensure a sustainable means of crop production.


:no: tisk tisk...

Always cite your sources.

"Clothianidin is the leading seed treatment on corn in the United States and has been used extensively for over six years without incident to honey bees. Innovative seed treatment technology represents an environmentally sound approach to crop protection. Treating the seed provides a targeted and effective means of application that helps increase yields, safeguard our environment and ensure a sustainable means of crop production."

Source: Bayer CropScience Responds to Honey Bee Concerns - Bayer CropScience, December 14, 2010


 In the ongoing CCD investigation Bayer throws US beekeeping conditions under the bus:

"Another factor under investigation is stress promoted by the particular conditions of beekeeping in the USA. In the USA, bees are kept on a more or less industrial scale for the pollination of enormous almond, citrus or blueberry plantations. For this purpose, countless thousands of colonies are transported every year from one coast to the other in trucks or by air."

Source: Bee Safety and Colony Collapse Disorder - Bayer CropScience, February 12, 2010


----------



## Magnum12 (Nov 25, 2010)

I don't disagree with your statement entirely. 

My comment was on the inference to :
"Now Bayer is working on an innovative natural mite control product"

Bayer has saved many from a days headache.
Bayer keeps my dads blood thin so they are saving his life.
And so on.

I think that what I have read indicates that when we control the mites, the bees are less likely to. 

As far as putting more chemicals in the hive, I am just a backyard guy so I can do without them. And yes, I do believe that there may be a few humanitarians left who might so some research and experimenting on behalf of the bees without particular monetary rewards.

I think am going to pursue the natural mite treatment that Bayer doesn't offer.

Merry Christmas


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

D Coates said:


> What's wrong with making money? If there is no financial incentive, do you think there will be improvements in mite controling techniques (chemicals, hygenic queens, resistant bees, etc)?.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> products to meet the customers desires.


Except in this case, the product produced to meet one set of customers desires may be having a negative effect on other "customers." Keep in mind that not all beekeepers want to use their products and the concern is that those who do use their products could be negatively impacting those who don't.


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

There's alot of sentiment out there that regulation of Bayer and other pesticide companies may be inefficient from the standpoint of the beneficial operation of free markets. "If we would just get out of the way, then free sellers would innovate and provide the safest and most effective solutions and free buyers would appropriately compensate them for that in a fair price." What's missing in this naive view is something economists call "externalities". The unintended negative effects of a pesticide are not something that enter into a buyer's calculations of what they are willing to pay, and society's costs of dealing with those external effects are not factored into the producer's costs of production. Markets with significant externalities are INNEFFICIENT because they don't count all costs, the product's price is understated by at least the amount of the uncounted (societal) costs, and the product is therefore overallocated (bought and used too much because it is, in effect, subsidized). Externalities represent one of the classic cases where free, unregulated markets are inefficient markets. Without regulation, harmful pesticides would impose massive social costs with no way of dealing with them. Chemical companies SHOULD focus on profitability, not safety, because they can be trusted to focus on profitability, and they cannot be trusted to focus on safety. We must rely upon (and improve the process of) regulation to deal with issues of safety.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Magnum12 said:


> My comment was on the inference to :
> "Now Bayer is working on an innovative natural mite control product"


Interestingly, this product was developed by a small company in England. They sold it to Bayer in part because they couldn't afford to ramp up to sell worldwide. Bayer bought no doubt to win some points with the natural cure beekeepers. Also, to make more money. Funny how people criticize others for wanting to make money! Me, I started out years ago with nothing and I still have most of it left.

Pete


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

*Now Bayer is working on an innovative natural mite control product:
*

One that has been around for a long time though.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248530

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248499


----------



## Magnum12 (Nov 25, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> Now Bayer is working on an innovative natural mite control product:


Next it will be BAYER is working on a chemical treatment to avoid CCD !!

Merry Christmas


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Name one product that doesn't have a negative effect (perceived or otherwise) on other customers. Go so far as look at the "carbon footprint", what was modified or destroyed to create it, what could be the ramifications 50 years down the road (perceived or otherwise). No matter what, someone somewhere will disagree with what your doing. You can't shut everything down everytime some cries wolf. Heck, there are veagans who are completely against beekeeping as cruel yet we keep doing our thing without trying to prove otherwise to them.


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

D Coates: You seem to be suggesting that regulation of pesticides is, in fact, unnecessary. Is that so?


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> What is often overlooked is that Bayer has been on the front line of varooa control. Beekeepers avoided millions of dollars of losses by using Bayer mite control products................Now Bayer is working on an innovative natural mite control product:


....... "Peeple's" claim that crop "pesticides" are not harming the bees and are pushing the blame on the beekeeper. It's the beekeepers fault he used "pesticides" in his hive.


