# The Last Beekeeper



## Beethinking (Jun 2, 2008)

I watched it when it first aired and I recommended it to beekeeping and non-beekeeping friends alike! A great view into the struggles of commercial beekeeping...

Do we know any of the folks who were in it?

Matt


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Barry I saw this docu and thought it would be a good one to show to "pie in the sky wanna be commercial" newbees, as it shows what can happen with your sizable investment.
That said, while I have heartfelt sympathy for those beeks that lost so much in the movie, nothing shown convinces me that the crashing colonies are the result of anything other than the usual suspects,: ie mites, starvation, and/or Nosema C. It is lacking in any scientific analysis of what actually caused the collapses. Although they touched on mites, they don't ask anyone what their mite counts were or if they treated for them? Did they do Nosema C spore counts? If so, were they high? Again, did they do anything to alleviate them if they were? Again, we have the CCD boogieman being brought out to scare us, but is this CCD? The movie implies but does not eliminate other, more likely IMO, causes.

I don't agree it is a "given" that chemical/drug usage is "certainly a contributing factor". The use of some degree of chemical treatments for disease control is so common that it could very well be coincidental that past drug usage is present when some "CCD" occurs. Making the jump to causality may be like determining that human cancer is caused by going to the dentist.
I think the science is showing that there is most likely a combination of factors that come together to express the symptoms commonly referred to as CCD, with IPV showing itself to either be the ultimate culprit or the straw that broke the camels back. <edited to add that IAPV might _also_ be coincidental>. Nosema C is a vector for introduction of numerous viruses, as are Varroa. Perhaps good control of these combined with good nutrition will prevent "CCD". Until they can duplicate the disease it is impossible to determine exactly what causes it.

Speaking for our operation, we will continue to do what we have always done; that is deal with the ever changing conditions that imported pests and nature throw at us. We do what is under our control and hope there really _is_ no unknown boogieman, and if there is, he stays far away from us and ours.
Sure, we worry if there is some yet undiagnosed "killer" out there and we may be next. I would certainly sleep better if they said "XYZ causes CCD and efg eliminates it", but until that happens we will keep our bees as healthy and well nourished as we can with the science we have at our disposal.
Sheri


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Sheri -

I'm trying not to get into the CCD thing since it is still a moving target. The "usual suspects" as you say, are things you have to deal with as well. Do you really feel there is such a difference between what you do and what most other beekeepers do to take care of their bees? I guess I didn't get the sense, especially from Nicole Uribarri, that they were newbees or had any "pie-in-the-sky" mindset. In fact, the Uribarri's had been in commercial beekeeping for quite a long time. I'm not wanting to pick on anyone, simply trying to get an understanding on how different commercial beekeepers view their own practices and if they look at other guys who crash and say "this is why it happened to them" or simply cross their fingers and hope it doesn't happen to them.


----------



## 67630 (Jul 17, 2008)

Barry, I dont think you are taking sheri's words correctly. I think sheri meant this shows what can happen and it should be shown to people with the rose colored glasses and not so much the people in the tv show not knowing what they are doing.


----------



## PerryBee (Dec 3, 2007)

Is there somewhere a guy can find this video? I don't get all the channels like I used to and can't seem to find out where and when it will be on.

Perry


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

If I did, I'm sorry and Sheri better set me straight. 

Here is what Maryann Frazier had to say:

"When you try to introduce a chemical to control a mite, what is the potential of having an impact on the bee? The materials that we have used, we in our work, have seen a build up of these chemicals in the wax and consequently in the food like the pollen that the bees are bringing in, to feed their baby bees. In addition, the bees, particulary in the migratory beekeeping operations, are going around to all these agricultural crops and they're in the process of bringing nectar and pollen in to the hive, are also bringing many other pesticides into the hive, including fungicides some herbicides and a lot of insecticides. So yes, what we're seeing in the hive is a toxic ****tail. This is an incredible amount of stress on a system, one of our biological systems, and now what we fear that we're seeing is a "straw that breaks the camel's back" kind of scenario."


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> Speaking for our operation, we will continue to do what we have always done; that is deal with the ever changing conditions that imported pests and nature throw at us. We do what is under our control and hope there really _is_ no unknown boogieman, and if there is, he stays far away from us and ours.


Don't you think all other commercial beekeepers think the same thing? I know two of the highlighted beekeepers in the video made comments that they had done everything to keep the bees alive and healthy. One of them even talked about how his bees were more important to him than a relationship with his partner/mate! He was fairing real good throughout the movie, but the closing statements said he lost a sizable amount of hives by the time the bloom was over.

Sure sounds like a high stakes deal with a lot of finger crossing.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

OK Barry, here's to setting you straight, Michael-bee is correct. I wasn't referring to Nichole or anyone on the video as a newbee. What I meant is simply that those wanting to get into commercial beekeeping should see the film, agreeing with your assessment that it is, as you put it, "a sobering glimpse into commercial beekeeping". Those wanting to get into the business should keep in mind that in commercial beekeeping, as in any business, there is a risk of losing much or everything.
I agree we don't do things much different that most beekeepers and sometimes it comes down to being lucky to get something done in a timely manner. Going to a warm climate saves many beeks who run short of time. A couple years ago before Nos C was clearly understood we had a near disaster because we were not on top of fairly high Nos C infections in our colonies. Being in CA, we were lucky we discovered this in time. If we had left them in Wisconsin to overwinter you might have heard about _our_ CCD losses. Likewise, many beeks I know this year were late getting treatment on due to hoping for a fall honey flow which never came and then the weather turned too cold to treat OR feed. If I treat late for mites or Nos C I might control them now but the "winter bees" are already impacted. Those bees are weakened already going into winter. Their life expectancy is shortened. I think this year the poor honey crops much of the country had to deal with will be reflected by poorer honeybee health and a larger winter loss than normal. Any of these and a dozen other culprits can catch the most experienced beek. Given the right circumstances any of us can flounder. Being lucky enough to pick the bees up right before someone sprays without letting you know can make all the difference. Knowing where to prioritize in crisis can make or break an operation. Knowing when to regroup and take a smaller loss and still be able to rebuild can make or break an operation. It often just comes down to luck.
So, yes, most of the time, given the facts, you can look at others' losses and say "this is why it happened". In the vast majority of time they know themselves. I know operations where they lost 50% to mites. These beekeepers know about mites and know how to treat, they for some reason or another just didn't get it done. Time is usually our worst enemy. They _knew_ what caused their losses. There are some cases you hear about where they _don't_ have an easy answer and these are the ones that are scary. 
We do not "cross our fingers" and hope for the best. It is just animal husbandry, after all. We deal with the problems of known pathogens and pests the best we know how. We keep our "stock" as well nourished and healthy as we can. If we have a problem we try to limit losses with the goal to rebuilding. I am _not_ saying we are super beekeepers, we may be the next ones you read about, we just try do the best with what we know. 
Sheri


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

You know, beekeeping probably isn't any more risky than other farming and maybe not most other businesses. People take their capital and experience and apply them as well as they know how. Of course we beekeepers think about the risk, we'd be crazy not to. We limit it the best we can and try to make sure the potential gain balances that risk. It is not poker it is business as usual for the self employed.
Sheri


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

Finally someone else read that ARS report where they said there was a high occurence of IAPV in CCD (like 90+%.) Kudos sheri.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> .
> I agree we don't do things much different that most beekeepers and sometimes it comes down to being lucky to get something done in a timely manner. Being lucky enough to pick the bees up right before someone sprays without letting you know can make all the difference. It often just comes down to luck.
> Sheri


I ah... Lucky,lucky,luck..... I don't think luck has much to do with this.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Keith Jarrett said:


> I don't think luck has much to do with this.


