# Fluvalinate, Cumaphos, and Foundation



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Thanks for posting. I'm just an hour into it, but the part about Fluvalinate blew me away. I'd never heard about that 
information before. It also was the first I heard of a weak corellation 
between CCD and hive miticide levels. Looks like there is a great
deal about pesticides in hives (in environment and placed in hives) that needs to be investigated with CCD.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

ccd or no, anyone who is trying to be "organic" or "chemical free", or "breeding for survivors" should take another look at using foundation at all. the sample they used wasn't big (1 piece from each of 5 suppliers), but all were heavily contaminated with fluvalinate and cumaphos...as well as other ag chems.

deknow


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

I would like to see a bigger study looking at that.
One way to get organic foundation is if you can get
unwaxed plastic foundation, and then paint roller your organic 
heated wax on the plastic. This is USDA certified 
organic approved. It does take lots of wax to do this.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

well, foundationless seems easier to me...and regardless of "organic standards" (which have not been finalized, so i don't know where you are getting your usda info), given the choice between 2 "organic honeys", one made with all wax drawn by the bees, and one on plastic comb....which one would you buy?

besides, if you don't start out with foundationless, where are you going to get clean wax to paint on your plastic comb? from comb made from contaminated foundation? i don't think so.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...as far as a bigger study looking at foundation, it is my understanding that it costs about $200 for each of these lab tests.

if the findings were that all the foundation is contaminated (and there hasn't been enough testing yet to know...but 5/5 is a pretty severe result for a first look), what is the industry going to do?

what percentage of the supply houses sales are foundation? probably a pretty big percentage. who is going to do these tests and be "the bearer of bad news"? how much foundation needs to be tested? who is going to pay for it? if these tests are done, who will have access to the results?

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

also, it's not clear what "organic wax" is. are you going to accept it as chem free by what's on the box...or will you have to test it? given that the foundation they tested had all kinds of ag chems besides the ones beeks put in the hives, how clean do you really think a marketed "organic wax" will be?

deknow


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

deknow said:


> well, foundationless seems easier to me...


It may seem that way, but not when you run a side by side comparison
of foundationless against foundation hives. I like the way foundationless
performs during the buildup period prior to swarming season and the major honey flow. Once the major flow hits, all you get is honey storage comb which is completely useless to rear more bees in. Its fine to reserve for honey supers, but I sell spring splits and having clean drawn comb early in the season for brood rearing is needed.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...and where are you going to get clean wax for that clean drawn comb?

as far as drawing durring the flow, you want to keep the comb drawing in the brood nest as much as possible, and put full (or not perfect worker) comb up top for the bees to fill with honey.

deknow


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*commercial wax foundation*

is pretty clean. call dadant some time and talk with the guy in charge of that. 

he said that the rendering processing & ultrafiltration removes most of any chem comtamination. they also reject some loads of wax for foundation. 

my impression after talking with them was very very positive. 

i also take exception to the remark that the CCD brood comb was heavily cotaminated with Ag chems. the raw data i have is that fluvalinate and coumophos was in the 10,000-50,000ppm and most of the farm chems are in the single digit ppm. 

other historical studies have shown similar results. the notion that farm chems are a wide spread source of hive contamination is not backed up by any data. localized pesticides kills do happen but it has more to do with individual applicator then the false notion that any farm chem spray every time its usd is is some how getting into a bee hive and contamining the comb. 

think about it, if the ppm was that high in the "field" most bees die before depositing any pollen or nectar into the comb. contrast that contamination route to Gomer the beekeeper dumping chems directly into a hive.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...the data i have access to is all in the video provided. i encourage you to watch it.

deknow


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

deknow said:


> ...and where are you going to get clean wax for that clean drawn comb?
> 
> as far as drawing durring the flow, you want to keep the comb drawing in the brood nest as much
> as possible, and put full (or not perfect worker) comb up top for the bees to fill with honey.
> ...


