# Japanese campaign against neonicotinoids



## borderbeeman (Dec 16, 2010)

Just discovered that there is a highly co-ordinated campaign in Japan against endocrine-disrupting pesticides and Neonicotinoids

http://www.kokumin-kaigi.org/pdf/Neonicotinoid_e.pdf 

There is a map of Japan in this showing mass-losses of bee colonies and other forms of wildlife, correlated with areas where Neonicotoids were introduced.

It has some of the best graphics representing the ecological interactions and the central nervous system effects that I have seen.

Strongly recommend it.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

borderbeeman said:


> Just discovered that there is a highly co-ordinated campaign in Japan against endocrine-disrupting pesticides and Neonicotinoids...


Yep, they got corn growing in Japan from horzion to horzion. Oh, my bad, I should have said Iowa, where CCD is a non issue


----------



## borderbeeman (Dec 16, 2010)

If you look at the Japanese report, they use neonicotinoids on a vast range of fruit and vegetable crops - everything from rice and maize through to strawberries, apples, zuccini, peppers, tomatoes - as you do in the USA - EVERYTHING. They also note that Nicotinoids are widely used in Japanese forests - aerial spraying of trees etc - and in the home and garden - a very wide range of products.

Worth a look.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

If it's so easily shown then why can't anyone repeat it consistantly? Come on, you can't honestly believe everything you read on the internet.


----------



## borderbeeman (Dec 16, 2010)

> If it's so easily shown then why can't anyone repeat it consistantly?


Would you mind rephrasing your question in full English sentences? I have no idea what you are referring to. What do you mean by 'it'?
I do know what you mean by 'consistantly' - or at least I assume you mean: 'consistently' ?


----------



## PCM (Sep 18, 2007)

borderbeeman,

I notice 14 of your 15 post so far have been about chemicals.
This being a bee forum, let's hear a little about your beekeeping, skills, practices, and actual bee experiences.

Thanks
:lookout: PCM


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

borderbeeman said:


> Would you mind rephrasing your question in full English sentences? I have no idea what you are referring to. What do you mean by 'it'?
> I do know what you mean by 'consistantly' - or at least I assume you mean: 'consistently' ?


Everything is there to constitute a full sentence. Going after my spelling is the a fools errand, you understood the question but chose to try to show how intellectual you are and avoid actually answering the question. 

But I'll resubmit the question again. If neonicotinoids are so easily shown as the cause of all of these mass losses then it should be easily repeatable elsewhere. The problem is these are merely unsubstantiated claims that haven't yet been proven or repeatable. Even Joseph Goebbels knew well enough not to believe his own propaganda.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Can we be more civil in our replies to each other please?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I did take a look at the linked pdf from JEPA.

I found it to be quite informative.

That being said, it is very difficult to show a direct link between neonics and pollinator decline.

However, don't be surprised at the impact that these anti pesticide groups can have on policy.

There seems to be a growing groundswell against the use of neonics worldwide.

How long before the 'provisional licenses' for neonic pesticide use are replaced by a more stringent policy where pesticides have to be proven safe, without any doubts, before they are approved for use?


----------



## borderbeeman (Dec 16, 2010)

No, I chose to ask you to clarify your question because:

a.) your initial question was sarcastic and cycnical
b.) you were using a verbal shorthand that could mean at least two things

If you want to take the piss out of Japanese bee-keepers who are losing hundreds of colonies - just like American beekeepers - that's your prerogative,
but it doesnt show much empathy or compassion.

If you are genuinely interested, read the Japanese report and contact them - all the details and email addresses are there.

I posted the French news, the British news and the Japanese news to convey basic information -which all points to the same thing. Whatever it is that is killing bees by the billion - it's truly global in extent and the solution will have to be global too. All the evidence, IMHO, points to the global use of a revolutionary family of insecticides, 7000 times more toxic than DDT and present in just about every grain, vegetable and fruit crop you can mention , from corn to almonds, from sunflowers to canola, from tomatoes to strawberries. It's the most profitable family of pesticides on the planet - and there is so much money involved, that everybody can be bought, grant-aided, co-opted and schmoozed to just 'go along' with it.