Keith, I am _trying_ to be diplomatic here
Sheri


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

OK Sheri, I'll take my spot back underneath the bus.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

In the case ofr the woman whose father had died and she took over the business, does anyone else think that it would have been prudent to look into those hives before they were shipped to CA? I hope that doesn't seem too critical. Hind sight is 20/20. And it's easier to see what someone else should have done. But that was one of my thoughts.

I really liked the attitude and pov of the old fellow who was her friend. He had lived through hard times and knows how to get through and get along w/ whatever life troughs at him.

I like Sheris' comments and agree w/ them. One has to do what one can and be able to let the uncontrolable take care of itself.

I'd like to see it again and I'd like to see a follow up on the beekeepers and the problems that they faced. i undersatand that the young woman sold out and her Mom moved to somewhere warmer. What about the other beekeepers?

I said this before when we first discussede this, why did that guy get back in the truck and answer the phone when he didn't want to face his wife anyway. Are they still married? After his actions I have to wonder.

Keith, what are you doin' under that bus? Fixing the muffler? I hate it when you and Sheri argue. NOT.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

sqkcrk said:


> it would have been prudent to look into those hives before they were shipped to CA?


Yeah, might have been prudent but that is one of the problems with shipping from a northern clime and why so many ship early to CA or ship to somewhere warm first then ship into CA at the bloom. You hate to open them up right before shipping when it's really cold. 


sqkcrk said:


> I hate it when you and Sheri argue. NOT.


Argue? Shoot, I hope he is saving me a spot under the bus just in case.
Sheri


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

That was depressing about the 2k hives. Did they starve out or what? I watched it at work on mute reading captions, so I missed some of it. It is very hard for me to imagine having 80% losses without me being at fault. I mean unless they're on top of a cotton bloom that gets sprayed...


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Skinner Apiaries said:


> . It is very hard for me to imagine having 80% losses without me being at fault. I mean unless they're on top of a cotton bloom that gets sprayed...


Very well Honestly said.


P.S. cotton bloom....One woundn't think they would just spray water.


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

lol. If we all had it so nice like in Kalifornia. Can you even spray roundup there?
Anyone else here 'really' think people coincidentally lose alot of bees due to pesticide?


----------



## cow pollinater (Dec 5, 2007)

Ah yes... Spray...:doh:
Farmers spray in much the same way that we treat for mites/disease... Some is on record/up front, some not so much. I lost some this year and took a big hit on some that survived at the hands of a family member/neighbor and all I got was a "I forgot you had them"... Hard to get to mad when we do it as well.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Skinner Apiaries said:


> lol. If we all had it so nice like in Kalifornia.


HA.....


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

Barry said:


> I noticed ... beekeepers opened a hive lid, for a brief moment, a blue shop towel ... seems to be common practice. Adee was caught doing it and it was pointed out.


How else do you apply formic acid without it costing you much more money.
Many guys use off label chems for mite control(a lot cheaper). Some have been doing this long before CCD(mites have been here since 1985). Many see very few losses year after year of using these chems. If they are that harmful for the bees why do they not die at the time of application. I'm not saying it's right to use(off label chems) them. IMHO they are not the problem.


----------



## cow pollinater (Dec 5, 2007)

> Can you even spray roundup there?


Unfortunately I think you'll find that every nasty that can be applied to a crop is here... Ag is big business and they/we get what they/we want despite what LA and SF want most of the time as long as it stays out of the public eye.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Well said BeeSlave


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

Formic acid dosent build up in the comb like comphos and fluvatine right? (If I misspelled those I apologize).


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

What has changed in the past few years is GMO's(bt), Neonicotinoids, and thousands of acres of bee forage being eliminated and planted with these crops.


----------



## cow pollinater (Dec 5, 2007)

I know we're all suposed to be anti-gmo but one upside is that they require less sprays/toxins/pesticides/fungicides to maintain... Certainly not my favorite bee forage but since I'm slapping in patties full of artificial feed I guess I can't be real picky...


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

In the realization that Nicotine is harmful to bees in larger doses, does it stay only in vegetation or move to pollen and nectar?


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

Maverik, Taktik, Formic acid. I know a beekeeper in WI that uses all three of these(alternating) for the last 10 yrs or so. He averages only a 10% loss yearly. He has not made less than 150lbs per colony(yearly) of honey over the last 10 yrs. His main crop is from basswood and other non ag(fields) related forages. He also overwinters in WI and doesn't do any pollination.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

I have heard (strickly rumor mill) that both the SC guy and the midwestern guy have significantly grown their operations and have continued to pollinate the almonds. The SC guys operation should not be too far from Sqtcrk's winter home.


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

I saw this film about a month or so before making the decision to build up to a commercial level. I had my wife also watch it when I approached her with the idea of building up to a commercial leve. I keep it on my DVR and re-watch it every so often. 

Although I do intend to do some things different, I don't expect that I won't be touched by these problems. Instead, I've built heavy losses into my business plan.


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

You know, if someone was paying insurance on those 2000 hives, instead of getting a nervous breakdown, there'd been a fat 6 digit check in the mail.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Beeslave said:


> How else do you apply formic acid


and coumaphos and fluvalinate and . . . 

Now I'll get under the bus.



Beeslave said:


> If they are that harmful for the bees why do they not die at the time of application.


The answer is in post #7


----------



## Hambone (Mar 17, 2008)

Keith Jarrett said:


> OK Sheri, I'll take my spot back underneath the bus.


Got any room for Barry?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Skinner Apiaries said:


> if someone was paying insurance on those 2000 hives


What do you suppose that insurance would cost?


----------



## Flyer Jim (Apr 22, 2004)

[QUOT
I really liked the attitude and pov of the old fellow who was her friend. He had lived through hard times and knows how to get through and get along w/ whatever life troughs at him.

.
At the last beekeepers meeting/dinner, I sat across the table from him and his wife. Very NICE people, him and his bees are doing fine.
Jim


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

NAP insurance through FSA is $250.00 a year. It covers crop loss and I think livestock loss(not positive but working out details with local agency). Beginning farmers of less than 10 yrs. don't have to pay. If you lose your bees you lose your crop 

Answer in post #7-So it is the ag chemicals creating the ****tail killing the bees.


