# Petition: Direct the EPA to ban the use of Neonicotinoid pesticides



## SRBrooks

I tried to, but the site gave me nothing but trouble while attempting to sign in. Is anyone else having the same problem?


----------



## deknow

...are we to assume that if they ban these chemicals that less harmful ones will be used? Anyone want to explain what those are and why they are going to be less harmful?

deknow


----------



## jonathan

Andrey Limonchenko said:


> Numerous recent studies link the CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) of honeybees to the use of certain Neonicotinoid pesticides (e.g. imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam).


Which studies?


----------



## wildbranch2007

don't buy the products these chemicals are used on, that will get far more attention than your signature on a petition.


----------



## hpm08161947

Corn... Soybeans... beef... chicken... pork...(The last 3 are all fed Nico Feed) it is gonna be tough to eliminate from our diet....


----------



## hpm08161947

deknow said:


> ...are we to assume that if they ban these chemicals that less harmful ones will be used? Anyone want to explain what those are and why they are going to be less harmful?
> 
> deknow


Ahh.. now there is the fly in the ointment...


----------



## wildbranch2007

hpm08161947 said:


> Corn... Soybeans... beef... chicken... pork...(The last 3 are all fed Nico Feed) it is gonna be tough to eliminate from our diet....


didn't say it was going to be easy.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

I'd love to hear from those who produce commercial quantities of honey - I'm starting to believe that if you want to know with certainty that your bees are safe from pesticides, herbicides, etc., that you need to control (own) the land the bees forage on, or take your chances. This would certainly increase the expense of producing honey and I've no idea if the market would support higher prices for domestically produced honey. Thoughts?

Maybe a better way of phrasing my question is to what extent do land owners who are not beekeepers themselves have a responsibility to manage their land in ways that allow bees access to safe and nutritious forage? I imagine (meaning speculate) that unless the beekeeper is providing reasonable compensation to the landowner, no obligation to provide safe & good habitat exists.

The conversation starts to get interesting when each party gets some benefit - pollination by the farmer/land owner and honey for the beekeeper.


----------



## Seymore

HTML:




Says on website only 9 people have signed this - amazing!

NEEDED: 99,990 now still needed.


----------



## gmcharlie

Well understand the story, but personally I wouldn't sign...at least not yet. no real data, and living in the middle of the soup, I know what a benifit they have been to our agg community and food supplies. As a beekeeper, if we had some real evidence, I would be on board.. but at the moment its like the fracking issue... lots of noise....


----------



## Andrey Limonchenko

gmcharlie said:


> Well understand the story, but personally I wouldn't sign...at least not yet. no real data, and living in the middle of the soup, I know what a benifit they have been to our agg community and food supplies. As a beekeeper, if we had some real evidence, I would be on board.. but at the moment its like the fracking issue... lots of noise....


I suppose that's why there's only few people that signed so far. You don't believe in your voice or are afraid of alternatives like "deknow". 
The petition only allowed 800 characters and all of them were used up. If you say that there is no real data than you're missing out. Take for example EPA's own website since you trust them so much:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/ccd-european-ban.html
Each of those countries didn't just use the wind direction in guiding them on banning at least some form of neonicatinoids. and they have done it in 2008! this is 2013!

The point of the petition is to raise the awareness about the issue and nothing will ever be done regarding this unless we raise our voice.


----------



## camero7

You still haven't answered the question, "what will replace it." I hope you're not hoping to go back to the organophosphates. Did you ever hear of DDT?


----------



## Andrey Limonchenko

camero7 said:


> You still haven't answered the question, "what will replace it." I hope you're not hoping to go back to the organophosphates. Did you ever hear of DDT?


 Imidacloprid is 7297x more toxic to honeybees than DDT (acute toxicity). However, acute toxicity is not the main problem. Imidacloprid is highly persistent (160 days halflife time in water, 2 years in soil)


----------



## camero7

And neonics killed all those eagles and Ospreys too I guess.


----------



## Andrey Limonchenko

camero7 said:


> And neonics killed all those eagles and Ospreys too I guess.


Why don't you create a petition for them?

Neonics become part of the plant... I have not seen many Eagles or Ospreys collecting pollen or nectar on corn. 

Apparently you have not even looked at what a Neonicotinoids really are.


----------



## jonathan

Andrey Limonchenko said:


> Numerous recent studies link the CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) of honeybees to the use of certain Neonicotinoid pesticides (e.g. imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam).


Still waiting for a list of the numerous studies which link neonicotinoids to CCD. (see posts 1 and 4)

I only know of studies which have failed to find a link between neonicotinoids and CCD so I would be interested in hearing about the studies you referred to in your opening post.


----------



## Seymore

camero7 said:


> You still haven't answered the question, "what will replace it." I hope you're not hoping to go back to the organophosphates. Did you ever hear of DDT?


Yes! DDT - another miracle of modern MONSANTO science!!! They thought it, too, was good . . . back then....


----------



## Andrey Limonchenko

jonathan said:


> Still waiting for a list of the numerous studies which link neonicotinoids to CCD. (see posts 1 and 4)
> 
> I only know of studies which have failed to find a link between neonicotinoids and CCD so I would be interested in hearing about the studies you referred to in your opening post.


I can't believe I have to do this on beekeepers' forum.

Enjoy reading...

http://www.entomology.umn.edu/cues/pollinators/pdf-pesticides/2012Tapparoseedtreatedcorn.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3256199/pdf/pone.0030023.pdf
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029268
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22292570
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22461498
http://www.boerenlandvogels.nl/sites/default/files/Pettisetal2012Naturwissen_5.pdf Yes, nosema is one of the aspects CCD.
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2012/120111KrupkeBees.html


----------



## jonathan

I am familiar with those studies but none of them claim that neonicotinoids cause CCD


----------



## TWall

Andrey Limonchenko said:


> Imidacloprid is 7297x more toxic to honeybees than DDT (acute toxicity). However, acute toxicity is not the main problem. Imidacloprid is highly persistent (160 days halflife time in water, 2 years in soil)


DDT is much more persistent than neonics: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pbt/pubs/ddt.htm

The alternatives are more dangerous to bees and everyone else.

Tom


----------



## rbees

I can't sign a petition to ban a product which _might_ be a problem for bees.

Now if I can find a petition to ban the EPA, I'd be all over it.


----------



## jonathan

Andrey Limonchenko said:


> Countries such as France, England, Italy, Germany and Slovenia have banned at least some form of Neonicotinoids (e.g. for seed treatments).


Not sure where you got that information from but in the case of England (UK) This is a Department of Agriculture (DEFRA) statement from 9th April.

The UK government’s position



> Defra has kept evidence on neonicotinoids under open-minded scrutiny. We assess new studies as they emerge and consider how they alter the overall situation.





> Following this work, we have produced an assessment of the evidence about neonicotinoids and bees. The assessment cannot exclude rare effects of neonicotinoids on bees in the field. However, it suggests that effects on bees do not occur under normal circumstances.


Germany imposed a temporary ban after the corn/maize seed drilling/planter dust bee kills of 2008
France banned some neonics on some crops but bee problems remained.
I think Slovenia has had a ban for quite a while.

Surely a petition should get the basic facts straight before asking people to sign.


----------



## camero7

> Surely a petition should get the basic facts straight before asking people to sign.


:thumbsup:


----------



## Seymore

jonathan said:


> I am familiar with those studies but none of them claim that neonicotinoids cause CCD


Does it have to CAUSE CCD to have a "negative impact" on bees?

Up from 9 sigs to 49.


----------



## jonathan

Seymore said:


> Does it have to CAUSE CCD to have a "negative impact" on bees?
> .


Of course not but the petition states:



> Numerous recent studies link the CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) of honeybees to the use of certain Neonicotinoid pesticides


The opposite is in fact true. Many studies have looked for a link and failed to find one.
CCD has a defined set of symptoms so ascribing any colony death to CCD is not helpful.

This study by Van Engelsdorp looked at CCD.



> Background
> 
> Over the last two winters, there have been large-scale, unexplained losses of managed honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies in the United States. In the absence of a known cause, this syndrome was named Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) because the main trait was a rapid loss of adult worker bees. We initiated a descriptive epizootiological study in order to better characterize CCD and compare risk factor exposure between populations afflicted by and not afflicted by CCD.
> Methods and Principal Findings
> 
> 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. Levels of the synthetic acaricide coumaphos (used by beekeepers to control the parasitic mite Varroa destructor) were higher in control colonies than CCD-affected colonies.
> Conclusions/Significance
> 
> This is the first comprehensive survey of CCD-affected bee populations that suggests CCD involves an interaction between pathogens and other stress factors. We present evidence that this condition is contagious or the result of exposure to a common risk factor. Potentially important areas for future hypothesis-driven research, including the possible legacy effect of mite parasitism and the role of honey bee resistance to pesticides, are highlighted.


----------



## Seymore

PETITION REQUESTS...

_Direct the EPA to ban the use of Neonicotinoid pesticides, until proven that it does not negatively impact honeybees._

Of course I'm concerned about CCD but I'm more concerned about pesticide use - on food, in air, on bees and other insects.