........but after all, who said that those beekeeper "pesticides" were the golden key, the cure, safe, no problems? 

Working on a natural mite control? Is that why MAQS are not registered here yet? Someone else wants the market(That they created)?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

hive tool
clean/natural wax
mouse guard
SBB
hive bodies
frames
bits of your hair (from another thread)

Certainly more than one product can be named.


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

D Coates said:


> Name one product that doesn't have a negative effect (perceived or otherwise) on other customers. Go so far as look at the "carbon footprint", what was modified or destroyed to create it, what could be the ramifications 50 years down the road (perceived or otherwise). No matter what, someone somewhere will disagree with what your doing. You can't shut everything down everytime some cries wolf. Heck, there are veagans who are completely against beekeeping as cruel yet we keep doing our thing without trying to prove otherwise to them.


Yeah, and we had that lucrative non-addictive cough elixir to alleviate bronchitis and whooping cough in both adults and children marketed under the trademark name Heroin. :doh:_that was Bayer too..._

Source: http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/bayerheroin1901.html


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

greengecko said:


> :no: tisk tisk...
> Always cite your sources.
> 
> "Clothianidin is the leading seed treatment on corn in the United States and has been used extensively for over six years without incident to honey bees...blah blah blah..."
> ...


Too funny! I too wondered about the source of that quote, and thought to myself, _Gee, it sounds like some promo Bayer might artfully compose_. And they did! Presented as though it were all indisputable fact, rather than the commercial pseudo-legal weaseling that it really is.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Omie said:


> Too funny! I too wondered about the source of that quote, and thought to myself, _Gee, it sounds like some promo Bayer might artfully compose_. And they did!


Doesn't matter who said it, if it's a true statement. How can it be that who says something determines whether it's true or not?

Nobody here or anywhere has proven any link between clothianidin and bee kills. As Randy Oliver reported, nobody but him has ever even filed a claim.

Furthermore, I have a stack of papers showing that clothianidin doesn't hurt bees when applied correctly. Finally, if you really think that corn hurts bees, move the heck away from corn! 

I don't put my hives on apples, and the folks at the Cornell University Apple Orchard will tell you it's not safe to be on apples except during bloom, when they aren't spraying _because bees are there.
_

If you lie down on the highway, _whose fault is it_ it if you get run over?


----------



## Magnum12 (Nov 25, 2010)

D Coates said:


> Name one product that doesn't have a negative effect (perceived or otherwise) on other customers. Go so far as look at the "carbon footprint", what was modified or destroyed to create it, what could be the ramifications 50 years down the road (perceived or otherwise). No matter what, someone somewhere will disagree with what your doing. You can't shut everything down everytime some cries wolf. Heck, there are veagans who are completely against beekeeping as cruel yet we keep doing our thing without trying to prove otherwise to them.


I get what you are saying. The industrial age really escalated that but the "greater good" isn't just a statement. I guess that is what drives the testing to insure the "greater good" and safety. We don't always have the means or time to investigate everything new in the world today and rely on others to tell us somethings worth or benefit. Probably not a good idea overall. But somewhere along the line I think a company has to assume some public responsibility. I worked for a Fortune 500 company for years and when it came time to mislead the public I became very discouraged and said so. 

My carbon footprint is ridiculous. I work on it frequently.

That still doesn't let Bayer off of the hook as far as I am concerned. 

How about better living through LESS chemistry? At the very least, BETTER chemistry. Isn't that the way the bees are going? Maybe.

I got stung a few times this summer and told the bees "Yea, I probably deserve that!"

Merry Christmas


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

peterloringborst said:


> If you lie down on the highway, _whose fault is it_ it if you get run over?


t: Only because you asked in FOUNTAIN v. THOMPSON (1984) it was the negligence of the driver.

"Therefore, it was proper for the trial court to allow the jury to consider whether Thompson was negligent in failing to discover Fountain in time to avoid killing him. While Fountain may have originally been negligent in falling drunkenly into the highway, such negligence is no bar to recovery where the defendant's negligence in failing to discover the victim's peril and avoid injury to him was greater."

Source: FOUNTAIN v. THOMPSON


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

hive tool
Energy used to dig out the iron, disruption of that respective "eco-system" to create the tools to make these tools, carbon footprint...


clean/natural wax
Some Veagans really dislike keeping of bees as cruel and opressive


mouse guard 
See hive tool


SBB
See mouse guard and trees were killed to make the frame. There's a carbon footprint from harvesting wood and the eco-system disruption


hive bodies
Harvested trees, see SBB, nails, see hive tool


frames
See hive bodies


bits of your hair 
Okay,  now that one's funny and you actually got me.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Doesn't matter who said it, if it's a true statement. How can it be that who says something determines whether it's true or not?