----------



## Missoura (Feb 12, 2009)

When I started in beekeeping beekeepers did not share information. What we learned we learned the hard way and commercial beekeeping culled many wanna bees. Most of commercial beekeeping was controlled by beekeeping families and secrets were passed down. About the only way to really be successful was to work for different commercial outfits. Which was the way I started in summers. The information needed for success was not really found in books of the day as far as commercial beekeeping was concerned. I have been directly involved with outfits as large as fifty thousand hives.

Some of the largest and oldest outfits and beekeepers still keep secrets. In fact today even when they try to share what they have learned or share information gained from beekeeper privately paid for research many times the USDA-ARS ignores what is shared. 

One issue has been if you do not have a PHD then surely you are of no use in solving the issue. 

I was involved in one of the most earth shaking findings back in 2004. The beekeeper removed and eliminated all comb on which coumaphos & fluvalinate had been used. I did the same with mine as did others in our circle as soon as we saw the success he was getting! 

We shared with the USDA-ARS and Florida Apiary service what we had learned. By the time of CCD in 2006/2007 our comb had been changed. 
Only recently has Penn State started sharing our message. Kind of like new news. 

This month you can read what we learned back in 2004 on page 21 of the December Bee Culture. "When Varrocides Interact" by Reed Johnson.

What we learned ( from testing) only applied to fluvalinate & coumaphos used on the same comb. 

important:
After clean comb is replaced you can rotate various treatments but NEVER use fluvalinate & coumaphos on the same comb. Those two are deadly to bees. 

One very large beekeeper removed over 3 million frames simply because both had old comb on which checkmite and apistan had been used. 

As the article by Reed johnson points out other varroacides do interact BUT none produce the effects coumaphos & fluvalinate did.

The real kicker:
What Penn State is missing is the problem is not beekeeper caused but caused by legal Checkmite ( still sold) used in combination with legal Apistan strips (still sold) and perhaps off label use of Mavric ( but in ways many were shown by the USDA-ARS while hives were crashing before Apistan was registered.) 

The largest single cause of hive problems in the U.S. can be traced back to checkmite & apistan used together in my opinion. 

It is what it is!

Read the article. 

I have tried since 2004 to share the information contained in the article.

With clean comb you will be amazed at the difference. I was!

Merry Christmas!


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Missoura said:


> The largest single cause of hive problems in the U.S. can be traced back to checkmite & apistan used together in my opinion.


I share this opinion. There were individual reports coming out years ago about the dark side of these two chemicals and comb contamination. How many commercial guys have rotated their old comb out of their operation and quit using checkmite? We know a lot still use apistan in one form or another.


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

Nobody here likes essential oils?


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

I havent used chomuphos since the first year it came out. Once I read about it I decided to NEVER use it again. I havent used flavinuate for 5 years. My bees as of two weeks ago looked better than any in past 10 yrs. I'm flying to Fl today so tomorrow I'll see what they look like and maple is starting to bloom so the build up should be on! I believe the biggest problem with these chemicals is the effect on queens and drones. The other big problem in my opinion is neonictinoids, time wil tell.


----------



## Missoura (Feb 12, 2009)

Barry,
It is hard to get exact figures on what solutions beekeepers with large hive loss have taken to solve their issues. I have been involved with an operation which did NOT change out its coumaphos & fluvalinate comb BUT the commercial operation only used checkmite for three years , once a year in fall and only one strip. The outfit alternated with apistan in the spring.
My suggestion was to replace all comb but the cost factor kept the beekeeper from doing such.
He has some problems in certain boxes and has been placing new combs in those boxes but his bees (although going into almonds & apples & producing honey) are not in the shape of an outfit on new comb.

I have been very vocal with my friends at Dadant about telling beekeepers not to use checkmite & apistan on comb (even at different times of the year) in a hive. If you look at page 47 in their 2009 catalog you will see the methods in use today under the heading "Medication General Usage". 

You might notice that for awhile now Checkmite is not included on the page. 
You can still buy checkmite from Dadant but Dadant (like Barry) is aware that the organophosphate coumaphos & tau fluvalinate in combination create a comb on which bees do not thrive.

If researchers had simply came out in 2004/2005 and said they knew using checkmite in rotation with apistan should not be done. Ever! Then many beekeepers might still be keeping healthy hives. 

The large beekeeper I spoke of and myself melted down or burned our coumaphos/ fluvalinate comb but others simply sold their comb either as used brood comb or used hives. Perhaps many beekeepers today trying to do everything right and still seeing hive loss have purchased some of this comb?

My opinion is coumaphos is the bad guy but only in combination with fluvalinate. Some beeks are still using both checkmite & apistan with success but not in rotation. Some are using formic & thymol with either apistan or checkmite as the nuclear option but they know they will contaminate comb if the mix the two.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Missoura said:


> I was involved in one of the most earth shaking findings back in 2004. The beekeeper removed and eliminated all comb on which coumaphos & fluvalinate had been used. I did the same with mine as did others in our circle as soon as we saw the success he was getting!



What would you, or others, say is the optimum number of frames that can be changed out in a single deep brood chamber at one time? Let's assume that the hive is a commercial one rather than a hobbyist's.

Can you or someone suggest the best time during the season to begin exchanging comb in order to minimize the impact on the colony and the length of time required for exchanging all 10 frames?

I seem to recall either a 3 or 5 year rotation to completely change out 10 frames, but that seems much too slow to be effective if one has seriously contaminated comb.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Now, Randy Oliver isn't a large commercial beekeeper, but I believe that he changes out half of his, combs every year. But he sells them. he doesn't really get rid of them in the way you might have been asking about.

Unless I fed the bees to get them to draw foundation, I don't know if I could get more than 2 frames per year out of my brood boxes. And probably in the spring.

One could use the brood combs for honey production and then melt them down after extracting. But then one would still have the problem of replacing them w/ newly drawn comb.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Speaking of rotating out contaminated comb...

What about rotating out foundationless comb in a hive that has never had any chemical treatments? Is that necessary? And if so, how often?
Thanks!
Steven


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Whatever the reasons for rotating out comb, foundationless or not doesn't have much bearing. Unless you never treat for varroa w/ checkmite and/or apistan, which is what is being discussed at this point in the thread. It's not the foundation itself, but the wax that makes up the cells and the foundation which, over time can become contaminated w/ chemicals. Beeswax/comb acts as a spunge that traps chemicals.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

Skinner Apiaries said:


> Nobody here likes essential oils?


No, they "essentially" do not work. 

Some of us beekeeper like to rely on "science" to make descions on how to manage our bees. When you depend on your bees 100% for a living using small cell and oils and other kinds of unproven just does not cut the mustard.


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

lol. You need to talk to don. He's chem free. Of course his stock is all feral x russian. He knocks mites down with oil. I've done confectioner's sugar. I 'essentially' don't have very much varroa. Plenty of beetles...


----------



## woodmann98 (Jun 23, 2008)

Did a title search on directv, they don't have it. would like to watch it, but i quess i'll have to wait for dvd to come out.


----------



## jdpro5010 (Mar 22, 2007)

Was on Planet Green about 2 wks or so ago. That is channel 286 on Direct TV.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Bud Dingler said:


> No, they "essentially" do not work.
> 
> Some of us beekeeper like to rely on "science" to make descions on how to manage our bees. When you depend on your bees 100% for a living using small cell and oils and other kinds of unproven just does not cut the mustard.