Here in the UK, every university bee-research group is linked in some way or other to the pesticide companies money; our so-called 'regulatory agency' actually has 60% of its salaries and management costs paid for by the pesticide manufacturers (by law) and our own Beekeepers association, the BBKA, has been bribed with cash - almost $400,000 over ten years to actually ENDORSE PESTICIDES as 'friendly to bees'.

So, it couldn't really get much worse; I'm just sharing the news with this little corner of the global beekeeping world - because you have the biggest problem of all, from what I have read. If you aren't interested in this stuff, that's your privilege; I wouldn't *understand* how any beekeeper would not see this as high on the agenda, but there's no accounting for folks.


----------



## borderbeeman (Dec 16, 2010)

> . from PCM:
> This being a bee forum, let's hear a little about your beekeeping, skills, practices, and actual bee experiences.











*Forager with full pollen baskets entering hive*

I am a small scale hobby beekeeper in the Scottish Borders - on the banks of the River Tweed - a great salmon river. I started keeping bees about 15 years ago and I have just ten hives currently - I try and breed all new queens every year, and for the last two years I have had to do that because ALL my queens are getting superseded within a month or two of starting to lay, even when they are laying good brood patterns and all looks good. I keep British blacks (mongrels) as do most beeks aroud here - they cope with the harsh winters better than Italians etc.










*Birth of a Black Queen - just as I moved this cell to a 5 bar nuc.*

The only theory I have is that I am in the middle of a huge arable crops area - lots and lots of oilseed rape (canola) which is laced, wall to wall with Imidacloprid - mixed with fungicides at the same time. I haven't lost a hive for two years now - but there has been little or no honey harvest for three years. All of which is highly abnormal - the previous decade was more or less fine, but nationally - something is seriously 'out of kilter'/ 









*Willow pollen in early Spring*

We have not experienced 'classic' CCD here in the UK (most of us), but losses over the last 4 years for many beeks have varied from 30-80% - a pattern that is completely abnormal- and it isn't just the bad weather. We've lived with the mites for a decade now and most of us manage with IPM treatment - most people are using oxalic acid once a year, some use powdered sugar and a few have moved to formic acid. Relatively few people are using pesticide strips like Bayvarol anymore because the mites are now resistant.









*Last honey harvest - 2007*
I have a beekeeping photo gallery on Flickr here, which I would be pleased if you visit -I get a great deal of pleasure out of trying to record the life-cycle of my bees and the natural world around the apiary' if anyone needs photos for educational use just ask and I will help if I can.

Visit my bee gallery here: *http://www.flickr.com/photos/borderglider/sets/72157594554490434/*

Anyway - that's the news from Lake Woebegon - we all keep soldiering on and enjoying the hobby more than almost anything else.


----------



## emptyenergy (Mar 30, 2010)

Love the Lake Wobegon reference from someone from the UK.


----------



## woodhinge (Dec 29, 2010)

Gentlemen: If, big IF, we can somehow glean the facts about CCD and somehow possibly remove all the conjecture, possibly we might discover a hint of those things or that thing which causes CCD. Just this past year, at the national meeting in Texas, USA, everyone was offering up their persuasive and undeniable CCD cause(s), and yet, to date we have no definitive cause for certain. At the Texas meeting, sunspots were also blamed. I guess green men from Mars will be blamed next. What bothers me so intensely is the fact that both money and "bad science" ideas fog the issue to the point that we are unable to separate one cause from another. You might want to look up the meaning of bad science. 
On this forum, if none of us are actively engaged in CCD research, then of course we feel we must offer information about what others are doing as is related to CCD. BUT, we do ourselves a disfavor by offering information that isn't absolute. What might be better done is for someone to come up with a check list that describes as many variables as possible that we each experience while working our bees. Just possibly, IF this data was collected and correlated, we might better understand that either one or several conditions promote CCD. 
My latest understanding is that there is more CCD prevalent with hives/bees transported for pollination. So, this would be one item to be checked off...
___ Do you transport your bees as a commercial pollinator? So on and so forth. One thing for sure, we don't get anywhere by bashing each other. 
And, thanks to the moderator!


----------



## fafrd (Aug 22, 2009)

Great pics borderbeeman!


