# Bees, lies and evidence-based policy



## Ian

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/amitraz-red-flags-or-red-herrings/#synergism-with-other-insecticides

"The second special situation where spraying fungicides during bloom can cause problems is where the honey bee keepers are using the insecticide/miticide amitraz for control of varroa mites in the hive. Most tree fruit growers will remember amitraz as Mitac which was used heavily for pear psylla control in the past. This product was routinely used for synergizing organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides in crops like cotton where key pests had developed resistance, because it shut down the enzymes insects used to detoxify pesticides. This raises concerns about amitraz being used to treat mites in honey bee hives. While it may be effective in controlling varroa mites now that they have quickly developed resistance to the organophosphate coumaphos and the pyrethroid fluvalinate, adding this synergist to a hive basically shuts off a bee’s immune system to pretty much any pesticide with which it later comes into contact."


----------



## Ian

....


----------



## zhiv9

An old but pretty well balanced article.

"And because of such reports, and a recent risk assessment from the European Food Safety Authority, we can be fairly sure that the decision on whether to restrict neonicotinoid use in Europe will not be made on the basis of avoiding 20% yield losses in crops, or saving the world’s bees from extinction."

Has there ever been an issue like this where both the science for and against is so muddy?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian, what do you think of the OBA's approach that is calling for a permit based system for neonics rather than a ban? Does anyone really think that planting only treated seed is a good idea? Isn't there enough preliminary evidence to be cautious with at least corn and soybeans.

http://www.ontariobee.com/issues-an...the-obas-position-on-neonicotinoid-pesticides


----------



## Ian

zhiv9,
This is a extremely risky move. As a beekeeper I go out of my way to keep excellent relations with my land renters and area neighbours. You must realize I also farm 3000 acre cereals and oil seeds so when I read this from your link, I got a bit mad myself;

>>Allow farmers to apply for one-time use of a neonicotinoid seed treatment only if they can:
a) Demonstrate through a soil test or monitoring program that their crop will be threatened by pest pressure and,

b) Demonstrate that there are no alternative control options; <<

The last thing farmers want is to have to work through another bureaucratic restriction. Farmers will blame all the BS that accompanied with this permit on beekeepers... those land owners are going to grow angry and it will tarnish our relationship with farmers. Because they don't see the evidence this seed treatment harming honeybees. Farmers hate working through bureaucracy to please environmentalist. Thats a fact, and our name is tagged to the entire issue. 

I take a lot of flack on this site and with local beekeepers holding this opinion on Neonics. But its kinda like this, if an environmental movement removed beekeepers ability to treat for mites with Amatraz, there would be lots of angry beekeepers out there followed by lots of dead hives. If the product is going to be removed from use, be sure to have an alternative treatment to be able to fully replace that product.


----------



## dsegrest

The American Bee Journal had an article this month that suggested the products beekeepers use to treat for mites is not particularly harmful by itself. It suggests that the same may be true for the neonics. The real spike in damage occurs when the bees are exposed to both. 

I like the old serenity prayer about dealing with things we have control over. I am old enough that I don't think the farmers will change their ways during my lifetime. I can change mine.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian, isn't a permit system better than an outright ban? This is already a compromise position for the OBA.

What did you use before neonics? Did you treat 100% of your crops with it?


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> Ian, isn't a permit system better than an outright ban? This is already a compromise position for the OBA.
> 
> What did you use before neonics? Did you treat 100% of your crops with it?


A compromise of what? A compromise from farmers to not use a product because it MIGHT have implications to beekeepers hives. Try selling that idea to farmers when there is very little to prove it. 

We use to use COunter 5 G, and anyone who remember this product would take a neonic seed treated crop anyday. Dad use to mix the seed in a full respirator suit. Nothing lived in the field after seeding... and the ocassional cattle heard when left over seed was improperly stored. We would not go back to this product as it IS banned for use. We would go to a generalized complete farm broadcast with the available insecticide, probably tank mixed with our herbicides. I can assure you, most of the sprayers you see in the fields right now are herbicide or fungicide. If seed treatments are banned, most everytime you see a sprayer, it will be tank mixed with an insecticide. I am not exaggerating to make a point. This situation has already been talked about around our business table. 

Beekeepers need to be aware of what they are asking for. Possible problems from a systemic when the beekeeper manages their hives a certain way, or the bombardment of spray drift of overland spraying on all the land throughout the entire spring...

Which ever way you cut it, we beekeepers are going to have to manage our hives in a chemical environment. That is not going to change no matter how much I want it to. We need to support the lesser of the evils. There is no way around this point.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian, don't take my questions the wrong way. I am asking because I know that in your business you see both sides of this, with the exception that you haven't experienced high losses that you would attribute to neonics the way many beekeepers in Ontario have. The OBA had originally called for an outright ban on neonics and their compromise position is supporting a permit based system. Do 100% of corn, soybeans and canola acres need to be treated? Shouldn't farmers always have to make the conscious choice to spray or plant treated seed instead of it being the default?

Isn't there enough early science to indicate we should be cautious with neonics. Using the as valuable tools where necessary and not on every acre of every crop. Especially when there is little science demonstrating that there is a need to use them wholesale. 

Randy's article on Amitraz is very interesting and I am glad that I don't use it.


----------



## Haraga

Farmers have two choices. They can treat the seed or spray in crop. Which one would you prefer?


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> Farmers have two choices. They can treat the seed or spray in crop. Which one would you prefer?


Spray every acre or as needed?


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> Spray every acre or as needed?


It works out to spraying every acre. 
Kinda like Beekeepers treating for mites, every hive gets the treatment because of logistical reasons. 
It would be nice to say the other would prevail but... My fortune teller is more bleak.

I use Apivar, and found no issues as of yet.

Adam, I keep bees in 100% seed treated country. Corn soy and canola, sunflower. How is Ontario different than the neonic use on the prairies ? Why the overwhelmeing issue and not so much here?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Adam, I keep bees in 100% seed treated country. Corn soy and canola, sunflower. How is Ontario different than the neonic use on the prairies ? Why the overwhelmeing issue and not so much here?


That is a very good question, but with an average loss of 58% last winter, there is something going on.


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> That is a very good question, but with an average loss of 58% last winter, there is something going on.


Yes it's called a government program that pays for any registered bee losses over 40%.


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> Yes it's called a government program that pays for any registered bee losses over 40%.


That's pretty cynical. You had to declare in th fall what you overwintered and then declare in spring your losses. Compensation was only $100 and only for hives over 40%. Bee inspectors could/did audit the loss.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> That is a very good question, but with an average loss of 58% last winter, there is something going on.


Has the provincial extension apiarist run any disease level samples in the high loss apiaries?


----------



## jim lyon

zhiv9 said:


> Spray every acre or as needed?


A professional farmer would better be able to answer this but I can relate a relevant story from years before neonic seed treatments. My father in law,who was an excellent farmer, went out one morning to monitor his crops and found that, literally overnight, cutworms had leveled a great deal of his crop. I was there that morning and drove back out with him as he was assessing the damage. I remember him lamenting how random the destruction was and that the acerage that had been tilled prior to planting were generally ok but those where he had chosen the, then, new no till farming method was where the majority of the devastation occurred. My guess is that farmers plant so much treated seed because it's cheap and insect damage happens quickly and is impossible to predict.


----------



## Haraga

Ian said:


> Has the provincial extension apiarist run any disease level samples in the high loss apiaries?


Oh Ian. You come up with the funniest questions.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Has the provincial extension apiarist run any disease level samples in the high loss apiaries?


I am sure they did, though we won't see that information for months. These were big commercial beekeepers, I would assume that they were monitoring this themselves as well.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> Ian, don't take my questions the wrong way.


I just felt it was worth mentioning, my typing might have an straight and serious tone to it because this issues hits my pocket book directly. I am not directing that tone towards the contributors of this topic what so ever. 

Let me tell you however, this tone will be directed towards beekeepers by farmers if actions are made against them which appear to be brought about by public opinion and steamed forward by environmental lobby groups.
Beekeepers are like farmers and most conduct their business in a matter of fact fashion. We can relate to farmers, so why is it beekeepers are supporting a campaign that we know will kick the "horse that feeds us" right in the nose?


----------



## Ian

Read that article in the ABJ written by Randy. Lots of what was said makes sense. We need to look at ourselves and clean up our own act before we go pointing fingers...


----------



## Haraga

If it were the best choice, farmers would seed with untreated seed, but that's not the best choice. Some GMO treated seeds like canola are very expensive. Jim, your cutworm example is a classic example of why we use treated seed. 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you feel that your bees are at risk from these chemicals, please move them to safer areas.


----------



## TWall

Farmers don't want to hurt bees, or anything else. They want to raise profitable crops so they can support their family and their businesses. Kind of like commercial beekeepers.

Where neonics get banned or their use is restricted there is a high chance bee losses will increase because of greater exposure risks with alternative insecticides prducts and application methods.

The majority of my hives are surrounded by corn and soybeans, literally a few feet away. If the local farmers switched to spraying insecticides, in place of neonic seed treatments, I would move my hives. I think the exposure risk is significantly greater.

Tom


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Read that article in the ABJ written by Randy. Lots of what was said makes sense. We need to look at ourselves and clean up our own act before we go pointing fingers...


I agree and by practicing IPM and staying away from chemicals that leave comb residue I feel like I am making an effort towards that. I also feel that if neonics are such a valuable tool that applying them on 100% of everything will only lead to resistance until they are no longer effective. Use them on the 15% of planting that require it. If that means practicing IPM than so be it. 

A good start would be to make untreated seed as available as untreated seed. Make sure it is less money than treated seed.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Let me tell you however, this tone will be directed towards beekeepers by farmers if actions are made against them which appear to be brought about by public opinion and steamed forward by environmental lobby groups.
> Beekeepers are like farmers and most conduct their business in a matter of fact fashion. We can relate to farmers, so why is it beekeepers are supporting a campaign that we know will kick the "horse that feeds us" right in the nose?


I couldn't agree more with this, but feel like grain farmers(or at least the organizations representing them) are also to blame. The research demonstrating where neonics is required and to what extent is hardly clear cut. There is a problem here and everything points to neonics as being contributory in some areas. Having the Grain Farmers of Ontario try to say that varroa is causing the acute poisoning by seed dust is not helpful. Beekeepers have being dealing with varroa and its vectored viruses for a long time - there is something new going on here and in France and Italy and Germany, but for whatever reason not out west. Grain Farmers claiming they are in no way part of the problem also isn't helpful for good relations.


----------



## Haraga

The one thing we have going for us out west is hive isolation.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> but for whatever reason not out west.


Canola, clover, alfalfa,


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> I am sure they did, though we won't see that information for months.


It takes less than two minutes to make these diagnosis. It takes two weeks to get my samples back.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> It takes less than two minutes to make these diagnosis. It takes two weeks to get my samples back.


Yes, but when the government collects it, it always seems to take to longer for it to come out into a report.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Canola, clover, alfalfa,


We have all three as well but proportionally different when compared to corn or soybeans. isnt planting density higher here do to greater rainfall/soil conditions?


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> Yes, but when the government collects it, it always seems to take to longer for it to come out into a report.


You would think that the Ontario beekeepers that had huge losses would send off their own samples rather than waiting on someone else to get the results for them.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> isnt planting density higher here do to greater rainfall/soil conditions?


you have never been to the prairies, lol nothing but crop, some places here its yellow as far as I can see!
bet you cant see over your corn,.?


----------



## Ian

Haraga said:


> You would think that the Ontario beekeepers that had huge losses would send off their own samples rather than waiting on someone else to get the results for them.


I have not heard of what the disease situation was like for the Ontario beekeepers last spring. Adam, that is something your association should have available. And if not, they are surely jumping the gun on recommending this "compromise"

Adam, email your director and ask him if he knows what the disease levels were in the operations experiencing heavy losses last spring.


----------



## Haraga

Ian, aren't you asking a little much? Isn't it easier to jump on the bandwagon than to find out any facts?


----------



## Ian

That's exactly the point of the Lynn's blog posting. And that is exactly the reason I posted it here. She hit the nail right on the head!

"Misinformation forms an inevitable part of public debate, but scientists should always focus on informing the decision-makers"


----------



## zhiv9

What starts out as reasonable conversation turns into implied accusations of incompetence. I don't speak for Ontario beekeepers, but I am sure when a beekeeper loses 6000 of 8000 colonies he would be checking for everything possible. This isn't a one season problem, but the worst of many seasons of high losses that correlates with the widespread use of neonic coated seed. 

Anyways, we have beat this to death again. The current Ontario government has committed to some controls/restrictions on the use of neonics. We'll see how this develops over the coming months. I am also interested to see if there is some pressure from New Brunswick as they depend on colonies from Ontario for blueberry pollination.


----------



## Haraga

Who is this person that lost 6000 out of 8000 colonies?


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> What starts out as reasonable conversation turns into implied accusations of incompetence.


Its a simple question... what was the disease levels in the high loss apiaries?

Manitoba had a 40% loss two winters ago...but a reasonable conclusion was drawn for that loss event...
of course though, there were some who blamed neonics


----------



## Haraga

Since Neonic use has increased in my area the number of bees being affected negatively from ground and aerial applied pesticides has been reduced because in crop pesticide application has been reduced. 
So, in my area, I could argue that Neonics has saved bees. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

What has the question to do with Commercial beekeeping/pollination? Wouldn't the thread fit better into this section: http://www.beesource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?276-Coffee-Klatch?


----------



## AstroBee

In my area, we get a completely mixed bag of Neonic coated seeds, conventional spraying (organophosphate & permerthroids) and Neonic spray. My big take away upon reading the liked article by Randy is that pesticide mixtures may interact in ways that are unpredictable and may produce highly toxic effects on honey bees. I don't see how this can be effectively studied and controlled to insure that no harm is being done.


----------



## Ian

BernhardHeuvel said:


> What has the question to do with Commercial beekeeping/pollination?


Kind of everything....
lets see, we are talking about;
a well written blog posting suggesting that government policy in regards to farm insecticide use should not be made by public opinion but rather science, Randy Oliver's ABJ article about Apivar and its possible contribution towards the honeybees inability to metabolize toxins, perhaps even including neonics, OBA ( which is also representative of the commercial beekeeping industry) recommendation to the ag industry to implement a permit system on neonic seed treated seeds, possible public relation issues associated with that recommendation between commercial beekeepers and the land owners.
I am a commercial beekeeper and contribute most of my input through the commercial beekeeping forum. Its where I hang out and its where I usually get the most useful feedback that relates to my commercial business.

Bernhard, just because you don't like the opinion I present on the issue does not mean this topic is not relevant. Perhaps you should disregard further posts so that your time does not get wasted...


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Its a simple question... what was the disease levels in the high loss apiaries?
> 
> Manitoba had a 40% loss two winters ago...but a reasonable conclusion was drawn for that loss event...
> of course though, there were some who blamed neonics


I don't know. It isn't published/publicly available information.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> I don't know. It isn't published/publicly available information.


I'll do some digging see if I can turn anything up. To me, this is the first question that needs answering before anything else can be considered. *How can anyone support the neonic recommendations without having all the rest of the information at hand?* I would assume your provincial extensions apiarist has gotten all this done. And yes, it is publicly available information, that is why they gather it, all being confidential of course.


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> You would think that the Ontario beekeepers that had huge losses would send off their own samples rather than waiting on someone else to get the results for them.


I am sure they probably did. I was referring to published statistics based on many beekeepers that would likely be published by OMAFRA.


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> What starts out as reasonable conversation turns into implied accusations of incompetence. I don't speak for Ontario beekeepers, but I am sure when a beekeeper loses 6000 of 8000 colonies he would be checking for everything possible. This isn't a one season problem, but the worst of many seasons of high losses that correlates with the widespread use of neonic coated seed.
> 
> Anyways, we have beat this to death again. The current Ontario government has committed to some controls/restrictions on the use of neonics. We'll see how this develops over the coming months. I am also interested to see if there is some pressure from New Brunswick as they depend on colonies from Ontario for blueberry pollination.


I must have missed the answer so I will ask again. Who was the beekeeper that lost 6000 out of 8000 hives?


----------



## Ian

Haraga said:


> I must have missed the answer so I will ask again. Who was the beekeeper that lost 6000 out of 8000 hives?


I can see how someone would be reluctant mentioning names on a forum board. 

But ya, when examples like that are given, usually used to demonstrate a case. Yet any of the factor which could be the cause of the loss is not recognized.


----------



## Haraga

I did a quick search on google and I found an article that said there was a reported loss in Ontario in 2012 of 6000 hives out of 80-100 thousand hives. Is this the loss that they are referring to? 
Why is it that no one can tell me who lost 6000 out of 8000 hives? Oh maybe because it didn't happen?


----------



## AstroBee

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201..._elmwood_beekeeper_blames_corn_pesticide.html

This guy seems to believe that neonics killed his bees.


----------



## Haraga

Astrobee, I just read that article and I am wondering, if he has lost that many bees you would think that he wouldn't need a smoker and a suit to collect samples.


----------



## Haraga

Here is a link to one of the Ontario beekeeper's website that claims to have lost 37 million bees to Neonics according to a Toronto Star reporter. 
On his website currently he sells varieties of honey that are not associated with neonics. Back in 2012 and 2013 when he had all the losses were his bees on corn and would he have sold corn honey had his bees survived?
http://www.saugeencountryhoneyinc.com/services883.asp


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> I must have missed the answer so I will ask again. Who was the beekeeper that lost 6000 out of 8000 hives?


I am not comfortable posting their name.


----------



## Ian

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/amitraz-red-flags-or-red-herrings/

Quote Randy Oliver;

"Practical question: what changed with regard to pesticides around the early 2000’s that may be contributing to today’s colony morbidity and queen failure? Despite much hue and cry to the contrary, I’ve yet to see convincing evidence that it is primarily due to the neonicotinoid insecticides (and have indeed seen much evidence to the contrary). So what other changes in pesticide exposure could be the reason?

Everyone on Earth has by now has heard about the putative link between the neonics and colony loss, and there is certainly reason for concern [4]. But has the single minded focus on the neonics distracted us from the negative effects of other pesticides, or their synergisms with beekeeper-applied miticides? This is the problem with tunnel vision. When an investigation focuses solely upon only one suspect, the real culprit could be standing right next to you, quietly chuckling. I’m no defender of any pesticide, but I am a defender of good science, objective reasoning, fair and informed discussion, and common sense. My question is then, could other common hive contaminants withstand the degree of scrutiny that has been afforded the neonics?"


----------



## zhiv9

This is timely: More pressure now from Ontario's environmental watchdog:

Coverage: 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/pest...ve-ecological-threat-watchdog-warns-1.2042980

The report: http://www.eco.on.ca/uploads/Reports-Annual/2013-14/2014 ar.pdf


----------



## Ian

I think this quote needs to be repeated;

" But has the single minded focus on the neonics distracted us from the negative effects of other pesticides, or their synergisms with beekeeper-applied miticides?"


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> I'll do some digging see if I can turn anything up. To me, this is the first question that needs answering before anything else can be considered. *How can anyone support the neonic recommendations without having all the rest of the information at hand?* I would assume your provincial extensions apiarist has gotten all this done. And yes, it is publicly available information, that is why they gather it, all being confidential of course.


Take enough years into account and you really rule out the other factors. Sure one year may have been high nosema and another a hard winter, but the presence of these items doesn't demostrate that neonics weren't also a contributing factor.


----------



## Ian

Yes, a contributing factor. I don't see any science defending that comment, other than a truck load of public opinion, but lets say neonics is a contributing factor. If you simply remove that neonic factor from the equation, nothing changes, because everything else still remains! Now the compounding factor of additional pesticides being exposed to the bees because of the loss of the seed treatment.
Nothing changes, except an increase of pesticide exposure


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> I am not comfortable posting their name.


Don't be afraid to tell the truth. What possible reason would you have to be uncomfortable about by telling us who lost the hives?


----------



## Ian

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/nosema-ceranae-kiss-of-death-or-much-ado-about-nothing/

Quote Randy Oliver;

*"N. ceranae also appears to suppress the bees’ immune functions. Karina Antúnez (2009), found that bees ramp up their immune systems in response to N. apis, but that system is apparently suppressed by N. ceranae. "*

There is a tone of good stuff in that article and so many parallel's can be drawn here. 

Next time you meet a beekeeper on the street, or in the coffee shop, or at the next convention, ask him/her what their Nosema levels were going into winter, and ask them if they were down or up from last year...


*"An infection by N. ceranae is generally without symptoms—the older bees simply “disappear.”"*


----------



## Haraga

http://www.guelphorganicconf.ca/201...launch-class-action-lawsuit-pesticide-makers/


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I wish those Ontario beekeepers good luck and hopefully they win the lawsuit. This is the only language the chemical companies understand: money. 

I talked to the Bayer folks on their general meeting of shareholders and had the impression that they know what they are doing. That is me on that screen:










I first thought, hey, they might do things, because they do not know better - but now I learned, that is not the case. So if they risk other people's and bees' health to make a lot of money although they should know better, a lawsuit here and there may let them think about devoloping a better and safer product. Quickly. 

I can't take those folks serious though. On that shareholder meeting all the food was _organic_. Yes, you read right. All the drinks and food on that meeting was organically produced and labelled. Seems, they do not want to eat their own products...

I can't take those folks serious, when their very own bees at the Bayer Bee Care Center in Monheim were poisoned by Clothianidin, their own product. In that region several apiaries, including the Bayer apiary, were affected. No problem, they say: all colonies survived, just the flight bees were lost. A bee dies anyway after 40 days, so this is not really a loss. They said this on TV. :applause: 

And so on. The "arguments" are always the same. We hear them since 1999, since the first incidences of phenomenons. We have a different situation here. A high density of both, bees and farmland. Not much wilderness or waste land. Year after year about 100 tons of imidacloprid is sold in Germany and of course used. There is only 18,852,337 square miles of farmland. Do the math and see how much milligramm that makes per square metre/square foot. (100 tons = 100,000,000,000 mg) [Note that the chronic LD50 is way below mg...] So we have a bit of an overuse here in Europe. That also can be seen because the stuff appears in drinking water already. Which is a place where it doesn't belong to, of course, and nobody wanted it there to pop up. 

We see more effects because of all this. And there are effects. You cannot tell beekeepers, who (in Europe) deal with varroa mites for 39 years(!) that they didn't learn anything through 40 years of beekeeping with mites. That is a bit nonserious, isn't it. They even told this (you are too dumb to treat) to people who own a family beekeeping business in their third generation. 

While scientific papers and studies on neonics are published in the hundreds during the last decade, which all combined pretty much show how dangerous the stuff to bees is, the same old same old "arguments" are repeated and tactics are played. Split the beekeepers into groups, tell them what the real problem is (mites), make them ashamed (too dumb to treat), blame the neighbour (he is too dumb to treat). Problem are mites. If not the mites, it is viruses. If it is not mites plus viruses it is mites plus viruses plus X. It is the radiation of mobile phones, climate change, sunstorms. You name it. It is getting a little ridiculous.

Just my two cents. Rather than throwing mud at each other, one of you big beekeepers should go down to Ontario, visit the families and see how their bees doing instead of a distant guessing of what they do wrong. Can't see how an operation with thousands of hives makes management decisions that lead to a complete wipeout. One should assume, that those people know what they do, isn't it.