So, they don't cut the mustard...

If your relying or WAITING on science your bees might all be dead.


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

Watched the movie the old guy has the right aditude. Pick up the peaces and go on. He had been there done that and got a tee shirt. You should be able to get the dvd at your local libarery.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Keith Jarrett said:


> If your relying or WAITING on science your bees might all be dead.


Yeah, didn't science give us the brew that is killing the bees? Science is NOT the Holy Grail. It is one part of the whole.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Barry said:


> science give us the brew that is killing the bees? .


Can you expand on that Barry?


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Barry:
Yeah, didn't science give us the brew that is killing the bees?

Here's my $0.02++++
Science does not have to take a bad rap here!
Science can be a double bladed sword.
It's the *proper application* of science that's important.

Ernie


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Sure Keith. At one time, "science" gave us Coumaphos and Fluvalinate and had us using the two together. That has changed, but at one time, if we were to follow Bud's example, we would do great harm to our bees.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

It seems to me that there are some here saying,

If it's APPROVED goverment method your a good boy, BUT if you bring out those shop towels your a """"".But then again, IF you use those approved strips that bad to?

So, if I "can" understand this now on this thread your screwed either way?? Do I understand this correctly?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

First of all, put a name to "there are some." You're too ambiguous as you stir the pot.  Once I understand who all you are referring to and if my name comes up, I'll be glad to reply accordingly.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Keith, you are understanding it correctly in _some_ folks eyes. Most of the time tho, it isn't the same people with these conflicting POV. Some don't want off label used, others don't want ANY meds used. Of course, we _all_ still want our food produced cheaply. I wonder how much <insert your favorite food> would cost if we had to hand pollinate each flowers? 

When talking 'science' one should realize that in most cases, it is the 'hands on the ground' folks that give the scientists a direction in the first case. Necessity is the mother of invention. The problem is, once science develops 'the cure' that has been being used for sometimes decades successfully, it is so tempting to sell that "new" product at an extortionist price. What used to cost 12 cents now costs $4.00 and the original application is made illegal.
It is a little like suddenly charging $20 a pound for table salt that you can only buy from a particular supplier or two, then making it illegal to use the same salt sold on the shelves at 50 cents a pound.

I do understand the safety considerations and science does develop dosages and efficacy but beekeepers aren't too stupid to learn how to measure a particular dose once determined to be appropriate. There is no more likelihood of over or under use than with strips, except they'd go bankrupt from the expense. It is all about the money. The profit margins these companies enjoy often encourages 'science' to be more about getting a product out asap and limiting their liability than serving the end user.
Sheri


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Barry said:


> First of all, put a name to "there are some." I'll be glad to reply accordingly.


Well Barry, I think you have made comment about "off lable" mite treatments. Am I wrong?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I did, but I was a bit confused in your last remark as you married two thoughts into one (off label use (which I made a comment about early in the thread) and science being the "final", "sound choice", i.e. Bud's comment). Regarding the off label use, a.k.a. blue shop towels, I understand the viewpoint Sheri made. There is legitimacy in what she says. However, you would be naive to think everyone who chooses to mix their own chemicals and method of application "follow very stringent methods." You and Sheri might, but there are many who don't. If you want to follow science, then where is the scientific formula for applying chemicals via shop towels?

And yes, you basically are screwed either way.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Barry said:


> And yes, you basically are screwed either way.



Yeah, everytime the bus moves up I get that. 

But on a more timely note, I USE in a french fry bag filled with thymol/ sugar/veg oil/ food product oils/essential oils not in that order.

The way I veiw it, the air & water is more toxic than anything I put in the hive, plus, I don't have time to wait for "the goverments" O.K., there bought sold like cattle anyway to the highest bidder.

Hold on folks, I got to stirr this new pot of brew.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Then it sounds like you stay away from Coumaphos and Fluvalinate? :thumbsup:


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Barry said:


> you stay away from Coumaphos and Fluvalinate? :thumbsup:


Yes, I try to not upset the apple cart ie, contaminate combs, queens equipment ect..

There is plenty of info out there for keepers to use non-abrasive treatments without compromising the hive's integrity.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Barry said:


> you would be naive to think everyone who chooses to mix their own chemicals and method of application "follow very stringent methods."


I think it is naive to assume everyone who buys the strips or pads or what have you follow stringent directions either. I know some do not from experience with many hobby customers. They have the original packaging and I often go over the directions with them when they purchase. In spite of this I hear feedback from some on how they applied the treatment. What part of "do not apply when supers are on " don't they understand? What part of "don't apply when the temp is above or below XX degrees" don't they understand? What part of "apply 2 strips per colony" don't they understand?


Barry said:


> where is the scientific formula for applying chemicals via shop towels?


As for the 'scientific formula' of applying to shop towels, that would be to apply the same number of ccs in the same manner as the proprietary product, would it not? The distributors philosophy is "People are stupid so just give them a <shop towel> with a fancy name, hopefully they will have no idea what is on it". 
Some of the problem is thinking that we as a society are so stupid we constantly need our hands held. Some of the problem is wanting to sell salt for $20 a pound.
Sheri


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

The fault may not lie with the pure "science", but rather the "scientists" that stray from fact for financial gain by misrepresenting, or selectively representing, those facts to present a biased interpretation. 

Roland


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

80% though... I think she just starved them.


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

Roland, it isn't scientists it's governments and pharmaceuticals and big lobbying money. Yes, they are more interested in a proprietary product than helping you out. I would like to hear more on treating with less chemicals... Time to dig through the archives.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Skinner, with all due respect to you, I beg to differ. I went to hear the leading Entomologist of a state south of me speak about why the bees are dying. After 1 1/4 hours , she concluded that she did not know. I had brought a paper from a peer review journal with me, with numerous answers, and offered to give it to her. She was not interested. It SEEMED to me that she was more interested in grant money than solving the problem. A few months ago, this individual published in a different peer review journal, and really did not solve anything, BUT GOT PAID!!! As soon as they find the cure for CCD, the money stops so.....
........do you think they want to find a cure?

In all fairness, I hope not all of the Gov't workers are like this, in fact I know the State of Nebraska is blessed with man that has dirt on his hands, and a civil servant.

Roland


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

Roland, what did you disagree with? Sounds like you're agreeing with me. As for the less chemicals bit, I used grease patties instead of miticides. I've got a passle of VSH queens I plan to breed with too. 

So if you're disagreeing with me that all the powers to be are in it for money not saving bees, you're actually agreeing!!

If you think miteaway and apistan are God's gift to beekeeping, then thats OK, good for you, we might disagree, but even I'd use it if the drop counds were nuts high.

I do treat for nosema, even though there is proof feeding alone can usually prevent it.

As to the starving them bit, if she treated and they still died out heavy, I would assume it to be feeding issues. Because if she HAD fed, then nosema OR starving wouldn't be a problem. And the shop towels suggests mites were treated for.

So... what did you disagree with me on?