----------



## jonathan

Seymore said:


> PETITION REQUESTS...
> _Direct the EPA to ban the use of Neonicotinoid pesticides, until proven that it does not negatively impact honeybees._
> 
> Of course I'm concerned about CCD but I'm more concerned about pesticide use - on food, in air, on bees and other insects.


I share your concerns about pesticide use but it bugs me when people make statements about CCD being at least part caused by neonicotinoid pesticides without providing any evidence. It renders a petition like this completely pointless.

The danger here is that neonicotinoids will be replaced by some other pesticide family so if that happens we would need to be sure that it is less harmful to bees, pollinators, the wider environment and human health.

Sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Daniel Y

jonathan said:


> Not sure where you got that information from but in the case of England (UK) This is a Department of Agriculture (DEFRA) statement from 9th April.
> 
> The UK government’s position
> Germany imposed a temporary ban after the corn/maize seed drilling/planter dust bee kills of 2008
> France banned some neonics on some crops but bee problems remained.
> I think Slovenia has had a ban for quite a while.
> 
> Surely a petition should get the basic facts straight before asking people to sign.


jonathan, from the article you linked to.
"Defra has kept evidence on neonicotinoids under open-minded scrutiny. We assess new studies as they emerge and consider how they alter the overall situation.

We’ve taken advice from the independent expert Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which has considered the evidence on several occasions. The committee advised in January 2013 that there were grounds for a review of neonicotinoid authorisations under pesticides legislation. This is being done by the HSE’s Chemicals Regulation Directorate."

From what I have seen in the past this caused some bans in some areas while the investigation was under way.

"The EC has drawn up plans for a ban on the use of three neonicotinoids on a long list of crops. We’re urging the Commission to make sure the measures proposed are proportionate to the risks."

I do not have links to them but I have seen several articles sine January that do state that some bans in some areas for some Nics are in effect. So far it seems these bans are pending further investigation. Maybe those investigations have been conducted and the bans are being lifted. This is just the latest comment that has been made in a list of comments.

This portion of your linked article woudl tend to confirm that.
"Following this work, we have produced an assessment of the evidence about neonicotinoids and bees. The assessment cannot exclude rare effects of neonicotinoids on bees in the field. However, it suggests that effects on bees do not occur under normal circumstances."


----------



## jonathan

Daniel.
There are currently no bans on neonicotinoids in England (UK) and there never have been.


----------



## Andrey Limonchenko

jonathan said:


> I am familiar with those studies but none of them claim that neonicotinoids cause CCD


I don't claim that it is THE CAUSE, but I do believe that it is the straw that broke the camel's back. 
These studies on neonicotinoids do show that they negatively impact the health of honeybees which are already stressed.
CCD is a complex issue and I'm not sure anyone will ever be able to say what is THE CAUSE of it. It's like finding cure for cancer. 

The following list is from EPA's website:
All of the following factors contribute to CCD:
- invasive varroa mite (a pest of honeybees);
- virus and or Nosema;
- pesticide poisoning through exposure to pesticides applied to crops or for in-hive insect or mite control;
- bee management stress;
- inadequate forage/poor nutrition and
- immune-suppressing stress on bees caused by one or a combination of factors above.

And the studies do show that each one of those factors are increased when the neonics are being used.


----------



## Andrey Limonchenko

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/ccd-european-ban.html

I was wrong about England sorry, they are just as slow as EPA. http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress2/?p=20301


----------



## gmcharlie

All the studies are nice.. so far as mentioned tehy are inconclusive.. But whats interesting to me is I live and raise bees in the THICKEST blanket of these products.. and have never seen or had a case of CCD, nor has anyone I know with 200 miles of me.... We have mites, EFB, noseama, and we lose hives.... Yes we would love to not have any issues... but my loses are no differnt now than they were before.


----------



## jonathan

Andrey Limonchenko said:


> And the studies do show that each one of those factors are increased when the neonics are being used.


Actually, they don't. 

Pettis and Engelsdorp found that nosema levels in individual bees increased in the lab after exposure to Imidacloprid.
He acknowledged that he was not seeing this at colony level in field studies.
Alaux also did similar work.

Are you suggesting that exposure to neonicotinoids increases problems with mites or virus?
If there is a paper which shows that, I have not seen it.



Andrey Limonchenko said:


> The following list is from EPA's website:
> All of the following factors contribute to CCD:
> - invasive varroa mite (a pest of honeybees);
> - virus and or Nosema;
> - pesticide poisoning through exposure to pesticides applied to crops or for in-hive insect or mite control;
> - bee management stress;
> - inadequate forage/poor nutrition and
> - immune-suppressing stress on bees caused by one or a combination of factors above.



That is not what the EPA website says.

This is what it says:



> There have been many theories about the cause of CCD, but the researchers who are leading the effort to find out why are now focused on these factors:
> 
> increased losses due to the invasive varroa mite (a pest of honeybees);
> new or emerging diseases such as Israeli Acute Paralysis virus and the gut parasite Nosema;
> pesticide poisoning through exposure to pesticides applied to crops or for in-hive insect or mite control;
> bee management stress;
> foraging habitat modification
> inadequate forage/poor nutrition and
> potential immune-suppressing stress on bees caused by one or a combination of factors identified above.
> 
> Additional factors may include poor nutrition, drought, and migratory stress brought about by the increased need to move bee colonies long distances to provide pollination services.


They are looking at these factors. They are not claiming that they cause CCD.

This is what they say about bees, pesticides and CCD



> Dead bees don’t necessarily mean CCD
> 
> Certain pesticides are harmful to bees. That’s why we require instructions for protecting bees on the labels of pesticides that are known to be particularly harmful to bees. This is one of many reasons why everyone must read and follow pesticide label instructions. When most or all of the bees in a hive are killed by overexposure to a pesticide, we call that a beekill incident resulting from acute pesticide poisoning. But acute pesticide poisoning of a hive is very different from CCD and is almost always avoidable.


Please try and be careful with what you cite and its better to provide a link so it can be verified.


----------



## Birdman

What would be the time period from exposer till CCD kills my bee's, Because I have a couple of hives that set beside my sweet corn field. I have use treated seed every year there. By the way I catch 2 swarms and get at least 3 meds of honey a year for the last five years. When are they going to die and the girls like that sweet corn pollen. 
There is a link posted in the Dan rather report bee's in almonds. It said some class of this chemical has been used since the 1700s, If it stay in soil and leaches into other plants. Why do we still have bee's.
I heard a while back that cell phones was a part of CCD, I don't see any one trying to ban those.


----------



## Andrey Limonchenko

Birdman said:


> What would be the time period from exposer till CCD kills my bee's, Because I have a couple of hives that set beside my sweet corn field. I have use treated seed every year there. By the way I catch 2 swarms and get at least 3 meds of honey a year for the last five years. When are they going to die and the girls like that sweet corn pollen.
> There is a link posted in the Dan rather report bee's in almonds. It said some class of this chemical has been used since the 1700s, If it stay in soil and leaches into other plants. Why do we still have bee's.
> I heard a while back that cell phones was a part of CCD, I don't see any one trying to ban those.


I am very glad that you still have bees, but hope you're not offering that honey to anyone. In case you do sell honey, make sure to label it as such: "honey from corn with neonicatinoid pesticides applied"


----------



## Andrey Limonchenko

jonathan said:


> They are looking at these factors. They are not claiming that they cause CCD.
> This is what they say about bees, pesticides and CCD


I am glad you agree with them that much. This might be helpful to you: http://www.epa.gov/jobs/openings.html


----------



## Birdman

Andrey Limonchenko said:


> I am very glad that you still have bees, but hope you're not offering that honey to anyone. In case you do sell honey, make sure to label it as such: "honey from corn with neonicatinoid pesticides applied"


And as your. I sale the honey to the same people, I sale the sweet corn to. :scratch:


----------



## hpm08161947

gmcharlie said:


> All the studies are nice.. so far as mentioned tehy are inconclusive.. But whats interesting to me is I live and raise bees in the THICKEST blanket of these products.. and have never seen or had a case of CCD, nor has anyone I know with 200 miles of me.... We have mites, EFB, noseama, and we lose hives.... Yes we would love to not have any issues... but my loses are no differnt now than they were before.


I guess I am in the same boat as GMCHARLIE.... we are surrounded Soybeans... Corn... Tobacco.... Etc etc. I have never seen CCD... if it occurred here I would know... In the urban areas I have heard people claim that CCD wiped out there 3 hives.... but it sounded more like hysteria to me.


----------



## Birdman

If this is such a problem, why are there still bees in the corn belt. I can drive west for a 800 miles and see nothing but corn  . With hundreds of thousands pound of seed going in the ground every year for x amount of years. Why are there still bee's in these areas.


----------



## jonathan

Andrey Limonchenko said:


> I am glad you agree with them that much. This might be helpful to you: http://www.epa.gov/jobs/openings.html


I didn't say I agreed with them. I was just pointing out inaccurate information in your post.

Anyway it would be a long commute from Ireland and it's hard to work properly with jetlag.