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

Everyone who identifies as "green" has a ban or petition or an "opinion" now but what is so crazy about this neonic thing is these chemicals are much safer to humans and the environment. thats not really debatable either amongst the science community but you would never know that if you read enough of the internet chatter on neonic/bees

of course the real issue in the bee world is the systemic nature of the neonic and the concern about the transfer of chemicals to pollen and nectar and potential sublethal affects. 

you can always pick out those posters online who have no clue what they are talking about when they make broad sweeping statements about these terrible Bayer poisons blah blah blah and how they are hurting the environment etc. 

anyone who knows anything about farm chemicals and is concerned about the environment would agree the neonics are really an improvement over the organophosphates that are mostly due for delisting.

so why the fuss over Bayer now? 

some of the old timers here might remember the Alar scare back what in the early 80's. It was some movie star who read something in a magazine when she was in the can at the dentists office and decided Alar was the critical chemical in apples that her children might end up eating a trace of and god knows what would happen next but it was not good. anyhow it was a growth regulator that was used to thin apples. really a benign material and a story that got blown way out of proportion. 

mark my words this will blow over too and nothing will happen because there is a fairly large body of research that shows these chemicals are not very dangerous to pollinators and honeybees. we see the outlier studies or the misrepresented quote or voodoo science, non peer reviewed "paper" that end up being quoted here and on tree hugger like web sites like grist. 

this is also a convenient smoke screen for the migratory bee industry to keep alive and hide behind while they over medicate their bees and while some of them still use Checkmite in their hives, a Bayer product also, while simultaneously blaming Bayer neonics for their crappy bees.....how strange is that eh? 

i tell you its really a strange, strange world when internet chatter on something can become an urban legend like "all the bees are dying" (quote now from government report indicating 36% loss each year) and how extinction is not far away and also the impending collapse of our food systems and big ag etc. 

to some non beekeeper tree huggers its considered a fact that honeybees are doomed and there is a huge shortage of honeybees. its from this cuukoo nest of strangeness that many of these well meaning drives to ban neonics comes from in my view.

like of course the bees are vanishing, its true...it says so all over the world wide web, so of course any chemical thats transferred through a plant must be more bad for the bees then what was being used before neonics.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

> ...of course the real issue in the bee world is the systemic nature of the neonic and the concern about the transfer of chemicals to pollen and nectar and potential sublethal affects.


Correct.

I would also add that the 'off target' effects of neonics are of great concern to many of us.

Furthermore, here in the U.S., there is a great deal of concern about how pesticides ( like neonics) are conditionally approved for use by the EPA and the states before they are fully tested for safety. That's nontrivial.

Bud, it's the Beekeepers of the world who are leading the movement to ban neonics because they are the first to see the harm that's being caused to their bees by this clas of pesticides.

The 'Greens' joined the fight afterwards in answer to the pleas of the beekeepers.

As for the science, to suggest that 'off target' effects for neonics haven't been documented in peer reviewed studies simply isn't true. They have. That's why many countries have banned neonics.

Beekeepers should be concerned about the results of the Alaux et al. study that have shown that in combination, neonics and Nosema reduce colony immunity by reducing glucose oxidase, the Honeybee's natural antiseptic (this combines with glucose to produce an acid and hydrogen peroxide).

Let's not forget that microsporidians. like Nosema, commonly afflict other pollinators as well (so, how does this affect them?).

In conclusion, there's good reason for all of the attention being brought to the neonic issue.

Let the sun shine in.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

I think the key word here is "PROFIT". You bet there won't be any easily repeatable findings as long as there are HUGE PROFITS involved. When chemical giants like Bayer keep throwing money at lobbyists, politicians and fund the "research" being done by universities to prove their chemicals are safe...what do you think the outcome is going to be....feet dragging, cover ups and excuses is all your going to get. Nobody from the lobbyists to the researchers wants the free money to go away. We aren't talking about a few pesos here, we're talking about millions Bayer spends to put a happy face on neonics.

I applaud other countries who have the "cahonies" to ban the use of neonics until they take a closer look at Bayer funded research and wisely do some independent studies. Make no mistake....Bayer, Monsanto and other chemical giants aren't in business to keep the environment healthy. They are in business to make as much money as they can and they are going to keep the neonic money train rolling as long as they can until the public shuts them down.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

I don't like the idea of leaving the fox in charge of guarding the henhose and taking the fox's word all the hens are safe and accounted for.