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

Skinner Apiaries said:


> Because if she HAD fed, then nosema... wouldn't be a problem.


That really depends on what they're fed doesn't it?


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Skinner - maybe I am splitting hairs. I have no problem with pure science, and therefore a "Pure Scientist" , who tells the truth, and nothing but the truth.
Unfortunately, most of the "scientist" have strayed from the truth, and tend to let their pocket book write the conclusions. We both agree that it is the source of the money(gov't and pharma) that is the root of evil. Where we disagree is if the scientist them selves are to blame. I say yes. They have gone to the "dark side". I hope this behavior is NOT how they where taught in school. 

As far as what I put in my own hives, If you can find it in the FOOD isle of the grocery store, it is fair game; if not, emergency use only.

I hope this cleared things up. If I misrepresented you, please correct me.

Roland


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

lol... we agree on... pretty much everything then. lol.


----------



## Brooklyn (Nov 14, 2009)

How can I get to see this movie?

I have looked everywhere and can not find it.


----------



## high rate of speed (Jan 4, 2008)

Truth HA,welcome to the bee business.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

In regards to the intial post in this thread - Any time as a businessman (or woman) you place all (or even most) of your chips on one color you are eventually going to loose. Any business which is successful will continually stay on the cutting edge of what's been, what's here and what's to come. The one constant in business is it is constantly changing. Market forces, commodities, weather, trends, research, economy, there are many, many factors to consider.

Secondly maybe all the gold in California almonds is just like all the other gold in California, profits to a few and bust to most others.

It's not just poor beekeeping it's poor business that is negatively affecting those who go down in flames betting on that one color hoping for the big money.


----------



## LSPender (Nov 16, 2004)

I personally did not plan on lossing 69% of all live hives this year 2009, niether did anyone on this program the last beekeeper.

And if you were up on the realities of the systemic pesticides and also new reasearch regarding fungicides ( Research presented at both AHAP & ABF & CSBA meeting) you would not even be commenting on this.


----------



## Brooklyn (Nov 14, 2009)

Were can I see the movie?????


----------



## RDY-B (May 20, 2007)

The Last Beekeeper – DVD.
You may have seen the new documentary The Last Beekeeper that was recently shown on the Planet Green channel. It follows three struggling beekeepers as they journey from their home states to California almonds. Current problems with bees are well covered in graphic detail and the DVD serves as an antidote to the claims of some growers that beekeepers have it easy. We plan to get some DVDs to give to growers. For ordering information, contact Mona Card at World of Wonder, (323)603-6300, ext. 421.


Got this from joe traynors news letter- RDY-B


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

I agree, that single faceted businesses are subject to being victims of any number of circumstances that can affect one line of business but not another. For instance, honey farming is gambling on weather. Pollination is gambling on supply. Queen rearing is subject to all the things that can affect any of the above, and weather. However, I think the bee breeder, is guaranteed a market, where as the honey is more commodity related, honey being far more specialized than say HFCS or Sucrose. (I'm saying I understand commodity market affects both, but honey far more strongly.) And pollination is subject to all the problems of bees, plus the supply and demand price of bees. Depending on almonds, CAN be a gamble, but it pays off pretty big too. So, conclusively, beekeeping as a business is gambling. More facets, less chance of utter failure, as one has contingency.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Please everyone, lets keep to the discussion at hand.
Sheri


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> Please everyone, lets keep to the discussion at hand.
> Sheri


And I just got out from underneath the bus.


----------



## LSPender (Nov 16, 2004)

Quote "It's not just poor beekeeping it's poor business that is negatively affecting those who go down in flames betting on that one color hoping for the big money." from Joel 

I find this this quote by Joel offensive!

I ask the question, If every year for the past 20 years you did the same annual rotation of migratory beekeeping and had great results, then the next season 80 % of your operation failes, is this poor beekeeping? remember that the people in this documentery didn't know now what we now know, its 3 seasons ago and we all have make major changes to our businesses. 

And even with all the changes.

I did not choose to loose 69% or (1,999) hive this year, it was not PPB and I was not the only one. The three individuals in the movie did not plan on the EPA approving systemic neonicitinoids with out the proper full review. ( Which is now being lead by the State of CA dept. of pesticide use), nor did any of us have any imput in the use of new fungicides ie Bravo. Which we have evidence is killing the bees.

Of coarse, I am a aware of the resent studies bacause I attended two major conferences this year, CSBA & AHPA which new research has been released proving more & more that the bee die off is being affected by things out of our current control.


----------



## DigitalBishop (Nov 11, 2009)

I saw the film. I've read many opinions as to why each of the beekeepers failed. Most of which are probably far from the real reason as to why their colonies collapsed.

The film probably omitted a lot of extraneous stuff that the beekeepers did for sake of keeping the length of the film down. I'll have to watch it again as my cable signal seems to like breaking up in the winter due to more moisture in the air. Go Time Warner, woohoo.

I didn't see the beekeepers feed their bees once they were placed in the orchard. Joe Traynor mentioned in one of his newsletters that the behavior he observed from the bees was that of robbing. From what I've read about robbing behavior once it starts a colony can be vicious and it can lead to the death of a target colony. When it comes down to it, in a situation like that where there's nothing till the almonds bloom. It'll be down to the strongest colony. They'll all rob each other to death and since there's no other forage till the almonds bloom, that behavior won't stop until they bloom.

How's that for a theory?


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

LSPender said:


> remember that the people in this documentery didn't know now what we now know, its 3 seasons ago and we all have make major changes to our businesses. .


Larry, I haven't made any changes in the last three seasons, can you explaine what you mean hear, Im missing something. I haven't made any changes in about the last ten years for that matter.
Keith


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Knowing Joel as I do, I can assure you he wasn't meaning to sound judgemental or overtly critical. The film has been a great discussion generator amongst beekeepers. And nonbeekeepers that have seen it have become more aware of our perdicaments and obsticles. So, imo, the film has served us well.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Well said, Mark


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

there is no real pile of new evidence that puts Bayer neonics in the crosshairs. people are taking snippets of new studies out of context to make speculative statements.

with the new studies I think the systemic insecticide issue is pretty much over and the planned delisting of the organophosphates set for 2012 rolls on. 

get over it and move on is my advice. the fact is there never was any argument about the toxicity of the organophosphates on bees and the neonics are much much safer for fish, birds, humans ands yes bees. None of the major bee reasearchers on the USA will go on record supporting the wild notion that Bayer chems are to blame. 

how many of the folks drinking the Bayer Kool Aid use off label treatments? Do you treat more then once a year? Treat 3 times or more a year? There is a credible and real pile of new evidence that shows some of the treatments and combinations of treatments are far far more toxic to bees then even the most speculative neonic study. 

Hackenberg, Mendes and others have been on a Bayer study group that met over the last year and they designed an experiment with Hacks bees and the experiment findings presented at Orlando. 12 control colonies were nearby in an untreated location. 12 colonies were in a orange grove. 