Anyone should be able to get a lot more comb drawn in honey supers
then they can in the broodnest during a flow. With foundation provided
in the honey supers, a strong colony can draw it out quick. Down in
the broodnest they are not building that rapidly at that time of year.
Before the honey flow, they are, but not once it hits. Doing it the way
you suggest is leaving honey, and more importantly drawn comb,
in the field.

Bud Dingler, I'm not sure about PPM's but we should know more
about this new study soon. She said it will be in ABJ soon and 
a science journal after that. Or are you referring to her raw data?
I agree, from her talk, that the real issue seems to be beekeeper
use of pesticides. They found beekeeper pesticides in trapped incoming
pollen. She said that means the bees themselves are contaminated
even in the field.

I suggest anyone interested find the time to watch the whole thing.
There where some good questions at the end as well and good points
about what happens when a contact pesticide, apistan, is basically
fed to the bees via carboard or shop towels. Its not what it was
designed for and the stuff is toxic to the bees.

Back to deknow's comment about where you get clean wax and why
test more foundation; I would like to see more study of exactly what
is the contamination level of foundation. I do take only 5 samples 
seriously even though you seem to assume I don't. She offers up
a solution, if it is an issue, in her talk. Gamma radiation could be used
on the foundation wax. Expensive yes, but if its found to be a significant 
problem then grants could be sought out for the equipment.
But you have to test that sort of thing out first, it could easily be no
problem whatsoever at the level in foundation if a beekeeper either
follows the label on Apistan and Checkmite or simply does not use them 
like I don't. She recommends Formic Acid, Apigaurd, and Apilife Var. Also 
note off label uses of Formic Acid are showing up as causing
problems with sterile queens. Use the label folks, its there for a reason.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> Anyone should be able to get a lot more comb drawn in honey supers
> then they can in the broodnest during a flow. ...Doing it the way
> you suggest is leaving honey, and more importantly drawn comb,
> in the field.


i'm not disagreeing with you, but a couple of comments. 

1. there are all kinds of "management practices" that can result in more honey...from taking 100% of the bees stores and feeding back syrup (or killing the bees) to using antibiotics regularly. just because one can get more honey by using a particular method, doesn't mean it's "worthwhile", or good for the long term (of bees and beekeepers).

2. if you are really looking for comb to store honey in, then i don't see a problem of letting the bees make honey storage comb in a top box if you are short of comb.

3. the worst thing for you as a beekeeper, and as an industry, would be contaminated honey. until we can assure our customers that the comb and foundation in our hives is clean, this is going to be a problem...do you assume that honey stored in comb from contaminated wax would be clean? i don't.



> I would like to see more study of exactly what
> is the contamination level of foundation. I do take only 5 samples
> seriously even though you seem to assume I don't. She offers up
> a solution, if it is an issue, in her talk. Gamma radiation could be used
> on the foundation wax.


...i don't assume anything, i was just pointing out that a small sample is a significant concern when contamination is found across the board. the radiation is a _possible_ solution, not one that they have demonstrated to work yet. how many years to get the details ironed out? how long to rotate out old contaminated comb? how long for the residual levels in the colony to be near zero?

deknow


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

deknow said:


> i'm not disagreeing with you, but a couple of comments.
> 
> 1. there are all kinds of "management practices" that can result in more honey...from taking 100% of the bees stores and feeding back syrup (or killing the bees) to using antibiotics regularly. just because one can get more honey by using a particular method, doesn't mean it's "worthwhile", or good for the long term (of bees and beekeepers).
> 
> 2. if you are really looking for comb to store honey in, then i don't see a problem of letting the bees make honey storage comb in a top box if you are short of comb.


Well, for one they build it slower in my observations, and 2. as I was saying, I need fresh brood comb to move into the broodnest mid april to make splits from. I'm not the only beekeeper whom has the need to move comb drawn from honey supers into brood boxes when making increase, splits, culling comb, etc. I like to give them some empty frames to build new comb in the brood nest too, but when you pull out 10 frames from the broodnest at a time, you need to put some drawn comb in there or you'll slow them down quite a bit.