----------



## Andrey Limonchenko

Birdman said:


> If this is such a problem, why are there still bees in the corn belt. I can drive west for a 800 miles and see nothing but corn  . With hundreds of thousands pound of seed going in the ground every year for x amount of years. Why are there still bee's in these areas.


This might be the reason: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/neonicotinoids-gardens/


----------



## Birdman

Andrey, This might be the problem, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol. go to drug effects this sound like CCD, and its production picked up in the 1990 also.


----------



## mac

camero7 said:


> You still haven't answered the question, "what will replace it." I hope you're not hoping to go back to the organophosphates. Did you ever hear of DDT?


 http://rodaleinstitute.org/


----------



## camero7

I hope you're not that serious. Roadle has been around for years and if you think they're going to feed the world, you're delusional.


----------



## mac

camero7 said:


> I hope you're not that serious. Roadle has been around for years and if you think they're going to feed the world, you're delusional.


Well we ain't feeding the world now.


----------



## mac

camero7 said:


> I hope you're not that serious. Roadle has been around for years and if you think they're going to feed the world, you're delusional.


 I don,t expect them to but to think ya can,t feed the world using organics is short sighted. We ain't doing a great job now.


----------



## Daniel Y

A deeply divided European Union will go ahead with a ban on the use of three neonicotinoid insecticides – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxam – blamed by critics for the decline in honey bee number.

http://home.ezezine.com/1636/1636-2013.04.29.09.39.archive.html


----------



## hpm08161947

mac said:


> I don,t expect them to but to think ya can,t feed the world using organics is short sighted. We ain't doing a great job now.


Mac... have you ever really looked into what that would take... to feed the world using the Organic/Rodale method? I suspect one could feed upscale Miami..... but the world... ?? Forget everything else and just consider manpower/labor, we can not find labor enough to manage our highly mechanized agricultural methods now. We would have to import all of Central and South America just to apply the manure...


----------



## mac

hpm08161947 said:


> Mac... have you ever really looked into what that would take... to feed the world using the Organic/Rodale methods


 The thing is WE don’t have to feed the world countries have the ability to feed themselves using organic methods. Before the advent of the CORPORATE FARM there was a thing called the FAMILY FARM which did quite well at feeding the world. http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Organic_Farms_in_Pennsylvania
http://www.morrisorganic.com/
http://www.absolutepasturedpoultry.com
http://auburnmeadowfarm.com
http://www.bendybrookfarm.com/about.html
http://www.birchwoodfarmdairy.com/products/
http://www.comebackfarm.com/home.html
http://www.nofanj.org/
http://www.springwoodfarm.com/
http://www.oylersorganicfarms.com/
http://www.kretschmannfarm.com/
http://www.spiralpathfarm.com/
http://www.delvinfarms.com/
http://organics.tennessee.edu/farm.htm
http://www.colvinfamilyfarm.com/Our_Farm.html



hpm08161947 said:


> Forget everything else and just consider manpower/labor, we can not find labor enough to manage our highly mechanized agricultural methods now. We would have to import all of Central and South America just to apply the manure...


 That’s not true manure spreading is mechanized.


----------



## camero7

> Before the advent of the CORPORATE FARM there was a thing called the FAMILY FARM which did quite well at feeding the world.


Grew up on one. If I remember correctly the world's population was much smaller then and we used pesticides, fungicides, etc. back then too. We can't even feed ourselves now.


----------



## hpm08161947

mac said:


> The thing is WE don’t have to feed the world countries have the ability to feed themselves using organic methods. Before the advent of the CORPORATE FARM there was a thing called the FAMILY FARM which did quite well at feeding the world.


I do not see how this can be done today, with a world wide population of 7 billion. Perhaps we would have a chance at a sustainable organic solution with a population of 1 billion? Solve the population problem and the pesticide problem could take care of itself.


----------



## mac

hpm08161947 said:


> I do not see how this can be done today, with a world wide population of 7 billion. Perhaps we would have a chance at a sustainable organic solution with a population of 1 billion? Solve the population problem and the pesticide problem could take care of itself.


 Agree with the population but even at a billion the pesticide issue is about money not population. Before WWII very few farmers used chems.


----------



## jim lyon

mac said:


> Agree with the population but even at a billion the pesticide issue is about money not population. Before WWII very few farmers used chems.


http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/corn/production/management/harvest/producing.html
A little perspective might be in order here. Per acre yields for corn (using the largest crop as an example) have risen from around 50 bushels per acre in 1950 to a current average of about 170 and continue to rise at 2 to 3 percent per year. Interestingly enough one thing that has been bred out of corn in the quest for yield is excessive pollen production. I am wondering if anyone posting on here has ever actually observed a honeybee gathering pollen on a field corn plant. I know I haven't and I have stood in many fields adjacent to our bee yards observing. Years ago a walk through a corn field in the summer released clouds of pollen in the air, such is no longer the case.


----------



## Birdman

mac said:


> Agree with the population but even at a billion the pesticide issue is about money not population. Before WWII very few farmers used chems.


We also had famine from crops that failed. Ireland had blight hit there potato crop, they lost 1/3 of the population.


----------



## Brad Bee

mac said:


> The thing is WE don’t have to feed the world countries have the ability to feed themselves using organic methods. Before the advent of the CORPORATE FARM there was a thing called the FAMILY FARM which did quite well at feeding the world.


If you want to know about farming, ask a farmer......

While we don't rowcrop, we do have cattle and sell a large quantity of hay. We own and operate a FAMILY FARM, but family farms are fading into extinction. If you want to take society back to the FAMILY FARM system, you're first going to have to petition the government to eliminate the "death tax." You are also going to have to instill "work ethic" back into society. When old Mr Farmer dies and young Mr Farmer has to sell the farm to pay the inheritance tax, you lose farm land at a staggering rate. How many of you people live in subdivisions where corn fields use to be? You'll also have to convince society to stop "moving to the suburbs." Suburbs use to be agriculture land. 

We can talk about fairy tales all day, but facts are if chemicals were taken away from farmers today, the US would have to import 50% of it's food. Are you prepared to pay for that? Do you really understand what that would mean to society, the economy and to the sustainability of the US?


----------



## Daniel Y

Birdman said:


> We also had famine from crops that failed. Ireland had blight hit there potato crop, they lost 1/3 of the population.


And we still have crop failures for many many reasons.


----------



## mac

jimlyon said:


> http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/corn/production/management/harvest/producing.html
> A little perspective might be in order here. Per acre yields for corn (using the largest crop as an example) have risen from around 50 bushels per acre in 1950 to a current average of about 170 and continue to rise at 2 to 3 percent per year


 Yep you can grow more using chems but it cost’s more depletes the soil, kills wildlife, pollutes water, and it’s not sustainable. Most corn is used for animal feed and now fuel as for helping to feed the world ???


jimlyon said:


> [I am wondering if anyone posting on here has ever actually observed a honeybee gathering pollen on a field corn plant..


 Not me


----------



## mac

Birdman said:


> We also had famine from crops that failed. Ireland had blight hit there potato crop, they lost 1/3 of the population.


 Good example of mono croping


----------



## jim lyon

mac said:


> Yep you can grow more using chems but it cost’s more depletes the soil, kills wildlife, pollutes water, and it’s not sustainable. Most corn is used for animal feed and now fuel as for helping to feed the world ??? Not me


Yes, it costs more and the additional costs are offset many times over in yield advantage, no surprise there. Sustainable? Well it continues to increase not decrease, I would guess that curve may flatten some then again it might not but I don't think anyone knows the answer to that including you. Yes your quite correct that most corn production is for animal feed and fuel. Certainly good arguments can be made against its use as ethanol, my guess is that budget cuts and economic reality will eventually remedy that situation but then that's a good topic for another forum. As far as livestock feed, well that is just filling a demand that humans have for meat. Should that be part of this discussion as well?


----------



## Barry

"feeding the world" is a good topic for TG. How crops affect bees is a good topic for this forum.


----------



## Daniel Y

I see the comment about bes do not collect nectar or pollen from corn often. This immediately casues me to suspect that the person has not given the issue much thought. I understand that nectar and pollen woudl be the two things that a person with average knowledge of bees woudl think bees get from plants. But not a beekeeper that I would expect has spend some time gaining far beyond common knowledge. if they did not I do not think they have put much effort into their beekeeping or their opinion about bees. Pollen is hardly the only thing bees forage for. and I do not see anyone that has ever claimed it is. Nectar is also not the only thing bees forage for. Again I do not recall anyone has claimed that either. Pollen and honey together are also not the only thing bees forage for although many times comments indicate this is what is believed. Bees forage for all sorts of plant resins juices and other plant products just in the making of propolis alone. Bees also harvest things such as honey dew from aphids that do feed on the plants. Do you ever see a bee in a corn field? If you do have you ever figured out what it is doing there. I have no question that bees commonly come in contact with corn, I have bees that will land on me. I do to think I resemble anything that is foragable. That the only way bees could pick up what is in these plants is by foraging nectar or pollen is very short sighted. Bees are in the corn. the corn has been poisoned. close enough for me to consider contamination assured.