Movento the new Bayer neonic chemical was applied per label on orange bloom, no affects on brood or the hive was seen. repeated samples were taken for several more months and no difference was ever seen between the two groups. then Hack treated his bees 3X in a row with an unspecified material and the experiment officially ended. mite levels in late summer were dangerously high in the fall and there were 3 hives left of the original 24 with evidence that mites wiped out the hives along the way. 

imagine what Bayer thinks - probably that commercial beekeeping is unsustainable.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I join with Keith Jarret in asking LSpender what he has changed. We still try to gather the most honey for the least amount of money. In fact, the frame manipulation techniques, and equipment styles, were developed by my Grandfather after WWII. Some of our equipment IS from the 40's(supers) and roofs from the 20's and 30's are being repaired(wood replaced) and sent out again. 

So what changed so much?

Roland


----------



## LSPender (Nov 16, 2004)

"there is no real pile of new evidence that puts Bayer neonics in the crosshairs. people are taking snippets of new studies out of context to make speculative statements. this site if full of that kind of BS. Quote from Bud D"

At the AHAP in Sacramento a few weeks ago , Richard from the CA dept. of pesticide use presented a study they are currently working on.

He specificly stated a study that they commissioned on Linwood trees, systemic admire used on 11 of 30 trees, no major residual problems until 5 to 6 months after aplication when every Bumblebee visiting those 11 treated trees died ( They had plastic tarps on groung) the bumblebees had levels of the admire in side @ 238 PPB, the level of residual in the ground also shot up 6 months after application going still higher.

"get over it and move on is my advice. the fact is there never was any argument about the toxicity of the organophosphates on bees and the neonics are much much safer for fish, birds, humans ands yes bees. None of the major bee reasearchers on the USA will go on record supporting the wild notion that Bayer chems are to blame. " quote Bud D

How do you know Neonicitoids are safer? 

Not sure how a nerve agent put into my water source that goes into the food I eat is safer.

What do you mean by toxicity of Organophasphates, we've never mentioned those, in fact they have been sweeped off the shelfs, in fact I have a blue berry grower that has been forced to use Admire because all other pesticed that have been approved for the Grub eating his root have been taken off the shelf.

I am very open to new information on how to keep the hive alive but I am shocked by the lack of vision by the people in our industry as to how we are being affected by the changes in chemical uses in out agriculture industry.

As stated by the "Honey Advisory Board" related from the EPA. There has been a significant shift in why and how pesticides are being used in the USA. In the not too distant past, pestcides were used to suppress outbreakes of pests; today pesticides are used extensively to prevent pest outbreaks.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

LSPender said:


> As stated by the "Honey Advisory Board" related from the EPA. There has been a significant shift in why and how pesticides are being used in the USA. In the not too distant past, pestcides were used to suppress outbreakes of pests; today pesticides are used extensively to prevent pest outbreaks.


Isn't that like how a lot of beekeepers are applying treatments to their bees nowadays as well, on a routine/preventative schedule?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

L.S let me first qualify this by saying I'm sorry to hear about any beekeeper who is losing in this current beekeeping atmosphere. The fact you are losing stock by no means in my mind makes you a bad beekeeper or a bad businessman. I may be in your company on any day too come. In my mind it's about how you recover. I wasn't actually thinking about the beeks in the movie I was thinking about all the stories of the more inexperianced guys who got stung. Having said that:

"I personally did not plan on lossing 69% of all live hives this year 2009, niether did anyone on this program the last beekeeper." L.S Pender

These huge losses are nothing new they've been the headlines for a couple of yeas now. If you are up on all the issues with systemics, what's going on with nosema, all the hype and facets surrounding CCD why wouldn't you plan on huge losses? We have to plan for the worst BECAUSE we know what's going on. That's just farming. I know we're making a couple extra 1500 mile round trips to check on stock this year and with a little luck and a little good mgt. hoping to continue yet another year. As a back-up we decided to sell less nucs this year because we are keeping a few aces in the whole, just in case. Stock isolated from the main, from each other and from commercial farming. We are opening up to different income opportunities and facing we make less in the short run but have a better investment in our future. Diversying gives us the best protection. I trust being a professional you did the same and didn't bet your whole stack of chips on the big money, especially knowing all the ins and outs you say I don't . I also assume that if you did bet on the big money then you're willing to accept the losses and move on, like the rest of gamblers do. You held enough stock in reserve in an isolated safe place just in case, didn't you?

Beekeeping is a different world than 20 yrs ago and we aren't adjusting quick enough. Wholesale honey @ 1.60lb, national demand, huge demand for pollination, national celebrity. CCD is only the newest challenge, many have gone before including Varroa and AFB. Good business is good business and I hope you and the many others who are on the front lines of what may effect us all survive and go on but some may have to stop looking at just the bottom line and start looking a little harder at what good beekeeping practices are in what you tell us are challenging times.

Did not mean to kick you while you were down in fact you never crossed my mind, just made an observation about how we as the industry are doing things IMO.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

More evidence Imid is not an issue at least in Canola

from Peter Borst post on BEE-L
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...3B3380BA543E10B&[email protected]&P=852


For me the high point was the presentation by Medhat Nasr. I guess I wasn't the only one because he was handed an award at the Banquet for his service to the beekeepers of Alberta, CA. He previously received The Alberta Beekeepers 2009 Achievement Award in November. The title of his talk was Honey Bee Winter Kill From 2007-2009 in Alberta, Canada: Are Our Bees Healthy? Medhat showed some remarkable pie graphs that represented the percentage of hives in good condition from 2007 to 2009. This number went from 10% to 70% during those years. 

Dr. Nasr emphasizes the importance of monitoring and related that very few beekeepers were monitoring their hives for varroa and nosema when he began his inquiry. He attributes the steep decline in affected bees to the timely use of formic acid and fumagillin. I would suggest the change must be credited to Medhat's sharp focus and hard work getting to the bottom of the problem. 

The chief honey plant in the region is canola which, by the way, is treated with imidacloprid. They make huge crops of honey there. "Although there is an expressed concern by many beekeepers around the world about the use of systemics, the experience in Canada is that we have had 10 years of large scale use on canola with no observed ill effect. In the past there were more complaints from beekeepers about Lorsban and Sevin . For canola, the seed treatments, when applied according to label specifications do not appear to be an issue" - Heather Clay


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Bud, I know Peter personally, he was my inspector for several years and always, always had the best interest of my operation and beekeepers as a whole. Worked at Cornell with Nick Calderone before that. Gone from inspection and doing some other work at Cornell but I still keep in touch. 

Thanks for posting this information and your experiance, together they really drive home an important point. I'm not in support of many of the supected insecticides but it's futile for us to chase demons that may not even exist.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Sorry I missed you at the conferance in Orlando Bud....would like to have seen your name badge..if you work for a chemical co. I knew you would be the first to defend Bayer! Maybe It doesnt affect bees on canola.....maybe it affects them differant on certain crops but OTHER researchers are are finding that IT DOES affect bees. I takled to some other researchers privately in the hallway and they think there is some connection. Noone agrees on every subject. The way this stuff works(weakoned immune system/mental abnormailities) seem to link them to bees prolems. I do not use flavinuate or chumaphos in my bees and am getting the old combs outof the brood nest. I agree they are problems. But another big question for you...WHAT IS THE LONG TERM AFFECT ON US? how are these systemic insecticides affecting us in the long term? Cant be good for us I'm sure! We will all probably have alzheimers by 60 or cancer!