I don't disagree with your #1, and am not criticizing what you choose to do. You obviously take much more care in your managment for healthy bees than do many. My point is more that the 'all foundationless management' is not going to work for most beekepers including myself and that does not mean its because I'm pushing the bees beyond their limits. Its just not practical to do %100 foundationless in an operation where maximizing income is required to have a profit instead of a loss.



> 3. the worst thing for you as a beekeeper, and as an industry, would be contaminated honey. until we can assure our customers that the comb and foundation in our hives is clean, this is going to be a problem...do you assume that honey stored in comb from contaminated wax would be clean? i don't.


If its absorbed enough to be a concern in honey or bee health if you don't use any of those chemicals in your hives, I don't know. But I do think it would be a premature assumption to say that it would be a concern on either honey or hive health if you are talking about just what is found in foundation. Once you add more of those chemicals in the hive however, my opinion changes.


> ...i don't assume anything, i was just pointing out that a small sample is a significant concern when contamination is found across the board. the radiation is a _possible_ solution, not one that they have demonstrated to work yet. how many years to get the details ironed out? how long to rotate out old contaminated comb? how long for the residual levels in the colony to be near zero?
> deknow


It shouldn't take any years, just a few months to see if it works if someone can get on it. Its important to encourage that kind of investigation and solution, not reject it. Many pesticides break down rapidly in sunlight, that is known, and thats what they are thinking about. If it didn't work, I think that would be a great surprise.

How long to rotate contaminated comb is up to individual beekeepers. But one would need to clearly show it is a problem to provide the motivation, even if it seems obvious to you and me. 

As to residual levels in the colony towards zero; If you take the issue of all known pesticides in hives, you will never reach zero because of contaminates in the environment and on the farms, based on the operations she surveyed.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

michael, all i'm saying is that your needs might change...if anyone starts testing honey, you are going to "need" to make honey that is free of residues. this is my own personal prediction, i just think that the results of honey tests would turn consumers off of eating it.

we don't use any treatments in our hives, and no foundation. hopefully, we will get our comb tested, which will be interesting.

my recolection is that the most specific she was about the concentrations of fluvalinate and cumaphos in foundation was "significant amounts". what that really means remains to be seen. i don't know how one can be unconcerned.

anyone wanna have their honey tested "publicly"?

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...as far as decontaminating the wax with radiation goes, they do have a reactor on campus, so testing isn't a huge deal.

but the presentation was specific in that they had not had good luck with straight irradiation, and were experimenting with coating the wax with water before irradiation...with no good idea why this might be more effective.

i'm not as optimistic as you that there will be a quick and easy solution.

deknow


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

I'm not at home so I can't listen to the presentation. What I get out of the posts so far is that they're trying to make a connection between certain chemicals (Coumaphos & Tau-fluvalinate) and CCD?

Determining the concentrations of those compunds isn't terribly difficult. $200 a sample seems a bit excessive. Prepped samples for a GC/MS run average ~10$ each.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>do you assume that honey stored in comb from contaminated wax would be clean? i don't.

Honey supers, storing honey in comb with no exposure to chemicals will not show up residues as if you would take comb from the brood chamber, where it has had chemical exposure. Taking comb from the chambers to extract is a bad practice, if that beekeeper is involved with a chemical program.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

there is data in research papers that suggest that honey in supers and super comb wax does not pick up much if any detectable traces of contamination in brood comb. the residues are chemically locked up in the comb not wandering molecules in the hive.

i would not worry about it. 

the untold story in that video is that the feedlot beeks have been dumping jug mixes of fluvalinate and comouphos into there hives for over a decade or more. some Gomers even use multiple treatments in fall or over the course of a season. 

these chronic off label abusers are a far cry from a hobbyist that used Apistan or checkmite a few times. 

the big honey packers test honey every day and have internal specs for the residues that are below EPA values (many have lowered them recently or they would run out of honey). they even have specs for Amitraz which is not labeled for use in bees but is a common material used by the feedlot crowd. interestingly the EPA has a spec for Amitraz in honey. i wonder why? 