----------



## Haraga

Bernhard, I searched around on the Internet and could not find any information on any specific beekeeper in Ontario that personally lost thousands of hives.Who are these people? Can you provide me with any names? I know the OP can't. 
I don't care if its people or animals, when you stack them too close you are going to have health problems. That has proven itself time and time again. Now in your last post you state that there were operations with thousands of hives that had a complete wipeout? Would somebody please tell me who these people are?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I do not state it, I took the number from your question, which I now understand. Whatever, I would first start talking to the people who started the lawsuit.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Here you find the claim:
http://www.ontariobee.com/sites/ontariobee.com/files/DOCSLIB-#2440628-v1-AMENDED_Claim.pdf

I find the following plaintiffs: 
- Sun Parlor Honey Ltd., from both Essex County and North Wellington County, Ontario
- Munro Honey, Alvinston, Ontario


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

This article says: "two of Ontario's largest honey producers."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bee...d-to-class-action-on-neonicotinoids-1.2757359

It also states: 
"It won’t be necessary to show neonicotinoids are solely responsible for the deaths, only that they contribute to them, he said."

Another article says:
"The Ontario Beekeepers Association is not directly involved in the lawsuit, but along with the Sierra Club Canada Foundation, helped connect beekeepers with the law firm. The association also helped with the research for the lawsuit."
from: 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/c...genta-over-neonicotinoid-pesticides-1.2754441


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

"Ontario experienced 58 percent winter mortality." 
"Documented incidents of pesticide exposure and colony damage during the regular season in recent years (2009 to 2013) in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba have contributed to these concerns."
from the 2014 CAPA report: http://www.capabees.com/content/uploads/2013/06/2014-CAPA-Statement-on-Colony-Losses.pdf


----------



## Haraga

Bernhard, I googled each of those honey companies and it appears that they are still in the business of producing and/or selling honey. Now obviously neonics are not wiping their bees out or they would not still be in business. Am I correct? 
I read several articles about extreme hive mortalities in Ontario in the 2012-2013 winter but I haven't found any information about high mortalities this past winter. The OP claims that he knows someone from ontario that lost 6000 out of 8000 hives. Now wouldn't it be nice if the OP would man up and give us the name of the person so that we may look into this ourselves? Heck maybe the OP could even pm the guys name to me. 
Bernhard, I can guarantee you that if ontario gave tax credits for hive increases instead of cash for hive losses you will see a substantial increase in hives.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

It is a dirty business. And on either side there are extremists that do argument with incorrect data and or exaggerate when claiming things. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally. Does not really improve the discussion, though.

Do you implicate, those family businesses are just running after the cash from the state of Ontario? Why would they file a lawsuit then? Doesn't seem logical to me. 

Other people like the Canadian Honey Council like to get some cash, too. See page 9: http://www.honeycouncil.ca/documents/2010 August Hivelights_low res.pdf 
The same in the UK where the BBKA took about 175,000 £ from companies. (281,332 USD)

As said it is a muddy pool and the bills have to be paid. You take what you can get...


----------



## Haraga

Bernhart, I read the lawsuit. If this goes to trial the defendants liers will inevitably ask the plaintiffs if they continue to locate their bees in and around corn and beans. If they answer yes then the judge will wonder why they would continue to put the health of their bees in jeopardy. If they answer no, then the judge will come to the conclusion that the simple solution is to not put the bees near those crops. 
In the end, it's the responsibility of the livestock owner to ensure the health and safety of their own livestock. 
Here is another scenario Bernhard. If a rancher came to you and told you that you could put your 1000 hives in his pasture for the summer and you did so without putting a fence around your bees and his cattle came along and knocked over all the hives. Would it be the ranchers fault or your fault that your livelihood was affected? And if you were to prevail, isn't it likely to assume that no other land owner will ever let you on their land again?


----------



## Haraga

BernhardHeuvel said:


> It is a dirty business. And on either side there are extremists that do argument with incorrect data and or exaggerate when claiming things. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally. Does not really improve the discussion, though.
> 
> Do you implicate, those family businesses are just running after the cash from the state of Ontario? Why would they file a lawsuit then? Doesn't seem logical to me.
> 
> Other people like the Canadian Honey Council like to get some cash, too. See page 9: http://www.honeycouncil.ca/documents/2010 August Hivelights_low res.pdf
> The same in the UK where the BBKA took about 175,000 £ from companies. (281,332 USD)
> 
> As said it is a muddy pool and the bills have to be paid. You take what you can get...


Bernhard, read page 7 about the ontario report in the far right column. They report that since the winter was milder and the varroa mite levels were low that things were improving. 
You can bet the defendants in that lawsuit will be bringing that report with them to the trial.


----------



## Haraga

This is an interesting article because of it's date and how things have changes in the past few years. 

An Island of Health in a Sea of Disease
impractical for hobby beekeeping.
Although this article title sounds melodramatic, this is the perspective of the 70- plus Thunder Bay and area Beekeeepers. We are fortunate. There are no mites: varroa or tracheal in Thunder Bay, period - none, nada, non. Clean and sweet as the whole of North
America was twenty-five years ago before
the great wave of infestations and infections that is a sorry by-product of ill regulated importation and insufficiently regulated commercial beekeeping. We might be one of the few areas in Canada that remain mite-free.
Our yearly beekeeping cycle doesn’t require the regular labour intensive spring and fall treatments of formic acid and other expensive interventions; both chemical and behavioural.
All to suppress the two mite populations; varroa and tracheal, enough to gain a honey harvest and winter over a strong cluster for next year’s spring build up. We are happy beekeepers, although we still struggle with the old fashioned challenges of late spring swarms and wintering colonies in a sub-arctic climate that can push individual bee yard winter losses beyond 15%.
What is the Thunder Bay beekeeping scene like? While most beekeepers are hobby
or part-time beekeepers there are two or three each year that gear-up to run 40 or more production colonies a season. The Thunder Bay area of Northwestern Ontario has unique characteristics. A genuine
clay belt, the Slate River Valley, similar to Northeastern Ontario around New Liskard, lies just west and south of the city. This area supports a variety of mixed farming operations. Three established u-pick farms, especially strawberries, rely on their own onsite bee yards to pollinate their various crops. The remaining bee forage area is a mix of country suburban, rural hobby farms and scrub bush lots and unused pastures gradually reverting to forest again.
Thunder Bay bees are hybrids. The stock
of twenty-five years ago was predominantly Italian, with the last imported queens coming from New Zealand breeders. There was perhaps a quarter that were Carniolan ancestry, thanks to the influence of an experienced, Austrian-born local beekeeper. Several beekeepers had Buckfast queens
Simon Hoad, Thunder Bay Beekeepers Association, Ontario
before the borders were closed. Every Thunder Bay colony now shows the distinctive colouration of all three types among the workers and drones.
Collectively, we are conscious each spring that a single uninformed importation of nucs and queens, whether from an Ontario supplier or Manitoba, will doom all of our twenty five years of effort.
The Thunder Bay Beekeepers’ Association, (TBBA) has responded to the challenge
of maintaining our mite-free status with a
sustained public education campaign. The message reaches association members through our bi-monthly meetings and newsletter. Personal contacts and summer bee inspections have helped to reach non- association beekeepers. Periodic news stories for the general public are keyed into TBBA’s annual July hands on workshop
and reinforced with our mid winter general education library presentation. Attendance has grown from 15 to 70 plus people at these events. A new three year partnership with the Thunder Bay District Health Unit gives a third public venue to discuss our mite-free bees and the value of local honey to the diet.
The second line of defence has been to select for and breed only hygienic bees. Thanks to the influence of Jeanette Momot, TBBA co- founder and university trained in apiculture, a simple approach to testing colonies for hygienic behaviour has been developed. Hygienic behaviour is due to two recessive genes; one for un-capping and the second
for removing dead brood. Bees with strong hygienic behaviour are more resistant to mite infestation.
To select a hygienic colony for future queens, two frames are prepared. With a pin, three circles that include seven capped brood cells are punctured to kill the larvae. Twenty
four hours later the two marked frames
are examined for complete removal of the cell contents. A simple procedure, easy to repeat, that is less cumbersome than cutting out small squares of brood comb, freezing and reinserting. Other techniques for selectively killing brood such as using liquid nitrogen and a tin can to produce circles, are
Does such a low tech system work? Six years ago Jeanette and a second TBBA member paid Guelph University to have several of their queens tested. Results ranked Thunder Bay bees among the most hygienic in the province for that year of tests.
TBBA’s third and weakest line of defence is education of the larger beekeeping community outside of northwestern Ontario. Both the provincial and national beekeeping scenes need to know and respect our mite free efforts. The new Ontario Provincial Apiary Specialist, Paul Kozak, needs to request more funding, cut this year, for the two OMAFRA honey bee inspectors to continue testing for tracheal mites. Bee supply companies need
a postal code “do not ship” list for queens and nucs. The broader national beekeeping community needs to be aware of our little pocket of health and take care to respect our efforts and help preserve our mite-free status. Our location on the only Canadian east/west transport route makes our area vulnerable to a stop or a spill by the occasional commercial truck shipments traveling through the area via the Trans Canada Highway.
An importation of diseased bees did happen once, approximately seven years ago. Fortunately the two local OMAFRA honey bee inspectors heard of the importation in time to prevent any spread. After checking the two hives and confirming an infestation of varroa, the two colonies were immediately destroyed. The beekeeper received replacement bees from local association members at no cost.
TBBA members know how precarious our mite-free status remains. A single mailing of an infested nuc will change our status. Other Northwestern Ontario farming areas such as Dryden and Fort Frances / Rainy River have seen their beekeeping community collapse due to the arrival of the mites.
Beekeepers are starting to look to Thunder Bay to provide them with mite-free bees to replenish their stock. Being able to provide this service would provide a small but welcome income for individuals in a region suffering from a loss of jobs in the forestry sector who are searching for diverse options for sustainable economic security, not just for them, but for our valued mite free honeybees.


----------



## Haraga

Bernhard, please read the August 2014 ontario regional report. It covers. It talks about hive husbandry and neonics. 

http://www.honeycouncil.ca/images2/pdfs/Hivelights_August_2014_low_res.pdf


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Haraga said:


> If a rancher came to you and told you that you could put your 1000 hives in his pasture for the summer and you did so without putting a fence around your bees and his cattle came along and knocked over all the hives.


If it would be so obvious, the answer is easy. But that is the problem with this stuff. The longterm effects of a chronic exposure are _not_ obvious. If it would be obvious the case would be closed a long time ago. As I said earlier, I ask farmers to rather use pyrethoids than neonics, simply because if it affects bees, I see it immediately and pull my bees off the site. If the bees are chronically poisoned and I do not notice it (could you?), you end up with a surprise later in the season. You can't really deal with this, because bees fly a long distance and if you do not notice a poisoning you cannot move out of the way. At the time you notice it, it is too late. I lost a good heap of money to poisoning and I hate to see my bees suffer. It is anyway hard to avoid those pesticides nowadays. Where to go?

I hate the continiual underlying feeling of uncertainty all year round. I want to know my bees safe but always have to worry.


----------



## Ian

When CCD first hit in 2004 I think it was, samples were taken and disease and pesticide analysis were done and made available. I'm am 100% sure the Ontario Beekeepers Association organized much the same thing and through the provincial apiarist sample were taken disease analysis tests were done. It would be interesting to see what the tests showed for levels of nosema, viral loads, mites, pesticide levels in the bees and comb. 

Suggesting disease management contributed to the losses is not slagging anyone.


----------



## Haraga

Bernhard, lets complicate this scenario a bit. Lets say that the cattle from the ranch next door got pushed down and those cattle from next door were in the same pasture as your bees. Consequently your hives were demolished by some cattle. Lets say that you can prove 200 thousand dollars damage. Could/would you sue the rancher from next door? Or is it still up to you to ensure the well being of your own livestock and equipment? Lets even take it one step further. Lets say that the neighbors cattle are known by everyone, including yourself, that they will tear down all but the best five barbed wire fences out there. Would the neighbor be responsible for your losses or would his defense be that it was not his cattle? Maybe it was both herds that caused the damage? Do you only sue the neighboring rancher because his cattle are ones that are known to tear down fences and have been suspected to cause damages in the past? Or do you still not have a case because you did not protect your own livestock and you were the one that put them on that location? Now if you owned the land that your bees were located and the neighbors cattle came onto your property and caused the damage, then I think you would prevail.


----------



## Ian

Haraga, have you run any disease analysis on your hives stock this fall? Hows the Nosema, varroa, tracheal and viral levels?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> When CCD first hit in 2004 I think it was, samples were taken and disease and pesticide analysis were done and made available. I'm am 100% sure the Ontario Beekeepers Association organized much the same thing and through the provincial apiarist sample were taken disease analysis tests were done. It would be interesting to see what the tests showed for levels of nosema, viral loads, mites, pesticide levels in the bees and comb.
> 
> Suggesting disease management contributed to the losses is not slagging anyone.


I am sure it has contributed as did weather and beekeeper error. Any of these items could be a issue in any given year, but when average losses many years get , worse and this increase correlates with the introduction and ramp up of use of a pesticide it really negates the other contributing factors to just that - contributing factors and not the main culprit.


----------



## Haraga

No Ian I have not.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> but when average losses many years get , worse and this increase correlates with the introduction and ramp up of use of a pesticide


ALSO a ramp up of bee diseases, more so than ever in the beekeeping industry history


----------



## Ian

Haraga said:


> No Ian I have not.


Haraga!!! lol

This is what I'm talking about  And you have that lab conveniently located so closely to you. Just for the sake of this conversation, get a live sample in and tell me what your levels are. 
My first sample was sent a few weeks ago, I have just recently sent a live sample for viral analysis. The folks at the lab are more than happy to run these counts. They are screaming for work! Its cheap, and it gives exactly what we need to know from a year to year disease situation in our apiaries.


----------



## Haraga

Ian thanks for the reminder. I just got off the phone with a fairly new girl at the bee lab. They are the nicest people up in tundra country.


----------



## Ian

Cheers to that Haraga!

This initiative was brought to us from our government in response to the loss issues in our country. It's to help us get a handle on what's happening in our own apiaries. We need to not only support the initiative but support the idea of knowing our disease levels. 
Next time your talking to another beekeeper ask him/her why they have not conducted any in depth full spectrum disease analysis yet. The service is there for the taking. 

After we can track our disease and how it is influencing our own bee stock, then we can confidently assert actions towards external factors such as loss in forage, weather and pesticides. I bet most of the Beekeepers screaming about neonics have zero idea what their baseline disease levels are, and how those levels influence their stock year to year as the hives experience different conditions.

When talking nutrition and supplements I get asked over and over about my csttle and how we manage our nutrition in our stock. The other side of that coin is disease and knowing our levels and how we manage it accordingly. I don't know why beekeepers are so un aware of what's going on in their hives.


----------



## Ian

There "was" a small sideline cattle farmer who fed his cattle his own grown barley, and bought barley from his neighbour. The cattle fed his barley were in tip top condition, where has the cattle fed his neighbours barley were sick and getting severely deformed. His conclusion was that is was the GMO barley and the round up used on the barley (which is nonsense) which was causing the deformities. ACTUALLY it was a fungal infection in the neighbours barley which was causing the sickness... found out by his vet...

The cattle industry new about this fungus and its potential concerns it poses to cattle, and the industry knows enough about it that we can measure down to the ppb before any symptoms occur. R and D, and lots of it in the cattle industry. I could give you pages of example like this in the cattle industry. If the beekeeping community would focus all this time, energy and money into R and D instead of supporting baseless causes, our industry would be far better for it. THere is an accusation towards our government about doing nothing about pesticides and bees. Yet they have supported this state of the art lab which provides actual substance and gives the beekeepers the ability to look into their hives as never before. We need to focus on actual which then will lead to substantial conclusions. Such a foreign concept in this bee industry. Randy Oliver is a breath of fresh air. We need to follow this mindset, ask those questions and get those answers.


----------



## Haraga

Ian I am wondering why zhiv9 or anyone else won't give me the name of the beekeeper that lost 6000 out of 8000 hives. Is it because it didn't happen? Is it just another example of someone not telling the truth they can convince others to jump on the neonics bandwagon? And are these 75% losses happening to this same guy every year, assuming that his bees are still around corn and beans and since neonics have built up in the soil?
I would love to talk to the guy that lost all those hives to find out the test results. You would think that if someone lost 6000 hives that his name would show up in a google search wouldn't you?


----------



## Haraga

This is the only thing that showed up on google that mentions 6000 hives dying and that is out of 80-100 THOUSAND hives. 
Zhiv9, is this what you are referring to? We're you mistaken when you typed 8000 hives?


----------



## Haraga

This is the only thing that showed up on google that mentions 6000 hives dying and that is out of 80-100 THOUSAND hives. 
Zhiv9, is this what you are referring to? We're you mistaken when you typed 8000 hives?

"So what does this mean for the beekeeping industry?
Well, since the introduction of the neonics we’ve seen a dramatic decrease in the bee population, in both Ontario and Quebec. Also, there has been concern that the problem is spreading to western Canada. In 2012, there was a reported loss of around 6000 hives out of 80 to 100 thousand [cultivated in Ontario], which was fairly dramatic. It was brought to the attention of Health Canada that determined the dead bees showed signs of poisoning, so we have cause and effect there. The same thing happened in 2013, and pesticides were found in 80% of the dead bees. Winter losses reached twice their average, which is a sign of the slow-killing effects."


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> This is the only thing that showed up on google that mentions 6000 hives dying and that is out of 80-100 THOUSAND hives.
> Zhiv9, is this what you are referring to? We're you mistaken when you typed 8000 hives?
> 
> "So what does this mean for the beekeeping industry?
> Well, since the introduction of the neonics we’ve seen a dramatic decrease in the bee population, in both Ontario and Quebec. Also, there has been concern that the problem is spreading to western Canada. In 2012, there was a reported loss of around 6000 hives out of 80 to 100 thousand [cultivated in Ontario], which was fairly dramatic. It was brought to the attention of Health Canada that determined the dead bees showed signs of poisoning, so we have cause and effect there. The same thing happened in 2013, and pesticides were found in 80% of the dead bees. Winter losses reached twice their average, which is a sign of the slow-killing effects."


Haraga, you will have to take me at my word on this one. Having a such a high loss is both deflating and probably to some extent embarrassing for such a large beekeeper - it's not my place to call them out on here publicly.


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> Haraga, you will have to take me at my word on this one. Having a such a high loss is both deflating and probably to some extent embarrassing for such a large beekeeper - it's not my place to call them out on here publicly.


Zhiv9, please show me any form of evidence to back up your statement about 1 beekeeper losing 6000 hives and I would be more than glad to take your word.


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> Zhiv9, please show me any form of evidence to back up your statement about 1 beekeeper losing 6000 hives and I would be more than glad to take your word.


http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=take+word+for+it


----------



## Haraga

That's too bad we can't get any facts about your 6000 hive loss story that can only be linked to neonics. I suppose we will just add it to the list with all the other unverified neonics caused hive deaths. Your claim of 6000 hive losses AND a buck fifty will get you a coffee at Timmies anytime. 
I'm curious zhiv9, did you opt out of the class action suit against the chemical company?


----------



## zhiv9

Deleted


----------



## beedeetee

A troll is someone that comes on a site, makes a fantastic claim of fact and then watches the resulting action. Not someone who asks the troll for proof.


----------



## Ian

Something I found interesting that I did not know yesterday, black cell queen virus uses nosema to infect the bees. If I understand this right, BCQV enters through the bees gut and expresses itself when the hive has high nosema levels.

5 years ago I did not even have BCQV in my vocabulary ! I do see this in my hives from time to time


----------



## zhiv9

beedeetee said:


> A troll is someone that comes on a site, makes a fantastic claim of fact and then watches the resulting action. Not someone who asks the troll for proof.


I was pretty clear the first second and third time he asked about why I didn't feel comfortable posting the company name. There's a point where you either take it or leave it. The reality is that the average Ontario loss was 58%. 58000 of 100000 colonies were lost. Since 5% of beekeepers keep 80% of the bees, commercial beekeepers were hit the hardest. It's hardly a wild claim.

Asking the same question over and over and ignoring the responses. Implying dishonesty and incompetence. These are antagonistic trolling behaviours that add nothing to the debate or conversation. This isn't the first time or thread that this has happened. 

It's ok to disagree, but try to keep it civil - that's all I am asking


----------



## Haraga

Zhiv9 maybe instead of telling us the name of the beek you could tell us what county they are from?


----------



## AstroBee

zhiv9 said:


> ...I didn't feel comfortable posting the company name...


Then you should have never used the data to begin with. I googled the heck out of this and there is no shred of evidence that I could find. I think its completely appropriate to request the source of your claim. If you can't provide such evidence then don't use it. Further, don't become indignant when people ask for evidence to back up your statements.


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> Zhiv9 maybe instead of telling us the name of the beek you could tell us what county they are from?


No, there is nothing to be gained from that either. Believe it or don't. Here are the facts and the facts make the claim reasonable regardless:

Average loss was 58% with >25% of beekeepers taking a 75-100% loss.

http://www.ontariobee.com/inside-ob...mes-first-province-to-act-on-neonicotinoids-0


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Something I found interesting that I did not know yesterday, black cell queen virus uses nosema to infect the bees. If I understand this right, BCQV enters through the bees gut and expresses itself when the hive has high nosema levels.
> 
> 5 years ago I did not even have BCQV in my vocabulary ! I do see this in my hives from time to time


That is interesting. Have you seen it in your operation? Does it have a big effect outside large queen rearing operations? I know in a queen rearing course I took they recommended against reusing cell cups to prevent the spread.


----------



## Haraga

I read the article. Very well written. I wonder who lost 100% of their colonies and how many colonies they had before the deaths? I would like to know more.


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> No, there is nothing to be gained from that either. Believe it or don't. Here are the facts and the facts make the claim reasonable regardless:
> 
> Average loss was 58% with >25% of beekeepers taking a 75-100% loss.
> 
> http://www.ontariobee.com/inside-ob...mes-first-province-to-act-on-neonicotinoids-0


Zhiv9 I was hoping that you had some first hand knowledge of the hive losses. It would be interesting to interact with someone that witnessed the losses.


----------



## zhiv9

AstroBee said:


> Then you should have never used the data to begin with. I googled the heck out of this and there is no shred of evidence that I could find. I think its completely appropriate to request the source of your claim. If you can't provide such evidence then don't use it. Further, don't become indigent when people ask for evidence to back up your statements.


There was nothing wrong with questioning the data. I get indignant when I explain why I won't reveal the company name and why then someone asks 3 more times the same question. We share a lot of anecdotal evidence/hearsay/personal experience on beesource. Not all of it is easily backed up with links and even when it is the link source is often questionable. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Particularly when their claims are reasonable and align with data that IS published.


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> Zhiv9 I was hoping that you had some first hand knowledge of the hive losses. It would be interesting to interact with someone that witnessed the losses.


Like watched them happen?

Your best bet would be to contact one of the OMAFRA bee inspectors. They were all busy this spring between inspecting the high winter losses and acute kills related to planting.


----------



## AstroBee

zhiv9 said:


> We share a lot of anecdotal evidence/hearsay/personal experience on beesource.


Yes, but you're suggesting 6000 hives were lost, which, at least to me, requires some higher level of proof. If the roles were reversed, would you simply believe such statements if they were contrary to your personal experience? I'm not trying argue with you, however, I can see Haraga's perspective. If any one operation in the US lost 6000 colonies, surely there would be at least one public story. Did you mean to say the 6000 colonies in total were lost in Ontario?