I remember the Alar issue. It was Meryl Streep I think who did the commercials that raised everyone's awareness. The public is generally uninformed and has no idea what goes on behind the scenes until efforts are made to get their attention. I also believe Alar was used as a growth regulator in aplles and other produce. I believe after the Alar issue came to light, it was brought out Alar was one of the ingredients used in making rocket fuel. I don't know about you, but I prefer my apples without Alar.

The problem with the whole system of approving chemicals is this. It's too heavily influenced by money and not what's safe or unsafe for the environment.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

WLC said:


> As for the science, to suggest that 'off target' effects for neonics haven't been documented in peer reviewed studies simply isn't true. They have.


Can you list any field studies that show this?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I posted a link on yet another neonic thread a while back referring to an Italian study. It showed how seed drills could pulverize the neonic coat on maize seeds. It was out of the University of Bologna.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Thats a misapplication problem rather than a problem with the normal use. There have been several incidents like that including the well documented one in Germany in 2008 and several in Canada as well.
Incidents like that happen with all pesticides and the answer is regulation and big penalties for the perpetrators.

What I am referring to are field studies which show that neonicotinoids cause problems for bees under normal use.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

http://aziendagraria.uniud.it/pubblicazioni/testi/vol59-2006-099-103greatti.pdf

I would characterize that as a 'product defect' rather than a misapplication issue.

Don't you have access to google scholar?

Look up "neonicotinoid guttation" for starters.

http://www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/documents/Girolami.pdf


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

Said I wasn't going to do it, (post on this issue again) so forgive me for being wrong or a liar.
What I would like to clarify for my interest is all of the defenders of Neoniconitoids on all the relevant threads that have been on beesource. What is your diagnoses of what is causing CCD. Don't tell me Nosema, Verroa, Tracheal or other enemys, because there are always dead bees in the hives when they abscond from these things. How do you explain the lack of dead bees with CCD? Witchcraft, magic or other voodoo. Which is what you are practicing with your defense of pesticides, in my well read opinion.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

> Don't you have access to google scholar?
> 
> Look up "neonicotinoid guttation" for starters.
> 
> http://www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/documents/Girolami.pdf


I do know how to use google scholar but that's a lab study. (caged bees)
It's field studies I am interested in.

According to Randy Oliver there aren't any which show negative effects of neonics. He's trying to get funding for one.



valleyman said:


> Which is what you are practicing with your defense of pesticides, in my well read opinion.


I'm not defending anything - just calling for the evidence to be put on the table.
The fact that CCD is still a mystery does not mean that it is caused by neonicotinoids.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Jonathan:

The study shows that upon ingestion of a neonic containing guttation drop, harvested from the field, the bees wings were blocked within a span of 2 to 10 minutes.

Basically, the bee is dead within minutes.

I think that Randy's idea about having a 'field trial' has one serious design flaw.

The bees will have dropped like stones while still out in the field!

They aren't going to make it back to the hive.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I for one don't believe that CCD is caused by neonics. My hypothesis is that it's caused by the suppression of RNAi in bees by pathogens.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

Look no one disputes that pesticides kill insects. On the other hand we're not going to feed the world with a rototiller, 2 acres and a bong. 

Pesticides are a fact of life and the facts are the neonics are a vast improvement over surface organophosphates. 

Most neonics in there raw form are clearly labeled as being deadly to honeybees. Once applied though they are much safer to pollinators and bees. Their advantage is they don't need to be frequently reapplied and they target problem insects precisely instead of killing everything that comes in contact with a crop. 

What we mostly have here on Beesource is well intentioned but uninformed rants about pesticides and corporations. 

Guttation and lab studies with caged bees are interesting curiousities but have generally not scaled in field studies. Hello like how many of us have bees near corn or other crops? My family is a 3rd generation apple grower and we use neonics all the time in our orchards. I have not had any mysterious losses of bees on a regular basis. 

When you talk to beekeepers who have problems that are blaming Bayer with no data or evidence you usually find out they 

a. have no mite load or nosema spore count data
b. admit to using mite treatments 2-4 times a year
c admit to using off label mite treatments. 
d admit their bees looked like crap before they crashed
e. admit to feeding tylan in syrup which is btw illegal
f. or admit they might be running too many colonies and did not get the critical work done. 

Its a lot easier to blame an external "mystery" then admit you're not much of a beekeeper. 