_How can it be?_ It can be very easily when multi millions of dollars of corporate profits are at stake. You can't effectively use a company's marketing claims as proof of 'truthiness' in a thread like this that debates the toxicity of that particular pesticide. Especially when you present them as 'proof' without even noting that the company itself wrote it about its own product. 'Scientific objectivity' ?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Omie said:


> Especially when you present them as 'proof' without even noting that the company itself wrote it about its own product. 'Scientific objectivity' ?


Man, you really got it in for me. What's your problem? The statement is either true, or it isn't. The statement says nobody has ever shown that this stuff kills bees when applied correctly. There is a mountain of evidence to support that, which I located, presented and cited. 

On the other hand, there are folks who keep on saying that you can't trust Bayer, you can't trust EPA. you can't trust anyone over thirty. Give me a break. If you have evidence, bring it on. I am SO tired of hearing:



> Well it seems to me that something has changed which is killing bees and it must be pesticides, because what else could it be? Bayer and the EPA deny it so it_ must be true_.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter:

The Italians banned neonic coated maize seeds when they discovered that the seed coats were pulverizing, dispersing as a dust across fields, and then getting into hives.

The ban resulted in far fewer Honeybee losses.

Why wouldn't you, or anyone else for that matter, consider this to be evidence for a defective and dangerous product?

Are you saying that the use of pneumatic seed planting machines isn't a correct application?

Are you dismissing the Italian findings and ban offhand?

I would consider the pulverized seed coat as something that we should look for here in the U.S. . Honeybees will collect neonic seed coat dust, and bring it back to the hive, the same way here as it occurred in Italy. Electrostatic attraction.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC

So far as I know this whole story is based on one report in the "Bulletin of Insectology". At this summer's Pollinator Conference, the keynote speaker Dr. May Berenbaum presented on bee losses in the media. The culmination of her comprehensive presentation was this report. She pointed out that the "Bulletin of Insectology" was the only publication that would accept this work, having been rejected by peers. It is not even clear that the "Bulletin of Insectology" is anything more than a web site which presents articles unpublished elsewhere. Try visiting their home page: 

http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org

Your statement that bees in Italy improved after the ban is based upon what?


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

WLC,

If it's truly this simple we wouldn't be having this discussion would we? This was banned elsewhere and yet it had no impact on CCD. Who's to be ignored? Until there's a smoking gun that shows a repeatable results I'm not willing to assume Bayer's product is to blame.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Man, you really got it in for me. What's your problem? The statement is either true, or it isn't. The statement says nobody has ever shown that this stuff kills bees when applied correctly.


No, it doesn't say that. The statement (or marketing blurb?) that you quoted, _written by Bayer_ says:


> Clothianidin is the leading seed treatment on corn in the United States and has been used extensively for over six years without incident to honey bees. Innovative seed treatment technology represents an environmentally sound approach to crop protection. Treating the seed provides a targeted and effective means of application that helps increase yields, safeguard our environment and ensure a sustainable means of crop production.


To accept Bayer's statement as all true and that neonic.pesticides 'safeguard our environment' is completely subjective- ask others and you will get completely different answers, and they will cite equally compelling studies that support their views as well. It's a _given_ that Bayer is going to make claims that their pesticide is great and totally safe and harmless to the environment, harmless to other insects and wildlife...and harmless to we humans who eat the resultant produce. 
No reason why Bayer shouldn't brag about how great their products are, but any statements from them _must_ be taken with a huge grain of salt simply because they are completely non-objective and are making _enormous_ profits selling and marketing this product around the world. You say Bayer's statements should not be doubted simply on the basis that they sell the product. I say this makes them obviously biased and non objective, therefore their statements should automatically be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism..._.especially_ when we see how their product was approved for widespread use by skirting around the normal EPA safety protection regulations that are _supposed_ to be adhered to, and were supposedly put in place to protect us consumers and our environment.


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

It is very hard to have confidence in any of these companies or the EPA with the same issues coming up more than a few times over the years.
Seems to me that there are so many products spread around out there that looking at the effects of just one on its own isn't enough. On reading the Bee Culture article by Tom Theobald I noticed this reference on high levels of Atrazine along with Clothianidin. Is there a negative synergistic effect and who is looking into this? From where I sit it just gets more worrisome because of the endless possibilities of what could be going on.



> Further concerns are emerging as a consequence of
> the Indiana bee kill. High levels of atrazine were found
> in the dead bees and pollen along with clothianidin.


http://www.bouldercountybeekeepers.org/articles/PesticideBlowOut.pdf

So what is the difference in bee mortality pre neonics (deadlier pesticides) compared to now with neonics?