----------



## jim lyon

My question was a simple one and here it is again for clarity.



jim lyon said:


> I am wondering if anyone posting on here has ever actually observed a honeybee gathering pollen on a field corn plant. I know I haven't and I have stood in many fields adjacent to our bee yards observing.


Corn does not yield nectar though there are some that suspect the transfer of guttation fluids could transfer neonics into hives but no one has ever been able to observe or prove that ever happens. Yes bees will "land" on about anything. That is much different than active pollen gathering. Its also important to note that the concern in Europe has always been primarily about the planter dust issue as there have been documented kills from it. The quandary and the delays in the decision were about (in addition to the highly politicized issue it had become) whether that issue has been remedied. If researchers could find neonic laced corn pollen in crashing hives and none in healthy hives this would be a slam dunk. This, of course, is not the case. And no, bees cannot be assumed to be "in the corn" unless you either see them there or find traces of corn products in the hive.


----------



## borderbeeman

jim lyon said:


> My question was a simple one and here it is again for clarity.
> 
> 
> Corn does not yield nectar though there are some that suspect the transfer of guttation fluids could transfer neonics into hives but no one has ever been able to observe or prove that ever happens. Yes bees will "land" on about anything. That is much different than active pollen gathering. Its also important to note that the concern in Europe has always been primarily about the planter dust issue as there have been documented kills from it. The quandary and the delays in the decision were about (in addition to the highly politicized issue it had become) whether that issue has been remedied. If researchers could find neonic laced corn pollen in crashing hives and none in healthy hives this would be a slam dunk. This, of course, is not the case. And no, bees cannot be assumed to be "in the corn" unless you either see them there or find traces of corn products in the hive.


http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/apido/pdf/2005/01/M4053.pdf 

Published in Apidologe - March 2005.

*Modes of honeybees exposure to systemic insecticides: estimated amounts of contaminated pollen and nectar consumed by different categories of bees *Agnès Rortaisa, Gérard Arnolda, Marie-Pierre Halmb and Frédérique Touffet-Briensb 

In areas of extensive cultures of pollen-bearing crops, large amounts of pollens coming from these plants might be brought back to the colony. For example, honeybees can collect * 10 to 20 kg of sunflower or maize pollen per year and sometimes even more *, (Odoux et al., 2004). During the flowering time of these plants, which lasts between 1 and 1.5 months, sunflower and maize pollens can represent up to 80–90% of the total weight of all pollen types collected by honeybees (Odoux et al., 2004).


----------



## jim lyon

There is nothing in this 8 year old French study that quantifies how much, if any, corn pollen is actually gathered by honeybees. It only states what "can" be collected. Again, the European decision was based on the very real, concern that planter dust can kill bees particularly when there is direct seeding over flowering plants. My understanding is this has been remedied but I have no data or opinion on that. It's erroneous to leave people with the impression that bees forage on neonic laced corn pollen, because they don't.


----------



## hpm08161947

borderbeeman said:


> In areas of extensive cultures of pollen-bearing crops, large amounts of pollens coming from these plants might be brought back to the colony. For example, honeybees can collect * 10 to 20 kg of sunflower or maize pollen per year and sometimes even more *, (Odoux et al., 2004). During the flowering time of these plants, which lasts between 1 and 1.5 months, sunflower and maize pollens can represent up to 80–90% of the total weight of all pollen types collected by honeybees (Odoux et al., 2004).


Wonder what type of Maize, Odoux is looking at. In a little more that a month I will be surrounded by perhaps 1000 acres of field corn.... I would have to agree with Jim, that I have never see bees gather their pollen. I will take it a bit further... sitting in a beeyard of about 40 hives less than a football field from this corn are quite a number of bees. Yet if I stroll through this field corn... it is a rare occurrence even to see a honeybee..... now sweet corn.... that's an different matter.


----------



## jim lyon

Z


hpm08161947 said:


> now sweet corn.... that's an different matter.


Agreed. I would be concerned having bees next to large acreages of sweet corn. Fortunately that is a real small percentage of US acreage and is only grown in large quantities in select areas near canning facilities.


----------



## hpm08161947

jim lyon said:


> Z
> Agreed. I would be concerned having bees next to large acreages of sweet corn. Fortunately that is a real small percentage of US acreage and is only grown in large quantities in select areas near canning facilities.


The only sweet corn we have is in our garden and they are heritage seeds, save from generation to generation. And yes.... bees do feed on the pollen. I wonder if bees ever liked field corn.....


----------



## jim lyon

Herb: I wonder too. As you know, years ago when bees produced tremendous amounts of pollen there were usually lots of other stuff for bees to work, even in the cornfield itself. Ahb for the good old days of old fashioned farming.


----------



## BlueDiamond

mac said:


> Yep you can grow more using chems but it cost’s more depletes the soil, kills wildlife, pollutes water, and it’s not sustainable.


Roundup enables farmers to conserve topsoil which in turn enables them to farm the same land for hundreds of years. Neonic seed treatments prevent wildlife from being exposed to sprays and prevents water pollution because they are applied at extremely low rates (around 1 ounce of clothianidin per acre of corn).


----------



## borderbeeman

jim lyon said:


> There is nothing in this 8 year old French study that quantifies how much, if any, corn pollen is actually gathered by honeybees. It only states what "can" be collected. Again, *the European decision was based on the very real, concern that planter dust can kill bees *particularly when there is direct seeding over flowering plants. My understanding is this has been remedied but I have no data or opinion on that. It's erroneous to leave people with the impression that bees forage on neonic laced corn pollen, because they don't.


You are completely mistaken on this statement. 'Planter Dust' was not the issue at all in the European ban, since bans had already been imposed in France, Germany and Italy on use of neonic treated seeds for maize - as long ago as 2000 in France and 2009 in Germany and Italy.

The European Food Safety Agency report, which advised a ban for two years on imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin, was centred on the sub-lethal, chronic poisoning that derived from bees gathering pollen and nectar from 'bee attractive' crops, including: corn, oilseed rape/ canola, sunflowers and spring sown cereals.

Planter-exhaust dust was not the issue, in fact it is barely mentioned in the Commission's legal case. The widespread use of systemic neonicotinoids which spread through the entire plant internally, to produce pollen and nectar that is lethal to bees is the issue


----------



## BlueDiamond

borderbeeman said:


> You are completely mistaken on this statement. 'Planter Dust' was not the issue at all in the European ban, since bans had already been imposed in France, Germany and Italy on use of neonic treated seeds for maize - as long ago as 2000 in France and 2009 in Germany and Italy.


Look what happened after the ban in France in 2000:

http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/04/24/3

When Gaucho was taken off the market [in France], Fischer added, the health of the country's bees did not improve. He also pointed out that imidacloprid has been widely used in the United States since the mid-1990s, but the sharp decline in bees did not come until about a decade later. Fischer's remarks were largely confirmed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has done extensive research on the issue.

Dr. Julian Little, Bayer CropScience
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22339191

"We have two controls for all of this. One is France; we've had massive restrictions on these products for over 10 years, have we seen any improvement in bee health? No. The other control is Australia where neonicotinoids are used in exactly the same way as in the UK, same formula same crops and they have the healthiest bees on the planet. The difference there is they don't have varroa [mites]."


----------



## borderbeeman

BlueDiamond said:


> Look what happened after the ban in France in 2000:
> 
> http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/04/24/3
> 
> When Gaucho was taken off the market [in France], Fischer added, the health of the country's bees did not improve. He also pointed out that imidacloprid has been widely used in the United States since the mid-1990s, but the sharp decline in bees did not come until about a decade later. Fischer's remarks were largely confirmed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has done extensive research on the issue.
> 
> Dr. Julian Little, Bayer CropScience
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22339191
> 
> "We have two controls for all of this. One is France; we've had massive restrictions on these products for over 10 years, have we seen any improvement in bee health? No. The other control is Australia where neonicotinoids are used in exactly the same way as in the UK, same formula same crops and they have the healthiest bees on the planet. The difference there is they don't have varroa [mites]."


For goodness sake - Julian Little is Bayer's Chief Propagandist! What do you think he's going to say? He's the manufacturer of the worst bee-killing pestiticides on the planet. Are you seriously suggesting he has no 'conflict of interest' in saying that neonics have no case to answer?

The facts are plain. Bayer lied all the way down the line - from 1992 when they said Imidacloprid 'never emerged in pollen and nectar' - right dow to today, when its: varroa, varroa, varroa.

The French had varroa since the 1960s - and for forty years they had no mass bee collapses, despite every hive in France having to deal with varroa. Then in 1994 Bayer introduced Gaucho (imidacloprid) and in less than 2 years they had one million dead hives among the sunflowers.
But colonies from the same bee farms, which were NOT placed in the neonic treated sunflowers, but in the forests nearby - they did not die.

"There's none so blind as those who will not see"


----------



## BlueDiamond

borderbeeman said:


> For goodness sake - Julian Little is Bayer's Chief Propagandist! What do you think he's going to say? He's the manufacturer of the worst bee-killing pestiticides on the planet. Are you seriously suggesting he has no 'conflict of interest' in saying that neonics have no case to answer?