Chemicals like Alar when safely applied offer no more risk then getting a good wiff of gasoline when you fill your tank. Its all about the dosage. TO say its an ingredient in rocket fuel is meaningless. Like many of the molecules found in pesticides are also found in the environment too. 

Growth regulators used for thinning are applied in the ppm concentrations. We put a tablespoon into a 50 gallon tank for apple thinning for example. The fruit is quite small at that time and the likelihood of there being any unsafe or even detectable residues in the fruit 3 months later is nill. In fact the EPA max residue on growth regulators is meaningless as its never an issue. 

Most of the posters here that ramble on about pesticides obviously are not growing crops for their livelihood. Pesticides are safe when used properly. 

The bee world would bee better served to clean up our own misuse of antibiotics and harsh miticides. What is so hypocritical of our industry is how American Bee Federation (ABF) rags about Bayer but yet has never gone on record about the common illegal use of home cure varroa mite treatments. 

They have not gone on record either to stop the use of Checkmite. In Bayers eyes its a joke folks! Most often when Bayer has been involved in experiments looking at residues in hives and hive products they keep finding very high levels of miticides and no or few neonics. Thats a fact you can take to the bank, not some rambling misrepresentation. 

The problems in our hypocritical industry run deeper then that. Most of the foundation is contaminated with Apistan or Checkmite sold by the very supply houses and in return who redistribute these chemicals. Is that about profits or what ?

For all of the chest pounding here lately about Bayer blah blah blah, if you truly give a rip about bees why not start a petition to force Dadant and Mann Lake to stop selling Checkmite? and Apistan? IF you ever looked at the data, not some tree hugging blog full of nonsense the reality is beekeeper applied chemicals are found at levels 1000 to 10,000 times higher concentrations then ag trace residues brought in by the bees. This of course makes sense since a high load of pesticides would likely kill a bee before it was able to fly back to the mother ship and contaminate the hive and purposefully applied chems dumped into a hive at high concentrations certainly have no where to go but into the wax and pollen etc. Duh....

But thats not very fashionable to condemn the bee industry - its a lot more fun and cool to rag about the evil corporations who distribute poision and we can't trust anything they say blah blah blah blah. 

We need to admit that the real serious enemy to the honeybee is the well intentioned beekeeper!


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Bud Dingler said:


> if you truly give a rip about bees why not start a petition to force Dadant and Mann Lake to stop selling Checkmite? and Apistan? IF you ever looked at the data, [snip] the reality is beekeeper applied chemicals are found at levels 1000 to 10,000 times higher concentrations then ag trace residues brought in by the bees.


Bud, :applause:

While I don't want to squelch any input people give on bee problems, the elephant in the room is just as Bud says, chemicals that we beekeepers put in the hive ourselves. Keith Delaplane spoke at a meeting where he said 1/3rd of the CCD problem is directly related to mites and the treatments used to deal with them. I still can't believe Checkmite is still being sold.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

> Guttation and lab studies with caged bees are interesting curiousities but have generally not scaled in field studies. Hello like how many of us have bees near corn or other crops? My family is a 3rd generation apple grower and we use neonics all the time in our orchards. I have not had any mysterious losses of bees on a regular basis.


Didn't I just say that field trials testing the effects of guttation drops, from neonic treated MAIZE, kills bees within minutes? 

Therefore, designing a field trial is pointless since the bees never make it back to the hive (there's no way to determine their origin).



> I have not had any mysterious losses of bees on a regular basis.


I believe the maize is weeks old when guttation occurs. It's a matter of timing Bud. It depends on when the maize is sown vs when other sources of nutrients become available.

:lookout:


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

WLC said:


> Jonathan:
> 
> The study shows that upon ingestion of a neonic containing guttation drop, harvested from the field, the bees wings were blocked within a span of 2 to 10 minutes.
> 
> They aren't going to make it back to the hive.


No. the study shows that if you feed poison to a bee which has no other food source under lab conditions, the poison will kill the bee. The study did not show or attempt to show that bees drink guttation water and die in the field.
It showed that insecticide is poisonous to insects but I thought we all knew that anyway.
In my opinion these studies prove next to nothing.



WLC said:


> I believe the maize is weeks old when guttation occurs.
> :lookout:


In my experience guttation drops are usually seen on very young plants with just one or two leaves such as the ones you can see on you tube to illustrate the guttation water experiments.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

> When bees
> consume guttation drops, collected from plants grown from neonicotinoid-coated seeds, they encounter
> death within few minutes.