Be aware of what you are drinking! Safety limits are, I believe 3ppb but up to 30ppb have been found in the drinking water. This was known but yet because of a lack of legal responsibility the public was not promptly notified. Was it applied as per label?

One of the nations most widely-used herbicides has been found to exceed federal safety limits in drinking water in four states

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iJQvrEOIjU

Interview with Tom Theobald and Henk Tennekes on neonics
Mr. Theobald gives a good explanation of the issue.

http://kgnu.org/cgi-bin/play.m3u?show=HowOnEarth&date=2010-12-21

Sumitomo/Valent sue Syngenta on clothianidin

There's several companies selling this stuff so will always be around. 



> Bayer Cropscience is also involved in the dispute


http://news.agropages.com/News/NewsDetail---323.htm

We live in a changing world, so should the chemical companies with new approval standards. We need to know more so we can protect ourselves and our property.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Omie said:


> To accept Bayer's statement as all true


I don't "accept" the statement. I simply feel it accurately reflect the evidence. I have hundreds of papers on the neonic issue. They kill bees at certain concentrations; it's poison. The question is: does it kill bees when used correctly in the field. Does it? When did it?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter:

Here's the paper in the Bulletin of Insectology that you referred to.

http://www.2as4nature.com/uploads/3/0/8/6/3086450/vol59-2006-099-103greatti.pdf

>Francesco Panella, President of the Italian Association of Beekeepers, says: "On behalf of beegrowers working in a countryside dominated by maize crops, I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture to confirm the great news, for once: thanks to the suspension of the bee-killing seed coating, the hives in the Po Valley are flourishing again." <

You seem to be saying that the Bulletin of Insectology is bogus. Do you think that the Italian Association of Beekeepers is bogus also?

Peter, if we accept Panella's statement alone, the neonic ban worked.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Peter, I can see why you wouldn't like the Bulletin of Insectology.

http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol63-2010-153-160maini.pdf

It's almost as if they wrote the above summary to address some of the issues that you brought up in this thread.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> Peter, if we accept Panella's statement alone, the neonic ban worked.


If we accept anyone's statement alone, we are dumb as posts. Accepting or not accepting is not the issue. I want to see facts, not testimonials.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

So what's really holding up the banning of neonicotinoids? As a beekeeper in the documentary says, "A fifth grader can figure this out."

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/nicotine-bees-population-restored-with-neonicotinoids-ban.php

Excellent. Let's get fifth graders to make policy decisions for us. I graduated from fifth grade in 1961, so I have probably forgotten what I need to know.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

FYI, the Bulletin of Insectology is a publication of the University of Bologna, Italy. 

The University of Bologna is the oldest University in the western world (since 1088).

(You do realize that you just bad mouthed the oldest university in the western world?) :lpf:

I accept Greatti's paper as factual. Pneumatic seed planters pulverizing neonic coated maize is one way neonics go off target. Pretty basic.

Now as to why you wouldn't accept the word of the president of the Italian Beekeepers Association that the ban was effective...

I do understand why you might insist on peer reviewed research. However, after the Bromenshank fiasco, I wouldn't be so insistent.

There is a difference between being 'dumb as a post' and being 'obstinate'. 

Nevertheless, beekeepers now know that they need to be aware of pneumatically planted neonic seed.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Jerry Bromenshank is a friend of mine, and his work is of the highest quality.

I, as the president of the Finger Lakes Beekeepers Club, do not expect anybody to "accept" my word on anything. 

Just because somebody, even Buckminster Fuller, says the "bees are doing better this year" without a shred of data ... But I give up. 

Happy Holidays, y'all!


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

Just a reminder, as it does seem to keep getting lost: The burden of proof is (and should be) on pesticide producers. We don't have to prove it's unsafe; they have to prove it's safe.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

From an interview with Panella:

http://www.youris.com/Environment/B...o_high_all_over_the_world_at_the_same_time.kl

"What were the most significant results of the honeybee collapse monitoring by the Piedmont authorities? 
The residues of neonicotinoid molecules were found in all of the 24 official tests on dead bees, which were carried out by vets employed by the Piedmont authorities. In the Lombardy and Veneto regions, the residues were found in about 50% of the analysed samples."

So I guess that tests carried out by agency veterinarians don't count either.

Sorry Peter, but you're in denial.