When you can't attack the message you attack the messenger. So far no one from the anti-neonic camp has been able to tell us why Australia has the healthiest bees on the planet despite the fact Australia uses the the same neonicotinoid formulas and on the same crops as in the UK. Nor have they been able to explain why Switzerlands bees are in poor health despite the fact neonics aren't used in that country.


----------



## mac

Barry said:


> "feeding the world" is a good topic for TG. How crops affect bees is a good topic for this forum.


 I see your point. But bees help feed the world and organics feed the bees .


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> Roundup enables farmers to conserve topsoil which in turn enables them to farm the same land for hundreds of years.).


 Organic farming improves the soil and builds nutrients not like depleting soil nutrients using roundup and chem. Fertilizers.


BlueDiamond said:


> Anionic seed treatments prevent wildlife from being exposed to sprays and prevents water pollution because they are applied at extremely low rates (around 1 ounce of clothianidin per acre of corn).


Birds and wildlife eat the seeds. And water is polluted from runoff and seeping into the aquifer but testing was never done before these chems were released into the environment. We can only talk about bees here. No more farming. But we now have supper weeds that are no longer affected by round up and I wonder if bees collect pollen and nectar from these supper weeds and I bet no one has done a study on round up in pollen or honey. Maybe round up in conjunction with neonic seeds is the cause of CCD. I think a study should be done but not going to happen.


----------



## Daniel Y

It seems to me that mos think the ony way bees woudl get pollen from corn is that intentionally foraged on the corn. this is not true. that is like saying you get dust in your house only if you want it. Corn is a wind pollinated plant. it does not even really have a flower it has tassles that are exposed to the wind specifically so the wind can blow the pollen around. The pines in the mountains around our valley are the same. you can actually see clouds of yellow pollen above the trees on a windy day. that cloud can and will travel well over 25 miles and cover everything in town with a thick layer of dust. You can wash off your car or a patio and see the piles of pollen getting washed away. There is nothing a bee could touch and not collect pine pollen.


----------



## jim lyon

You are quite correct Daniel, corn is wind pollinated, but it takes a relatively tiny amount of pollen (and a really short time frame )to do the job required. The excess pollen production that used to result in the clouds of pollen that was obvious in corn years ago has been bred out of the plant in a quest for yield (less pollen more grain). In short there are no longer clouds of pollen being released from the tassels as you see coming off of many of the trees. The assumption that bees would bypass a pollen laden tassel to gather pollen corn pollen that has free fallen somewhere isn't based on anything other than speculation. Bees don't much care for field corn pollen, it's rarely found in bee hives and I'm not sure I have ever observed them actually cleaning any kind of pollen t off of vehicles or anything else besides the plants that emit the stuff. Why would they? As a parallel it seems like the only time I have ever gotten them to rob on dry pollen substitute is when there is nothing else available.


----------



## Barry

From my observations, bees are creatures of design and their design is to get their pollen from flowering sources, not off the ground. I have seen many times where a gathered ball of pollen has fallen off the bee at the entrance to a hive. It will sit there until it gets blown or knocked off. The bees will ignore it.


----------



## jim lyon

Barry said:


> From my observations, bees are creatures of design and their design is to get their pollen from flowering sources, not off the ground. I have seen many times where a gathered ball of pollen has fallen off the bee at the entrance to a hive. It will sit there until it gets blown or knocked off. The bees will ignore it.


Good point Barry. It always amazes me to see all this pollen around the entrances as well. It makes you wonder why they can have such a strong instinct to do all the work of gathering it and then just ignore the fruits of their labors when it falls just inches from its destination. Must just be the general excitement of the gathering process......or something.


----------



## gmcharlie

borderbeeman said:


> For goodness sake - Julian Little is Bayer's Chief Propagandist! What do you think he's going to say? He's the manufacturer of the worst bee-killing pestiticides on the planet. Are you seriously suggesting he has no 'conflict of interest' in saying that neonics have no case to answer?
> 
> 
> "


He make work for Bayer, but he is a Scientist, with more testing and knowledge and IQ points than most of us here. I tend to belive those who test rather than squawk....


----------



## borderbeeman

gmcharlie said:


> He make work for Bayer, but he is a Scientist, with more testing and knowledge and IQ points than most of us here. I tend to belive those who test rather than squawk....


The European Food Safety Agency considered more than 55 peer-reviewed Science studies before recommending a ban. Buglife - the conservation charity looked at those 55 studies (including Bayer's) and assigned them a value of 1 or 2.

Category 1 was all the studies which concluded that neonics were responsible for the wave of global bee deaths
Category 2 was all the studies which gave neonics a free pass.

96% of the studies fell into category one: i.e. they concluded neonics ARE responsible for CCD/ mass bee deaths
4% gave neonics a free pass to the profit margin.

Every one of the 96% of studies that said neonics were responsible was either INDEPENDENT or government funded
All of the 4% that exonerated neonics were funded by Bayer & Syngenta - i.e. they found their own poisons 'not guilty'.

Do we ask Ford or Toyota to rule on the safety of their own cars? no we ask an independent transport agency/
Do we ask Philip Morris to tell us whether Tobacco causes cancer? No we ask the American Surgeon General
Do we ask Boeing to decide on whether the Dreamliner batteries are safe? No we ask the Federal Aviation Authority

Allowing a pesticide manufacturer to tell us whether he thinks his poisons are safe for bees or children is like asking a drug dealer whether heroin is safe for kids.

All of this retrospective debate is missing the entire point. Bayer should have PROVEN their pesticides were safe BEFORE they were given a license; they didn't and the EPA - headed up by a Monsanto Exec - gave them a rubber stamp on Clothianidin, despite the EPA's own scientists telling them NOT to license it because of its extreme toxicity for honey bees.

Over 16,000 new pesticides have been licensed by the EPA since 1980 using the 'conditional registration' loophole (no testing).
It's a total joke. They may as well sack all the EPA staff and give the janitor a rubber stamp - and tell him just to OK anything that comes in the door. That is exactly what happens now; nothing ever gets turned down. There is no 'regulation'.


----------



## D Coates

borderbeeman said:


> For goodness sake - Julian Little is Bayer's Chief Propagandist! What do you think he's going to say? He's the manufacturer of the worst bee-killing pestiticides on the planet. Are you seriously suggesting he has no 'conflict of interest' in saying that neonics have no case to answer?


Okay, let's follow your logic. So what are you? I'd say you're one of the Anti-Neonic Chief Propogandists. What do you think we expect you to say. You're convinced Neonics are the worst bee-killing pesticides on the planet. Are we to believe that there's no "conflict of interest" in saying that neonics are the not cause of all of your claims? You may not be paid directly but to your ego the accolades from others who swallow the punch you serve is payment enough.

You've staked your life on this, no matter what results are found you'll never back down off of this. Your rants make you look manic and unstable. You do more to hurt your cause than help. But that's fine, your cause is bunk and you're doing a better job showing it than those who disagree could. I'm certain this is one of those attack dog defences you were prattling on about earlier, but I'm not certain which one. I was busy cashing my checks from Monsanto, Bayer and whatever other boogieman paranoa you're attacking others on.


----------



## borderbeeman

D Coates said:


> Okay, let's follow your logic. So what are you? I'd say you're one of the Anti-Neonic Chief Propogandists. What do you think we expect you to say. You're convinced Neonics are the worst bee-killing pesticides on the planet. Are we to believe that there's no "conflict of interest" in saying that neonics are the not cause of all of your claims?
> 
> You've staked your life on this, no matter what results are found you'll never back down off of this. Your rants make you look manic and unstable. You do more to hurt your cause than help. But that's fine, your cause is bunk and you're doing a better job showing it than those who disagree could. I'm certain this is one of those attack dogs you were prattling on about earlier, but I'm not certain which one. I was busy cashing my checks from Monsanto, Bayer and whatever other boogieman paranoa you're attacking others on.


"Your rants make you look manic and unstable" - Personal attack - Moderator Action ? rules? I thought not.
"whatever other boogieman paranoa you're attacking others on" - calling me paranoid -is NOT an attack? Reasoned debate?

I have not 'staked my life on this': I just can't abide being lied to, when I know the Science is correct - and good enough for 27 European countries to have banned these nerve agent poisons from the food supply.

I can't imagine what your 'agenda' is, other than that you defend the continuing use of systemic neonitonoids:

passionately
vehemently
consistenly
persistently

all the time.

My only agenda here is the truth - and wanting to live in the country I grew up in, where bees, birds, butterflies and frogs can still exist. I don't want to live in the world that you and Bayer and Monsanto and Syngenta seem to want: a country without any of those creatures, where the only value of any kind is 'the bottom line'. 

Bees are the canary in the coalmine, and if people don't wake up and realise what is going on, a lot more than bees is at stake.

By the way, if anyone is 'ranting' around here, I would say that is the pot calling the kettle black. Have you looked in the mirror lately - that's a ranter there if ever I saw one.