That IS the point. The guttation drops ARE poison.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

So lets ban petrol / gasoline.
That's a poison.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Now you understand why field trials would most likely be scientifically invalid, and caged bee trials are necessary.

You have to ascertain the origin of both the bees AND the treatment.

Otherwise your hypothesis test will have a significant chance of making a type 1 or type 2 error (false positives and false negatives).

Forget about field tests.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

> On the other hand we're not going to feed the world with a rototiller, 2 acres and a bong.


How incredibly disrespectful and rude.

For what it's worth, in terms of "feeding the world". We are over producing as it is. There are to this day crops that sit rotting, being destroyed by mice and other pests that never get sold to all those "people in the world" that get talked about.

To this day, the government subsidizes farmers to NOT grow certain crops or only grow limited amounts as too many are being grown or they are trying to affect market prices.

Not every small farmer has a "bong". My grandfather was a small farmer, not some corporate mega-farm and he sold fresh vegetables, corn, pumpkins etc... at farmers markets and grocery stores all across the area. He spent his entire life feeding plenty of people right here without "big farm" practices and money, just like his dad before him.

He also wasn't afraid of a lot physical labor. I spent many summers helping in the fields just like the rest of my family using farming practices that are endorsed by the state department of agriculture to this very day as part of "modern" integrated pest management plans.

Methods that a great many corporate and "big" farms will not use so they can maximize their own profit and cut expenses at the risk of their own customers health.

I pretty much quit posting in these forums due to the utter rudeness and attitudes like this that make such sweeping generalizations and looking down at 'small' farmers or beeks.

One thing about the so called "lack" of evidence referring to neonics and bee population decline is that while you love to say that there is no evidence to prove neonics cause harm, there is still no solid evidence to be so assuming they don't.

The fact is there needs to be more independent research which it seems is being actively hampered by the companies like Bayer and others who don't want reports outside of their control or influence to possible give credibility one way or the other to the discussion of neonics effect on bee mortality.

It's one thing to discuss the issue but there are certain folks here who take it way too far to the level of who can shout the others down and who can be the most rude.

Sorry Barry, I'll go back to my corner now.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Please don't!


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

bigbearomaha said:


> One thing about the so called "lack" of evidence referring to neonics and bee population decline is that while you love to say that there is no evidence to prove neonics cause harm, there is still no solid evidence to be so assuming they don't.


But hat's exactly it. Here you are innocent until proven guilty. Too many are expecting "Big Ag" to prove they are innocent. There has been no scientifically accepted proof of them being responsible for any "crime" here. Get enough scientific (ie repeatable) evidence to what's happening and what's responsible and who makes it and you'll get some traction. Until this occurs it looks like hysterical environmentalism screaming about how the sky is falling.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

There is plenty of scientifically valid evidence showing that neonics not only go off target, but also harm pollinators.

The evidence shows specifically that neonics kill livestock.
AKA-Honeybees.

'Denial' isn't just a river in Egypt. It's a state of mind.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

> Here you are innocent until proven guilty


But, this is not a person we're talknig about is it? no, this is a product. laws for proving some"thing" is in the wrong are different for proving a person is wrong.

As a matter of fact, from what the EPA registration rules say, for a chemical to e allowed, it must be shown first, that it is not harmful to persons, animals, birds, beneficial pollinators, etc..

That's the whole purpose of the registration process. We don't wait until after the the product is on the shelves for the company producing it to be shown non harmful.

in the case of clothianidin, and in recent other pesticide filings with the EPA that have been discussed in this forum, the EPA has been shown to not conduct that process appropriately by allowing those products to get through the system without having the said proof upfront.

that's the whole hubub of the clothianidin issue is that the EPA let it through on shady paperwork and will not remove it after the fact.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

That may be so, but can it be proven to be directly responsible for the die offs that are being claimed? If it was we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

can it be proven in certainty that they aren't? no. there seems to be at least enough information to warrant further investigation instead of dismissing it offhand.