Have a good holiday.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

WLC,
This is a common theme on this forum. You are content with anecdotal evidence while many of us are not. There are far to many samplings that corroborate the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis in this case is - colonies will be found dead with CCD symptoms but contain no detectable levels of neonics. 
Neonics are quite toxic to bees and are responsible for the deaths of many colonies but the correlation with so called CCD losses from around the world are poor. Diane Cox-Foster, et al, found a much stronger correlation with IAPV but correlation is not the same as causation. Since then, a combination of Nosema Cerana and multiple picornaviruses seemed even more correlative. And lately, IIV plus Nosema Cerana appears correlative. Until correlations is linked to causation many of us will just wait before drawing any conclusions. 
One thing I am fairly certain of, however, with a global economy comes global exchanges of pests. I will predict that the future of beekeeping will see continued challenges as more new threats enter our country.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

HVH:

I haven't seen evidence (the french findings aside) for a correlation between CCD and neonics either.

The above material refers to neonics and colony losses (not CCD).

If I were to look for a link between neonics and CCD, I would look for evidence of 'off target' effects like the changes in DNA methylation that were found for organophosphates.

Unfortunately, the successul culture of Honeybee cells would be required, and that hasn't happened yet.

By the way, I have taken the trouble to comb through the literature, perform a mutltitude of multiple sequence allignments (bioinformatics discovery), and I have formed my own research hypotheses as to the likely molecular mechanisms behind CCD. Changes in DNA methylation in CCD Honeybees would be a significant find.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

I'm not sure I would trust the outcome of a methylation study on cultured honeybee cells. Even if the cells were available they may not faithfully represent different bee subpopulations effected by neonics. Not that I would trust extrapolation either, but epigenetic studies on the effects of nicotine on other arthropods may be more revealing. If you were determined to run such a study, a hive could be treated with neonics, and eggs dispersed as a monolayer. The resulting adherent cells are fibroblast looking and not very proliferative. It is likely that unknown growth factors are needed to get the ball rolling. Even so, bisulfite treatment of these cells would probably work even though they are not rapidly dividing. But as a side note, I would fully expect epigenetic changes like histone acetylation, CpG methylation, and so on but don't think that would tell you anything other than, at some dose, neonics can affect transcriptional regulation which is already an expected outcome. I can almost guarantee that if colonies were fed syrup their epigenetics would be altered compared to a control group. 
I am not certain that I follow your statement about genomics. Has someone published bisulfite sequencing data on the honeybee? Maybe things have changed, but bisulfite sequencing data used to be very gene specific with researchers normally wanting to see the methylation status of a particular promoter. 
If this raises more of a dialog we should probably PM.


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries (Jun 23, 2009)

HVH said:


> If this raises more of a dialog we should probably PM.


Please don't, I have NO idea what you said in your previous post but it sounded good and I enjoyed reading it  Glad we have guys out there with this much knowledge of genetics and such....i sometimes have a hard time reading a tape measure


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

HVH, here's a nice one:

Lyko F, Foret S, Kucharski R, Wolf S, Falckenhayn C, et al. (2010) The Honey Bee Epigenomes: Differential Methylation of Brain DNA in Queens and Workers. PLoS Biol 8(11): e1000506. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000506


http://www.plosbiology.org/article/....1371/journal.pbio.1000506&representation=PDF

I have'nt found any references with regards to CCD, neonics, and DNA methylation.

I have bench space in a genomics lab. My interest is integrated virus fragments in the Honeybee genome.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

WLC said:


> The residues of neonicotinoid molecules were found in all of the 24 official tests on dead bees, which were carried out by vets employed by the Piedmont authorities.


Sheesh. So that proves neonics killed the bees? What if you did an autopsy on some guy and he had donut residues in him? Proof he died from eating donuts?

Anyway, nobody, no one has any evidence that banning neonics caused an improvement. In France, the word is no. 

Doesn't anyone here understand causal relationships? Very difficult to establish, much easier to just rush to conclusions.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Heh, heh.

Peter:

The Italians have found a product defect in neonic coated seeds, it's been banned for a good two years in Italy, and for the past two years Italian beekeepers have reported no significant colony losses (compared to the previous 10 years).

I'd say that the train has already left the station, arrived at its destination, and is now in the yard.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. 

I expect that the Italians might expand the ban on neonics in the coming years because of the good results. The Greens are very strong there.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

This is from 2010:



> NOTES AND COMMENTS
> Honey bee colony losses in Italy
> Franco Mutinelli et al
> Journal of Apicultural Research 49(1): 119-120 (2010) © IBRA 2010
> ...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> a review of recent incidents involving film-coated
> seed was carried out at the icpbr, meeting
> in bucharest in october 2008. It emerged from
> the deliberations that the causes of these incidents
> ...