----------



## zhiv9

AstroBee said:


> Yes, but you're suggesting 6000 hives were lost, which, at least to me, requires some higher level of proof. If the roles were reversed, would you simply believe such statements if they were contrary to your personal experience? I'm not trying argue with you, however, I can see Haraga's perspective. If any one operation in the US lost 6000 colonies, surely there would be at least one public story. Did you mean to say the 6000 colonies in total were lost in Ontario?


See posts 95 and 98 - I already answered how many were lost in Ontario. 58000 of 100000. So many beekeepers lost so many colonies this spring that no individual loss was really news. I had a good look around and found no reference to the loss publicly or on the Internet which was part of why I didn't want to say who it was. I figured if they wanted it public they would have made it public. I have no problem sharing this story as they shared it with a newspaper - 400 of 550 lost:

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news...rs_feeling_the_sting_of_honey_bee_losses.html

6000 of 8000 just isn't that far fetched, but like I said believe it or don't. If I had realized it was such a problem, I would never have stated without checking to see if there was a public reference. Sadly these sort of losses just aren't unusual anymore.


----------



## JRG13

are we implying neonics are to blame on this thread, I'm lost on the implications. It was a tough winter for sure, but I don't see why everyone is all of a sudden crying hard about it. Neonics have been around awhile....


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> That is interesting. Have you seen it in your operation? Does it have a big effect outside large queen rearing operations? I know in a queen rearing course I took they recommended against reusing cell cups to prevent the spread.


Yes I have seen this in my op. I dont know how much of an effect it has on my hives but...one more dagger to make the kill, right?


----------



## Ian

Adam, I forget if I asked you this question back further in the ramblings of this topic...

have you run a count on your hives? I'm sure you can get a sample package of bees out to Alberta. My delivery took 36hrs. The package arrived in good shape, about 1000-1500 bees collected from about 50 random hives or more.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Adam, I forget if I asked you this question back further in the ramblings of this topic...
> 
> have you run a count on your hives? I'm sure you can get a sample package of bees out to Alberta. My delivery took 36hrs. The package arrived in good shape, about 1000-1500 bees collected from about 50 random hives or more.


I haven't, but I agree that it is a good idea. Is it open to anyone across Canada?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Yes I have seen this in my op. I dont know how much of an effect it has on my hives but...one more dagger to make the kill, right?


Definitely, neonics aside, bees have enough pressures without having greater loads on their immune systems. Research by Marla Spivak's team seems to indicate that we should really be encouraging bees that propolize more to help reduce the load on individual bees:

http://www.beelab.umn.edu/prod/grou...es/documents/article/cfans_article_435997.pdf

Early stages, but looks interesting. Really deserves its own thread (if there isn't one already).


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> I haven't, but I agree that it is a good idea. Is it open to anyone across Canada?


Yup , it's a national lab, sponsored by our fed gov.

If anything get your varroa and nosema checked out. You do not need live bees for that analysis


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> Marla Spivak's team seems to indicate that we should really be encouraging bees that propolize more .


Funny how they use to breed it out! Lol
I encourage that kind of thinking. Except when cleaning it out of my excluders..!


----------



## whix

I was reluctant to stick my neck out and add to this discussion. 
I'm already a pariah in our club for questioning the OBA's views on neonics.

This spring, I wrote the OBA and asked how they came up with neonics as the main thing killing our bees.
I sent them links to the Provincial Apiarist Reports, the Canadian Honey Council, Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists and the University Of Guelph's results of compiled beekeepers' surveys for the last 7 years.
NOT ONE of the provincial reports, or CAPA or the University of Guelph even mentions pesticides, they ALL put varroa mites as the main cause of failure. And yet the OBA brushed aside the findings "WE" beekeepers reported and somehow came up with neonics as the main cause.

I asked, since "WE" were all wrong, educate me. 
I really want to see how the OBA contradicts compiled beekeeper survey results from the last 7 years.*

They sent me http://www.ontariobee.com/sites/.../honey statistics 2009-2012.xlsx Production and value of honey 2009-2013 saying "our concern is related to neonicotinoids in Ontario, which has a particular vulnerability related to neonics and a substantiated decline in honey production as you may have seen in the statistics provided by Stats Canada."

I sent them http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/hort/honey.htm, Estimated Number of Beekeepers, Colonies of Bees, Production and Value of Honey, Ontario 1982 to 2013 showing honey production is pretty much average and that hive numbers are better than before, almost back to pre-mite levels.
I told them that they skewed the facts to validate their claim and asked, now that they have all the information if they would set the facts straight.

They suggested I speak with an OBA board member, a beekeeper in my area.

I know him, belongs to our club, nice guy. 
Ya, sure, I'll talk with him, he'll have inside information and set me straight. 

He chanted the OBA's mantra.
Got upset I was questioning the OBA.
Called my observations, and I have to assume, all the other beekeepers who filled in the surveys "anecdotal", yet gave no facts.

I was blown off, sent "We're all volunteers with families and businesses who believe in what we're doing".
"You can also find more information on our website at www.ontariobee.com/neonics.
Thank you for taking the time to write, don't hesitate to get back to us with other questions". 

They never addressed my question. 
Supposedly I just have to "believe" them.

The OBA doesn't speak for me!


----------



## Ian

Exactly Whix! good post, don't stop asking those questions! 

I was waiting for another Ontario member to chime in. I emailed the OBA and got no where. I am not a member and I have no connections. Whix, can you contact your director and ask him if they have done a disease analysis on the apiaries showen to have heavy winter losses? I assume they would of collected samples and done tests, especially if they are pointing fingers for the losses. 
That information should be available to you, through your provincial apiarist. 
Hope you can help


----------



## Vance G

Great thread! Good to hear arguments instead of caterwauling and chants of PROVEN SCIENCE! I just hope that there is not a long term buildup that does do a lot of harm. I am not around it so it is just an item of interest for me.


----------



## Ian

There is an ongoing studdy on measuring long term residual neonics in the soil and wet lands up here in Sask. Canada. The neonics detected were so small the tech equipment used could not measure small enough to accurately measure its concentration. So... I guess they just rounded things up a bit LOL


----------



## Haraga

I emailed the OBA also and got no response. I am inclined to feel that these beeks need to look within themselves and quit blaming everything under the sun including neonics.


----------



## Ian

Get that sample sent away yet Haraga? I'm getting all 7 virus analyses, $220. Add that to the fert bill! Ha ha


----------



## Haraga

The part that amazes me is if these Ontario beeks are convinced that neonics in their area is killing their bees then why don't they move them away from that area?


----------



## Ian

Haraga said:


> The part that amazes me is if these Ontario beeks are convinced that neonics in their area is killing their bees then why don't they move them away from that area?


To where ? If they are moving away from that seed treatment , they can't move onto another crop that does not have it, unless they stick them in the bush


----------



## Haraga

There is more brush than crop in Ontario.


----------



## Ian

Haraga said:


> There is more brush than crop in Ontario.


Yup, when compared to our landscape... Full"er" with neonics, and been that way for 15 plus years already!
But one difference... We have canola canola canola


----------



## whix

I am not a member... anymore.
I refuse to fund their fanciful stories.

I have listened to our Provincial Apiarist give talks, I get the impression he works for the Ontario government, not the beekeepers he represents.
I doubt I'll get anything but the "approved official statement".


----------



## Ian

I'm not looking for the approved statement, I want to know the disease levels of the neonic loss hives.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> To where ? If they are moving away from that seed treatment , they can't move onto another crop that does not have it, unless they stick them in the bush


Exactly. You also have to understand that the business model in Ontario is different than out west. Its not all about bulk production - many of us are direct selling to a large local market that demands that we be local. The only place to move to is the shield. Boreal forrest doesn't offer much for nectar production.


----------



## zhiv9

whix said:


> I have listened to our Provincial Apiarist give talks, I get the impression he works for the Ontario government, not the beekeepers he represents.


Of course he works for the government. He's a bureaucrat and has to be careful with what he says. I have never found that he is limited to the approved statement. If anything he goes by the research and the findings of the inspectors that work with him.


----------



## zhiv9

whix, we all know that year on year colony numbers don't really tell you anything, because beekeepers keep replacing them. Honey production numbers aren't that useful either because the demand tends to drive production with more colonies being devoted when the price is low.

With the exception of the yearly acute bee kills caused by neonic dust, the only other correlating information is the average overwintering loss. It increases sharply in Ontario starting in the 2006/2007 season even taking into account seasonal variability. You can see the chart here which they will have to rescale to account for this years 58% loss(see figure1):

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/food/inspection/bees/13rep.htm

It was at this time that neonic coated seed went into wide usage in Ontario. Does that demonstrate that one is definitely causing the other? No it doesn't, but something is going on.

Is this a good enough reason to ban neonics - no it probably isn't. Is it a good enough reason to limit the use of neonics to where it is actually needed - yes I think it is. Except that part of the issue here is that there is really no research to show where it is or isn't needed or whether it needs to be applied every year or every three years or to what crops. We are just putting it on everything all the time. 100% treatment. Well we know from our own treatments that that will only lead to resistance, higher dosage and eventually the loss of another tool.

If its use on canola isn't harmful, than control its use on corn and soybeans and allow it to be used on canola. There are a lot of options here between a total ban and 100% treatment of all seeds.


----------



## Ian

The thing is Adam, you'd think the neonic treatment on the plants the bees actually work on and collect from would be causing the harm, like canola... Unlike corn and soybean whereas the bees don't work at all. 
Don't you think?

Lots of neonic seed treated crops in Ontario. Mostly corn and soybeans, aside the dairy cut alfalfa....
Hey Haraga, you grain farm and beekeep, how much honey do you get off of neonic treated corn, soybeans and dairy cut alfalfa? And how much honey do you get off non neonic treated corn, soybean and alfalfa? 
Would it be the same as in Manitoba?

Zero....

Adam, what is your honey crop? OBA should change the wording of the recomended seed treatment permit to say "you must grow a flowering crop"


----------



## Ian

So agriculture shifts, for good or for bad, it shifts towards a more intensively managed business. Better farmers, more money, bigger equipment, more land being utilized, AND the crop rotation changes towards plants bees get nothing from.

Do you want to throw mal nourishment into the conversation?? Let me link mal nourishment up with our nosema plague. I know I know beekeepers keep telling me nosema is not an issue for them, and there fore don't need to test, or treat...

But if that bee is mal nourished, loaded with this perpetual case of nosema (which slams the immune system) gets treated with Apivar which eliminated the ability of that bee to metabolize residual toxins...pulls down the health of that bee, every viral disease known to honeybees will rule the day. And that's all without considering external conditions to the hive. Put that hive through a winter that never ended... And then have them fly through some "benign" seeding dust.

that is my 40% loss theory two winters ago. Do you know how I counter acted it this last winter, with exact the same conditions? I fed loads more protein, replaced more queens, culled out more comb, fed more sugar, moved my hives out to flowers all season long (three moves on average per yard spring till fall)

Nothing around me is going to be changing, so my hive management is changing

Every beekeeper I have met over the years is "a good guy", "good beekeeper", some been in the business over 100 years. But that all means squat when these nice good old Beekeepers don't keep up with the changing landscape to keep their business thriving.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Means more queens, more feeding, more work, more time and thus more costs for the beekeeper who barely keeps his bees alive. Thanks, that is a good basis to build a business upon. If you loose 40 % of your hives every other year, you can't stay in the beekeeping business. I am running like mad to keep my bees alive - and as you said it works, but only as long as I stay away from the neonics. I simply hate this situation. That is not acceptable. Maybe I should become a corn farmer than...

The darn thing about seed treatment is, you actually do not treat a pest, because when you bring out the seed, there is no pest yet. It is a _preventive_ use of a pesticide. That is a good business model. Preventive treating makes more money for big chem. But that is about it. No real advantage for the farmer other than imaginary. Or do you see a substantial increase in harvest after you began using neonics? Do you really save fuel and time by using them? What do your accounting records really say?

I really don't see a reduction in spraying in my region, as I already told before. They use the seed treatment and still spray for four to five times during the season. In canola that is, but it is the same with corn and others. Seed treatment, winter spraying, spring spraying, one or two times into the blossoms. Each time a combination of a funigicide and insecticide is sprayed at a time. (Note, that canola is sown in autumn and wintered here in Germany.) A lot of these combinations are actually more poisonous to bees than is the single preparation. (Studies on it available.) Neonics are used for spraying, too. The active ingredient Thiacloprid for example.

They banned only three active ingredients and neonics. That is Imidacloprid, Clothianidin for example. In the newspapers you often find, that they banned the stuff completely. But that is a lie. Only 30 % of the applications are banned, mostly in canola and corn. But the rest of it - 70 % - still is in use. In potatoes, asparagus and so. And you see poisonings there, too. Officially tested and verified poisonings, we had sucessful law suits, too. In potatoes. That is not a bee plant, but since you find aphids on them, you find bees there. And if it rains, the bees use the puddles to get some water. 

Anyway. The situation is not acceptable for another reason. While you requeen and feed and do a lot of things to our domesticated honybees, the wild bees and bumble bees do suffer silently. About half of the species of wild bees died out in Europe in the last decades. As do insect eating birds and animals. I am not an environmentalist, really, I am grown up on a farm, still live on a farm and spent my whole life on farms. Because I love farming, i hate to see it breaking up by industrial farming, which has nothing but nothing to do with real farming like the oldtimers did. The old people here do understand my concerns, just the middle aged people, who grew up with chemicals (for every problem there is a chemical solution) do not listen. I think, they know nothing about real farming. They simply look onto their iPhone app, which is sponsored by the big chem, when to apply which pesticide. That is real poor farming in my eyes. You don't find many real farmers those days. With their hands in the dirt.

Anyway, I think some of you would think different, if they actually make a living from bees rather than farming. Too much work to keep them barely alive. That's not acceptable.

Bernhard


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> So agriculture shifts, for good or for bad, it shifts towards a more intensively managed business. Better farmers, more money, bigger equipment, more land being utilized, AND the crop rotation changes towards plants bees get nothing from.
> 
> Do you want to throw mal nourishment into the conversation?? Let me link mal nourishment up with our nosema plague. I know I know beekeepers keep telling me nosema is not an issue for them, and there fore don't need to test, or treat...
> 
> But if that bee is mal nourished, loaded with this perpetual case of nosema (which slams the immune system) gets treated with Apivar which eliminated the ability of that bee to metabolize residual toxins...pulls down the health of that bee, every viral disease known to honeybees will rule the day. And that's all without considering external conditions to the hive. Put that hive through a winter that never ended... And then have them fly through some "benign" seeding dust.
> 
> that is my 40% loss theory two winters ago. Do you know how I counter acted it this last winter, with exact the same conditions? I fed loads more protein, replaced more queens, culled out more comb, fed more sugar, moved my hives out to flowers all season long (three moves on average per yard spring till fall)
> 
> Nothing around me is going to be changing, so my hive management is changing
> 
> Every beekeeper I have met over the years is "a good guy", "good beekeeper", some been in the business over 100 years. But that all means squat when these nice good old Beekeepers don't keep up with the changing landscape to keep their business thriving.


This thing is farmers didn't just start plowing up their pasture and planting corn and soybeans in 2006. The primary crops in Ontario have been the same for a long time - Ontario beekeepers had already adapted to them. What you are saying is reasonable and explains a season or two of losses, but at some point the statistical data rules out beekeeper and management errors. How many seasons of high loss or how much data would it take to change your mind? Science is never absolute and science with bees is difficult and expensive. Few studies last more than a season - fine for acute effects, but not nearly long enough for chronic effects.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> This thing is farmers didn't just start plowing up their pasture and planting corn and soybeans in 2006.


And they did not just start using neonics in 2006 either.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> And they did not just start using neonics in 2006 either.


No, but this about the time when they went into province-wide usage.


----------



## Ian

BernhardHeuvel said:


> i hate to see it breaking up by industrial farming, which has nothing but nothing to do with real farming like the oldtimers did.


yup you and me both but what are you going to do, bring back the horse? piss and moan about the old days all you want, but that will not keep you in business.  you have to change your business strategy otherwise you might aswell find another job. 

beekeepers are not going to change what agriculture is but beekeepers can lobby to help initiate some bee friendly practices. You grow little gardens of flowers, which is great and proactive. Bernhard, why do your ditches not have flowers in them? No excuse. Mine do. Its because I have approached my local council and ask if they would stop spraying it, and mow in September.

Beekeepers should take all this colony loss attention we are getting from the public (and we are front and centre in the papers right now) and actually use it to achieve something tangible. The elimination of ditch spraying is a floating duck! Partnership with Ducks Unlimited to help conserve tree rows and wetlands. Put in place more disease analysis bee labs and further subsidize the costs. 
How about drop a few million on beekeeping R and D into our universities. 

I talk to beekeepers all the time about managing all these issues. They are optimistic, they KNOW whats going on in their hives and they are managing thing accordingly. They always have bees alive in the spring. These are the beekeepers we need to follow as examples.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> No, but this about the time when they went into province-wide usage.


nope, they have been here ever since I started farming out of school in '97, on all the seed


----------



## Ian

you probably mean more of the acres are being used to neonic treatments in 2006, when corn and soy started to take the landscape replacing other crop rotations.

replacing your flowers also...


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> you probably mean more of the acres are being used to neonic treatments in 2006, when corn and soy started to take the landscape replacing other crop rotations.
> 
> replacing your flowers also...


What other crop rotations? Corn, soy, wheat and alfalfa have been the primary crops in this area for at least two decades.


----------



## Ian

Well then there you go, it's been there longer than you realized. I bet your corn acres have increased since 2000...

What is your honey crop Adam ?


----------



## Ian

When abouts was it Nosema C presented itself up here... Hmm you would think that would also fall into your statistical correlation. How about the mite resistance problems, about that time, and the introduction of Apivar? How many new viral infections have we found in our bees since then?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> What is your honey crop Adam ?


Extracting isn't totally finished, but looks like a little over 100lbs per colony


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> When abouts was it Nosema C presented itself up here... Hmm you would think that would also fall into your statistical correlation. How about the mite resistance problems, about that time, and the introduction of Apivar? How many new viral infections have we found in our bees since then?


If these were the issues we would see them correlate across Canada. I know there is some isolation from the west, but we should at least see them through Quebec and out east.


----------



## whix

zhiv9 said:


> whix, we all know that year on year colony numbers don't really tell you anything, because beekeepers keep replacing them. Honey production numbers aren't that useful either because the demand tends to drive production with more colonies being devoted when the price is low.


Read my post again. The OBA, in answer to my question, sent me "our concern is related to neonicotinoids in Ontario, which has a particular vulnerability related to neonics and a substantiated decline in honey production as you may have seen in the statistics provided by Stats Canada.(Production and value of honey 2009-2013).
The OBA thought it tells them something useful.



zhiv9 said:


> It increases sharply in Ontario starting in the 2006/2007 season even taking into account seasonal variability. You can see the chart here which they will have to rescale to account for this years 58% loss.


58% losses.
Although I'm sure some of the biggest losses were from commercial beekeepers, look at the number of new beekeepers since 2008. 
There's almost a thousand.
How many of those losses were from "bugs in a box" beekeepers?

Look at the chart, http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/hort/honey.htm it pretty much tells the whole story,

In the1980's beekeepers and hive counts are pretty even. 
You can see the hive count dwindle as beekeepers started dropping out when the mites first came. (I got mites in 1993)
It sort of settled out after we learned how to keep mites, and then we grew.
Resistance came, you can see it in the chart, and more beekeepers dropped out, but the colony count stayed the same. 
The chart shows us learning how to use formic. And we stayed even.
In 2006/2007 something did change, I lost 50%. 
Bees hit the front page of the national newspapers, it was all over the media.
BUT the colony count stayed the same. 
A lot of new people thought they would give it a try. 
You can see more beekeepers and more hives and then,... even more.

There is a steep learning curve to beekeeping, its hard when you start, especially now, with so many "new" ways of keeping bees
Now the number is falling again as "bugs in a box" beekeepers start to drop out.
You'll see,... the numbers of hives and beekeepers, in for the long haul, will settle to just us again.
The commercials will recover and so it goes...

I expect you'll be one of us.


----------



## zhiv9

New beekeepers with 2-5 hives have negligible effect on the numbers. Even if 1000 started each year - (that would be a 25% increase) and they all lost all of their colonies that would only account for a maximum of 5000 lost colonies. That leaves another 53000 missing colonies. This assumes that those new beeks actually registered their hives - many don't.

I agree though that it's tough and getting tougher. We can see it in our falling club membership numbers.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> If these were the issues we would see them correlate across Canada. I know there is some isolation from the west, but we should at least see them through Quebec and out east.


What make you think there is no issue across Canada? There is. Two winters ago there were many beekeepers recording 75-90% losses. And Im sure they would love to blame neonics too, but there is more to the story than that. I can rehash it if you want. You need to tell me *"the rest of the story"* (Paul Harvey) which contributed to this years Ontario losses before I can agree with you that neonics caused those losses. So far all I have read, or heard on new casts, or talking to beekeepers like yourself is "neonic neonic neonic"


----------



## whix

If the new beekeepers didn't register, they are not in the stats. I was only talking about the 1000 that did register.

zhiv9, you are in Barrie, I'm in Aurora, about 60 km south, not that far from you.

Do you remember what last year/last winter/this spring was like? 

I was ice fishing, January 1st at Big Bay Point, standing on 8" of solid black ice. The year before we had to wait til the first week of February for 3" of soft ice.

In 2013 our main honey flow basically shut down mid July. It got cold and wet and stayed that way.
There was practically no goldenrod flow to speak of.
What little honey my bees collected, they ate. I produced a little less than half my usual crop, others I know didn't even get that.
I had to feed to bring my colonies up to winter weight, something I haven't done in years.
The winter came early and hard with near record low temperatures and stayed that way. 
We never got the January thaw.
Spring came cold and late, very late.

It was the perfect storm.

Throw in the "bugs in a box" beekeepers and we had all the makings for the disaster that came.
Maybe neonics did have something to do with the losses,... but I blame the weather first.

Our club had over 110 members (pre-mite) when I joined. We are around 35 now. New beekeepers join, full of themselves, going to solve the problems "we" created. 
They last for a few years, realize its hard and disappear. 
But the old beekeepers keep coming back. 
We adapt our methods to the new challenges and move forward.
We have to, we're beekeepers!


----------



## Ian

whix said:


> Do you remember what last year/last winter/this spring was like?
> 
> I was ice fishing, January 1st at Big Bay Point, standing on 8" of solid black ice. The year before we had to wait til the first week of February for 3" of soft ice.
> 
> In 2013 our main honey flow basically shut down mid July. It got cold and wet and stayed that way.
> There was practically no goldenrod flow to speak of.
> What little honey my bees collected, they ate. I produced a little less than half my usual crop, others I know didn't even get that.
> I had to feed to bring my colonies up to winter weight, something I haven't done in years.
> The winter came early and hard with near record low temperatures and stayed that way.
> We never got the January thaw.
> Spring came cold and late, very late.
> 
> It was the perfect storm.
> 
> !


There we go, the start of "the rest of the story"

sounds like the bees run out of time. early brood shut down in the late summer of 2012, possible mal nourishment if supplemental feed was sparse,long cold winter (as here), long cold spring (as here). In these situations anything with disease will dwindle. 

Why has this not been mentioned Adam?
And still curious, what were the disease levels?
And also still curious what exactly is your main honey flow?


----------



## whix

I put my bees on hay. 
My main flow is clover honey, it starts around the last week of June and lasts til late July, early August.
Then a bit of a dearth til the goldenrod flow starts mid/late August and lasts til the killing frost.
I stay away from canola, too much trouble with it crystallizing in the frames! 
I pull my crop mid September, the rest is theirs to winter on.