----------



## Daniel Y

I am interested in the exact nature of the conflict of interest accused in the previous posts. just exactly what is known about borderbeeman and his interests that causes a conflict of interest? As far as I can tell there is only one interest and that is providing evidence that Nics are responsible for bee deaths. his opponents than attempt to inflate or distort this fact by saying it is this or that. in fact it is none of those things. it is nothing more than evidence submitted. those that oppose consistently cannot address those evidences but choose to attack the messenger. They want to distort the issue with comments such as "That is nto proof that nics cause CCD" when the information was never submitted as proof of anything. it was submitted as evidence that it might be. I find such distortions intentionally deceitful and those that use them liars. So you may want to tend to your credibility with as much insight as you tend to others.

I do not agree with every word that comes out of the mouth of those that oppose nics. But I do not agree with one of the words coming form the other point of view. I have not heard an intelligent credible defense of the accusations toward Bayer yet. It is unreasonable to assume a pesticide will harm bees? No. Should it be required that Bayer proves that their do not? Yes. Have they? No. they have nice little dance they do around the fire but nothing else.


----------



## deknow

Daniel Y said:


> They want to distort the issue with comments such as "That is nto proof that nics cause CCD" when the information was never submitted as proof of anything. it was submitted as evidence that it might be.


Except that is not what is being claimed by border.


> 96% of the studies fell into category one: i.e. they concluded neonics ARE responsible for CCD/ mass bee deaths


...not much wiggle room there to claim that they "might be", when the claim is that they "ARE".

deknow


----------



## borderbeeman

Science proceeds by publication in peer-reviewed journals; in other words, a scientist must have his theory criticised and taken apart and put back together again by his peers - his fellow scientists. Only if it 'stacks up' after that criticism is it accepted for publication.
However, it is almost impossible to get a scientist to ever say : "this causes this - and I have 100% proof"

It does happen but it is far more common that after a couple of years of work, a scientist will say: 

well we studied CCD and we found that neonics kill bees in the lab at doses of 3parts per billion; 
neonics are present in pollen and nectar of canola and corn at 3ppb to 5ppb
and we see the bees bringing back large amounts of canola and corn pollen
and we see hives collapse when exposed to these crops

but you will never get them to say neonics cause CCD - because there is always another 'factor' to look at.

The Science Debate is in fact a deliberate diversionary tactic on the part of pesticide manufacturers. 
They know that you can ALWAYS get a scientist to pick holes in another study. The process never ends.

The French beekeepers knew within a week that neonic treated sunflowers killed a million bee colonies; they were there; they saw it happen; it had never happened before; and they found imidacloprid in the sunflower nectar, in the pollen, in the dead bees, in the bee-bread, in the nurse bees, in the larvae. It was everywhere.

So they took a science-based decision and banned the neonics in France. CCD stopped.

They had varroa and viruses in France for 30 years before CCD arrived in1994. They still have varroa and viruses, but since they banned neoncs, they have no CCD.

Go figure.

How is your deductive reasoning working today?


----------



## gmcharlie

Should I tend to read bibles, and 96% are Christian and 4% are korans, guess which one??

Asigning a value to a document and claiming you read more of one than the other is ludicrous. Science is not a popularity contest. its facts....... and the facts in this case are simple... all the testing i have seen that "prove neonics are bad" involve acute doses, captive bees and single source feedings. same as if you lock me in a liquor store........ all the once that show normal field testing and realistic exposures show nothing.... and MILLIONS of real world hives here in the midwest in both countries show the same.... an occasional drink will not kill me.... steady diet of nothing else will

As for Ford and Boeing.... the ruling bodies on those companines have done NOTHING but regulate.. both of them are innovators........ and when you study closely tobacco (and yes it was a scam on the us... in the 50s and 60s the surgeon general supported it... so claiming some "supior knowledge" of a ruling body is the definition of insanity

And the coupe de gra?? the comete its called "Bug life"?????? Like asking PETA to rate roast beef sandwiches.........!


----------



## D Coates

borderbeeman said:


> By the way, if anyone is 'ranting' around here, I would say that is the pot calling the kettle black. Have you looked in the mirror lately - that's a ranter there if ever I saw one.


Hilarious! yep, you got me. I don't start post after post of anti Neo-nic rants... or musicals.

Hey, wait a second... which of the Four (or is it Five now?) Dog defenses did you use on me that time? I sure hope I'm getting them all. I get paid ovetime by Bayer, Monsanto and Syngenta if I collect all five!


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Hilarious! yep, you got me. I don't start post after post of anti Neo-nic rants... or *musicals*.

Those of you wondering what this is about should check out this thread:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...g-soon-to-a-theatre-near-you-pesti-side-story

:gh:

:digging:


Reality, right in front of your eyes .... You just can't make stuff up that is better than this! :lpf:


----------



## Birdman

borderbeeman you have started 79 treads, all which has something to do with pesticides. That sound like ranting to me.
Can we start a petition to ban borderbeeman from this site. I live in the middle of the corn belt and have had no problems.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> borderbeeman you have started 79 treads, all which has something to do with pesticides.

Maybe we could get a little diversity, please. How about a few more posts on _*chemtrails*_?

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...nt-human-health-amp-bees&highlight=chemtrails


----------



## D Coates

Ah yes, chemtrails. Please bask us with your brilliance on chemtrails won't you Borderbeeman?


----------



## melliferal

Birdman said:


> borderbeeman you have started 79 treads, all which has something to do with pesticides. That sound like ranting to me.
> Can we start a petition to ban borderbeeman from this site. I live in the middle of the corn belt and have had no problems.


No, silencing people is usually if not always the worst way to go about things. Borderbeeman may or may not be wrong about neonicotinoids being the primary cause of bee-dying - I take particular exception to his seeming cavalier dismissal of varroa mites as a serious threat to bees - but if he really does think those chemicals are killing bees, I certainly can't criticize him for campaigning zealously against them. Were I convinced that was the problem, I hope I would react the same way.

He has to be helped to understand that there's room for discussion about this; that the issue is far from settled. And he has to understand that the other people here care about bees too, and aren't "the enemy". He will come to understand neither if he's just kicked out.


----------



## borderbeeman

I don't know whether you have noticed - but THIS part of the Forum is called:

CCD and Pesticides Discussion.

*What did you expect to find here?*

A discussion about the ancient origins of Neolithic Hioney Hunters in the Namib Desert?
How about the origins of the name 'Beowulf' - the first great hero to ever have his name written down in English, in the 6the Century - it means Bee Wolf in Olde English.

I came here to share with you a European and global perspective on the emerging science and ne regulatory actions on the issue of neonicotinoids and bee deaths; they were recently BANNED in 27 countries - did you notice?

Glad you have no bee problems in the corn belt. Strange that my bee farmer friend from the Mid West just lost 2,100 out of 3,200 hives this Spring, which he attributes to his bee stocking up on corn pollen in an area just like yours.


----------



## borderbeeman

melliferal said:


> No, silencing people is usually if not always the worst way to go about things. Borderbeeman may or may not be wrong about neonicotinoids being the primary cause of bee-dying - I take particular exception to his seeming cavalier dismissal of varroa mites as a serious threat to bees - but if he really does think those chemicals are killing bees, I certainly can't criticize him for campaigning zealously against them. Were I convinced that was the problem, I hope I would react the same way.
> 
> He has to be helped to understand that there's room for discussion about this; that the issue is far from settled. And he has to understand that the other people here care about bees too, and aren't "the enemy". He will come to understand neither if he's just kicked out.


Pleae believe me I do not regard the overwhelming majority of people here as 'the enemy'. I do think that the application of the rules on reasoned debate on thi Forum seems to be very erratic and very partial. 
I get 'moderated' permanently, merely for defending myself against constant personal attacks - but the attackers are actually ENCOURAGED by the Moderator.

Just a small correction I don't 'dismiss varroa mites' at all. The point is that Pettis's discovery and Cedric Alaux's discovery give a perfect explanation/ hypothesis as to why bees, whose immune systems have been destroyed by neonics, will succumb to varroa, viruses, bacteria and fungal infections.

Neonics are the HIV of the bee world.

My varroa -education began with Bayer's Bayvarol strips in 1998, and they worked until the varroa became resistant.
I then tried Thymol patties - and that worked. Oxalic Acid became standard treatment here around 2005 and Formic Acid came in around 2010.

Formic Acid evaporation works extremely well - it kills varroa in sealed cells and - as as I can judge it does not harm the bees or the queens if used properly. I strongly recommend everyone check out Formic Acid treatment for varroa.
It works so well that if used twice a year - in Spring and again in Autumn, I rarely even see more than a few varroa these days. in 1998 when I first got hit I had thousands in one hive. However, it still did not die and recovered quite well.


----------



## jbeshearse

deknow said:


> Except that is not what is being claimed by border.
> ...not much wiggle room there to claim that they "might be", when the claim is that they "ARE".
> 
> deknow


Except they didn't claim "they are" they said "they suggest worrying environmental impacts beyond what was known when we published our 2009 report"

So by all means lets morph "suggests" into "are"

Further if Anyoneis actually interested in fact instead of fantasy:

Statistics, inaccurate numbers, biased opinions, somewhere maybe the truth resides:

I have included links to the studies and articles so anyone who wants can read them for themselves.