while brood comb is undoubtedly contaminated in most of the hives in our fine country. the levels are far more elevated then even the worst honey a packer might find. 

we all have to realize that science has intruments that have magnitudes of resolution lower then 10 years ago. 

we live in a world where we inhale or absorbed chems all of the time. chem prescence is no big deal sometimes - the question is what levels. 

i highly doubt we will find the levels in foundation to be of concern other then an indicator of trends and whats wrong with American beekeeping.
to imply there is a health hazard to bees and humans I think is stretching it.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>to imply there is a health hazard to bees and humans I think is stretching it.

From what I've heard from Marion Ellis, Nancy Ostiguy and others I would say that implying there is NOT a health hazard to bees is stretching it a lot.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Bud Dingler said:


> there is data in research papers that suggest that honey in supers and super comb wax does not pick up much if any detectable traces of contamination in brood comb. the residues are chemically locked up in the comb not wandering molecules in the hive.


...then how does it get in the brood, bee bread, and trapped pollen? seriously, if the trapped pollen is showing fluvalinate and cumaphos even before it enters the hive (presumably through contact with the bees), how can the honey _not_ be contaminated? 

i've also seen studies that look at colored sugar water and colored wax, and shows that even after capping and drawing, these materials get moved throughout the hive. of course, it's a much more direct test to actually test the honey then to measure contamination in wax, bee bread, pollen, and brood and speculate about what might be in the honey....but no one wants to do the tests...can you guess why?



> the untold story in that video is that the feedlot beeks have been dumping jug mixes of fluvalinate and comouphos into there hives for over a decade or more. some Gomers even use multiple treatments in fall or over the course of a season.
> these chronic off label abusers are a far cry from a hobbyist that used Apistan or checkmite a few times.


i'm not sure this is so untold...maryann alluded to this kind of thing in her talk. perhaps we are looking at "the worst of the worst" here....but they sell their honey and wax somewhere...and americans are buying the stuff. it's easy to get mad at china for contaminated pet food and lead paint in childrens toys, how will american consumers react when these "natural, domestic products" are found to be contaminated?



> the big honey packers test honey every day and have internal specs for the residues that are below EPA values (many have lowered them recently or they would run out of honey). they even have specs for Amitraz which is not labeled for use in bees but is a common material used by the feedlot crowd. interestingly the EPA has a spec for Amitraz in honey. i wonder why?


what do i know? i've never been around big honey packers...and i hope to keep it that way. btw, i thought you said, "there is data in research papers that suggest that honey in supers and super comb wax does not pick up much if any detectable traces of contamination in brood comb. the residues are chemically locked up in the comb not wandering molecules in the hive."? so where does the contamination come from if not from the wax? is it better contamination if it comes from a source other than wax?



> while brood comb is undoubtedly contaminated in most of the hives in our fine country. the levels are far more elevated then even the worst honey a packer might find.


is this supposed to be reassuring? i'm curious how you have knowledge of "contamination levels in brood comb from most of the hives in this country", and "the worst honey a packer might find"? do you really have enough data to know this, or is it speculation on your part?



> we all have to realize that science has intruments that have magnitudes of resolution lower then 10 years ago.
> we live in a world where we inhale or absorbed chems all of the time. chem prescence is no big deal sometimes - the question is what levels.


yes, that is the question



> i highly doubt we will find the levels in foundation to be of concern other then an indicator of trends and whats wrong with American beekeeping.
> to imply there is a health hazard to bees and humans I think is stretching it.


perhaps for those that use the chems that are found in foundation anyways, it's not a big deal. for those of us who are not using treatments however, any level is problematic. as far as health hazards go, it would be foolish to ignore fluvalinate and cumaphos (and probably a host of other chems) as possible contributors to whatever "CCD" is. note that it isn't just me "implying"...the conclusion of the video was a recomendation to stop using fluvalinate and cumaphos.