----------



## Ian

whix said:


> I stay away from canola, too much trouble with it crystallizing in the frames!


besides clover, canola is what I target! Not only is it one of the most salable honey, the pollen is one of the most nutritious.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> There we go, the start of "the rest of the story"
> 
> sounds like the bees run out of time. early brood shut down in the late summer of 2012, possible mal nourishment if supplemental feed was sparse,long cold winter (as here), long cold spring (as here). In these situations anything with disease will dwindle.
> 
> Why has this not been mentioned Adam?
> And still curious, what were the disease levels?
> And also still curious what exactly is your main honey flow?


Again we are talking about a single season. Some of what whix said might explain the extra 18% losses last winter, but it doesn't explain the other 25% above normal loss. I actually thought all that snow last winter really helped insulate the colonies. Beekeepers further north of me with less corn and soybeans reported losses as low as 10% with their bees completely covered in snow for months. Pressures have varied season to season. The 2012 season started really early with a very long brood rearing period and the extra brood cycles produced large and early varroa infestations. This year we had slow start and regular rain that helped keep things blooming longer and maintained an almost continuous light flow, but again lead to high varroa populations. You can never look a single season on its own. It takes multiple seasons to see a real pattern.

Our season starts with maples and dandelions in May often followed by a bit of a nectar dearth, the main honey flow starts late June and runs through July and consists of clovers, trefoil, and vipers bugloss and basswood - there is also canola some seasons. Knapweed is also good in some areas. In early August things dry up. There is second cut alfalfa, if it doesn't get cut just as it blooms and the yards near wetlands, get a decent flow from Joe Pye Weed and loosestrife. There's also buckwheat if i can find a grower. The season usually finishes with a goldenrod flow in the first week of September.


----------



## Ian

How does the yearly loss pattern compare to the hives reported disease levels?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> How does the yearly loss pattern compare to the hives reported disease levels?


I don't have that data available to me and again it's only relevant for a given season and is cancelled out when looking at enough seasons. Perhaps you could start by sharing Manitoba's disease levels starting in 2006?


----------



## Ian

If my bother (cattle manager of the farm) came to me with new that our cattle herd was 60% dead, those animals would be tested and checked out for disease. Then the feed would be analysed... and so on. 

Your telling me your hopping on the band wagon without knowing any of the factors surrounding the issue?


----------



## zhiv9

I am not on any bandwagon. I just looked at the data and pointed out a correlation. You can pick apart any given season, but that won't change the correlation. Anyways, I don't think there is really anything new to add here. I'm sure the next, study, article, etc for or against will renew the debate.


----------



## Ian

Jamie Ellis,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMDN7r1SfbY


----------



## Roland

Correlation does not prove causation. If we shoot off our mouth and cry wolf, we may vilify the wrong suspect. Then we will all look like fools, and never be taken seriously again. Chose your battles, and choose wisely.

Ian wrote a comment a represent:

Every beekeeper I have met over the years is "a good guy", "good beekeeper", some been in the business over 100 years. But that all means squat when these nice good old Beekeepers don't keep up with the changing landscape to keep their business thriving.

Crazy Roland
Linden Apiary, est. 1852


----------



## zhiv9

No it doesn't and I believe I have mentioned that myself earlier in this thread, but unfortunately the research quite often lags the situation on the ground. This situation is pretty dire for some beekeepers.

PMRA gave neonics temporary approval based on very little data with the promise of more research to follow. For 10 years this research/data was never provided to the PMRA. Now that it looks like neonics might not be as safe as the chemical companies claimed, it only seems reasonable that the temporary approval be pulled until further research can address the safety concerns for pollinators, birds, aquatic life and so on. The PMRA has not had the courage/political will to do so even though there is some question of whether or not they can legally do this. Several environmental agencies have been taking legal action against them for their lack of action:

http://www.manitobacooperator.ca/20...s-challenge-pmra-over-neonicotinoid-approval/

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/media/ne...-use-of-pesticides-linked-to-cancer-and-wate/

I can't seem to find any record of grain farmers calling out for a new a pesticide in the early to mid-2000's because they couldn't go on/stay profitable without one? Please share this data with me. There is a lot of fear-mongering about foliar sprays if neonics are band - well, I think there are a lot of Ontario beekeepers that would like to go back to that. When farmers have to pay for spraying, they tend to be a bit more selective and spray what needs to be sprayed.

I think when you are not facing 40-60% year on year losses it is easy to sit back and say we need more data and point fingers at the beekeeper and tell him that even though he's been doing this all his life, he somehow forgot how to manage varroa and disease levels. Forgot how to overwinter and feed his colonies. Its insulting when it comes from a grain farmer and worse when it comes from another beekeepers.

Beekeepers won't decide this anyways. We are too small of a lobby. As usual a misinformed public, well backed lobbyists and pandering politicians will decide. Cynical perhaps - but that's "democracy"


----------



## Haraga

Ian said:


> The thing is Adam, you'd think the neonic treatment on the plants the bees actually work on and collect from would be causing the harm, like canola... Unlike corn and soybean whereas the bees don't work at all.
> Don't you think?
> 
> Lots of neonic seed treated crops in Ontario. Mostly corn and soybeans, aside the dairy cut alfalfa....
> Hey Haraga, you grain farm and beekeep, how much honey do you get off of neonic treated corn, soybeans and dairy cut alfalfa? And how much honey do you get off non neonic treated corn, soybean and alfalfa?
> Would it be the same as in Manitoba?
> 
> Zero....
> 
> Adam, what is your honey crop? OBA should change the wording of the recomended seed treatment permit to say "you must grow a flowering crop"


Oh c'mon Ian. Nobody wants to talk about that because it only makes sense. 😳🙀


----------



## Haraga

Bottom line, neonics or not, if you run your bees on corn or beans they will do poorly. If you choose to leave your bees on those crops then the failure is your fault not neonics fault.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> I can't seem to find any record of grain farmers calling out for a new a pesticide in the early to mid-2000's
> 
> point fingers at the beekeeper and tell him that even though he's been doing this all his life, he somehow forgot how to manage varroa and disease levels. Forgot how to overwinter and feed his colonies. Its insulting when it comes from a grain farmer and worse when it comes from another beekeepers.


You mean the mid 90's, and neonics came in to replace Counter5G as they pulled it off the market due to extreme health concerns (actually killing operators). 

And yes I am pointing the fingers at beekeepers. That's the thing about disease Adam, terribly hard to manage and disease control is faced by all farmers. Its not a slag its a point of business. Before they start pointing fingers at everyone else for their losses they have to determine whats is going on in their front porch. So far nothing has been said about disease control in any of the OBA reports, or TV news reports or papers, yet disease will have played a significant role in the losses, not to mention the weather. 

Qualifying the position of not knowing disease levels because "these are good beekeepers" is ridiculous. I'm a good beekeeper as well. My hives look awesome this fall. Yet my Nosema counts came back high... If I start seeing issues this spring with losses and poor performing hives, I have an idea whats going on.


----------



## Ian

I have the lab test my sample for tracheal mites. They counted zero tracheal mites which is registered as not detected. 

It has gotten me wondering where these mites have gone. Breading, perhaps. I'm thinking with all the disease pressures and weather issues over the last two years probably killed off any hive under that extra tracheal mite stress. That's one theory why I think my varroa mites are almost undetectable as well.


----------



## Ian

I was talking to a beekeeper this last spring about feeding protein patties. This operation had not fed any supplemental protein to their hive stock previously. Caught me off guard a bit because this operation is very substantial and this was a three generation beekeeping family. Here I am, one generation beekeeper, giving protein advice to beekeepers who has had multiple generations of beekeeping experience. 
The key point I am making here is, these guys are good beekeepers and know what they are doing, yet proactive enough to adopt change. 

They were very interested in my view point of neonics as well. I doubt it changed their mind, but it was the only counter opinion they had herd other than from scripted chemical company responses to this anti neonic movement.


----------



## zhiv9

So to summarize your points Ian. High average losses in Ontario have been caused by:

1) Not monitoring disease levels of their bees
2) Not feeding their bees properly


They've been consistently failing to do these things since 2006/2007.
Harmless neonics have played no part at all in these losses. 

Beekeepers out west have not been facing the same average losses, because they have been monitoring disease levels since 2006/2007 and feeding their bees better.

Grain farmers must have neonic seed coating on 100% of seed or they will spray 100% of canola, corn and soy beans with some other insecticide, because they are unable or unwilling themselves to practice IPM


----------



## whix

Now summarize mine.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> So to summarize your points Ian.


Adam;

Nope,
and yup, 
unless you have a reliable IPM to implement...


----------



## Ian

"Responses from provincial surveys indicated that weather, poor queens, weak colonies in 
fall, Nosema, Varroa and pesticides were possible causes of reported wintering losses. 
Clearly the impacts of pest, pathogen and environmental factors continue to be a 
challenge through the year to beekeepers across Canada."

http://www.honeycouncil.ca/images2/pdfs/2014_CAPA_Statement_on_Colony_Losses.pdf

*"The future of beekeeping will depend on a 
multi-factorial approach to address risks associated with honey bee health and industry 
development and sustainability in Canada"*


----------



## Ian

That's a pretty boring analysis of Canada's high wintering losses... how would the media jazz this publication up? hmmm....


----------



## pleasantvalley

whix said:


> Now summarize mine.


Since when has the OBA concerned themselves with silly facts and science? 
I wonder if the guys that fought the package bee risk assessment want to change their opinion and access half price packages after a 58% loss?
The last winter there was the 38th coldest in the past 174 years, yet I see images of bees wrapped in a little tar paper and they won't consider it a major factor?
Considering how government payout programs go, why are questions about it always brushed aside by members as if their integrity is without question?
The guys in the suit claim to produce a crop double the size of the 30 year Ontario average. So they must not be putting their bees on corn and soy to get that crop right?


----------



## irwin harlton

I wouldn't be to hasty to judge those Ontario beekeepers or in thinking that they miscalculated in doing some testing , IPM for parasites or diseases.Keeping bees alive is a risky business ,no matter where one lives.As for all the canola being treated in western Canada and there being no problems,.....yet.Someone pointed out to me the difference in size between one canola seed and one corn seed, how many canola seeds would fit inside a corn seed ?, and how much neonic is on a corn seed compared to a canola seed, it would be multiplied considerably


----------



## Ian

I'm pretty sure the seeding densities for corn work out to close to be a bag per bag. But soybeans would be more


----------



## irwin harlton

Even if the seeding density is the same , there is more neonic on one corn seed than on a canola seed


----------



## Ian

It works out to 3 acres per bag corn, 10 acres per bag canola.


----------



## irwin harlton

YOU ARE CORRECT IAN

http://tdaynard.com/2014/05/01/what...ll-us-about-neonics-and-bees-plenty-actually/


The rate of neonic application per hectare is virtually the same with the two crops and, according to available data summarized by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the percent uptake by plants grown from treated seed is also similar. (Some anti-neonic advocates in Ontario have claimed uptake is four times greater with corn, listing their source as Dr. Christy Morrissey, University of Saskatchewan. But the underlying scientific paper provided to me by Dr. Morrissey (Sur and Stork, 2003) contains no such comparison.)


----------



## Ian

irwin harlton said:


> YOU ARE CORRECT IAN


It is what it IS Irwin


----------



## irwin harlton

Neonic's are an insecticide,they kill bees,sub lethal effects are very hard to measure, and they appear to be building up in the soil,that is what it is


----------



## Ian

It will be interesting to find out why some soil holds more residue than others, and learn how it moves through the soils into the water ways, and further into the water systems. 
Right now studying it is extremely difficult because they are working with such small amounts.


----------



## Ian

pleasantvalley said:


> Considering how government payout programs go, why are questions about it always brushed aside by members as if their integrity is without question?


In Manitoba MASC has been experimenting with an infa red gun and training agents better to help know what they are seeing. the infared gun will work okay for indoor hives but I'm not sure how well it will work with outdoor hives. 
I'm going to rent one after I get them all in to see how well it works and try to predict my losses with using it on the basis of cluster size throughout the winter season.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> In Manitoba MASC has been experimenting with an infa red gun and training agents better to help know what they are seeing. the infared gun will work okay for indoor hives but I'm not sure how well it will work with outdoor hives.
> I'm going to rent one after I get them all in to see how well it works and try to predict my losses with using it on the basis of cluster size throughout the winter season.


The company I work for in my other job has a FLIR camera and I have been thinking about borrowing as well. It can detect the warmth of a hand print on the wall, so a cluster should be easy to see.


----------



## Haraga

Ok people, pull your head out of your ... And get your bees away from the corn and beans if you think that those crops are killing your bees. It's that simple if you are a believer.


----------



## mnbeekeeper

ok FARMERS pull your head our of your...and find a more sustainable way to grow your crops. its simple if you want your children to have a safe clean earth to live on.


----------



## Ian

I'm surprised with the poll results so far which is showing nearly 60% of the respondents do not test their hives for disease.


----------



## Haraga

I am surprised by the number of beeks that have advice for farmers when they have no farming experience. They wouldn't know a cutworm if it were served to them on a platter. They also haven't even taken a minute out of their day to study the importance of the chemicals farmers use today. Bottom line they are lacking in knowledge. Otherwise known as ignorant.


----------



## Ian

I have spoken to three land owners this year on this topic, two of the three had the same tone as Haraga, the other just asking my opinion. You all know my opinion and I told them. 

Beekeepers be advised; have a nice nutral opinion figured out this fall on your honey deliveries. Otherwise you might get yourself into a discussion you might rather leave to beesource...


----------



## zhiv9

Deleted


----------



## TWall

> I'm pretty sure the seeding densities for corn work out to close to be a bag per bag. But soybeans would be more


I wonder if the exposure is even greater with canola than corn or soybeans. Measuring neonic levels in pollen and nectar would be the most valuable information. Plant biomass will impact the concentration, assuming it is uniform across tissues.

There is always the unanswered question of the impact of sub-lethal exposure of honeybees. And then the added impact of mites, diseases, nutrition, etc.

Tom


----------



## Haraga

Tom, I like your last paragraph.


----------



## Ian

Did you get your samples away Haraga?


----------



## zhiv9

From the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario yesterday. I started a new thread in the General Forum as this one had been beaten to death and probably lost most people when it turned to mud-slinging.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?304546-A-look-at-the-science-on-neonicotinoids


----------



## dgl1948

Health Canada has determined that neonics have cause bee mortality.

For more info check this page out. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...minating-prairie-wetlands-scientist-1.2482082
"No neonic ban in Canada

Unlike Europe, which has moved to ban neonics, the Canadian government said in an email to CBC "we do not feel a suspension is warranted at this time."

However, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Authority has publicly raised concerns about the pesticide, and its possible effect on bees in the corn-growing regions of Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba.

In the statement, Health Canada said its research shows "the use of neonicotinoid treated corn and soybean seed are affecting the environment due to their impact on bees and other pollinators."

It found that about 70 per cent of dead bee samples tested positive for neonic residue, whereas the chemical was detected in one sample of unaffected bees.

"We concluded that the majority of pollinator mortalities were a result of exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides" the report said.

And so Ottawa is now publicly consulting on new proposed standards for safer planting practices and enhanced warning labels on soybean and corn seed treated with the pesticide. It is also conducting a detailed scientific re-evaluation of the effects of neonics on bees, which will be released this year.

While not commenting directly on Morrissey's research, Health Canada does say that "the overall potential effects of neonicotinoid insecticides to Canada's ecosystem are one of the topics that will be examined as part of the broader re-evaluation, which is currently underway."


----------



## Ian

Is that 70% number pulled from the planter dust studdy or from dead bee tests from Ontario's 58% winter loss apiaries ? I did not see where that number came from?
Please point it out for me.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> probably lost most people when it turned to mud-slinging.


are you kidding! thats what most of the peeps are looking for! lol


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Is that 70% number pulled from the planter dust studdy or from dead bee tests from Ontario's 58% winter loss apiaries ? I did not see where that number came from?
> Please point it out for me.


I am pretty sure that's from the PMRA report on the 200+ bee kills from 2013. The report for 2014 isn't out yet. I don't know if analysis of bees from winter kills is effective. I thought decomposition was too far gone by the time of discovery.


----------



## Ian

So, that's the planter dust issue ?


----------



## dgl1948

The article I linked to does not give the study but I believe it was the planter dust issue. This chemical issue is a tough one. Without them the world would starve. With them,....are we poisoning ourselves and the environment????


----------



## Ian

dgl1948 said:


> I believe it was the planter dust issue.


Thanks dgl1948

So, why is the planter dust numbers being used when talking about generalized acute poisoning of the bees? The issue was addressed. Our farm used a different lubricant which apparently helped the dusting off issue, though, we had been using that product for 15 plus years without issue... 

http://www.eco.on.ca/blog/2014/10/14/look-science-neonicotinoids/

"In recent years, substantial declines in honey bee populations have been observed, notably in North America and Europe. This decline includes colony losses in Ontario: over the last eight years, the average overwintering loss of bee colonies in Ontario has been approximately 34 per cent – more than double the 15 per cent winter loss rate that is considered to be acceptable by apiculturists. In fact, last winter, Ontario lost 58 per cent of its honey bee colonies. In addition to these overwintering losses, a number of other large-scale bee deaths have been reported in Canada. In the spring and summer of 2012 and 2013, the PMRA received numerous reports of honey bee mortalities (.pdf) from beekeepers in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba. The resulting Health Canada report concluded that the planting of corn seeds treated with neonicotinoids contributed to the majority of the bee mortalities that occurred in the corn growing regions of Ontario and Quebec. - See more at: http://www.eco.on.ca/blog/2014/10/14/look-science-neonicotinoids/#sthash.qCrM4ot1.dpuf"


Is this paragraph not associating the losses experienced by beekeepers over the last 8 years, and the high wintering loss in Ontario last winter to the seed dusting issue? 

Adam, is it the dusting that is the issue, or is it the systemic acute poisoning that is the issue. Is it accidental they present the issue in a way where it looks like they have Health Canada confirming beehive mortality due to neonic exposure (dust exposure, not systemic exposure) , associating it to years of loss data?

and............ where was there any mention of diseases and weather related issues...........


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Adam, is it the dusting that is the issue, or is it the systemic acute poisoning that is the issue. Is it accidental they present the issue in a way where it looks like they have Health Canada confirming beehive mortality due to neonic exposure (dust exposure, not systemic exposure) , associating it to years of loss data?


The dust is definitely an issue and from I have heard the new seed lubricant hasn't helped much inspite of Bayer's claims. The dust has both acute and chronic effects. What I think remains to be fully understood is if the chronic effects are also coming from the corn and soy beans themselves, weeds/trees that are attractive to bees picking it up out of the soil or from contaminated water. It's possible it is a combination of all three.

The data wasn't all in when this was written, but it indicates a 67% reduction in dust with the new lubricant, but the dust released was nearly for times more toxic.

http://www.pollinator.org/PDFs/CDRCfinalreport2013.pdf

I am assuming there will another PMRA report this winter on this seasons losses


----------



## dgl1948

" Christy Morrissey says that over the past few years neonicotinoids have been used increasingly on crops in Western Canada and the chemical is making its way into wetlands, potentially having a devastating "domino effect" on insects and the birds that rely on them"

This biologist is a year and a half into a 4 year study. I assume the wetlands she is referring to are sloughs in our field. If these neonics are building up with time and not breaking down in our wetland and soil we could see systemic poisoning in the future. Plants could be taking these chemicals up at levels that could be a problem. It is something that needs studying. We do not want to jump to conclusion but we do not want another 2-4-D issue as well.


----------



## Ian

The isolated neonic dusting kills is understood and accepted by everyone. The chronic effects from ppb and ppt background levels is highly speculative. The chronic effects from systemic plant exposure is also highly speculative. You can't draw conclusions from one event to prove the other. Exposing the bees to toxic levels which kill them does not mean trace amounts will kill them also. 

If these trace levels are being ingested by the hives, like other ingested insecticides exposed to the bees, they may be contributing to the honey bee health problem facing our industry. But by no means is it causing the issue. All issues have to be considered; disease, nutrition, weather, pesticides. One issue can not be singled out as the root cause. 

What were the other underlying health issues during these heavy loss events?


----------



## Ian

dgl1948 said:


> If these neonics are building up with time and not breaking down in our wetland and soil we could see systemic poisoning in the future.


Absolutely, we need to study this, and as you say, she is in the first year and a half of a four year study. She has come out with findings so trace that her testing equipment is not capable of accurately measuring. Is this not something we need scrutinized before we can draw conclusions from it?


----------



## Ian

"This product (amertraz) was routinely used for synergizing organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides in crops like cotton where key pests had developed resistance, because it shut down the enzymes insects used to detoxify pesticides." http://scientificbeekeeping.com/amitraz-red-flags-or-red-herrings/#synergism-with-other-insecticides

Does this statement not jump out at anyone else??? Perhaps contributing to this neonic issue as every other pesticide the bees are exposed to???


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Does this statement not jump out at anyone else??? Perhaps contributing to this neonic issue as every other pesticide the bees are exposed to???


Definitely - I found the article in last months ABJ very interesting. I am glad I don't use it and agree with Randy opinion that if you are having what you think neonic related issues and you are using Amitraz and you should be thinking hard about discontinuing its use.

I think in the end you will regret using anything that builds up in comb


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Absolutely, we need to study this, and as you say, she is in the first year and a half of a four year study. She has come out with findings so trace that her testing equipment is not capable of accurately measuring. Is this not something we need scrutinized before we can draw conclusions from it?


Absolutely, and in the meantime given the preliminary evidence we can temporarily ban or put restrictions on the use of neonics until they have been vetted and proven safe. Why should beekeepers have to absorb the cost of losses or go out of business while others profit on delays. The reality is insufficient testing was done up front, more testing/data was requested and hasn't be provided in a timely fashion. Blame Bayer and Sygenta they were the ones that failed to provide the data.

There is an article in the this month's ABJ (Unfortunately I can't link to it) that states that while colony numbers across Canada have stayed constant or gone up since 2006, honey production has dropped in every province except Saskatchewan. The similar numbers are quoted in this article. It is particularly telling in Ontario.

http://www.producer.com/2014/08/colony-numbers-up-honey-production-falling/


----------



## Ian

zhiv9;1176570colony numbers across Canada have stayed constant or gone up since 2006 said:


> http://www.producer.com/2014/08/colony-numbers-up-honey-production-falling/[/url]


Hey Adam, your drawing conclusions again. Say I have not collected buckwheat honey since 2006 as well... must be the neonic back ground levels in the area... 

Got your disease samples away?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Hey Adam, your drawing conclusions again. Say I have not collected buckwheat honey since 2006 as well... must be the neonic back ground levels in the area...
> 
> Got your disease samples away?


It's not hard to see why you want to take a wait and see approach - you aren't taking any losses that you are aware of due to neonics and you have a vested interest in their continued use. You might be more conflicted if you were facing the same conditions as some beekeepers in Ontario. In the current scenario you have nothing to lose. If anything you gain with high honey prices.

As I said before - you can pick apart each season individually and find other explanations for losses and lack of production, but results over time negate those. Look at the dust issue, at first they said it was due to unusual weather but as it happened during more seasons, it became clear that unusual weather wasn't the factor.

I contacted the lab, but the haven't got back to. I'll try them again, but we don't have many foraging days left here.