Why are people so eager to shut down discussion of further investigation. As I mentioned, the whole purpose of EPA registration is to make sure things are safe before introduction to the public. "eh, might be fine" usually doesn't cut it.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Let's see what I have on this thread:

http://aziendagraria.uniud.it/pubbli...103greatti.pdf

http://www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/documents/Girolami.pdf

http://www.prodinra.inra.fr/prodinra/pinra/data/2010/07/PROD2010b2d84f1e_20100727031949794.pdf

The first one is about how seed drills pulverize the neonic seed coat on maize, and the dust can blow across fields (off target effect).

The second one shows that guttation drops from neonic treated corn kills bees within minutes (another off target effect).

The third one shows that neonics, even at sublethal/undetectable doses, increases the pathogenicity of Nosema (potentiation effect) while suppresing glucose oxidase/colony immunity (immune suppression).

So, neonics can kill during planting, during the first few weeks of growth, can 'potentiate' a known honeybee pathogen afterwards, and then suppress colony immunity.

So, it's obvious that neonics can not only go off target and kill directly, but even at undetectable levels, they can cause Nosema to become more deadly.

Have I left anything out?

Off target effects, pathogen potentiation, and immune suppression.

I'd say that neonics have a few problems.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

woodhinge said:


> ... My latest understanding is that there is more CCD ...with hives/bees transported for pollination...





Barry said:


> ... 1/3rd of the CCD problem is directly related to mites and the treatments used to deal with them...


If I understand the problem, bees fed on during the pupa stage by varroa mites, emerge from the cell with deformed wings. These bees then try to leave the hive to begin the final chapter in their life cycle, field foraging, but when they leap off the landing board, they find they cannot fly and thus are unable to orient themselves to their hive's location. Does this sound right to you? If so, read on.

Thus, these deformed wing bees are only able to crawl aimlessly around on the ground where they soon become hopelessly lost or else easy meals for every frog, field mouse, finch and fire ant that happens along. Faced with a dwindling population, the queen and a few of her remaining court may abscond, leaving behind a hive full of stores, this could be why (it seems to me) there are so many "small" or poorly timed swarms reported now. 

BTW, isn't absconding how Africanized bees or AHBs evolved to deal with Small Hive Beetles? If the bees time it right this strategy will work on varroa mites as well visa via a break in brood rearing. 

Oh well, with as little as I know about bees, these symptoms may go unnoticed and thus unreported in large aperies where (it also seems to me) most cases of CCD are reported and where hives may go for months on end without human intervention. Until oneday somebody signes a pollination contract and then notices his bees are gone :doh:

Beekeepers being humans, and humans being... well human, few of are willing to fess up to our own failures and mistakes, we would rather look anywhere besides in the mirror to find the guilty them, when the guilty them is staring back at us from the looking glass. Besides we have paid for our bees and equipment once, it may behoove us to try to force an innocent third party or an evil neonicotiniods manufacturer to pay for them a second, third or fourth time. :ws


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Please bud ...saying neonnics is an improvement over organpho...is like saying drinking 12 beers and driving is am improvement over drinking 24 and driving...yes its an improvement but still not good! By the way I talked to Mr. Hackenberg....you were right when study ended not alot of differance in survival rate of control colonies vs nictiniod colonies....until NOv when all nictinoid colonies died....he said byaer realize something was happening and pulled plug....ended study...My money is on Mr Hackenberg....bayer stands to loose too much if they dont sell these chemicals. I also agree 100 percent with Barry....checkmite should have been pulled long ago! I personally know a beekeeper who has lost many colonies who for the past 10 years hasnt used any off label chemicals or checkmite or apistan...he uses formic and thymol. Sells nucs so all comb less than 5 yrs old...still lost 2/3 two years ago....all in NOv> His bees are for honey production but in area heavily farmed for vegs andheavy pesticide usage....some day down the road Bud will eat crow is my prediction!


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

suttonbeeman

Can you give more info on this study you speak of with reference to hackenburg?

Can anyone post a study that proves neonics or specific neonics are safe? And I mean one where the bees actually worked the plant and not an acre in the middle of a thousand. A short study proves nothing. The long term effects need to be evaluated. If bees lives are shortened two days you wont notice. But what if queens feed from the contaminated pollen fail sooner? Why not take pollen from several different neonic plants and then from several same but non neonic plants and feed to colonies over a year or two period and evaluate the differences in the colonies. If this or something similar has been done I would like to know about it. If not, I would like to know why not.