...but in the end, we will have to wait and see the published data to have a better idea what was found.

deknow


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

The claimed change in formulation to fluvalinate is what concerns me.

MaryAnn also spoke in CA at the combined ABF/AHPA meeting, and
I think that the most significant item raised is the claim that the
new formulation is much more toxic.

Once again, I don't see this as the "common factor" and proximate
cause of CCD, since something as simple as miticide use certainly has
been tracked down and found to not correlate to outbreaks of CCD.

But it is a sobering concern, both from the point of view of someone
trying to keep insects alive, and from the point of view of someone
trying to sell a food product.


----------



## aszalan (Sep 16, 2007)

studies have been conducted on coumaphos residues 


> Residue distribution of the acaricide coumaphos in honey following application of a new slow-release formulation
> Emmanuel Karazafiris , Chrysoula Tananaki , Urania Menkissoglu-Spiroudi , Andreas Thrasyvoulou . Pest Manag Sci 64:165–171 (2007)
> 
> ABSTRACT
> Acaricide used in beehives for the control of varroa often leaves residues in bee products. The behaviour and distribution of the acaricide coumaphos in honey following the application of a new slow-release strip formulation (CheckMite+) was assessed. The bee colonies were allowed to build new combs without foundation, and two strips were hung in the brood chamber of each colony for a period of 42 days. The distribution of coumaphos residues in honey in relation to the position of the frame and the duration of treatment was examined by collecting samples from each comb at various time intervals up to 145 days after treatment. In the brood chamber, coumaphos was incorporated into honey from the first day of application, and residues accumulated mainly in combs placed next to strips. In the adjacent combs, residues remained at low concentrations with slight variations. In the honey chamber, residue concentrations on the day of strip removal ranged between 0.006 and 0.020 mg kg-1, while 79 days after application the concentration of coumaphos residues was below 0.020 mg kg-1. Residues above the EC fixed maximum residue limit (MRL) of 0.1 mg kg-1 were measured only in brood chamber honey obtained from those combs placed next to strips. In these samples, 0.060-0.111 mg kg-1 of coumaphos was detected up to 103 days after strip removal. Coumaphos residues in honey extracted from combs that were placed at the edge of the brood chamber were found below the MRL value, even during the 42 day period of CheckMite+ strip treatment.


and on fluvalinate residues in honey and beeswax


> Fluvalinate Residues in Honey and Beeswax after Different Colony Treatments
> A. D. Tsigouri,1 U. Menkissoglu-Spiroudi,2 A. Thrasyvoulou,3 Gr. Diamantidis4Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. (2004) 72:975–982


 fluvalinate residues in the control hives honey averaged 0.5 ug/kg while the hives with fluvalinate treatment (apistan) did not exceed 6.1 ug/kg. fluvalinate residues in brood comb ranged from 0.8 to 12.7 mg/kg.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

mmm, these are studies done using "proper use of approved forumlations of approved treatments". this is very different from testing honey from real world operations that may or may not be using unapproved treatments/formulations.

deknow


----------



## aszalan (Sep 16, 2007)

Given the mode of action of fluvalinate (pyrethroid) and coumaphos (organophosphate) I dont think that they are a factor in CCD. Plus several sublethal studies have shown that acute levels of coumaphos have only a slight effect on honey bee behavior. for example



> Effects of Acute Sublethal Exposure to Coumaphos or Diazinon on Acquisition and Discrimination of Odor Stimuli in the Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
> Authors: Weick, Jason; Thorn, Robert S.
> Source: Journal of Economic Entomology, Volume 95, Number 2, April 2002 , pp. 227-236(10)
> 
> ...