----------



## Haraga

I will guarantee that all of my bee samples will show a neonics residue and they are alive and doing well.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

The title of the thread says it all... :lookout:


----------



## Ian

Have you done any testing Adam?
This is my point, quite the bother to see what the bees hold for disease levels. Grab a sample jar, collect a couple hundred in a wash. 

With all this talk about neonic losses you would think making sure disease issues in the apiary would be top of mind. Ever think about nutrition ?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Have you done any testing Adam?
> This is my point, quite the bother to see what the bees hold for disease levels. Grab a sample jar, collect a couple hundred in a wash.
> 
> With all this talk about neonic losses you would think making sure disease issues in the apiary would be top of mind. Ever think about nutrition ?


I think a lot about nutrition and disease levels. How long has this lab testing been available to us at a reasonable price? What are you doing with the test information? You can treat for nosema, but its not even clear if that is helpful anymore and could actually make it worse. I am monitoring varroa and reacting when needed which is the best method of dealing with the vectored viruses. I locate my yards in areas that should yield a variety of pollen and supplement when I feel there is a deficiency. 
I would like to have the testing done out of curiousity but the information alone isn't useful if there is really nothing that can be done as a result of having it.

How many times have you had your bees test for disease? How long has the program been available.

What does this have to do with neonic losses? If you think disease levels are much higher in Ontario since 2006 and that its the issue and not neonics show me the data to support it? Why would disease levels be much higher here than anywhere else in the country or continent.


----------



## Ian

I have tested my apiary for disease (mite washes, nosema, and this fall for the first time viral levels) every year since I started beekeeping. 
There is a nosema post in commercial beekeeping forums where I'm talking about my test counts and related thoughts, if your asking.

We manage a thousand head of livestock at any given time on the farm. Disease monitoring is forefront in our herd management. Actions to manage the disease follow afterwards. I implement the same with my hive stock.

The very point that you hold zero weight on disease pressures shows how motivated you actually are in finding out the current state of our industries affairs. 

You want me to post links to prove increase in disease pressures in our stock over the last 10 years???? Are you kidding? It has everything to do with pesticide losses. Including potential neonic issues. 

If I close my eyes real tight, and walk swiftly into a wall corner...darn that carpenter for building that corner!

What am I going to do with my disease results? Plan of action against them. Also help understand how these pest levels influence colony behaviour as the hives are exposed to surrounding conditions. 

It's a matter of knowing what's going on and controlling what we can.

But... Why bother ....

So did I turn you off testing?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> The very point that you hold zero weight on disease pressures shows how motivated you actually are in finding out the current state of our industries affairs.


I don't hold zero weight. Disease pressures have always had an effect and continue to have an effect across the country irrespective of pesticide pressures. They are an issue on their own and aren't part of the neonic discussion when you get beyond looking at a single season. 



Ian said:


> If I close my eyes real tight, and walk swiftly into a wall corner...darn that carpenter for building that corner!


Does it matter if you open your eyes when you can't possible avoid the wall anyways? I agree that it does as it is better to know than not even if there is no direct treatment or obvious plan of action, perhaps with good record keeping you could establish useful relationships for the future. It is still a separate issue from neonics when looking beyond a single season. 



Ian said:


> So did I turn you off testing?


No not at all. It is a separate issue altogether. These diseases exist country/continent wide and if they were the issue, we would see correlating losses over the same area. We don't.  The losses are centered in Ontario.

I am a firm believer in Occam's razor - the simplest solution is most often correct. So which is more likely? That higher than normal losses have been caused by:

Disease levels/pressures in Ontario being inexplicably higher than everywhere else for the last 8 years

or 

Chronic exposure to an insecticide introduced to the same geographic area during the same period


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> I think a lot about nutrition and disease levels. How long has this lab testing been available to us at a reasonable price? What are you doing with the test information? You can treat for nosema, but its not even clear if that is helpful anymore and could actually make it worse. I am monitoring varroa and reacting when needed which is the best method of dealing with the vectored viruses. I locate my yards in areas that should yield a variety of pollen and supplement when I feel there is a deficiency.
> I would like to have the testing done out of curiousity but the information alone isn't useful if there is really nothing that can be done as a result of having it.
> 
> How many times have you had your bees test for disease? How long has the program been available.
> 
> What does this have to do with neonic losses? If you think disease levels are much higher in Ontario since 2006 and that its the issue and not neonics show me the data to support it? Why would disease levels be much higher here than anywhere else in the country or continent.


Zhiv9, the answer to the very last question is soo easy to answer. IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOO MUCH EXPOSURE TO CORN AND BEANS!


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> pesticide pressures. They are an issue on their own and aren't part of the neonic discussion



http://scientificbeekeeping.com/nose...about-nothing/

Quote Randy Oliver;

"N. ceranae also appears to suppress the bees’ immune functions. Karina Antúnez (2009), found that bees ramp up their immune systems in response to N. apis, but that system is apparently suppressed by N. ceranae. "

"An infection by N. ceranae is generally without symptoms—the older bees simply “disappear.”


Disease pressure has everything to do with a possible "chronic" insecticide issue. Taking quote from the CHC, To manage risks of all kinds a multi-factorial approach is needed. 


http://www.honeycouncil.ca/images2/p...ony_Losses.pdf

"The future of beekeeping will depend on a 
multi-factorial approach to address risks associated with honey bee health and industry 
development and sustainability in Canada"


----------



## dgl1948

Haraga said:


> Zhiv9, the answer to the very last question is soo easy to answer. IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOO MUCH EXPOSURE TO CORN AND BEANS!


Your answer concerns me. In my part of Sask. we are seeing bean acres increase dramatically each year and now corn is starting to follow the same path. Does this mean if we have beans and corn, we cannot have bees?


----------



## Ian

Lots of corn and beans here. What Haraga means(as he mentioned in earlier conversation) is if that is all that's there, you will have no choice but to move them to forage because no nutrition comes off corn and soybeans


----------



## zhiv9

"EPA concludes that these seed treatments provide little or no overall benefits to soybean production in most situations." 

http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/benefits-neonicotinoid-seed-treatments-soybean-production


----------



## Haraga

Ian said:


> Lots of corn and beans here. What Haraga means(as he mentioned in earlier conversation) is if that is all that's there, you will have no choice but to move them to forage because no nutrition comes off corn and soybeans


Yes Ian.


----------



## Makin' Honey

This thread is great. I am glad you all have kept posting even with the tension it seems to be generating. This question with the neonics and bees is polarizing. Thank you to each of you for your thoughts. I do have a question….During the past few seasons in Ontario with the large die offs, were all the beeks affected with high losses or are there some in the same area that have not experienced it?


----------



## Ian

According to the reports, the losses were generalized around the main crop growing areas.


----------



## Ian

I have talked to a beekeeper yesterday over coffee. He mentioned neonic dusting losses in 2013 in one yard. Same situation, corn planter dust drifting over onto the blooming dandelion, and the next few days his "yard" nearly died off. 

He did not report it because he was not sure what he was seeing and was shy about pointing out problems in his bees. 

This goes to the point I have been making in this thread, to know the state of your apiary. If this guy was actively monitoring his stock, he would of already been in the process of taking samples and would of immediately started to identifying the apparent issues he was observing in his hives. But instead he sat back and watched the yard die. He said he was not sure if it was disease, or pesticide, or miss management.


----------



## zhiv9

Makin' Honey said:


> This thread is great. I am glad you all have kept posting even with the tension it seems to be generating. This question with the neonics and bees is polarizing. Thank you to each of you for your thoughts. I do have a question….During the past few seasons in Ontario with the large die offs, were all the beeks affected with high losses or are there some in the same area that have not experienced it?


Losses seem to correlate with higher densities of corn and soybean planting. Beekeepers south of me have generally been taking high losses(40-70%) beekeepers north of me have been having more normal losses (15-20%). Small competent beekeepers isolated from agriculture also seem to do fine. This is anecdotal. When the provincial apiarist spoke at our club last spring, he had a map that showed where the reported acute kills were in previous seasons and said that higher winter losses had been in the same areas.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> He did not report it because he was not sure what he was seeing and was shy about pointing out problems in his bees.
> 
> This goes to the point I have been making in this thread, to know the state of your apiary. If this guy was actively monitoring his stock, he would of already been in the process of taking samples and would of immediately started to identifying the apparent issues he was observing in his hives. But instead he sat back and watched the yard die. He said he was not sure if it was disease, or pesticide, or miss management.


This happened a lot here and still does and was why there weren't a lot of reported instances until 2012. Beekeepers didn't really understand what was happening. Sometimes do to foraging habits only a few hives were effected by the dust. Once they new what was happening and how to report it the picture became much clearer. When the PMRA came to a yard to investigate, they accompanied by provincial bee inspector and Ministry of the Environment rep. The bee inspector when check the hives for the usual culprits (mites, foul brood, etc) and samples were also sent for testing.

I think a big part of why we aren't seeing more reports out of the US corn growing regions is because they don't have the same resources. A reported kill here will have a team out to investigate in a day or two. Hundreds of incidents have been responded to and investigated each year in Ontario. How long would it take for the EPA to show up or would they?


----------



## jim lyon

Makin' Honey said:


> This thread is great. I am glad you all have kept posting even with the tension it seems to be generating. This question with the neonics and bees is polarizing. Thank you to each of you for your thoughts. I do have a question….During the past few seasons in Ontario with the large die offs, were all the beeks affected with high losses or are there some in the same area that have not experienced it?


This is really the crux of the issue. Overlay maps in the US of bee losses in relation to neonic usage don't correlate to a direct link between the two. We know that some beekeepers continue to keep strong hives with minimal losses while others in the same geographical areas struggle. Nationally bee losses in recent years have gone down a bit while acreages of corn and beans have reached record levels. If you want to try and use honey production as your barometer ( an oversimplified argument in my opinion), the summer of 2014 will most likely have the highest honey production we have seen in probably a decade. 
With all that said, I think its a bit of a fools errand to try and claim that (aside from the planter dust issues) there is no negative effect of millions of acres of systemically treated row crops being planted. In the larger real world picture of varroa and their vectored viruses, nosema, brood diseases in addition to various beekeeper applied miticides just to name a few of the stresses I dont think anyone can say exposure to trace levels of neonics do or don't cause problems with any degree of certainty. What I do know, is that there are many that raise bees successfully in the near proximity of corn and bean fields, take from that what you will.


----------



## mnbeekeeper

I tried to work with my local government. asked them to come out and take a look. no one came. I get these monthly emails from my county gov. its all about the big corn and bean harvest that is going on now. nothing about the pollinator or beekeeper.


----------



## Ian

jim lyon said:


> I think its a bit of a fools errand to try and claim that (aside from the planter dust issues) there is no negative effect of millions of acres of systemically treated row crops being planted. In the larger real world picture of varroa and their vectored viruses, nosema, brood diseases in addition to various beekeeper applied miticides just to name a few of the stresses I dont think anyone can say exposure to trace levels of neonics do or don't cause problems with any degree of certainty.


That planter dust issue is just like a spray drift, but in my opinion worst. These broad cast sprays decompose relatively quickly where as with neonics, speaking from assumption, will hold potency for a much longer time. This issue is certainly digging up some actual factual conclusions. This is the point where the anti neonic crowd should be focusing on. 

Now this argument with trace exposure... keeps getting purposely supported indirectly using the study of the dusting issue. There is no evidence neonics is harming the bees systemically through the plant. Is there even any detectable amounts found in canola pollen and nectar? And bees dont even service corn or soybeans. These seed treatments have been wide spread for more than 15 years, any type of accumulation in soil and water ways would be found much greater than in trace levels. It supposedly does quickly decompose. I have a feeling these erratic accumulation levels in field wet lands is directly related to the dusting issue. Temperately pockets of residue here and there through the field would be due to the way the dust cloud drifted. And the same reason why some beekeepers find poisoned hives, where as others dont. It might depend on how much neonic mixes with the dust, and how it falls back to the ground... or drifts into a wet whole, or onto a blooming field of dandelions...

It all started to cause problems when they brought that new type of vacuum planter onto the market....


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> That planter dust issue is just like a spray drift, but in my opinion worst. These broad cast sprays decompose relatively quickly where as with neonics, speaking from assumption, will hold potency for a much longer time. This issue is certainly digging up some actual factual conclusions. This is the point where the anti neonic crowd should be focusing on.
> 
> Now this argument with trace exposure... keeps getting purposely supported indirectly using the study of the dusting issue. There is no evidence neonics is harming the bees systemically through the plant. Is there even any detectable amounts found in canola pollen and nectar? And bees dont even service corn or soybeans. These seed treatments have been wide spread for more than 15 years, any type of accumulation in soil and water ways would be found much greater than in trace levels. It supposedly does quickly decompose. I have a feeling these erratic accumulation levels in field wet lands is directly related to the dusting issue. Temperately pockets of residue here and there through the field would be due to the way the dust cloud drifted. And the same reason why some beekeepers find poisoned hives, where as others dont. It might depend on how much neonic mixes with the dust, and how it falls back to the ground... or drifts into a wet whole, or onto a blooming field of dandelions...
> 
> It all started to cause problems when they brought that new type of vacuum planter onto the market....


This could very well be true and until it is properly dealt with we won't know. A ban/reimbursement program for the seeders could be far cheaper than a ban on neonics. Then the question will be how long does it take for the effects of dust contamination to subside.

Its a bit of double edged sword. The larger operations have larger fields with fewer fence rows = reduced forage. These same operations are the ones more likely to have invested in the newer vacuum seeders. Smaller operations generally have smaller fields, more fence rows=better forage and are more likely to be using the older style seed drills.

Less forage means the bees are also more likely to work corn and soybeans for pollen as well. Until the dust issue is properly dealt with it can't be separated from the chronic/trace exposure issue.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Ahem...in Austria they did not ban the neonic coated seeds and instead forced the farmers to use the new type of planters that blows the neonic dust-loaden air into the ground.

Well, to make it short, they saw a lot of dead hives the years after that decision. A lot of Austrian beekeepers are p*ssed off. (They do not get money for dead hives.)

Neonics do, what neonics do. Who could explain it better than the producer: _Chemicals plus nature._ That is the formula. 

http://up.picr.de/12361099an.pdf

"interferes with this instinctive social behaviour"
"grooming...interferes with this natural process by lowering defence"
"makes fungi 10,000 times more dangerous to termites"
"stability"
"effective for five years"

...

Says it all.


----------



## Ian

Bernard, didn't we loose you back in page four or five to the tailgate?


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> Until the dust issue is properly dealt with it can't be separated from the chronic/trace exposure issue.


What? On what basis??

That's good methology, prove one thing with something related but totally different.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> What? On what basis??
> 
> That's good methology, prove one thing with something related but totally different.


How do you separate them when they are both happening at the same time? How do you tell if they are picking up trace amounts from dust in the water or run-off? From dandelion pollen expressing what they picked up from settling dust or from soil migration?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Bernard, didn't we loose you back in page four or five to the tailgate?


Bernard's already been down this road before. Never hurts to take "lessons learned" from those with more experience with problem.


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> Bernard's already been down this road before. Never hurts to take "lessons learned" from those with more experience with problem.


Zhiv9, the lesson to be learned is that the bees need many sources of food to thrive. In other words, we can't run bees just anywhere now.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> How do you separate them


we know because of the 40% or so fields sewed each year with this treatment, bees are still thriving...

http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/IanSteppler/media/IMG_2392_zps823e0adf.jpg.html
my winter bees early this week


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> Bernard's already been down this road before. .


Bernard, I see you live in Germany, how happy are your grain farmers right now?


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> This happened a lot here and still does and was why there weren't a lot of reported instances until 2012. Beekeepers didn't really understand what was happening.


But it did not take 15 plus years before beekeepers started connecting the dots with planter dust kills. This is has been a recent event. And if you ask me, it kind of corresponds with the introduction of the new vacuum planters. Vacuum planters have been around for a long while and about as long as neonic have been around.

The vacuum planter we own is an older model... a $25,000, still looks like a corn planter and sounds like a dirt devil vacuum. These new ones are those long hitch type machines which allow for wider working equipment width and efficient transport, they have that space ship look to the seed tank in the center which makes the machine look like a star wars ship and it has fan that sounds like a supered up vacuum. These machines are worth hundreds of thousands and it will be hard to pry these machines out of farmers hands. Seed placement is one of the keys to a huge corn crop, these machines place that seed precisely in place. 

If it is the planter itself causing the problems then this is were we must be directing our attention. Equipment manufactures want to keep exploiting this new technology, Big Chem want to keep selling their product and farmers want to retain the advantage of insect control. The most pro active approach is to be part of the working group to resolve the issue. This is one of the reasons I started this topic. 
Read the blog posted on page #1, post #1, Lynn Dicks;

http://www.nature.com/news/bees-lies...policy-1.12443

"It is simply impossible to interest millions of members of the public, or the farming press, with carefully reasoned explanations. And politicians respond to public opinion much more readily than they respond to science."


----------



## zhiv9

I don't see how any progress can be made until there is some admission of fault from grain farmers and big chem. As long as they tow the line that neonics are perfectly safe no compromise can be made. I am sure there is middle ground here or a temporary solution to allow the root of the problem to be found. All I see is stall tactics from those who want to maintain the status quo. The first step is for all sides is admit there is a problem that they are likely contributing to. With both sides going "all in" everyone stands to lose.

You keep mentioning 15 years, which may be true for canola, but for corn and soy beans it really only went into widespread usage in Ontarin in the mid-2000's. The vacuum seeders cause acute poisonings - piles of dead foragers in front of hives with full pollen baskets. It is much easier to prove causation with acute poisonings. As Irwin mentioned earlier, it is much more difficult to prove chronic poisoning, especially with all the other possible pressures. Only by looking at losses over a long period can you negate the influence of the other pressures.


----------



## Ian

http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/IanSteppler/media/IMG_2392_zps823e0adf.jpg.html
corn, soybean all around this yard... along with canola and clover and alfalfa and buckwheat and sunflowers


----------



## Haraga

Zhiv9 which chemical/chemicals within the "neonic" seed treatments are suspected of killing the bees in Ontario?


----------



## zhiv9

Clothianidin and thiamethoxam are the two that come to mind.


----------



## irwin harlton

When farmers use or buy neonictoid treated seed they are buying insurance against crop loss from pests.I think the recent statement from EPA that neonics on soybeans ,which does very little for yields shows just how far the chemical companies will go to sell this technology and make a profit....follow the money, the value of this poison to these companies is in the billions yearly

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-pesticide-class-does-little-to-help-soybean-


----------



## Haraga

Normally as beekeepers if we had our bees on or near a farm and the farmer came to us and said he was going to spray for bugs and we thought that the chemical would kill our bees we would immediately take action to move our bees to avoid damage to the hives. We generally would not leave our bees there and tell the farmer and everyone else that would listen that the chemical company is killing our bees and that the farmer needs to stop using that chemical. The farmer would instead tell you to move the bees. 
Now tell me why the beekeepers that believe that neonics are killing their bees continue to put their hives where neonics are used? Why won't they they move them away from neonics just like they would for a ground applied pesticide? 
Like I said before, give a tax credit for hive increases instead of paying them for their losses and you will see some hive increases in ontario.


----------



## Ian

The good news is the poll is showing 60% of respondents who test their bees for disease yearly. That's a good turn around from the initial participants showing 60% not testing.


----------



## Haraga

And the bad news is that the other 40% would not lab test their bees even if someone offered to pay the lab bill.


----------



## Ian

irwin harlton said:


> When farmers use or buy neonictoid treated seed they are buying insurance against crop loss from pests


Irwin I'm interested in your link but it goes to a dead end.

I agree, the seed treatment is a form of insurance from pest loss. Without it, we will be tank mixing pesticide with our herbicide to get whats usually there. 
I wonder how far the argument of _little yield increase claim_ goes in Germany right now. As far as my Ag paper is saying, neonic had been pulled from farmers use. Spring crops were damaged, some needing re seeding. I don't know how available broad cast sprays are in Germany but I would assume farmers will not experience the same losses next year.


----------



## irwin harlton

Try this link Ian

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/...hing-the-value-of-neonicotinoid-insecticides-


----------



## irwin harlton

Some people seem to have their mind pretty well made up that these bee deaths are somehow the result of negligence on behalf of the Ontario beekeepers,me, I'm still open to thinking otherwise.I have seen intensive agriculture much like what is being practised in some parts of Ontario today and this may well eventually happen in the west, where we are lucky to have lots of waste land and a diversified vegetation still


----------



## Haraga

Irwin, if you or anyone else believes that neonics can kill your bees and you allowed them to forage on crops that have neonics applied to them, and then your bees died, then yes that is negligence on the beekeepers part. The beek knew a danger existed and he/she did not take their bees out of harms way. That is negligence.


----------



## Ian

"Eight studies found that neonicotinoid treatments did not provide any significant yield benefit, while 11 studies showed inconsistent benefits."

So instead of using the seed treatment, they would be relying on broad cast spraying to control insect populations I assume.


----------



## irwin harlton

I don't think its quite that simple, with all the canola grown being treated and no damage ,that anyone can prove at least,why are we seeing this problem in Ontario, some places in the US ( bee loss)and not elsewhere


----------



## Haraga

There are also reports of how neonics has absorbed into the soil and water over time and the residuals from the chemicals will cause long term damage to bees. 
If so then the damage has already been done and even though the future use of neonics may be reduced or eliminated the chemical is still present. Which means that the beek that puts his bees on that ground and claims to have losses from those chemicals is acting with negligence. Does this make any sense?


----------



## Haraga

irwin harlton said:


> I don't think its quite that simple, with all the canola grown being treated and no damage ,that anyone can prove at least,why are we seeing this problem in Ontario, some places in the US ( bee loss)and not elsewhere


It's because the bees foraging options are limited.


----------



## Ian

irwin harlton said:


> I don't think its quite that simple, with all the canola grown being treated and no damage ,that anyone can prove at least,why are we seeing this problem in Ontario, some places in the US ( bee loss)and not elsewhere


The reason why I asked about disease levels in these affected apiaries is because we need to know all the variables to be able to draw proper conclusions. A sIngle minded approach does not help in the long run. But ask any beekeeper about his disease levels and its like your insulting their grandmother. I dont know why beekeepers are like this? disease is what it is, and it is a major contributor how honeybees are able to tolerate outside stresses and pressures.

Haraga, how long does neonics actually persist in the soils? It is suppose to decompose rather quickly. If not, then why is it showing levels of accumulated residues?


----------



## Haraga

I don't know Ian but the reports may lead one to believe that they may last a long time.


----------



## Haraga

Ian I hope the residuals from the seed treat keep the bugs at bay for years to come.


----------



## FollowtheHoney

Ian said:


> disease is what it is, and it is a major contributor how honeybees are able to tolerate outside stresses and pressures.
> 
> Haraga, how long does neonics actually persist in the soils? It is suppose to decompose rather quickly. If not, then why is it showing levels of accumulated residues?


I seei just the opposite. Outside stresses and pressures are a major contributor to how honey bees handle disease. 

You have never considered or looked into the persistence of neonics in the soil? That is truly disheartening.


----------



## Haraga

Followthehoney, I hope disheartening mesns that it kills pest for more than one season. That would be a bonus that farmers don't often get from a chemical company.


----------



## FollowtheHoney

I grow organically, because it is what I know and see no reason to do otherwise. I respect those who make a living farming, but as a consumer and citizen of this planet I assumed that someone who comes across as so informed and thoughtful about the decision to apply multiple categories of chemicals to their land would be well versed in their eventual outcomes.