Mortalités, effondrements et affaiblissements des colonies d’abeilles
Novembre 2008 – Actualisé avril 2009

Weakening, collapse and mortality of bee colonies
November 2008 – Updated April 2009


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"In spring 2009 a
questionnaire developed within the framework of the “COLOSS” group
(www.coloss.org) was administered in some regions.
When asked, most beekeepers reported V. destructor and
associated diseases as the causative agents of mortality"

Right, the neonic ban had been in effect for a year, and naturally other causes, like varroa, were reported as the major cause of mortality.

http://pub.jki.bund.de/index.php/JKA/article/view/146/131

That's the reference I'm looking at.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> the presence of residues of a.i. used for seed dressing (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin) in almost half of the samples confirms the relationship between spring mortality and the sowing of corn seed dressed with neonicotinoids.
> 
> The fact that half of the analysed samples did not contain residues is not enough to exclude the responsibility of neonicotinoids in hive damages.


If anyone is still listening, I think it is very instructive how WLC and PLB can look at exactly the same reports and see them completely oppositely.

Depends on whether you see the glass as half full or half empty...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

LOL!

I say, 'the ban worked.'

You say, 'what ban?'


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

A few years ago, a Harvard psychologist named Drew Westen studied brains and brain-wave behavior associated with political thoughts, opinions and arguments. In "The Political Brain", he described the not-so-surprising results: people don't engage the rational parts of their brains when involved in political arguments, but emotional parts. Shown identical data, partisans would torture logic to support their pre-ordained positions rather than change their minds. This discussion is no different. Scientific data are being tossed about to bear on what are essentially questions of policy (politics). No one on either side is likely to be persuaded by facts. It's just not our nature. All minds are made up, not to be confused by the facts.


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

The gist of my post was that none of us can claim impartiality in this sort of discussion. I know I can't. I know my biases.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Pilgarlic:

You misunderstand. It's not political. It's a traditional, cultural, form of scholarly discourse.

It's how we both gain new insights (and new references).

It's like a card game.


----------



## Pilgarlic56 (Aug 6, 2010)

WLC: I understand, and familiar with, and am accustomed to scholarly discourse. Fundamental to scholarly discourse is a dispassionate, rigorous search for truth. C'mon... this thread can only pretend to such noble ends.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

WLC said:


> HVH, here's a nice one:
> 
> Lyko F, Foret S, Kucharski R, Wolf S, Falckenhayn C, et al. (2010) The Honey Bee Epigenomes: Differential Methylation of Brain DNA in Queens and Workers. PLoS Biol 8(11): e1000506. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000506
> 
> ...


Interesting. I would not at all be surprised if the spliceosome possessed differential recognition based on CpG methylation. In my humble opinion there will be no end to the rabbit hole. We have come a long way since those in Darwin's era considered the cytoplasm to be an amorphous protoplasm, but like the atom, its constituent parts get ever smaller. The information content is staggering with all explanations left wanting in the balance. 
I still don't think methylation studies would prove helpful unless you had a very specific target gene identified that was linked to neonics. Its like running a DNA array - the data is only as good as the depth of the supporting publications and pathways. There is no doubt in my mind that neonic exposed bees would show some epigenetic changes but like I said so would syrup treated bees. You would have to target a highly characterized pathway strongly linked to neonics and still be in the impossible position of having to rule everything else out (background noise). This is a very difficult task even with highly studied subjects like fruit flies, mouse, man, yeast, E coli and Arabidopsis. Honeybee biology is still in the dark ages with an almost complete lack of cell culture techniques and with very little understanding of their immune or any other system. To make matters even worse, it is possible that a combination of pathogens are at work in the gut and interfering with nutritive uptake. That would be like studying epigenetics of people that get E coli 0157:H7 infections. 
If I had that access, I think looking for IIV fragments from collapsed colonies might be interesting. I don't know much about IIV but any genomic remnants would be interesting. I'm not 100% sure about the IIV connection anyhow because the variability in peptide sequence seems strange. I still need to read the primary source before having any opinion at all but any viral etiology seems like a worthy pursuit.


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

peterloringborst said:


> That's it. Personal attacks have no place in intelligent discussion. Carry on gentleman.


I for one have found your input very valuable and tend to agree with your assessment which I think is an endorsement to wait and see.


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

Nice polite kind of brinkmanship going on here,but bottom line line is these pesticides wipe out bee's, and many other forms of wildlife...by the time most , wake up and realize whats going on here, it will be to late....not scientist,and not an idiot either.

How about a few of you scientific guys, comming down to ground level,and talking to the beekeepers,perhaps us ordinary guy's, who work our bee's every day know more than you lot do.


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

Pilgarlic56 said:


> In "The Political Brain", he described the not-so-surprising results: people don't engage the rational parts of their brains when involved in political arguments, but emotional parts. Shown identical data, partisans would torture logic to support their pre-ordained positions rather than change their minds.