From “Buglife” The Invertebrate Charity”:
http://smallbluemarble.org.uk/wp-co...pact-of-neonicotinoids-on-the-environment.pdf

“Of the 33 papers that could be categorised 31 (94%) of the papers contained evidence that neonicotinoids would or could have significant environmental impacts above and beyond what was previously known. Only two (6%) of the studies provide reassuring evidence that neonicotinoids are not damaging the environment or not likely to damage the environment.”

So, maybe it wasn’t, 55 papers but 33.

Additionally from the same group:

“Methods

We have reviewed the 41 papers and put them into two categories –

1) Study suggests worrying environmental impacts above and beyond what was known when we produced our 2009 report

2) 2) Study suggests no effect or an effect that indicates that environmental impacts are lower than expected.

In addition a number of papers were considered where either the outcome was not conclusively in category 1 or 2 or the experimental methodology was flawed or clearly not relevant to the real world.”

Okay, so maybe the number of papers was not 55 or 33 but 41, at this point, who knows?

Then let us look at the first two “1’s which by The Charity’s guidelines “suggest a worrying environmental impact”

First study listed as a “1” was titled “Interactions between Nosema microspores and a neonicotinoid weaken honeybees”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2847190/

The study concludes that: “Our results demonstrated interactive effects between microsporidia and pesticides that weaken honeybee health.”
Just for information, the Nosema only infected bees died at rates of about 29% while the neonicotinoid exposed bees died at a rate of about 16%. Bees that saw neither died at a rate of about 6%. Those exposed to both died at rates of about 46%. (After 10 days). Incidentally, when infected with Nosema, the bees consumed more of the tainted sucrose, which undoubtedly led to additional doses of neonicotinoid. So in effect the major contributor to mortality was the Nosema, not the imidacloprid.

Also from an article in American Bee Journal and Bee Culture that looked at the first study (Alaux et al.): http://bees.msu.edu/2011/effects-of-nosema-on-honey-bee-behavior-and-physiology/
“Alaux et al. (2010) studied whether a neonicotinoid (imidacloprid) and Nosema (a mixture of both species) would show a synergistic interaction in affecting honey bees. They found that the combination of both agents caused the highest mortality and food consumption.”

From the same paper:

“In a more recent study, Vidau et al. (2011) found a similar synergistic effect between pesticides and N. Ceranae. After being exposed to sublethal doses of fipronil or thiacloprid, N. ceranae-infected bees showed a higher mortality than in uninfected ones.”
So this tells us that other pesticides that are approved for use result in the same mortality to bees as does the neonicotinoid. So the study in effect says that the neonicotinoids have no more effect than do other approved pesticides that our bees encounter in the field. Pesticides that will most likely be used to replace the neonicotinoids.

The second study:

http://cognition.ups-tlse.fr/productscientific/documents/papers/Aliouane ET&C 08.pdf

“Oral thiamethoxam delivered at the highest dose (one-fifth of the LD50 corresponding to 30 _g/L) had no significant effect on mortality. Similarly, chronic oral exposure of honeybees to either imidacloprid or its plant metabolites induced no lethal effect at concentrations of 20 and 40 _g/L [26]. Acetamiprid 1 _g/bee (one-tenth of the LD50) induced the highest observed mortality level (30%), but this level was not statistically different from that of the control group.”

Also from the study:

“However, we failed to find any relevant biological effect of thiamethoxam on the honeybee after acute sublethal treatment [20], and we observed only a limited impairment of sucrose sensitivity and olfactory learning after chronic treatment (present study).”

So after looking at the first two studies that the Charity rated “1”, troubling, neither has anything really conclusive that indicates that neonicotinoids are worse than what they will be replaced with. 

It appears to me some sensationalism and number inflation on the anti-neonicotinoids group part. Don’t misunderstand me, they may be right in the end. But for the first two studies, we would be better served dealing with N. Ceranae, than worrying about neonicotinoids. It really appears that the newer more virulent strain of Nosema combines its effects on top of ANY pesticide load to lead to colony death. This is not a smoking gun for CCD. In reality it appears that neonicotinoids are less harmful to honeybees than many of the alternatives.


----------



## melliferal

Less harmful is certainly still harmful; but it seems to me the battle needs to be taken to nosema.

The biggest problem with focusing solely on neonicotinoids is that it's basically misleading. There doesn't appear to be anything special about "neonics" compared to other pesticides. Whether neonicotinoids stay or go, the larger group of "pesticides" will continue to kill bees because, well, that's what pesticides do; so we need to be doing more to raise awareness of pesticides in general. What's going to happen when neonicotinoids are put on long-term moratorium because of our efforts, and bee deaths don't plummet significantly (beyond typical deviations) because everyone simply replaces them with other pesticides that kill just as easily? What's going to happen is our Bayer(etc) friends are going to say "see, obviously there was nothing wrong with neonicotinoids", and seriously, how could anybody argue? Consequently, we'll have a whole 'nuther mountain to climb whenever we as the bee industry make claims about any other substance; we'll lack credibility.

Challenging agrichem companies directly by pushing for regulation might not be the best or only way to go. Perhaps we should try to appeal more to farmers themselves, and get them to use _less_ pesticide overall, no matter what precisely it is that they use. They recognize the value of bees and will be more receptive because they aren't on the defensive.


----------



## deknow

jbeshearse said:


> Except they didn't claim "they are" they said "they suggest worrying environmental impacts beyond what was known when we published our 2009 report"


Fortunately, we have Boarderbeeman to "fix" such misleading quotes so that they more accurately reflect the truth...or something.


> 96% of the studies fell into category one: i.e. they concluded neonics ARE responsible for CCD/ mass bee deaths




deknow


----------



## D Coates

borderbeeman said:


> I don't know whether you have noticed - but THIS part of the Forum is called:
> 
> CCD and Pesticides Discussion.
> 
> *What did you expect to find here?*
> 
> A discussion about the ancient origins of Neolithic Hioney Hunters in the Namib Desert?
> How about the origins of the name 'Beowulf' - the first great hero to ever have his name written down in English, in the 6the Century - it means Bee Wolf in Olde English.
> 
> I came here to share with you a European and global perspective on the emerging science and ne regulatory actions on the issue of neonicotinoids and bee deaths; they were recently BANNED in 27 countries - did you notice?
> 
> Glad you have no bee problems in the corn belt. Strange that my bee farmer friend from the Mid West just lost 2,100 out of 3,200 hives this Spring, which he attributes to his bee stocking up on corn pollen in an area just like yours.


I assumed you'd avoid answering the question on the "chemtrail theory" you champion as well. I'm showing that another theory you strongly support with "supporting scientific data" as also all flash and no bang. It shows a pattern where you can't consider you're wrong there either. 

Which Dog defense did I use that time? I've got B and I. If I can get N, G, and O, I get my overtime pay!


----------



## borderbeeman

For the record,
I have never posted athing about 'chemtrails' - I don't believe in the existence of 'chemtrails' - that is yet another American based conspiracy theory. Nothing to do with reality - nothing to do with me.


----------



## melliferal

I was under the impression that most of those countries had actually only temporarily suspended neonicotinoid use for a couple of years. I may be mistaken.


----------



## Daniel Y

I believe it was in January that they placed a temporary ban on them pending investigation. Those investigations resulted in a two year ban, also pending further investigation as well as a study of the results during the non use of them. So from a short term ban to a two year ban in less than 4 months. The current direction of this issue is not good for the pesticide. 

I find it strange that people will argue for the benefit of others at their own expense. Sure keep your higher yields. I have a strong back and can shoulder the losses for you. As the community as a whole claims how difficult it is to make a profit keeping bees. Maybe it is time for less crop and more bee?


----------



## mac

Birdman said:


> borderbeeman you have started 79 treads, all which has something to do with pesticides. That sound like ranting to me.
> Can we start a petition to ban borderbeeman from this site. I live in the middle of the corn belt and have had no problems.


 hope he doesn't get run off like Dr. Pedro.


----------



## Birdman

mac said:


> hope he doesn't get run off like Dr. Pedro.


Dr. Pedro?


----------



## jim lyon

He was an outspoken advocate of fgmo. Run off? Kind of brings to mind images of tar feathers and pitchforks dosent it? Let's just say some folks enjoy the give and take of debates more than others.


----------



## Vance G

borderbeeman said:


> For the record,
> I have never posted athing about 'chemtrails' - I don't believe in the existence of 'chemtrails' - that is yet another American based conspiracy theory. Nothing to do with reality - nothing to do with me.


If our American conspiracy theories are so plentiful, why do you need to bring another? I love those English Manners as you come here to run us down. Pip Pip, Jolly Jolly, Rot Rot aand all that! Goodbye!


----------



## deknow

Err, in this case, it is borderbeeman who is the victim of good old fashioned American manners....having been accused of promoting conspiracy theories. There is plenty to criticise here, but this isn't it.

Deknow


----------



## CentralPAguy

I am really glad that borderbeeman is posting links and sincerely hope that he keeps doing so. I don't think he has profit in mind when it comes to bees, but is sounding warning bells that all is not well and showing us many connections between neonics and bee loss.

From my own personal experience, I don't want to have my bees next to any farmer field as I am likely to lose a much larger percentage of them than I do for my town bees. 