I get to grow and mingle with many different types of farmers who grow without chemicals, so I have not had the need or desire to study neonic residue in soils nor develop your comfort with them. I honestly don't see year round and multiple year efficacy of a pesticide as a good characteristic. It sounds like dead soils and that is the opposite of what I am trying to achieve.


----------



## Haraga

Followthehoney I think you are on the right track. It's less money to put out for a crop. Can I assume that you are chemical free when it comes to what you put in your hive?


----------



## FollowtheHoney

I am new, but yes I am comfortable with a chemical free approach.


----------



## Haraga

Do you think that you would ever consider putting chemicals in your hive or on your soil?


----------



## FollowtheHoney

In my soil? Easy, never. Been doing it long enough to know some tricks of the trade. I wouldn't and don't even use organic pesticides etc. as they also kill many beneficials. 

My tolerance for what I put in my hive will be extremely low. Nothing prophylactic whether it be antibiotics or organic miticides. I like other newbees have a desire to discover the secrets of a treatment free hive and plan to have more hives than I originally set out to in order to cover my losses. I have yet to determine what my tolerance for loss is in terms of colonies. I would guess that brood breaks and sugar rolls will be the harshest. Treatments I would use for the first few years.


----------



## Haraga

I like that. You'll do just fine if you can isolate your hive from your neighbor's hive.


----------



## FollowtheHoney

Thanks for the encouragement. I have hives in two different locations, possibly share a DCA. Next year I wil have two more. Only planning to have 2-3 hives at each.


----------



## Ian

FollowtheHoney said:


> I grow organically, because it is what I know and see no reason to do otherwise. I respect those who make a living farming, but as a consumer and citizen of this planet I assumed that someone who comes across as so informed and thoughtful about the decision to apply multiple categories of chemicals to their land would be well versed in their eventual outcomes.


Yes very well versed, AND managing our land which also keeps the farm in the black.


----------



## jredburn

I am a sideliner, not a commercial beek but I try to follow the discussions about the neonics. The ABJ and Bee Buzz both carried the following article a week or so ago. It should be read by both sides.

October 17, 2014

EPA Finds Neonicotinoid Seed

Treatments of Little or No Benefit to

U.S. Soybean Production

U.S. EPA News Release

Washington, October 16, 2014 --- Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an analysis of the benefits of neonicotinoid seed treatments for insect control in soybeans. Neonicotinoid pesticides are a class of insecticides widely used on U.S. crops that EPA is reviewing with particular emphasis for their impact on pollinators. The analysis concluded that there is little or no increase in soybean yields using most neonicotinoid seed treatments when compared to using no pest control at all. A Federal Register notice inviting the public to comment on the analysis will publish in the near future.

“We have made the review of neonicotinoid pesticides a high priority,” said Jim Jones, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “In our analysis of the economic benefits of this use we concluded that, on a national scale, U.S. soybean farmers see little or no benefit from neonicotinoid seed treatments.”

During the review of the neonicotinoids, EPA found that many scientific publications claim that treating soybean seeds has little value. Part of our assessment examined the effectiveness of these seed treatments for pest control and estimated the impacts on crop yields and quality, as well as financial losses and gains. The law requires EPA to consider the benefits of using pesticides as well as the risks.

The analysis concluded that: 

There is no increase in soybean yield using most neonicotinoid seed treatments when compared to using no pest control at all.
Alternative insecticides applied as sprays are available and effective.
All major alternatives are comparable in cost.
Neonicotinoid seed treatment could provide an insurance benefit against sporadic and unpredictable insect pests, but this potential benefit is not likely to be large or widespread throughout the United States.

This analysis is an important part of the science EPA will use to move forward with the assessment of the risks and benefits under registration review for the neonicotinoid pesticides. Registration review --- the periodic re-evaluation of pesticides to determine if they continue to meet the safety standard --- can result in EPA discontinuing certain uses, placing limits on the pesticide registration, and requiring other label changes. 

Sign up for pesticide program updates to be notified by email when the EPA opens the docket and invites comment on its analysis of the benefits of neonicotinoid seed treatments on soybeans.


----------



## Haraga

The articles repeatedly use the words "no noticeable yield increase". Generally seed treatments are not used for yield increases. They are used to help prevent crop failure. Without seed treat by the time you find the pest, the damage has been done.


----------



## irwin harlton

And what did we do before treated seed, at the first sign of crop damage from pests we sprayed, so therefore treated seed must increase yields, unless of course the pest has become immune to the treatment.I had farmers spraying this spring for flea beetles cause the treated seed failed, for some reason,I had to move bees


----------



## Ian

irwin harlton said:


> I had farmers spraying this spring for flea beetles cause the treated seed failed, for some reason,I had to move bees


the canola treated seed targets the flea beetle but last year another species of flea beetle has moved which Helix does not control. Syngenta re-embursed our farm for the costs to spray these pockets of infestation. Apparently there is another formulation down the pipeline to cover both species.


----------



## Haraga

Generally speaking Irwin, an untreated healthy crop with minimal pests would be the baseline of measurement or comparison crop. A treated seed/plant with pests normally will minimize crop loss where as an untreated seed/plant will be damaged by the pest. Keep in mind that I am speaking in general terms. 
Seed treat is like insurance. Insurance is meant to protect what you have not give you an increase.
An exception for me is I use Raxil Pro on cereals. I found in germination trays that I had better germination and faster initial growth of the plant. Because of it's effectiveness I would use less pounds per acre of seed. I hope this makes sense as I have been on the move since 1 am. It is supper time now.


----------



## Ian

Haraga said:


> A treated seed/plant with pests normally will minimize crop loss where as an untreated seed/plant will be damaged by the pest.


We call it crop protection, whether its treated seeds, spraying for weeds or targeting fungal infection in the head with fungicides. It does not increase yields, it protects it. measurement of yield increases are what seed salesmen talk about


----------



## pleasantvalley

Haraga said:


> It's because the bees foraging options are limited.


This right here is a point that should stand out. I wouldn't put 1000 hives in the middle of a grass field and expect a 200 lb honey crop out of it. So why would you think you can put your bee yards wherever you want, even if it's corn and soy for as far as the eye can see?

After canola pollination is done in southern Alberta, there are some places where your bees will _starve _if you don't move them out quickly. Nutrition is critical and corn isn't providing it even if no neonics were used and every seed was hand planted by organic hippies!


----------



## Haraga

Pleasantvalley for some reason nobody wants to talk about this subject. Why is that?
Then some get all defensive when they are told to move their hives. They honestly feel that they shouldn't have to move them. I guess it's always easier to lay the blame on somebody else rather than take the responsibility for their own bees well being.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

That's not a solution but a poor attempt of a workaround.


----------



## Haraga

😳😳😳😳


----------



## Ian

Wow. Adam, I have been talking to a commercial beekeeper from Ontario. With his permission I will be contributing a view point of the issue that you might find interesting.

Until then here is an Ontario news paper article spelling out exactly what I what I 've been saying. This is the only article that I have read from the media that actually has mentioned anything about other such related factors with this issue;

http://www.farmersforum.com/OCT2014/p13W.htm

Hugh Simpson, owner of Osprey Bluffs Honey in Western Ontario, resigned two years ago as a director with the Ontario Beekeepers Association, when members voted to call for a ban on neonicotinoid-treated seeds.

Simpson argued that the association includes a large range of beekeepers, including many backyard and part-time hobbyists who have taken an unnecessary adversarial position when pesticides are only one of many factors affecting bees.

"This is not a science conversation anymore."

Alberta beekeepers went through a similar situation. In 2008 when some operators lost up to 90 per cent of their hives, "We didn’t blame it on one thing that we thought could be the problem. We worked with other beekeepers, government, crop farmers, and seed companies and now our losses aren’t what they used to be. We are growing and our production is up every year. Our hives are healthier."

After millions of bee deaths were reported during spring planting in 2013, mostly in Western Ontario, the province required neonics be used with a coating to keep the pesticide dust down and many farmers attached dust reflectors to their planters. The result this year: bee death incidents dropped to one-third the level of incidents last year. For each incident reported the number of bees affected was 10 times lower than last year.


----------



## Haraga

That's a good article. 
I believe in ontario all beeks are in on the class action suit unless they opt out of it. I wonder how many opted out? It would be nice to hear from more of them.


----------



## Ian

Here is a letter to the editor published in the March OBA magazine, sent to me today by a commercial Ontario beekeeper. 

http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/IanSteppler/media/OpinionLetter_zps8868a5b8.jpg.html

This is exactly what I believe and what I have heard beekeepers here in Manitoba say.


----------



## zhiv9

Old news Ian. The OBA softened its position from a total ban - what it was originally calling for - to a request for control/licensing based on feedback from the membership similar to what you posted.


----------



## Ian

Adam, sending a farmer through the channels of bureaucracy is not going to make them feel any different than having the product banned. Its the same finger being pointed at them...


----------



## Smoke'm

Adam thank you for representing Ontario beekeepers so well. You have put a lot of effort into this post. It was a effort to read it all. You have stated our case well for those willing to listen.

Ian thank you starting it all. I agree I should look at my hive health more than I do. I currently monitor for varroa which we try to keep below 2% using Formic and Oxalic acid. We have fed our hives a average of 10-15 lbs of protien patty each (Ultra bee and David Mendes's home brew). I am certainly open to trying new ideas.

Hagara I know who the beekeeper is who lost the 6000 hives. Adam is being honest. Ontario does not have many beekeepers that have 8000 hives. Moving our bees is not a option. Corn and soy are everywhere and bees do forage both occasionally. 

I do not understand why some beekeepers are so affected and others are not. I hope that beekeepers like Ian and Haraga can continue to be unaffected. It takes a lot of the fun out of keeping bees when some hives are sick and nothing you do will fix it.
Thanks to all who posted it was a great way to spend a night.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Adam, sending a farmer through the channels of bureaucracy is not going to make them feel any different than having the product banned. Its the same finger being pointed at them...


I challenge you to propose a compromise solution that doesn't involve regulation. A compromise means that neither side gets all of what they want.

A good working relationship with grain farmers is important to our industry. Every beekeeper with multiple yards knows this. Hence the push back on the original OBA position. You will also notice that the lawsuit doesn't name any farmers or farming organizations - this was intentional as well. In many cases theses farmers and landowners are friends and family - nobody takes these relationships lightly.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> I challenge you to propose a compromise solution that doesn't involve regulation. A compromise means that neither side gets all of what they want.


How about look at where there is acutally proof of neonics killing bees and focus on that. Further modifications to these new machines. Get these rich chem companies to invest in making modifications to these units to eliminate all contaminate from blowing off.


----------



## Ian

I have been in conversation with an Ontario commercial beekeeper presenting me with an interesting point of view of all the happenings in the Ontario beekeeping industry. As he stated to me; " I’ve read a lot of your posts in the past and you always seemed to be a guy with integrity", here is a snip from our conversation passed on to the forum through me;

"The biggest problem you're running into is that some legitimately excellent beekeepers have been legitimately affected and now are extremely emotional about the issue and are beyond having a rational discussion where different viewpoints are exchanged. They've in turn gotten in bed with the Sierra club, Friends of the Earth and some other extremely left wing groups for the publicity that being associated with such groups offers and taken about 98% of the hobbyists with them (Hobbyists account for over 90% of the beekeepers in Ontario with only around 270 being considered commercial). The remaining commercial beekeepers are making more money than they ever have before and don't want to create enemies by calling people out on things, hence the silence you've run into (Why rock the boat when you have a good thing going on)."

*"The remaining commercial beekeepers are making more money than they ever have before"*
Does that sound familiar to anyone?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> How about look at where there is acutally proof of neonics killing bees and focus on that. Further modifications to these new machines. Get these rich chem companies to invest in making modifications to these units to eliminate all contaminate from blowing off.


Beekeepers can only put so much pressure on these chemical companies. Grain farmers on the the other hand are the end user and the ones paying for the neonics - they are going to have much better chance of making this happen. The best way to avoid regulation is to self regulate - look like your solving the problem on your own or government will step in and "solve" it for you.

I run a stand at a farmers market every Saturday. I get asked about neonics by customers all the time and try to be diplomatic about it. I think the preliminary science and correlating evidence supports temporary measures until more information can be collected. Most people have already made their mind up that neonics need to be banned based on something they read on the internet or saw on TV. Control or a ban is coming and it will have little to do with science, beekeepers or grain farmers, but instead will have everything to do with politicians pandering to a partially informed/misinformed government.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> *"The remaining commercial beekeepers are making more money than they ever have before"*
> Does that sound familiar to anyone?


This doesn't surprise me at all. All the media attention has garnered huge interest in local honey and high losses have reduced supply driving the price up. Add to this the growing business of sending colonies out east for blueberry pollination and its not hard to see how a commercial beekeeper in an area that isn't being effected can really capitalize.

Lower production and higher demand in Ontario can only benefit beekeepers out west as well.


----------



## Haraga

Zhiv9, I was wondering where you stand on the class action suit. Did you opt out of it or are you in it?


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> Zhiv9, I was wondering where you stand on the class action suit. Did you opt out of it or are you in it?


I am not actively participating, but I haven't formally opted out. How about you? Its on behalf of all Canadian beekeepers, not just Ontario.


----------



## Haraga

Smoke'm said:


> Adam thank you for representing Ontario beekeepers so well. You have put a lot of effort into this post. It was a effort to read it all. You have stated our case well for those willing to listen.
> 
> Ian thank you starting it all. I agree I should look at my hive health more than I do. I currently monitor for varroa which we try to keep below 2% using Formic and Oxalic acid. We have fed our hives a average of 10-15 lbs of protien patty each (Ultra bee and David Mendes's home brew). I am certainly open to trying new ideas.
> 
> Hagara I know who the beekeeper is who lost the 6000 hives. Adam is being honest. Ontario does not have many beekeepers that have 8000 hives. Moving our bees is not a option. Corn and soy are everywhere and bees do forage both occasionally.
> 
> I do not understand why some beekeepers are so affected and others are not. I hope that beekeepers like Ian and Haraga can continue to be unaffected. It takes a lot of the fun out of keeping bees when some hives are sick and nothing you do will fix it.
> Thanks to all who posted it was a great way to spend a night.


Smoke'm do you feel comfortable telling me who the beek is that lost the 6000 hives? 
I am surprised that you feed so much patties. Please educate me on that. The most mine ever get is 2 pounds. I can only assume you start putting patties on very early?


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> I am not actively participating, but I haven't formally opted out. How about you? Its on behalf of all Canadian beekeepers, not just Ontario.


I am not sure if the class action has been certified in Alberta. If it becomes certified I will opt out.


----------



## Haraga

Smoke'm since you are in the middle of corn and beans have you experienced large scale losses also and if not can you tell us what you do different than the ones that are having huge losses?


----------



## Ian

Haraga said:


> Smoke'm do you feel comfortable telling me who the beek is that lost the 6000 hives?


I have an Ontario beekeeper who is emailing me, and can verify the beekeeper exists. The story looks to be true. 

"I know the guy that it was said lost 6000 of 8000 hives did actually exist though and actually lost around 6800 after all was said and done and things got done dwindling. I’m not sure if even he blamed neonics for that"


----------



## Ian

Here is a quote from the same beekeeper who passed on the previous. This is the third Ontario beekeeper who has emailed me with exactly the same in regards to winter loss this spring;

"The winter loss statistics are certainly convoluted; you didn’t have to even have a hive die to get a payout, the hive just had to dwindle to less than three fully covered frames of bees at some point in the spring/winter. This winter in Ontario was unusually cold and although I lost more bees than I ever have before *I can assure you that of the deadouts 70% starved* and 30% froze in place due to too small of a cluste. *There was more dwindling than normal as well due to the two extra months of winter."*

sound familiar to anyone?


----------



## Haraga

Ian do you know the beeks name that lost 6800 hives?


----------



## Smoke'm

Haraga said:


> Smoke'm do you feel comfortable telling me who the beek is that lost the 6000 hives?
> I am surprised that you feed so much patties. Please educate me on that. The most mine ever get is 2 pounds. I can only assume you start putting patties on very early?


Haraga sorry but I don't want to out him here. His is not my story to tell.

I am new to our operation(three years) and am lucky to have a incredablily inovative business partner that invited me to be a part of it. They have fed patties for seven or eight years. Used to mix it in a cement mixer, Now we have a machine that is like a feed mixer. We can mix and extrude with it. Last year was our first year mixing for others on a large scale. We started putting patty on in the middle of March. The hives always had some they could eat till we sent them to blueberries at the end of May. We loaded them up just before we sent them. There is a one inch space under the inner cover. It was almost filled before they left. Some of the hives still had a fair bit when they came back towards the end of June while most had eaten all of it. I started to feed it to my small hives towards the end of the summer. All the hives got two rounds of patty after the supers came off early September. 
It really works. Any hive that is good gets split at the beginning of April otherwise the swarming would be crazy. Bee inspector said we had the best hives going to blueberries he had seen so far (we where early I don't think he had seen many loads yet). My small hives have really grown and most are in good shape for winter. The big hives vary. Most are good. The ones we wrapped today where excellent but there are a few yards that look tough. Our hope was to have clean feed for the bees when they needed it and to help them grow and stay healthy. I see that some not all but some have started to store it in cells. I started with the patty that we did not feel we should sell. Had a hard time extruding it between two rolls of paper and keeping it consistant. Now I get to use the good stuff that is left over. Much nicer.
I am hopeful that we will have a good winter. Hope you do too.


----------



## Ian

Haraga said:


> Ian do you know the beeks name that lost 6800 hives?


I'm not passing it on Haraga. Give the benefit of the doubt on this one.


----------



## zhiv9

Smoke'em I noticed that we had a strong goldenrod flow and then the pollen coming in ended abruptly just as we were treating. I thought about feeding patties to see if we could get one more brood rearing cycle in. If I had had them on hand I probably would have. I usually buy them premade but was thinking about having some dry mix on hand just for these situations.


----------



## Ian

Smoke'm said:


> I am new to our operation(three years) and am lucky to have a incredablily inovative business partner


Do you guys monitor for disease?


----------



## Smoke'm

We see a constaint dwindle hardly enough for a sample (1/2 Cup) but the yards started to smell from the bees in the grass. We had enough dead bees for samples at two different times. When the corn was planted and when it tasseled. Most yards where affected but not all of the hives in those yards. Often saw a drop in front of the hives after a rain. What really made me crazy was my grafting yard. I produced about 2000 Queen cells but have 200 queens to show for it. One queen out of 9 mating nucs was not uncommon.

The winter losses where for the spring of 2012 3%. There was no winter, temps in March hit 28 C I cannot take any credit. These where the bees I started with. Sold the bees in the old equipment that fall. Had to guarantee the winter losses. In the spring winter loss was about 16%. Mostly from queens that died during the winter.
This past spring losses where 35%. New bees on new equipment but some where just to small for a long winter. Many lived through the winter never to build up in the spring. I had plans to split poor hives during the summer and further increase numbers but have actually lost ground. Guessing around 8%. Most of our hives look good now. The plan is to split everything I can in the spring. 
Last year I thought we could live with what we saw. A drop of bees in the spring when things where planted then a bit of trouble with queens but things where fairly normal. This year was different.


----------



## Ian

I mean, do you monitor your apiary for disease?


----------



## Smoke'm

Ian said:


> Do you guys monitor for disease?


We test for Varroa through out the season. Start treating if we see a 2% infestation.
You have convinced me I should test for more. 
I know some of our hives are not well. More information will be helpful.


----------



## Smoke'm

zhiv9 said:


> Smoke'em I noticed that we had a strong goldenrod flow and then the pollen coming in ended abruptly just as we were treating. I thought about feeding patties to see if we could get one more brood rearing cycle in. If I had had them on hand I probably would have. I usually buy them premade but was thinking about having some dry mix on hand just for these situations.


We stripped everything and had the patty on quickly just to keep the brood cycle going. It really worked well for several yards. The hives looked better than we expected. Then I think we started to expect it.


----------



## Ian

Smoke'm said:


> I know some of our hives are not well. More information will be helpful.


Exactly! That comment was a breath of fresh air! 

More information in hand is exactly why the NBDC was established. A lab which provides beekeepers with more information about their bees at an affordable price.


----------



## Ian

Smoke'm said:


> We stripped everything and had the patty on quickly just to keep the brood cycle going. It really worked well for several yards. The hives looked better than we expected. Then I think we started to expect it.


Your last years fall situation sounds exactly the same as our 2012 fall, early brood shut down due to drought. Then followed the same kind of winter and spring, and then followed the same losses. 

I have established a fall protein feeding program just as you described to be able to react better in conditions like that. This last fall I did not need to supplemental feed as the pollen was flowing right through September. But I was monitoring it and ready to feed on a moments notice!


----------



## Michael Bush

I'm not sure I understand the term "test". I look for disease anytime I am in the hive. I have them inspected once a year so I can sell queens so the inspector looks specifically for diseases and pests.


----------



## Ian

Michael Bush said:


> I'm not sure I understand the term "test".


Test a sample, do a count, find a measurable number to determine disease levels.

Michael, whats your nosema spore count? Whats your varroa levels? T mites? 
A new service available to us is viral analysis.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Michael, whats your nosema spore count? Whats your varroa levels? T mites?
> A new service available to us is viral analysis.


Ian, does the viral analysis try to quantify the viral presence and level? or does it just detect presence?


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> Ian, does the viral analysis try to quantify the viral presence and level? or does it just detect presence?


I have not gotten back my samples, this is the first time I have sent away for viral analysis. I'll keep you posted on what kind of information I get back on that.


----------



## deknow

I had a nice talk with Dave Wyck (sp?) About what he is doing with viral analysis. In lots of 20, it's about $50/sample, I believe it does quantify, but more importantly, he detects unknown viruses...something that standard tests using reagents cannot do (the reagent is designed to detect a known virus but you only detect viruses you have reagents for).

I didn't get to his workshop at WAS, but he collected some samples from beekeepers on the first day and he found two unknown viruses. I'm not saying he discovered unknown bee viruses, but he found either that or something incidental in the samples or something along those lines.

From talking to him, I would say he is both smart and competent.


----------



## Ian

I'm looking forward to getting back my results. This analysis covers;

Black Queen Cells Virus (BQCV) 
Kashmir Bee Virus (KBV) 
Acute Bee Paralysis Virus (ABPV) 
Deformed Wing Virus (DWV) 
Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus (CBPV) 
Sacbrood Virus (SBV) 
Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV)


----------



## deknow

That sounds like reagent based testing.


----------



## deknow

http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-251909.html


----------



## Ian

My sample came back negative on all viruses. Quoted from my report;

"Our diagnostic did not detect any virus in your honey bees not even the most extended and common viruses, which it is certainly 
impressive. "


----------



## Allen Martens

Anecdotally, I am not seeing negative affects of neonics in my bees.

In spring my bees are all moved to a holding yard. This yard has bush around it but corn, canola, and soybeans are seeded within several hundred yards annually. After that they are moved to spring yards where corn, canola, soybeans and sunflowers are close. In summer the bees are moved to intensively farmed areas (no waste land) where mostly corn, canola, soybeans and sunflowers are grown along with some cereals. About a thirds of my hives stay in the intensely farmed areas for fall as well. Obviously,lots of exposure to neonics.

Most years my winter losses are under 10%. If my levels are higher I can usually attribute the loses to disease, pest levels or poor fall nutrition. If neonics are a problem for bees, with the amount of exposure my bees have should they not be consistently experiencing difficulties?