To me it seems strange that if these neonics are so safe that Bayer or the like does not just conduct real competent long term studies that would get everyone off their back. It would be a good business decision and benefit their image and in the end boost profits. Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me they are dodging the ball and that makes my suspicious.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Here's a Master's Thesis from the Evergreen State College:

http://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession86-10MES/burlew_daMES2010.pdf

"The Effects of Pesticide-Contaminated Pollen on Larval
Development of the Honey Bee, Apis mellifera"

You might want to follow the references trail.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Scrapfe said:


> Does this sound right to you?


It may sound right in and of itself, but you totally missed the part about the chemicals used to treat for mites.


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

Barry,
I couldn't agree with you more. in my last post #23 at the end I purposely stated pesticides, and not just neonictinoids. I think that it goes against any common sense to put any kind of pesticide, whether it be gathered by the bees inadvertently, or installed by the beekeeper himself. These threads on neonicatinoids only show that the research or studys can be flawed. 
I will state once again that I believe that CCD is often times reported as such when the actual death of the hives were from Varroa, or other parisites, or nosema, or just bad beekeeping. I believe in these cases that upon careful examination there going to be more dead bees found, (and yes scrapfe lots with dwv) than with cases where they are dying from pesticides. And I believe the majority of the CCD deaths are from neonicatinoids.
As I have stated just because your hives are in an area where corn or other poisoned crops are growing doesn't mean that they are going to gather pollen or dew from these poisoned plants. If they have other more desirable sources available to them they are not likely to be killed off by the poisons, and yes it is poison to them and I predict in the future we will find that we humans, because of our greed, and refusal to accept the hand writing on the wall as some on here are doing, will understand that the poisons, and especially neonicatinoids are the cause of a lot of our health problems.
As I have also stated I will not use any treatments in my few hives for pest. I will treat nosema, and put traps for SHB.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

well said valleyman! The study involving Mr. hackenberg is on another threat on here.... one thing I've noticed is our bees arent living as long...thats why I think our colony population drops off so much in fall, while I made a nice crop on orange last year and clover in ky I dont think the hives reached the population that they did 20 yrs ago. I believe with the clover bloom I had in Ky I should have had a 250 lb ave like I did in 1982. I have talked to many beekeepers who agree with me. You just dont see that many old bees with frayed wings and my colonies are very gentle even on bad bee working days...no as many old grumpy bees. Most of bees in hives come early winter are young... and yes valley man I believe we may be shortening our life span eating all the contaminated food we eat.....god knows what is in it...especially from china!


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

suttonbeeman said:


> You just dont see that many old bees with frayed wings and my colonies are very gentle even on bad bee working days...no as many old grumpy bees.


excellent, its one of those things that I have noticed, but the light bulb never came on to realize why. thanks


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Here is a field guide from a German enviromental group. 
http://www.oisat.org/downloads/field_guide_corn.pdf

I wish to enter into evidence this field guide for “chemical” free corn production issued by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) of Hamburg, Germany. This is part of PAN’s prolog or mis...u/Crop_Information/World_Wheat_Production.htm

I also wish to point out that the above web sight’s opening graphic shows the kind of existence or life style the anti chemical cabal has in their mind for you, it isn’t a kind and gentle life either but do take the time to look. What are you willing to bet that the man pictured planting corn in this graphic IS NOT planting Poncho treated corn? I wish you all well in this brave new world you have chose for yourselves and your children to live in. But what ever you do, don’t blame me, I repeatedly tried to warn you and tried to show you what was lurking just around the corner, but you seem determined to turn and go down that dead end street on your own. Good luck. Now please pass the Southern Fried Chicken, and hand me that platter of corn on the cob there will you? Anybody seen my TV remote?

:doh: Oh, please excuse me, I almost forgot. On page #40 of PAN’s field guide to a chemical free enviroment is a list of corn pest control products (other than chemical pesticides) recomended by PAN for use on corn. These "non" chemical pesticides range from spraying corn with home rolled pyrethrum, a bee deadly "NON-CHEMICAL" chemical pesticide extracted from marrygolds and mums by steeping mum and merrygold flowers in the deadly solvent alcohol, to PAN's recomendation to use lemongrass extract and sticky boards to control corn pests. Say, isn't that some of the same advise you hear now-a-days for controling mites in your bee hives? Tell me everyone, how’s that advise working for YOU?


----------