Then indirectly, I read on some of these posts that I and others must be a bad beekeeper for not keeping my country bees alive. For those that are seeing success in the middle of the cornfields, I am now wondering if location to other sources of pollen just might be the reason for their success. I don't have much access to Goldenrod as others do as the farmers around here are grabbing all available acreage to plant their crops as they are in a boom cycle.

So Borderbeeman, keep posting those links and I'll be my own judge to the validity of them.


----------



## BlueDiamond

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1305&L=BEE-L&D=1&O=D&P=161176
"There are **** few scientists who have stated that actual field studies found that neonics are causing problems for bees."

Why is it extremely unlikely that the neonics are causing problems for bees? Answer: Lack of exposure due to the extremely tiny doses that are used to treat seeds and the fact that the seeds are buried in the soil.

Example: A 2.5 gallon container of Bayer's Poncho/VOTiVO seed treatment, contains 40.3% clothianidin

Only 2.7 fluid ounces of PONCHO is used to treat the 80,000 kernels that are found in one ~ 50 pound bag of corn seed that will plant 2.2 acres of land in corn.

So that means a 12 fluid ounce soda pop sized can of PONCHO is enough to treat a whopping 9.8 acres of corn = the size of SEVEN foot ball fields!

And means 3 quarts of PONCHO is enough to treat 74 acres of land in corn = the acreage of turf typically found in a 18 hole golf course!

And means a 5 gallons of PONCHO is enough to treat nearly a whole square mile of land in corn!


----------



## Daniel Y

Then it must be okay if someone urinates in your coffee if it is only a little bit. One problem I have heard is that the clothianidin finds it's way from the ground coating a seed to the pollen of the eventual plant. from there it is blown in the wind to anything and everything. I don't think there would be a problem if it stayed in the ground. Not for bees anyway.


----------



## CentralPAguy

BlueDiamond,

I don't think I understand your message, other than it is just a tiny bit of poison and it shouldn't kill them. -- Well, it is enough to kill the intended pests and I have seen my bees in the corn gathering pollen and they arrive back to my hives with that very pollen and they store that pollen and then feed it to my bees. My understanding are that neonoids do stay in the ground -- What is the lifespan of these pesticides --- Isn't it true that weeds that come up after the harvest now have the poison in them as well. Does the poison compound in the soil when the second and third planting occurs. I know Farmers are trying to get second crops into the ground within a single growing season. So how much poison is in the corn/soybean plant when my bees make their visit.

Again, there is a major difference between my town bees and my country bees in hive survivability. And one of the differences that I can think of is the variance of food availability and then seeing huge amounts of fields each with each corn/soybean plant having their microdosage of the pesticide neonoid.


----------



## camero7

I am next to a corn field with one of my yards. I have never seen the bees working the corn tassels. I have seen bees work the corn tassels of sweet corn.


----------



## BlueDiamond

Daniel Y said:


> One problem I have heard is that the clothianidin finds it's way from the ground coating a seed to the pollen of the eventual plant. from there it is blown in the wind to anything and everything.


With what consequences to bee health? 

The chemicals that come out of car exhaust are lethal to both bees and humans at high enough concentration.
But at highly diluted concentrations both bees and humans do fine in places like this:


----------



## hpm08161947

CentralPAguy said:


> BlueDiamond,
> 
> 
> Again, there is a major difference between my town bees and my country bees in hive survivability. And one of the differences that I can think of is the variance of food availability and then seeing huge amounts of fields each with each corn/soybean plant having their microdosage of the pesticide neonoid.


How many town hives are there?

How many country hives are there?


----------



## Barry

Daniel Y said:


> Then it must be okay if someone urinates in your coffee if it is only a little bit.


Nothing keeping your bees from sucking up raw sewage from septic fields or pastures. They do it. You've already eaten urine in your honey! so what's a drop or two in your coffee?


----------



## hpm08161947

Barry said:


> Nothing keeping your bees from sucking up raw sewage from septic fields or pastures. They do it. You've already eaten urine in your honey! so what's a drop or two in your coffee?


Heh. Yea it's always an interesting reaction that people who own town hives have when they discover that their town bees are enthusiastic dumpster divers. Honey is an amazing concoction....


----------



## WLC

My two cents:

Could it bee that they're using probiotics?


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> With what consequences to bee health?
> 
> The chemicals that come out of car exhaust are lethal to both bees and humans at high enough concentration.
> But at highly diluted concentrations both bees and humans do fine in places like this:


 Well no. People do not do fine in places like this. they develop respiratory diseases suffer with breathing and when the smog gets bad enough some folks die. They have smog warnings for places like this and you can download a smog app for your smart phone to let ya know how bad it is. May 25 there is a worldwide march against Monsanto


----------



## BlueDiamond

It's routine to see honey bees down in that smog of Los Angeles in residential yards and in industrial parks nectaring on ornamentals such as bottlebrush, rosemary, etc. Year after year. Plus the pest control operators get calls to kill swarms. Same situation on neonic farmland - lots of thriving bees.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mac said:


> They have smog warnings for places like this and you can download a *smog *app for your smart phone to let ya know how bad it is. May 25 there is a worldwide march against Monsanto


Now Monsanto is being blamed for _*smog*_?? Ridiculous!

How many of those May 25 marchers will *drive cars *to the march assembly points? :scratch: :lpf:

:ws:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

BigDawg said:


> Watch this video, then tell us that neonicotinoids don't harm bees....


*Soapy water* kills bees, too! Are you going to now campaign against soap and detergent??  :lpf:

Neonicotinoids are _insecticides_. Nobody is claiming they don't kill bees. Of course insecticides kill bees. But the issue is whether _neonicotinoids are responsible_ for widespread bee decline. In spite of a lot of shouting and screaming, no one has has succeeded in proving that point.

.


----------



## BigDawg

Actually, a LOT of people are claiming that the call to ban neonicotinoids in the US (like they just did in the EU) is a "rush to judgement" and "not based on sound science," etc. In this thread, Blue Diamond stated:

"Why is it extremely unlikely that the neonics are causing problems for bees? Answer: Lack of exposure due to the extremely tiny doses that are used to treat seeds and the fact that the seeds are buried in the soil.

Example: A 2.5 gallon container of Bayer's Poncho/VOTiVO seed treatment, contains 40.3% clothianidin

Only 2.7 fluid ounces of PONCHO is used to treat the 80,000 kernels that are found in one ~ 50 pound bag of corn seed that will plant 2.2 acres of land in corn.

So that means a 12 fluid ounce soda pop sized can of PONCHO is enough to treat a whopping 9.8 acres of corn = the size of SEVEN foot ball fields!

And means 3 quarts of PONCHO is enough to treat 74 acres of land in corn = the acreage of turf typically found in a 18 hole golf course!"

Watch the video, then tell me neonics don't harm bees....





Rader Sidetrack said:


> *Soapy water* kills bees, too! Are you going to now campaign against soap and detergent??  :lpf:
> 
> Neonicotinoids are _insecticides_. Nobody is claiming they don't kill bees.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Watch the video, then tell me neonics don't harm bees....


What video you are refering to? If it's a video about planter dust that's a once a year potential bee exposure problem during dry and windy conditions and is largely mitigable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4VKaaq70Yc


----------



## BigDawg

This video: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?282984-Large-pesticide-bee-kill-in-minnesota



BlueDiamond said:


> What video you are refering to? If it's a video about planter dust that's a once a year potential bee exposure problem during dry and windy conditions and is largely mitigable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4VKaaq70Yc


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Andrey Limonchenko said:


> Imidacloprid is 7297x more toxic to honeybees than DDT (acute toxicity). However, acute toxicity is not the main problem. Imidacloprid is highly persistent (160 days halflife time in water, 2 years in soil)


Andrey,
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation's research shows that Imidacloprid photodegrades with a half life of 3 hours in water and photodegrades with a half life of 39 days in soil. Unless it's buried, it's not as persistent as you think.

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/imid.pdf


----------



## BayHighlandBees

I've seen bees drink urine fresh from the pig! 



Barry said:


> Nothing keeping your bees from sucking up raw sewage from septic fields or pastures. They do it. You've already eaten urine in your honey! so what's a drop or two in your coffee?


----------



## Daniel Y

That's strange because I keep hearing how the bees are in danger or annihilation. And that is pretty much everywhere. I was under the impression where is a desperate need to fix what ails them. Multiple times over. So gain I guess it is a matter of what is considered fine, healthy and thriving. From what I see the only reason e have bees at all is they have a tremendous ability to repopulate. After a winter in which huge loses are the headline story. I am not hearing about how swarms are being seen in many placed in greater numbers than usual. This does not mean these bees are swarming into a healthy environment. in fact they will swarm into the same environment that caused the devastation just months ago. I would not characterize it as healthy.


----------



## gmcharlie

Daniel Y said:


> That's strange because I keep hearing how the bees are in danger or annihilation. And that is pretty much everywhere. .[/QUOTE
> 
> Your hearing what you want to hear.... Read the USDA reports on numbers of bee colonies in the US... yup we have had a cpl tough years... but the numbers show a level to increase in hives....


----------