The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory

Thomas Jefferson


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

beekuk said:


> Nice polite kind of brinkmanship going on here,but bottom line line is these pesticides wipe out bee's, and many other forms of wildlife...by the time most , wake up and realize whats going on here, it will be to late....not scientist,and not an idiot either.
> 
> How about a few of you scientific guys, comming down to ground level,and talking to the beekeepers,perhaps us ordinary guy's, who work our bee's every day know more than you lot do.


I don't remember anyone suggesting that neonics don't kill bees. I personally think we as humans are stupid when we release all these toxins into our environment, heck I don't even like filling up landfills with plastic. I would even go further and say that GMO's have some risks but none of this has to do with having empirical evidence to indicate causality regarding neonics/CCD. If you google Koch's postulates I think you would understand the kind of evidence that some of us are awaiting. 
I agree that this is not the right forum for too much technical jargon but a few posts don't really hurt anyone either. You can just skip over the offending text and avoid the apparent condescension. Beesource has a diverse membership with people far more knowledgeable than I will ever be on a host of subjects. I see this as a great place to learn.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

beekuk:

If you followed the neonic ban in Italy story, you would see how an organization of beekeepers got help from scientists and government agencies to institute a successful policy change. That was a genuine grassroots effort.

Now if you are wondering about the DNA methylation references..

if neonics can be shown to cause those kinds of changes, then they would be considered hazardous to humans. That's why organophosphates were replaced by neonics. Organophosphates were shown to cause changes in DNA methylation.

However, there is mounting evidence for off-target effects from neonics. Like killing pollinators.


----------



## lighto (Jul 27, 2010)

Pesticide kills the Immune system ? . There by allowing The Honey Bee To Die From something ELSE ... ? It Takes far less Pesticide to cause the Immune system to fail ? ! There by little trace . WHY?.... Do we use Pesticide's ? Are The Bugs GONE ? "The Goal" HOW does it work with VERY limited trace's ??? 

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/3-10-96/pesticideimmune.html


I'am not a scientist!


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

HVH thank you for help in this,and the link to Koch's postulates,all helps to better understand what the scientists are trying to find. 
Also thank you WLC...for the DNA methylation references part of your post.
And.....*>However, there is mounting evidence for off-target effects from neonics. Like killing pollinators.<*
And from what i read and hear, not only polinators,but any creature living in the soil for up to two years,and remaining viable for up to 19 years,with run off into water courses ect....which is having an effect on the food chain for insect eating birds, and even fish ect.
Slightly different note...have you seen this....links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9312000/9312256.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9306000/9306572.stm


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

WLC said:


> beekuk:
> 
> If you followed the neonic ban in Italy story, you would see how an organization of beekeepers got help from scientists and government agencies to institute a successful policy change. That was a genuine grassroots effort.
> 
> ...


I suppose that if one found gross epigenetic changes above a certain threshold then you might be correct. Any form of hypomethylation or hypermethylation could indicate a problem but it still would not prove causality regarding CCD. I suppose that kind of proof would be moot if you were able to ban neonics outright. On pragmatic grounds, however, we need to be a little more forward thinking and ask ourselves what would be the consequences of banning neonics - what would take their place? 
If your goal is sustainable agriculture don't hold your breath. Asking farmers to not treat is like asking a beekeeper to not treat. There are people on this forum that don't treat (mainly hobby beekeepers that can afford more risks) but they are rolling dice that could be disastrous to someone making a living off a crop. 
I would love to see all these chemicals banned and a return to wormy corn, but at this point in history, we have to try and choose the lesser of two evils. And a lot of people that want sustainable agriculture need to vote with their wallets and purchase local foods that are grown in such a manner as to get your approval. If someone posts on this thread how sick and tired they are of all these chemicals in our environment they would be hypocritical to purchase the cheapest produce they can to save money. If you really want to change the way we do things get involved in the local-grown-movement and convince as many people as you can of your philosophy and get them involved as well. The free market has already had some success with CSA's, Farmer's markets, and locally grown foods in places like Whole Foods. There really does seem to be a shift and the best way to promote it is on the consumption side. Farmers need to have a market for less than perfect produce if they are to wean themselves off all those agrichemicals.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

What would take the place of neonic coated maize seeds?

The Italians addressed that issue by ROTATING CROPS w/ success.

HVH:

IPM practitioners apply treatments only when they are needed.

Planting crops w/ neonic coated seeds raises the question:
'If there is no pest present, why are you using a pesticide treatment as a standard practice? What about non-target species like pollinators?' 

The logic continues: 'So your standard practice is to put native pollinators at risk, regardless of the disease status of your crop?'

Of course, someone will say that farms will fail, the economy will collapse, etc. . However, the Italians have shown that they can do well without neonics. IPM has worked for the Italians.