However, the sublethal effects of neonicotinoid insecticides, may be a factor in CCD
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/requiemForTheHoneybee.php


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

aszalan,
do you know the original use of fluvalinate wrt bees (before beekeepers started putting it in the hive)?

it was used as a memory retardent...as a pre-spray in the field in order to keep the bees from coming back to forage (so that the really toxic stuff could be sprayed without killing foraging bees).

perhaps it's an overly simplistic "analysis", but doesn't this resemble some of the ccd symptoms? ..bees flying away from the hive and not returning? forgetting where they live?

also, the stacking of different miticides, pesticides, herbacides, fungicides can increase toxicity a thousandfold.

i'm certainly not convinced that fluvalinate and/or cumaphos are a factor in ccd (whatever that is). making clean and safe food is importnat, however...as is the long term health of our bee population.

i'm not sure how beekeepers will be able to influence farmers, businesses, homeowners, governments, etc to reduce their pesticide usage without cleaning up their own act first.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...here is some other interesting data posted to bee-l last july:

-- Jerry Bromenshenk <[email protected]> wrote:
In response to Waldemar's questions: The diversity of pesticide residues has 
been about the same. The types of chemicals change a bit with the years and regions. We still see residues of DDT, DDD, and DDE, although these are 
very slowly dropping off.

A few weeks ago, I sent the following to our colleagues on the CCD Working 
Group:


CCD Working Group: I managed to free up a few minutes and looked up some of our previous pesticide work, as well as those of some of our colleagues.

We collected hundreds of bee and pollen samples at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and at off-site areas north of Baltimore in the late 1990s, early 2000s.

We found 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'DDE, 4,4'-DDD, aldrin, gamma-chlorodane dieldrin, 
alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC (lindane), endosulfan sulfate, endrin, endrin aldehyde, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, and various PCBs (aroclor 1260, 1248, 1254).

I should note: Anderson, J.F.; Wojtas, M.A. (1986) also found PCBs in bees, 
as well as lots of other pesticides in samples from Connecticut counties. 

More often than not, in the Aberdeen/Baltimore area, we found detectable 
levels of pesticides in most bee samples, and sometimes in pollen. Heptachlor 
was seen in both bees and pollen and was often the highest concentration 
(ug/kg dry weight). 299+ 360. PCB concentrations often exceeded those of 
pesticides. In fact, over the last 20 years, we have been unable to find a bee 
sample that does not contain readily detectable levels of PCBs. Not 
surprisingly, DDT and its breakdown products remain readily detectable in many soils.

In Europe, the Italians have conducted some long-term and wide area sampling for pesticides. Porrini et al., in a four-year pesticide monitoring study (1983-86), found 70.8% of the samples tested positive for Dithiocarbamates, 15.3% for dimethoate, 14.7% for parathion, 11.9% for azinphos-methyl, 11% for carbaryl, 10.4% for methyl parathion, 7.2% for endosulfan, 7.2% for omethoate, and 2.4% for methamidophos. The Italians noted that the dithocarbamates, used as fungicides, are considered to be of low toxicity to bees, however, they were the most widespread chemicals in dead bees in cultivated fields.

In recent litigation concerning pesticides and bees in the U.S., for which 
we consulted to several different beekeepers, sevin xlr and furadan were 
allegedly involved in several severe bee kills. The residue levels that we've 
seen would indicate poisoning events by these chemicals in the cases that we saw. Finally, we've had some recent correspondence with USGS that indicates that pyrethroid usage is on the increase in California, and is showing up in more and more water samples.

Finally, whereas pesticide residues are common in bees, our work has shown 
that other environmental chemicals occur in bee colonies, sometimes at toxic 
levels. For example, heavy metals and fluoride in industrial regions. Among 
the volatile and semi-volatile organics, chemicals like benzene and styrene 
stand out in terms of concentrations and/or prevalence.

We look forward to learning how the PSU/USDA results compare with these 
studies. 

Jerry


----------



## Stevedore (Jan 22, 2009)

deknow said:


> ...the data i have access to is all in the video provided. i encourage you to watch it.
> 
> deknow


Maryann Frazier also later published her findings in _American Bee Journal_:

http://beediary.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/whatpesticidestodowithitjune08abj-1.pdf




> *Conclusions*
> Unprecedented amounts of fluvalinate
> (up to 204 ppm) at high frequencies have
> been detected in brood nest wax, and
> ...


----------