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

Sutton 

I can agree there are still some lingerging questions about Imid. However your parrallels on human health suggest you are not well read on this topic. 

The systemics are well on their way to replace organophosphates that originated from Sarin Nerve Gas chemistry of which we had the mfg infrastructure in place after WWII. There is no controversy on organphosphates and their toxicity on bees and humans and wildlife. 

For you and your family you want Bayer products used on your food. Its nicontine based man - pretty harmless stuff for the environment. You guys who have not done your reading jump right out here when you imply this stuff is some horrible poison. 

About half my bees are in a sea of corn and soybeans. I and my buddies are not seeing any losses outside of some winter kill and occasional mites. Then again we don't use homebrew treatments and don't switch out comb with other beeks and don't do almonds.

Why it is the horror stories are all about the big commercial guys? You ever see any of the stationary folks like M Palmer or me complaining of getting wiped out? 

Like the BS that Iraq was behind 9/11 and there are a lot of people in this country that believe that - we have a whole cadre of beeks who believe Imid was behind CCD. One small problem with that theory. Imid was around for almost 15 years before CCD was in our vocabulary. 

I have no doubt that oranges are a problem with Temik and there will always be some growers who don't get IPM and use more then full dose on every spray. One researcher I spoke to pointed out the certified bee kills as a percentage of bee losses has stood at single digit percentages for decades and there is no new data that suggests this trend has changed at all. What has changed is how hard some beeks push their bees and 20 years of accumulated crap in brood comb. 

The Frazier work from Penn State also is not showing Imid at any moderate levels. The work keeps finding comaphous , fluvalinate and fungicides in comb and bees. 

I and my buddies have more to worry about then the baseless Bayer conspiracy and spend our time trying to get rid of the extra bees we have with our queen rearing and nuc building enterprises. Right now my wintering estimates are a 2-3% loss.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

From Bud Dingler:

Why it is the horror stories are all about the big commercial guys? You ever see any of the stationary folks like M Palmer or me complaining of getting wiped out?



I know of a moderate sized, well established, non migratory commercial beekeeping operation that was wiped out in the winter of 2005-2006 with a 90 percent loss. How do you explain that?



Roland


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Bud
I DONT WANT ANY, I REPEAT A..N..Y INSECTICIDE ON MY FOOD! Thats why I raise and can most of my food/meat! (no implants, growth hormones or insecticides) It sure cant be good for us! I'll agree organphosphate pesticdes are/were bad for us and bees. I havent used chumophus since the first year it came out. I havent used flavunate for 5 years, most of my bees look ok..still have some queen supersedure. but I didnt get alot requeened in the last years. 
All that said a beek here in fl who does not mive out of state...only about 100 mi south to orange/pepper lost 240 out of 250 hives that were pollinating watermellons..the 250 that didnt go in are showing 240 alive. HUMMMM something strange here,,,,he is a very good beekeeper! There are other reports out there that indicate imad caused problems to brood..read the research. Its not finished yet...but I'll make a bet with you. when all is said and done we may never know 100% what caused CCD....BUT I'll bet you a steak supper that imad and other neonictinoids will be implicated in problems relating to insects and humans. Looser pays up at a national convention. Wanna take it on...you sound awful convenced ! I am also considering that if something doesnt change I wont go into orange if they seep spraying like they are now! I know there is no proof...YET but look how neonnics work adn how bees are dying....no proof but common sense? Sometimes commonsense takes you futher than bok sense. Look at old DDT commercials....they sprayed the streets with people walking down them and told them it was GOOD FOR YOU! The worst part is the CHEMICAL COMPANIES do the testing and EPA ok's it.....You dont think testing is baised? If not I have some swamp land in florida for sale at a bargain....it will be worth millions when the real estate boom comes back!


----------



## DigitalBishop (Nov 11, 2009)

suttonbeeman said:


> The worst part is the CHEMICAL COMPANIES do the testing and EPA ok's it.....You dont think testing is baised?


Of course it is. The testing 90% of the time goes in favor of the funding entity. In this case the company that paid for the testing of their product. The company who does the testing wants the repeat business. Think that would happen if they came up with a negative answer?

A company wants their products out on the market and it's not in their best interest to have results that would stop the product from entering the market.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Bud....I almost forgot...There is beekeeper tht moves from Wi to Fl. In fl he makes nucs adn raises queens to sell, so ALL of his comb is rotated out not more than 3 yrs. He is in a area that has just a little orange in Fl. He HAS NOT used fluvalinate or chomphus (legal ir illegal) for the past 6 years. He uses essentials oils(wintergreen) thymol. His bees did great until last year. He lost about 1/2 late last fall....just went downhill fast. This year he has again lost over 1/2. HOWEVER tthe bees that in Wi that were treated the SAME WAY but were in the woods look good. Bees that were in areas where crops were being grown(especially vegestables and food crops) where these insecticides were used are the ones crashing. Just luck??? I think not. There is NO definate PROOF on neonictinoids, BUT THERE is research showng links or brood problems when exposed to them, do some research, they are not as great as you may think.. but why would anyone want that on their food as you stated??? Come clean..do you or have you worked for bayer or another chemical company??
?


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

Bud Dingler said:


> More evidence Imid is not an issue at least in Canola
> 
> from Peter Borst post on BEE-L
> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...3B3380BA543E10B&[email protected]&P=852
> ...


If you look at the winter losses it doesn't look good right across Canada. Alberta has been at about 44% wintering losses and spring dwindling the last two years running.





> For canola, the seed treatments, when applied according to label specifications do not appear to be an issue" - Heather Clay


Concerning this comment, The Canadian Honey Council has a new sponsor being Bayer Crop Science as of last year. I wouldn't expect a different response from Heather.
44% losses seems that canola could be a problem. There's a lot of canola grown in Alberta.


http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=BEE-L;68d8c57f.1001D



> These chemicals are often present at very low levels - under four parts per billion. To demonstrate what a small amount of chemical that is Dr. Frazier explained it would take a billion sheets of toilet paper to stretch from New York to London - the analogy being that honey bees have the ability to detect/be effected by only one square of that roll. By feeding these miniscule amounts of chemicals found in beehives to bee larva and adult bees in the lab, Dr. Frazier and his collegues are finding that these chemicals do effect a honey bees health and development.


This is a interesting hypothesis 

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=BEE-L;ce038ee.1001D



> Allen said "Monoculture is starving our bees."
> 
> And maybe fungicides are too.


I would think that the way the chemical companies test for approval is out dated. Do the safety regulations take into account the differences in how these new chemicals act and interact over extented periods? Are they killing us softly?


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

Only big company I worked for dealt with computer hard drives. So no connection to Ag Chems. My family is a large 3rd generation apple grower in SW Wisco so I have a lot of experience with ag chemicals around bees. 

Sutton you posed an interesting question about Wis/FL and two groups of hives. 