At this point, neonics appear to be causing few problems for me than multiple spraying for pest would. Most of the farmers I work with are very accommodating and spray contact insecticides early morning or late evening. If they had to spray several more times for pest I don't know if I could count on this accommodation.

Ian, you are right. The public discussion about neonics needs to move from an emotional debate to a rational, empirical based debate. Based on consistent, definitive scientific evidence if neonics are more environmentally damaging than other insecticides, then farming practices need to be modified. If not, we need to keep using them. If residual levels in the environment are increasing to problematic level, then the use of neonics will need to be reconsidered.

I fear if neonics are banned outright, instead trying to find workable solutions, the Law of Unintended Consequences my well make beekeepers lives more challenging.


----------



## Ian

Allen Martens said:


> I fear if neonics are banned outright, instead trying to find workable solutions, the Law of Unintended Consequences my well make beekeepers lives more challenging.


Very well put Allen. That quote pretty much sums it all up.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> My sample came back negative on all viruses. Quoted from my report;
> 
> "Our diagnostic did not detect any virus in your honey bees not even the most extended and common viruses, which it is certainly
> impressive. "


Does this not seem suspicious? For example, I would expect to test positive for DWV. I come across it in colony with high varroa levels about once a season, so I know it is there in the background.


----------



## Haraga

You will just have to take his word on that, Adam.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

zhiv9 said:


> Does this not seem suspicious? For example, I would expect to test positive for DWV. I come across it in colony with high varroa levels about once a season, so I know it is there in the background.


Perhaps those colonies are showing DWV *because *they have high levels of varroa. From the University of Florida Entomolgy dept:


> To illustrate this point, one of the most telling signs of a varroa presence in a colony is the occurrence of newly-emerged adult bees with misshapen wings. A virus, called deformed wing virus (DWV) and present in immature bees, is responsible for this symptom. Bees with this virus are unable to use their wings. As such, the bees will never be able to contribute to the colony's foraging efforts since they never will be able to fly. Deformed wing virus can be so prevalent in maturing bees that they can emerge without any wings at all. Researchers suspect that other viruses play an important role in the varroa mite/honey bee relationship, but the roles of these viruses are not well understood.
> 
> http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/bees/varroa_mite.htm


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> You will just have to take his word on that, Adam.


You must have misread my post. I in no way questioned Ian's word.


----------



## zhiv9

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Perhaps those colonies are showing DWV *because *they have high levels of varroa. From the University of Florida Entomolgy dept:


I agree. The mite vectored viruses become visually obvious in colonies that have very high levels of varroa. My understanding was that those viruses are there in the background all the time. Like nosema - always there, but not always a problem. I would have expected the testing to reveal their presence.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> Does this not seem suspicious? For example, I would expect to test positive for DWV. I come across it in colony with high varroa levels about once a season, so I know it is there in the background.


I can only trust their diagnosis. They did make a comment about it also;

"Our diagnostic did not detect any virus in your honey bees not even the most extended and common viruses, which it is certainly 
impressive. "

Adam this is why we need to monitor our diseases, so we are not making those assumptions. Like I have been saying, knowing what disease levels the bees have can help us understand how they react to different outside conditions.

I also got my Nosema counts back. This was taken three or four weeks after my initial sampling (Sept 10) which showed a 2.25-2.6M spore count and after a fumagillin treatment. It came back with a spore count of .8m, down 1.8m. Im going to send another sample in January to see how the counts hold on that treated winter feed.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> I can only trust their diagnosis. They did make a comment about it also;
> 
> "Our diagnostic did not detect any virus in your honey bees not even the most extended and common viruses, which it is certainly
> impressive. "
> 
> Adam this is why we need to monitor our diseases, so we are not making those assumptions. Like I have been saying, knowing what disease levels the bees have can help us understand how they react to different outside conditions.


I believe the results. I am just not sure what the viral test is telling you. Do you think that if your varroa levels spiked next summer that you are DWV free?


----------



## Ian

It's telling me I'm virus free. 

With a varroa infestation there might be an infection. A test will tell before any symptoms show. And we only see DWV, not the others. 

Adam, what do you do with more information? Seems to me your dismissing these other major factors that might be contributing to losses... Why? Because your minds made up already? All this disease information was combed through when CCD hit in California.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> It's telling me I'm virus free.


You really think that? Are you varroa free too then? I think it is far more likely there are viruses in the background at low levels or perhaps in colonies not sampled from waiting for something (varroa, poor nutrition, etc) to weaken the colony to allow it come to the front.



Ian said:


> With a varroa infestation there might be an infection. A test will tell before any symptoms show. And we only see DWV, not the others.


I think the results would have been more interesting if they came back positive for 2 or 3 of 7. I can't remember how many colonies you have but say it's 500. Some of the colonies are likely carrying a virus, but are healthy and keeping it under control. 



Ian said:


> Adam, what do you do with more information? Seems to me your dismissing these other major factors that might be contributing to losses... Why? Because your minds made up already? All this disease information was combed through when CCD hit in California.


If anyone's mind is made up, its certainly not mine. Are viruses contributing to losses? sure in as much as varroa does. To control the viruses, you control varroa. Has anyone seen DWV or any of the other viruses in a colony with a very low varroa infestation? If you did, did you do about it?

If the test had come back positive for 3 viruses, what would you have done?

I see why you test for nosema - it is part of an IPM strategy. You use it to determine if you should treat. Similar to testing for varroa. Plus with nosema, you are getting a spore level. You know nosema is there, its just a question of what level.

I think its the same with the common viruses. Some of them are always there, and it would be nice to know which ones and at what level.


----------



## Ian

What am I going to do with the viral analysis? Adam, do you want me to say it again? 
When monitoring any disease...

Adam, When you open your hives in the spring, do you feed because that is what is suppose to be done or because that is what the bee's are telling you.,? 

My mite count threshold has dropped from 5% in the fall to 2% because of DWV. If my tests show I don't have DFV, my threshold can be re adjusted. they tell me DFV hangs around for a couple years after a bad infection. I'm going to find out if that is true. 
If I test my bees for 10 years, and all of a sudden for whatever reason IABV shows in my analysis and I experience a heavy loss that following winter, I have an information in hand which could explain that loss. 

Same with nosema. Everyone knows because they are told. How about observing how it actually responds to certain management techniques. 

I have had five Beekeepers email me with loss events. Here is a summary;
Hives look good 
Pollination
Split and supered 
Near corn
No disease monitoring
Treatments all done in timely fashion 
One or two yards failed rest are fine
Neonic killed them
But no follow up disease monitoring or pesticide residue analysis 

So that's an obvious case of neonic poisoning right ? Follows all the same symptom. "Not knowing but laying blame". How can any conclusion be determined without any of the factors known? 

But right, there was a documented neonic kill in 2013, and the stats show increasing losses since neonic were starting to be used...more than before.


----------



## Ian

My t mites were not detected either, do you think they missed that analysis also? They only counted one mite in my sample, do you think they missed some ? 

Put the puzzle pieces together. No mites, no virus, controlled nosema, big clusters heavy hives. I'm in good shape for winter. If I loose 75% of my hives this winter , something would be a miss... Then I start looking at outside conditions


----------



## Haraga

Ian. Why do you have to rain on the neonics haters with all that sensible talk?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian, maybe you should re-read my last post. There is no mention of neonics at all.


----------



## Ian

your questioning the relevance of disease testing


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> your questioning the relevance of disease testing


No I am just questioning the interpretation of the results. I wasn't trying to question that disease plays an important roll or is worth looking at. A zero result from my own bees would have me skeptical - the whole of "if it seems to good to be true..."


----------



## Ian

That's my viral analysis for 2014. Like the results or not, its good news in my books. Next fall I will send out a sample to get my 2015 viral analysis, and '16, and '17. 

Got yours out yet?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> That's my viral analysis for 2014. Like the results or not, its good news in my books. Next fall I will send out a sample to get my 2015 viral analysis, and '16, and '17.
> Got yours out yet?


It's not about liking it or not, it's about looking at all data critically.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> It's not about liking it or not, it's about looking at all data critically.


Now you want to look at data critically? Adam, the lab did not detect any of the seven viruses tested for. My sample was clean. It was also free of both mites. From my initial sampling, they sent back an improved nosema count. Be as critical as you like to be, I have hives sitting with a pretty good disease picture.


----------



## Ian

Another lab service I'd like to have is chemical analysis for my brood comb. I want to take a sampling from a bunch of comb, melt it into a small block and send it away. Id like to know if I actually have a chemical residue issue in my hives as many suggest we do. If my samples show high levels of pesticide, then Id cull more comb. If the samples show low levels, Id relax my comb replacement program.


----------



## Roland

I would not melt it before send your comb for testing. The heat may skew the results. I would inquire if a solvent based wax extraction would effect the testing.

Crazy Roland


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

BernhardHeuvel said:


> The darn thing about seed treatment is, you actually do not treat a pest, because when you bring out the seed, there is no pest yet. It is a _preventive_ use of a pesticide. That is a good business model. Preventive treating makes more money for big chem. But that is about it. No real advantage for the farmer other than imaginary. Or do you see a substantial increase in harvest after you began using neonics? Do you really save fuel and time by using them? What do your accounting records really say?





> Published data indicate that in most cases there is_ no_difference in soybean yield when soybean seed was_treated with neonicotinoids versus not receiving_any insect control treatment. Furthermore,_neonicotinoid seed treatments as currently applied_are only bioactive in soybean_foliage for a period_within the first 3-4_weeks of planting, which does_not overlap with typical_periods of activity for some target pests of concern.[]
> In most cases, these alternatives are comparable in cost to one another and to neonicotinoid seed treatments. The cost of application was considered in this comparison, although because these alternatives can be tank-mixed with other chemicals that are typically applied to soybeans, additional passes over a field would not be necessary. In comparison to the next best alternative pest control measures, neonicotinoid seed treatments likely provide $0 in benefits to growers and at most $6 per acre in benefits (i.e., a 0%-1.7% difference in net operating revenue). Some neonicotinoid seed treatment usage could provide an insurance benefit against sporadic and unpredictable pests, particularly in the southern United States. However, *BEAD did not find information to support the real-world significance of this benefit*, and overall evidence indicates that any such potential benefit is not likely to be large orwidespread in the United States.


FROM.
*Benefits of Neonicotinoid Seed Treatments to Soybean Production*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
Peer Review Date: October 3, 2014 
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/productio...d_seed_treatments_to_soybean_production_2.pdf


----------



## Haraga

Dear Bernhard, seed treatment is for crop protection. What part of that don't you get?


----------



## Ian

German grain farmers would say different. Where does re seeding fall on the comparison chart.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

> German farmers are likely to harvest 5.8 million tonnes of winter rapeseed in 2014, up from 5.7 million tonnes in 2013, the DBV said in a harvest report.
> [...]
> Farmers are achieving rapeseed yields of around 4.1 tonnes a hectare, it said. Last year's yields averaged around 3.9 tonnes.


http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/30/grain-germany-harvest-idINL6N0Q53XE20140730

All without neonics...


----------



## squarepeg

which begs the question why such stark differences between the uk (almost total failure) and germany (yields up from last year) on the rapeseed crop this year? what did the german farmers substitute for neonics and was it more environmentally 'friendly'?


----------



## Ian

squarepeg said:


> what did the german farmers substitute for neonics and was it more environmentally 'friendly'?


Many caught off guard re seeded. Broadcast spraying controlled insect populations otherwise. Early crop reports were that farmers were re adjusting to foliar insect application


----------



## squarepeg

thanks ian for 'the rest of the story'...

btw, i enjoyed your overwintering shed photos.


----------



## Ian

squarepeg said:


> thanks ian for 'the rest of the story'...
> 
> btw, i enjoyed your overwintering shed photos.


Farmers are set up to control insects real efficiently now. If they have other options than foliar we should be promoting it. 


I have more wintering pics but don't want to bor anyone ! Lol


----------



## zhiv9

squarepeg said:


> which begs the question why such stark differences between the uk (almost total failure)


Turns out the UK loss was only 1.35% and Swedish loss only 5%. Early claims of crop losses were vast overstatements. From Dave Goulson's blog.

http://splash.sussex.ac.uk/blog/for/dg229


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Farmers are set up to control insects real efficiently now. If they have other options than foliar we should be promoting it.


Is 100% seed coating better than foliar application as required using IPM? I mean better overall, taking into account all effected parties not just the grain farmers and their yields.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> Is 100% seed coating better than foliar application as required using IPM? I mean better overall, taking into account all effected parties not just the grain farmers and their yields.


There is no IPM in grain farming, just as there is none in beekeeping. Talk to beekeepers around, how many test for mites before they treat ? 
Same with grain farmers.


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> Is 100% seed coating better than foliar application as required using IPM? I mean better overall, taking into account all effected parties not just the grain farmers and their yields.


In my area, yes.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> There is no IPM in grain farming, just as there is none in beekeeping. Talk to beekeepers around, how many test for mites before they treat ?
> Same with grain farmers.


That doesn't make it right. Just as beekeepers should be monitoring disease and pest levels so should grain farmers.


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> That doesn't make it right. Just as beekeepers should be monitoring disease and pest levels so should grain farmers.


Obviously you have never farmed before.


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> Obviously you have never farmed before.


No I haven't. Educate me Haraga. Explain why grain farmers can't test for disease and pests?


----------



## Ian

Got your counts bavk yet Adam ?


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> No I haven't. Educate me Haraga. Explain why grain farmers can't test for disease and pests?


It's all done by counts, thresholds are met and disease is treated. Like varroa, it's an annual practice. Most 
Beekeepers should be able to relate to that.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Got your counts bavk yet Adam ?


Samples just arrived in Beaverlodge today. I will contribute my results to your thread on spore levels when I get the results back.


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> No I haven't. Educate me Haraga. Explain why grain farmers can't test for disease and pests?


Lets narrow down Adams Ag lesson for today. Lets say we have a history of cutworms in our area. By the time a farmer finds out that he has cutworms the damage has already been done to the crop therefore the farmer uses crop protection such as "neonics" to keep the pests from causing damage. 
I am always amazed at how many people have an opinion on farm practices when they have no actual experience farming. 
I have a deal for you Adam. You put up the cash. I will find some land to rent close to me. We will use my equipment. We will use your pesticide program. I will do the work and we will split the gross. Are you in?


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> Lets narrow down Adams Ag lesson for today. Lets say we have a history of cutworms in our area. By the time a farmer finds out that he has cutworms the damage has already been done to the crop therefore the farmer uses crop protection such as "neonics" to keep the pests from causing damage.
> I am always amazed at how many people have an opinion on farm practices when they have no actual experience farming.


So what you need is a method of detecting cutworms early enough so you know whether you need neonic coated seed or not.


----------



## Ian

It's as they take the plant


----------



## zhiv9

What about soil samples? Don't the cutworm larvae overwinter in the soil?


----------



## jim lyon

The cutworms problems I have seen are sporadic. Some areas might be free of them while others areas get wiped out. How many samples are you going to take? How are you going to interpret the results? Ag specialists and farmers are generally pretty bright guys. Do you think they need someone who has no experience in farming explaining to them what they are doing wrong and what they should be doing?


----------



## zhiv9

jim lyon said:


> Do you think they need someone who has no experience in farming explaining to them what they are doing wrong and what they should be doing?


No I suppose they don't. However if they are using a product with questionable environmental effects it is more than fair to ask them to demonstrate they actually need the product. Back up your claims with hard data. That's what beekeepers are being asked to do - its only fair that grain farmers do the same.


----------



## Ian

Just cerious , Adam what are you communicating to your land owners? 
Is it what your saying here or more diplomatically? 

Are you asking them to soil test for cut worms ?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> Just cerious , Adam what are you communicating to your land owners?
> Is it what your saying here or more diplomatically?
> 
> Are you asking them to soil test for cut worms ?


What am I saying here? Haraga said cutworms were his problem and I just asked if there was method to test for them or if a method could be developed.

I try to be fair and diplomatic with anyone I talk to on the subject. I stick to the facts and preface it with farmers have to make a living too and have to control pests with something.


----------



## Ian

So what are you talking to your land owners about? They will ask you the question. Do you tell them to focus on IPM?


----------



## Haraga

Zhive, you never did get back to me on your chance to become a farmer.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> So what are you talking to your land owners about? They will ask you the question. Do you tell them to focus on IPM?


The discussion never gets to that sort of detail. Not all of my land owners are farmers and the ones that are have been genuinely concerned about the bees.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> The discussion never gets to that sort of detail. Not all of my land owners are farmers and the ones that are have been genuinely concerned about the bees.


All of my land owners are farmers and they are all bringing up the subject.

There are crop report coming out of the UK where they have banned three of the most common seed treatments. The reports are not good. Conditions were dry and bug populations had exploded. Many reports of continual foliage treatments, reseeding and then foliage treatments again. Farmers are saying seed treatment and spot spraying heavy infestations would of controlled bug populations adequately as compared to the multiple overland spraying and re seeding, to have to overland spray again...
There is a way to crop without seed treatments, but the seed treatment will be replaced by over land spraying.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> There is a way to crop without seed treatments, but the seed treatment will be replaced by over land spraying.


The question is which has the least overall impact.


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> The question is which has the least overall impact.


Zhive, if you were a farmer you would know that treated seed has less impact.


----------



## zhiv9

Here's the new Bayer/Scott-Dupree Study:

https://peerj.com/articles/652/

http://www.producer.com/daily/new-study-finds-no-neonic-impact-on-bees/

This is a better study than the first one, but still has some major flaws:

1) Control fields were contaminated with neonics (12 months is not sufficient time to guarantee break down)
2) Exposure period was very short (13 days)
3) Doesn't address LLD (less than lethal dose) or chronic effects
4) Canola was the only crop looked at


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> Zhive, if you were a farmer you would know that treated seed has less impact.


Your farming experience makes you more qualified to evaluate the environmental effects of foliar sprays vs seed treatments?


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> Your farming experience makes you more qualified to evaluate the environmental effects of foliar sprays vs seed treatments?


When it comes to keeping my bees, yes. Zhive, I have experience with both. You don't. Now put up some money and we will do a little farming together and then you will have some experience in that game.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> Your farming experience makes you more qualified to evaluate the environmental effects of foliar sprays vs seed treatments?


Fields sprayed kills everything. Seed treatment fields are full of life


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Are you telling us, that seed treated fields never get sprayed?

Here the seed treated fields still get three to four sprays.


----------



## Haraga

Seed treated fields here generally get sprayed once with a herbicide. Bernhard what are they spraying three or four times?


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> Seed treated fields here generally get sprayed once with a herbicide. Bernhard what are they spraying three or four times?


In the UK, seed treatment for fall rape seeding was deemed insufficient control so they were using a foliar spray in the spring to improve flea beatle and aphid control. I believe it was pyrethroid based.


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> In the UK, . I believe it was pyrethroid based.


But you don't know for sure what was sprayed? This is where the problem lies. Not only in your country but everywhere else also. For example, orange groves in Florida where they say farmers are spraying off label yet they don't even know what the label is.


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> But you don't know for sure what was sprayed? This is where the problem lies. Not only in your country but everywhere else also. For example, orange groves in Florida where they say farmers are spraying off label yet they don't even know what the label is.


The article I read didn't give a specific product name but a simple search came up with Syngenta's Hallmark Zeon. i am sure there are comparables from the other chem's


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Fungicides and insecticides as a combination. Farmers are told here, the seed treatment protects only for a month. Most sprays are pyrethroid. Thiacloprid is sprayed also. Is a neonic. Mavrik is used especially in canola. (Tau-Fluvalinat) But resistance of the pests against it makes it less interesting for the farmers.

Zeon is used here, too. As is Fastac, Karate and others.


----------



## Haraga

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Fungicides and insecticides as a combination. Farmers are told here, the seed treatment protects only for a month. Most sprays are pyrethroid. Thiacloprid is sprayed also. Is a neonic. Mavrik is used especially in canola. (Tau-Fluvalinat) But resistance of the pests against it makes it less interesting for the farmers.
> 
> Zeon is used here, too. As is Fastac, Karate and others.


Are these plants in bloom when they are sprayed?