----------



## humbee (Dec 12, 2010)

This is a corporate country run by money and with diversionary science to help.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00281162


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

What amazes me is that some think that a potently hazardous product should have to be proven hazardous before its taken of the shelf and not proven safe before its put on the shelf. 

The fact is we dont know how safe or unsafe this stuff really is. We dont know how far reaching its effects may be or how long the threats may last after use. But yet some will defend Bayer till blue in the face. People are convicted in court of crimes without absolute proof every day. They are convicted because things add up and we know to a certain degree they did it. If you needed the absolute proof to the degree some argue in bayers defense before a product is removed you will never get them removed because you can almost always argue a possible alternative cause or reason. Corn can be grown without neonics and there is no threat of farmers losing their industry if they dont have it tomorrow. So why should we not require pesticides need to be proven safe by competent long term studies to evaluate the short and long term effects of their use. If there is an epidemic infestation of insects which will wipe out crops if a certain pesticide is not granted use then I can see them being given a pass for use while studies are being completed. No epidemic infestation is present that Im aware of so there is not reason at moment pesticides cant be properly evaluated to insure they are safe for use.


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

Any reason you cant just make corn pollen patties and feed to test colonies to see what the effects are? Would that not prove or dis prove negative effects of bees gathering pollen from corn plant grown from coated seeds? Has this been done?


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

Quoted from http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pollinators/ChronologyofaCoreRequiredStudy.clothianidin-1.pdf

"The issue here is not whether one can attribute one pesticide as the cause of colony collapse disorder (CCD). That claim has not been made by anyone. The critical issue is that we know that this is a highly toxic pesticide to bees and, given the EPA’s inability to identify the cause(s) of CCD, it must not and does not have the legal authority to allow a pesticide to be used without “required” data that enables the agency to answer this critical question relating to the health of honeybees"

Well said I think!

Can anyone tell me who applys the Clothianidin to the seeds before they are planted? Is it applyed by the seed manufacture? Is their any oversight to guarantee it was applied correctly? If not how do we know the "rare application errs" are rare?

From EPA
"Application using hopper-box, slurry-box, or similar seed treatment applications used at planting is prohibited.In addition, the proposed label specifically prohibits on-farm seed treatment, which would likely usethe least efficient equipment and result in higher exposures per lb ai handled"


What does the EPA have to hide?

http://www.celsias.com/article/epa-killing-honey-bees-and-keeping-silent-colony-c/

"Now, with U.S. honeybee deaths climbing to more than 36 percent year-over-year (and some die-offs in Texas exceeding 70 percent), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a U.S. non-profit environmental advocacy group, has filed a suit against the EPA. The suit demands the release of documentation the EPA used to approve Bayer's clothianidin submission five years ago.

In its conditional 2003 approval to Bayer, the EPA asked for additional studies on the effects of clothianidin on the complete life cycle of the honeybee, including peripheral effects on a queen bee's ability to reproduce. No one knows if the studies were actually performed, or if they met EPA - and scientific - standards for completeness and accuracy.

NRDC's first request for this information, filed under the Freedom of Information Act (which requires a response within 20 business days), was ignored. The EPA did, however, issue a self-serving press release which purports to deal with the issue.

NRDC then filed the aforementioned lawsuit (dated Monday, August 18). The EPA, which says it has not seen the lawsuit, has declined to comment on the legal action as well. For its part, the NRDC continues to believe that the EPA does, in fact, have evidence from these studies which would show the connection between neonicotinoid pesticides and honeybee deaths, and charges that the EPA has, willfully or simply negligently, failed to make it public.

"Pesticide restrictions might be at the heart of the solution to this growing crisis, so why hide the information they should be using to make those decisions?" NRDC attorney Aaron Colangelo asks."

Yeah, Yeah, with that title Im sure many wont even give any credit to the article. I dont care who wrote it, what the title is, I am concerned with the facts given in the body of it.

All this said if the EPA is not going to do their job and protect the public then we need to put presure on out own states to require tighter restrictions and regulations on studies before pesticieds gain useage rights and to garantee proper application to seeds.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/

"EPA and the states (usually that state's agriculture office) register or license pesticides for use in the United States. EPA receives its authority to register pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). States are authorized to regulate pesticides under FIFRA and under state pesticide laws. States may place more restrictive requirements on pesticides than EPA. Pesticides must be registered both by EPA and the state before distribution."


----------



## ga.beeman (Mar 29, 2009)

*Pesticide again*

check this out www.animals.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_uncovers_government_bee_killing_conspiracy


----------



## greengecko (Dec 16, 2008)

"Colorado bee-farmer Tom Theobald has a superb 5 minute video up on Youtube - made by a professional film maker in the USA."

Beekeeper Leaks EPA Document - YouTube

Source: http://www.moraybeedinosaurs.co.uk/bee_news.html


----------