Here is what jumped out at me about your description. I looked into essential oils for mite treatments. In short there is no good evidence that they work. As one researcher told me Bud, they Essentially do not Work thats why they are called Essential Oils. 

So unless this beek had collected any mite level data in fall we can only speculate he lost his hives to mites which incidentially is still the number one reason for bee losses and has been for some time. 

THe reason for the differences in FL to Wisco can be explained by the mite loads. Wisco hives have a brood free time which delays the onset of mite crash. In FL you have mites replicating all year round or for sure much longer then in Wisco. So I don't see any slam dunk here blaming Imid. 

I agree that we have some data from studies that hint at a problem with Imid. However these are outlier studies that don't seem to fit the overall pattern that suggests that Imid if properly applied is benign to bees. Science is not black and white - kind of like beekeeping. So what I mean by that is even though I believe Imid is not a huge problem that does not mean there are not regional or other isolated issues with some crops, soil types and climate or even grower misuse. 

While there is always a horror story somewhere overall the last 2 years has seen less losses for many beekeepers. Its not hard to find operations that are doing very well. 

As you know Imid is EVERYWHERE. Therefore how can we have operations that are doing well if Imid is the big deadly killer?


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

He used essential oils with thymol which works and check mite levels often. He is generaly recognized as a really good beekeeper. He has controlled mites with thymol for many years(thymol is same ingerdiant in Dadants apigard). is mite counts are/were low. THere was a differance in bees that were located in highly farmed areas in Wi(which would be using chemicals at a higher level) and woods areas. THis does not prove chemicals affected the bees but MUST be looked at closely. Since he has treated with thymol for numerous yrs he has no combs exposed to fluvalinuate/cumaphus, and olny has had these losses the past three yrs. Bud are you doing to take me up on the steak dinner bet....I need a free meal!!! lol


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Did I miss Mr. Dinglers reply to my post 97? It seem s to fly in the face of the "only the migratories get CCD" theory.

Roland


----------



## ga.beeman (Mar 29, 2009)

Well the reply by dingler to get over it and move on. well if you think that these chemicals dont affect the honeybee and most other bees then you are living in a bubble. there is no way we can use these chems. like we are doing in everyday life and not affect the bees. I know that they may not be the only cause of CCD but they are affecting our bees.


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

suttonbeeman said:


> He used essential oils with thymol which works and check mite levels often. mite counts are/were low.


What is this beek's idea of a low mite load? I think that is the key here. Since we all vary our treatments, we all must have an idea of what high loads and low #'s are. I doubt that the #'s are the same for everyone. So, i guess what i am saying is FACTS please on the numbers. Just saying the #'s are low is not enough. Maybe his low number are the same as my high or mid range #'s

I have been following this thread for a while now. Yes i agree that all the sprays "can" have some effect on the health of the hives, especially if the sprays are abused. However, first and formost, most farmers are not in the habit of abusing chemicals since the bottom line is tight. Not using properly and in a timely fashion reduces the yields and then reduces the bottom line.
Second, i think we are too quick to point at the chemical companies. For if we looked else where, the answer might just be staring back at us in the mirror.

For those who figure the chem companies are to blame for your losses, I challenge you to post your mite load numbers, what you used to "treat" the mites, and the numbers pre, mid and post treatment. Your nosema spore counts as well and if you treated. Did you feed pollen and what were the pollen stores like, and finally how much feed and what type of feed did they have to feed on in the winter. Add to the data, spring, summer and fall testing of the previous year. So if your losses are 2010 spring, what were the numbers like 2009. What was the weather like? What was the honey yield like? What were the bee numbers like going into winter? Was there enough young bees and older bees. Were the young bees hampered with high mite loads when they were in the larva stage? 

We need to realize the big picture in beekeeping. We need to take into account what happened to "this or these" hives over the last year in order to get an understanding as to why they died. Not just a snap shot and blame CCD and the chem companies. We have a part that was played in the losses too.

Everything i do to my hives, every manipulation, any treatment, and decision on the hives whether spring or fall, has to meet my end goal, the big picture. That goal is winter survival and honey production. It is on the forfront of anything that is done in the hives... I am a firm believer that anything we do now, at this point and time will affect the end game a year or even two from now.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

honeyshack said:


> We need to realize the big picture in beekeeping. We need to take into account what happened to "this or these" hives over the last year in order to get an understanding as to why they died.....
> ........ anything we do now, at this point and time will affect the end game a year or even two from now.


Yes, this is the mindset we try to instill in new beeks. It does no good to go out to your colony/ies two days before the snow storm to check for mites and make sure there are enough winter stores. Most problems result from something (or things) that happened (or didn't happen) 3, 6 or 9 months earlier.

At the same time, taking this "big picture" to a wider perspective, we also need to NOT eliminate any chems without long term _independent_ studies, and these need to go far beyond short term mortality studies. 
I cannot understand the logic of those blaming the "legal" chems (which were also purported to be safe), but giving a free ticket to big ag applied chems. How can we assume bees are susceptible to one and not the other? Taking the assurance of chemical companies that everything is fine is like taking the word of the fox that the chickens are safe. 
We learned _after_ the fact how deadly some approved treatments are when combined. Given the likely hood those chems might end up in the same colonies, does anyone else find it incredible no one thought to ask about the combined effects? The fact is, some don't _want_ to look too closely; there are no financial incentives to do so.
Sheri


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> ...I cannot understand the logic of those blaming the "legal" chems (which were also purported to be safe), but giving a free ticket to big ag applied chems.
> 
> We learned _after_ the fact how deadly some approved treatments are when combined. Sheri



I am not sure i understand what you are saying...in red..., please clarify...or dumb it down

Why would you want to combine chemicals treatments ...in blue...IMO that would be off label use and could pose serious risks, like death or change withdrawal times. An example would be great. 

Thanks


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

honeyshack said:


> I am not sure i understand what you are saying...in red..., please clarify...or dumb it down
> 
> Why would you want to combine chemicals treatments ...in blue...IMO that would be off label use and could pose serious risks, like death or change withdrawal times. An example would be great.
> 
> Thanks


First, I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular, but there have been some people who, while disregarding any risk from the neonicitinoids, due to "safety testing" done by the companies themselves, seem to have the attitude that it is _beekeeper's_ application of chemicals, whether illegal or not, that is/has hurt colonies. 

To emphasize the inability(unwillingness?) of current testing procedures to assure safety I alluded to the combined negative effects of coumaphos (Chechmite) and fluvalinate(Apistan), both legal approved applications. This wasn't when applied concurrently, but consecutively, alternating in different years and even within a season, as was recommended when fluvalinate resistance was found. Both these chemicals are legally available to beekeepers. This has been discussed here on Beesource but a quick search didn't turn up the thread. Here is another reference.
http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mussen/MarApr2009.pdf 

Just because the company that wants to sell you something says it is safe does not guarantee that it is. This goes beyond miticides. We see it again and again in human drug recall. Why do we think it would not be the case with ag chemicals?
Sheri


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

Thank you. Was not trying to be difficult, just did not get it.

Thanks


----------