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> The article I read didn't give a specific product name but a simple search came up with Syngenta's Hallmark Zeon. i am sure there are comparables from the other chem's


Victor goes into hiding and another one takes its place.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

List of allowed/approved substances in winter canola in Germany:

*Product	active ingredient(s)*
Aatiram 65	Thiram 
Acanto	Picoxystrobin 
ADAMA-Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
AGIL-S	Propaquizafop 
Agrinova Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Alekto Plus TF	Glyphosat 
Allflor-Schneckenfrei	Metaldehyd
Ampera	Prochloraz, Tebuconazol 
Aramo	Tepraloxydim 
Arinex	Metaldehyd 
ASKON	Difenoconazol, Azoxystrobin
ATR Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
AVAUNT	Indoxacarb 
Ballett	Tebuconazol 
Barbarian Biograde 360*	Glyphosat 
BARCLAY GALLUP BIOGRADE 360*	Glyphosat 
BARCLAY GALLUP BIOGRADE 450*	Glyphosat 
BARCLAY GALLUP HI-AKTIV*	Glyphosat 
Bayer Garten Schneckenkorn Protect	Metaldehyd 
BC-Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Bengala	Metazachlor, Clomazone 
Berghoff Glyphosate ULTRA*	Glyphosat
Bi 58	Dimethoat 
Biscaya	Thiacloprid 
Bleran	Deiquat 
Boccacio Rosen Pilz-Frei	Azoxystrobin 
Brasan	Dimethachlor, Clomazone 
Bulldock	beta-Cyfluthrin 
Butisan	Metazachlor	30.11.	
Butisan Gold	Metazachlor, Quinmerac, Dimethenamid-P
Butisan Kombi	Metazachlor, Dimethenamid-P 
Butisan Top	Metazachlor, Quinmerac 
Cantus	Boscalid 
Cantus Gold	Boscalid, Dimoxystrobin 
CARAMBA	Metconazol 
Carax	Mepiquat, Metconazol 
Centium 36 CS	Clomazone 
Cercobin FL	Thiophanat-methyl 
CHA6710H	Clomazone 
Chrysal Schnecken STOP	Metaldehyd 
Chrysal Schnecken STOP	Metaldehyd
Cirrus	Clomazone 
Clartex Blau	Metaldehyd
CLAYTON SPARTA	lambda-Cyhalothrin 
CLEAN UP techno*	Glyphosat
Clearfield-Vantiga	Metazachlor, Quinmerac, Imazamox 
CLIOPHAR 100	Clopyralid 
Clomazone 360 CS	Clomazone 
Cohort	Propyzamid
Colzor Trio	Napropamid, Dimethachlor, Clomazone 
COMPO-Mehltau-frei Kumulus WG	Schwefel 
COMPO Ortiva Rosen Pilz-frei	Azoxystrobin 
COMPO Ortiva Rosen-Pilzschutz	Azoxystrobin 
COMPO Ortiva Spezial Pilz-frei	Azoxystrobin 
COMPO Ortiva Universal Pilz-frei	Azoxystrobin 
COMPO Schnecken-frei LimaDisque	Metaldehyd 
COMPO Schnecken-Korn	Metaldehyd 
COMPO Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
COMPO Schneckenkorn N	Metaldehyd	
Contans WG	Coniothyrium minitans Stamm CON/M/91-08 
Cooper	gamma-Cyhalothrin	
Credence	Propyzamid 
CRUISER OSR	Fludioxonil, Metalaxyl-M, Thiamethoxam 
CS 36	Clomazone 
Custodia	Tebuconazol, Azoxystrobin 
CYCLONE	lambda-Cyhalothrin 
Cyperkill	Cypermethrin 
Cythrin 250 EC	Cypermethrin 
Danjiri	Acetamiprid 
Decis flüssig	Deltamethrin 
Decis forte	Deltamethrin 
degro Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
degro Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Dehner Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Dehner Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Dehner Schneckenkorn Wirkstoff aus der Natur	Eisen-III-phosphat 
Delicia Schnecken-Linsen	Metaldehyd 
Delu Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Dessix	Deiquat 
Detia Pflanzen Pilz-frei	Azoxystrobin 
Detia Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Devrinol FL	Napropamid 
Dinagam	Quizalofop-P 
DMM	Dimethomorph 
Dominator 480 TF	Glyphosat 
DOMINATOR NEOTEC*	Glyphosat
DOMINATOR ULTRA*	Glyphosat
Duaxo Rosen Pilz-frei	Difenoconazol 
Duaxo Universal Pilz-frei	Difenoconazol 
Duaxo Universal Pilzspritzmittel	Difenoconazol 
Echelon	Clomazone 
EFFIGO	Picloram, Clopyralid 
Efilor	Metconazol, Boscalid 
Etisso Schnecken-Linsen Power-Packs	Metaldehyd 
Fastac SC Super Contact	alpha-Cypermethrin 
Ferramol Schneckenkorn	Eisen-III-phosphat 
Flamenco FS	Prochloraz, Fluquinconazol 
Florelia Glanzit Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Florelia Schneckenkorn Duett	Metaldehyd 
Floriba Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Florissa Glanzit-Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Focus Ultra	Cycloxydim
Folicur	Tebuconazol 
Fox	Bifenox 
Fox OS	Bifenox 
Fuego	Metazachlor 
Fuego Top	Metazachlor, Quinmerac
Fungisan Gemüse-Pilzfrei	Azoxystrobin 
Fungisan Rosen-Pilzfrei	Azoxystrobin 
Fungisan Rosen- und Gemüse-Pilzfrei	Azoxystrobin 
FURY 10 EW	zeta-Cypermethrin 
Fusilade MAX	Fluazifop-P 
GALLANT SUPER	Haloxyfop-P (Haloxyfop-R) 
Gamit 36 CS	Clomazone 
gartenkraft Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Gartenkrone Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Gemüse-Pilzfrei Saprol	Azoxystrobin 
Glanzit Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Glanzit SCHNECKENSTOPP	Metaldehyd 
GRAMIN	Quizalofop-P 
GreenTec Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
GreenTower	Metaldehyd 
GROOVE	Propyzamid 
Hack Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
HARVESAN	Carbendazim, Flusilazol
HELOCUR	Tebuconazol 
HELOSATE 450 TF	Glyphosat 
Horizon	Tebuconazol 
Hutton	Tebuconazol 
InnoProtect Quantum	Pethoxamid 
InnoProtect Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Insekten-Spritzmittel Roxion	Dimethoat 
IRO	alpha-Cypermethrin 
Juwel	Epoxiconazol, Kresoxim-methyl 
Kaiso Sorbie	lambda-Cyhalothrin 
Karate Zeon	lambda-Cyhalothrin 
Katamaran Plus	Metazachlor, Quinmerac, Dimethenamid-P
Kerb 50 W	Propyzamid 
Kerb FLO	Propyzamid 
Kumulus WG	Schwefel 
KUSTI	lambda-Cyhalothrin 
Lambda WG	lambda-Cyhalothrin 
Limares-Schneckenköder	Metaldehyd
LONTREL 100	Clopyralid 
LONTREL 7 SG	Clopyralid
Lynx	Tebuconazol 
Matador	Triadimenol, Tebuconazol 
MAVRIK	tau-Fluvalinat 
METAREX	Metaldehyd
Metarex TDS	Metaldehyd
Milestone	Propyzamid, Aminopyralid
Minuet 10 EW	zeta-Cypermethrin 
Mirage 45 EC	Prochloraz 
Mission 0 SL	Deiquat 
Moddus	Trinexapac 
Mollustop	Metaldehyd 
MON 79351	Glyphosat 
MON 79991-SG	Glyphosat 
Mospilan SG	Acetamiprid 
NaTrox	Metaldehyd 
Naturen Bio-Netzschwefel WG	Schwefel 
Naturen Netzschwefel WG	Schwefel 
Netz-Schwefelit WG	Schwefel 
Nexide	gamma-Cyhalothrin
Nimbus CS	Metazachlor, Clomazone 
NOSECT Glanzit Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Opus	Epoxiconazol 
Orius	Tebuconazol 
Ortiva	Azoxystrobin 
Ortiva Pilz-frei	Azoxystrobin 
Panarex	Quizalofop-P 
Paroli	Thiophanat-methyl, Iprodion 
Patrol MetaPads	Metaldehyd 
PERFEKTHION	Dimethoat 
PIRIMAX	Pirimicarb 
Pirimor Granulat	Pirimicarb 
Plantaclean 450 Premium*	Glyphosat 
Plantaclean Label XL*	Glyphosat 
Plenum 50 WG	Pymetrozin 
Profi Deiquat	Deiquat
Profi Deiquat Super	Deiquat 
Profi Flo 400 SC	Propyzamid 
Pro Limax	Metaldehyd 
Pro Limax DUO	Metaldehyd 
Proline	Prothioconazol 
Propulse	Prothioconazol, Fluopyram	
Prosaro	Tebuconazol, Prothioconazol 
Purgarol*	Glyphosat
QUANTUM	Pethoxamid 
Raiffeisen gartenkraft Schnecken-Korn	Metaldehyd 
Rapsan 500 SC	Metazachlor
recozit Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
REGLEX	Deiquat 
Reglone	Deiquat 
Reglor	Deiquat 
Rosen Pilz-Frei Boccacio	Azoxystrobin 
Rosen-Pilzfrei Saprol	Azoxystrobin 
Rosen- und Gemüse-Pilzfrei Rospin	Azoxystrobin 
Roundup Express	Glyphosat 
Roundup PowerFlex	Glyphosat 
Roundup REKORD	Glyphosat 
Roundup UltraMax*	Glyphosat 
Runway	Picloram, Clopyralid, Aminopyralid
Schnecken-Korn	Metaldehyd 
Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd
Schneckenkorn Express	Metaldehyd 
Schneckenkorn Flex	Metaldehyd 
Schneckenkorn Limex	Metaldehyd 
Schneckenkorn M6	Metaldehyd 
Schnecken-Korn N-3-KG-HA	Metaldehyd 
SCHNECKENKORN ORGANIC	Eisen-III-phosphat 
Schneckenkorn Spiess-Urania	Metaldehyd 
Schneckentod	Metaldehyd 
SCORE	Difenoconazol 
SELECT 0 EC	Clethodim
Setanta Flo	Propyzamid
Shock DOWN	lambda-Cyhalothrin 
Signum	Pyraclostrobin, Boscalid 
Snek-Vetyl	Metaldehyd 
Sparviero	lambda-Cyhalothrin 
Stomp Aqua	Pendimethalin 
Stomp Raps	Pendimethalin 
Sumicidin Alpha EC	Esfenvalerat 
SYD 51010-W	Trinexapac 
SYMETRA	Azoxystrobin, Isopyrazam 
SYMPARA	Tebuconazol, Prothioconazol 
TARGA SUPER	Quizalofop-P 
Teridox	Dimethachlor 
terrex Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
TESON	Tebuconazol 
Thiram 80 FB	Thiram 
Thiram SC 700	Thiram 
Tigude Graanulid	Metaldehyd 
Tilmor	Tebuconazol, Prothioconazol 
TMTD 98% Satec	Thiram 
Toprex	Paclobutrazol, Difenoconazol
TRAFO WG	lambda-Cyhalothrin 
Trebon 30 EC	Etofenprox 
Trico	Schaffett
TRUSTEE HI-AKTIV	Glyphosat 
Unimet Glanzit-Schneckenkorn	Metaldehyd 
Vivendi 100	Clopyralid


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Haraga said:


> Are these plants in bloom when they are sprayed?


Yes, the last fungicide+insecticide application is sprayed into the full bloom. Farmers that do care, spray late in the evening. Some do not give a sh*t and spray during the day in full sun. Because the sun dries the spray on the plants and makes it more sticky. Or so.


----------



## Haraga

Bernhard of all the chemicals that you listed, how many of them would you say are safe to apply when there are bees present?


----------



## Ian

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Some do not give a sh*t and spray during the day in full sun. Because the sun dries the spray on the plants and makes it more sticky. Or so.


your last two post re enforce the argument on why neonics were brought about


----------



## Haraga

Bingo!


----------



## Ian

From Randy's October blog posting;

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/updates/

*"We’re also seeing a sea change in the awareness of the public about pesticides and their effects upon pollinators and wildlife, with the honey bee being used as a poster child. Unfortunately, the overall issue to pesticide impacts has been hijacked by a tunnel vision focus upon the neonics, with scant evidence that they are actually the main problem.

My on-the-ground truthing by visiting beekeepers all over the country finds that most beekeepers in neonic-rich corn/soy/canola landscapes report far fewer pesticide incidents than in the past. My guess is that it is other pesticides, including beekeeper-applied miticides that are more to blame.

What concerns me is that if politicians eager to appease voters effect a ban of the neonics, that when we later find out that our pesticide problems continue, that we beekeepers will be accused of crying wolf, and get no more support from the regulators."*


I agree with Randy's comments. We are shooting before we aim the gun...


----------



## Ian

http://business.financialpost.com/2...bee-losses-could-face-bigger-losses-in-court/

It will be interesting to see how this suit plays out. Sure getting lots of attention. 

*"Beekeepers who do not wish to go after the pesticide makers must officially “opt out” of the suit, or they are automatically included. However, the lawyers have refused to explain how that can be accomplished, despite multiple requests for clarification."*

*"These responses are necessary, because Siskinds structured its complaint in a way that claims it represents all Canadian beekeepers, whether or not they believe neonics harm their bees. That’s one of the ways class action suits are rigged in favour of plaintiff lawyers."*

*"Beekeepers who have signed on to the suit may have dollar signs in their eyes. But revelations about their management practices could bankrupt their reputations – and having to compensate neonic makers for defense costs under Canada’s “loser pays” system, could hit their lawyers and them with significant fees."*


*"Under Canadian law, the bee stewards and their law firm risk running in the red if their claims are ultimately unproven."*

*"Canada’s western provinces house roughly 80% of the nation’s beekeeping industry. The dominant crop is canola, which is based heavily on neonicotinoid treatments. Yet bees are thriving in those fields."*

*"The Alberta Beekeepers Commission issued a statement explaining why it does not support the Ontario class action suit. “Compared to the organophosphates and foliar applications of pesticides previously used,” it noted, “seed treatment technology significantly reduces honeybee exposure to pesticides.”

Beekeeper organizations in Quebec, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are poised to make their own statements against the suit, and the Canadian Honey Council warned against making “accusations of blame.”*

*"The government of Ontario offered a $105 per hive payout for everyone with losses over 40 % of their bees. It subsequently reported a high number of losses – and payouts."*


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Ian said:


> “seed treatment technology significantly reduces honeybee exposure to pesticides.”


That is exactly the wording used by Bayer and is repeated over and over and over again. I'm a little sick of that prayer.

It is time to adjust the approval processes of pesticides to systemic pesticides in general, since the distribution and action of systemic pesticide differs _slightly_ from classic pesticides. The fact is, nobody has a clue on how bees are exposed to systemic pesticides since they are popping up where they don't belong to. And where we don't expect it.

The simplistic thinking: "_I put that stuff into the ground where bees can't reach it_"...is ...simplistic thinking. Or wishful thinking. The problems do not disappear and those are: systemic action within plants, bio-accumulation and thus saturation in the environment, lowering of the immune system of all sorts of living things (not just bees). Synergistic effects with other pesticides (it's toxicity is tenfold when combined with certain fungicides) and with pathogens. Remember: chemical plus nature. 

Here in Germany the use of seed coating doesn't really lowers the numbers of spraying, since the farmers spray for fungicides anyway. And while they do it, they mix in some insecticides, too. Just to make sure.

The whole picture shows, that the safety of the usage of this stuff is not a given fact but needs to be reviewed. Common approval processes can't assess the new class of pesticides, because when those safety testings were made, they didn't know anything about systemic pesticides. It is also very very difficult to assess immunosuppressive actions which are very longterm and of course the chemical+nature concept has the nature as the second part in it and how do you assess this?


----------



## Haraga

Bernhard, I have lost more hives from a leaking feed pail that flooded the hive with sugar water than I ever have to pesticides. Should we be banning sugar water?


----------



## Ian

BernhardHeuvel said:


> It is also very very difficult to assess immunosuppressive actions which are very longterm and of course the chemical+nature concept has the nature as the second part in it and how do you assess this?


how do you assess something that you cant measure? how are you sure its even happening?



BernhardHeuvel said:


> Synergistic effects with other pesticides (it's toxicity is tenfold when combined with certain fungicides) and with pathogens. Remember: chemical plus nature.


again, another reason why seed treatments show advantages. Pesticide tank mixes have been _proven_ deadly.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> I agree with Randy's comments. We are shooting before we aim the gun...


I agree as well, but as I have said many times before, there is middle ground here between a total ban and 100% treatment. The entrenchment on both sides is a real problem.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> http://business.financialpost.com/2...bee-losses-could-face-bigger-losses-in-court/
> It will be interesting to see how this suit plays out. Sure getting lots of attention.


Lots of attention from Bayer and Syngenta - *"SPECIAL TO FINANCIAL POST"* is a nice way of saying paid op-ed - this isn't a real journalistic piece

This was the response from Siskinds (its from the OBA newsletter)

"On October 28, 2014, the Financial Post published a special report on the class action brought by Siskinds on behalf of beekeepers against agricultural technology companies, Bayer and Syngenta, for the manufacturer of neonicotinoids.

Unfortunately, the article is riddled with false and misleading statements and meant to deter beekeepers from participating in the class action, which is exactly what Bayer and Syngenta would like to see happen. Primarily, the article is meant to scare beekeepers from joining the class action by alleging that the beekeepers will be responsible for costs. This is simply not true. Siskinds LLP can confirm that there are no costs whatsoever to any beekeeper who decides to participate in the claim. In other words, there is NO financial risk to any beekeeper who joins the class action.

Siskinds LLP has responded, and will continue to respond, to every question and request for information received about the class action - both positive and negative. Siskinds LLP is always available to answer inquiries about the class action process."


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> *"The government of Ontario offered a $105 per hive payout for everyone with losses over 40 % of their bees. It subsequently reported a high number of losses – and payouts."*


This is intentionally worded to deceive. Here is how the payout really works:

If you went into winter with 100 hives and lost 40 hives you got *$0 for your 40 lost hives*

If you went into winter with 100 hives and lost 41 hives you got *$105 for your 41 lost hives*

If you went into winter with 100 hives and lost 50 hive you got *$1050 for your 50 lost hives*


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> how do you assess something that you cant measure? how are you sure its even happening?


Can't or won't? The biggest study done in Canada which I posted yesterday only exposed the bees for 13 days and made no attempt at all to measure or look at less than lethal dose exposure or possible chronic effects.


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> This is intentionally worded to deceive. Here is how the payout really works:
> 
> If you went into winter with 100 hives and lost 40 hives you got *$0 for your 40 lost hives*
> 
> If you went into winter with 100 hives and lost 41 hives you got *$105 for your 41 lost hives*
> 
> If you went into winter with 100 hives and lost 50 hive you got *$1050 for your 50 lost hives*


It's not worded to deceive. It states losses OVER 40%. What part over OVER is deceiving?


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> It's not worded to deceive. It states losses OVER 40%. What part over OVER is deceiving?


It implies that beekeepers received compensation for all of the lost hives if you had losses over 40% and not just the hives above 40% threshold - that is a huge difference. It also states that high losses were reported "subsequently" and fails to mention that the program was put in place due to "preceding" high losses. It implies over-reporting of losses when this is highly unlikely to be significant given that you had to register the number of hives before announcement of the program and are open to inspection at any time.


----------



## Ian

Haraga said:


> It's not worded to deceive. It states losses OVER 40%. What part over OVER is deceiving?


that is the way I read it also.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> Can't or won't? The biggest study done in Canada which I posted yesterday only exposed the bees for 13 days and made no attempt at all to measure or look at less than lethal dose exposure or possible chronic effects.


isn't . 

run a study feeding your bees pollen off neonic treated canola seed, and try to measure the amount of neonics in that pollen. Then try to prove that pollen with no neonic is poisoning your hives.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> this isn't a real journalistic piece"


...and everything else that has lead you to believe neonics is causing chronic effects on the bees is a "real journalistic piece"... lol

are you contributing to the class action law suit Adam? What is the position of the OBA on the class action law suit? The rest of our Canadian beekeeping associations are against supporting it.


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> ...and everything else that has lead you to believe neonics is causing chronic effects on the bees is a "real journalistic piece"... lol


I am suspicious of any journalism that appears to be paid for by a third party. The author Paul Driessen works for a "Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow." Basically a shill organization for any big company willing to make a large "donation." A bit of search revealed some of their fine work in support of the coal industry against global warming.



Ian said:


> are you contributing to the class action law suit Adam? What is the position of the OBA on the class action law suit? The rest of our Canadian beekeeping associations are against supporting it.


Both questions have been asked already. Here are the answers again. No I am not "contributing" to the class action lawsuit - I haven't had any losses that I would attribute to neonics.

The OBA position is here:

http://www.ontariobee.com/issues-an...class-action-on-behalf-of-ontarios-beekeepers

“While the OBA is not directly involved in this action, we support any effort that could help beekeepers recover losses caused by the overuse of neonicotinoids”, said OBA VP Tibor Szabo, “This Action puts the blame where it belongs - on the pesticide manufacturers.”


----------



## Ian

http://www.nature.com/news/bees-lies...policy-1.12443

"It is simply impossible to interest millions of members of the public, or the farming press, with carefully reasoned explanations. And politicians respond to public opinion much more readily than they respond to science.


----------



## Dominic

Field scouting is often heavily subsidized. In Québec, the government paid 90% of the scouting costs for farmers who wanted to determine if their fields actually had pests to begin with, following growing reports that, in the vast majority of cases, neonics offer no yield gain whatsoever. In some cases, neonics even decreased yields. Yet, hardly any commercial crop growers decided to opt in the program.

I'm sorry Ian, but tend to be rather skeptical that it's a cost issue.

Scouting the fields is part of standard IPM. Farmers who apply phytosanitary products when they don't need them aren't doing themselves any favors.

It's untrue to suggest that if farmers couldn't systematically apply neonics on all of their crops, they would *have* to spray worse pesticides in equal or greater quantities. Namely because in most cases they've been using pesticides when none were needed, and also because there are a number of methods to reduce pest pressure that don't involve blind blanket applications. Seeding dates (canola flea beetles's biological cycle means it's possible to avoid having the plants germinate at when pest populations are at their peak), trap parcels (higher sulfur fertilization increases attractiveness of canola to pests, which can help focalize pests, and thus treatments, in target parcels), differed seeding (to trap and treat weevils in first-flowering parcels), shorter-growth varieties (new polish canola varieties mature 33% earlier than Argentinian canola and have similar yields), more resistant varieties (hairier canola), greater crop rotations (yield losses if there isn't at least two years between canola crops), different cultural methods (no-till helps keep soil cooler, which reduces flea beetle population growth in critical early canola stages), etc.

I'm with the OBA on this one. Total crop treatment is bad farming. And since neonics are then found all over the environment, and their effects on bees indisputable, the time for lenience has got to end.

Also, I'd like to know where you heard the Québec beekeeper's association are against the class action lawsuit. The FAQ mentionned it to its members and simply stated it wasn't involved. Indeed, I think there's a lot of confusion over who it applies to, as it states to speak for all canadian beekeepers but most sources seem to refer to it as representing Ontario beekeepers only. In any case, the FAQ is greatly involved against neonics, I'd be surprised to see it oppose this lawsuit.


----------



## Ian

Dominic said:


> number of methods to reduce pest pressure that don't involve blind blanket applications.


A farmer looses a crop once, he hurts, 
the farmer does not loose the crop twice, we hurt...


----------



## Dominic

Ian said:


> A farmer looses a crop once, he hurts,
> the farmer does not loose the crop twice, we hurt...


There are a ton of heavily subsidized government insurance programs available to cover bad years. Especially for cash crops like corn, soy, and canola.

I think part of the pilot program even covered insect losses when farmers decided not to treat due when scouting suggested not to.

Crops are lost, sometimes. It happens. No amount of pesticide use can 100% protect someone. Using pesticides for the sake of using them is both bad farming and bad business management. In fact, recent articles I read about conventional cash crops growers who switched to organic was that the premium they started having actually made it more profitable. More cash for less pesticide use.

Yes, it sucks to lose crops, just like it sucks to lose livestock or bees. But it's part of the business. It's part of working with living things. Heck, it's just part of life.

It's come to the point that the government regulates how much fertilizers we can use on our land, depending on the soil analysis, the crop we want to grow, and the kind of fertilizers we want to use. Because farmers wouldn't consider externalities, and abuses were systematic. Sooner or later, the same thing will happen with pesticides. The industry loves to make a load of debatable claims about wanting to make food cheaper and to feed the world and the like, but when we start realizing that we pay extra to apply pesticides without any yield gains (as the EPA recently stated for soy, and as local field trials reported for corn), then not only are we putting the health of people and ecosystems at risk, we are actually making food more expensive, because that pesticide isn't free. And there is absolutely nothing that can justify paying for pesticides that are harmful to other industries and to the environment and that give absolutely nothing in return. Pesticide use should be justified, not systematic. Prophylactic phytosanitary product use is counter-productive and unacceptable. Especially when the government is there to pay 90% of the costs of scouting and to pay for most of your losses. Not to mention that scouting in itself isn't really all that mind-boggling on its own, anyone would be able to do it...


----------



## Haraga

Dominic, you are so wrong on several points when it comes to farming in western Canada. There are no heavily subsidized programs for loses. I have never heard of the government regulating fertilizer inputs. Dominic in my area 90% of the farmers could not stand financially to lose 50% of a crop and continue the next year. They will do whatever it takes to protect their crop. Protect being the key word. Once again I find it interesting that all this farming advice is coming from people that have no experience farming nor the guts/stupidity to try to farm. All you have to go on is what you read somewhere. Go get some experience farming and then come to the table.


----------



## rwurster

Haraga said:


> I find it interesting that all this farming advice is coming from people that have no experience farming nor the guts/stupidity to try to farm. All you have to go on is what you read somewhere. Go get some experience farming and then come to the table.


That's the truth. We lease out our 250 acres to other farmers now but it always makes me chuckle when people think that the government is going to bail out some one who loses half their crops for whatever reason. Crop insurance, it comes out of one's own pocket, and even then the insurance company will try to screw you. Or that other argument where we can take a few steps back in our agricultural practices and still get the yields we get now. LOL


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I don't need to know how to farm, in fact, I don't care on what you do on your farm. And I don't want to tell you how you have to run your business.

But freedom ends where it starts harming other people's freedom, rights and property. 

What would you think would happen, if I use a miticide on my bees that kills varroa...and my neighbours cows. Imagine 30-50-80-100 % cows lying around on the pasture. Sure, you can move your cows out to another pasture, split them up, don't harvest any milk and take your losses....but more likely you gonna get your pitchfork and have a "talk" to your neighbour. 

That is what happens. Someone is p*ssing in my hives and I don't accept that. I don't know how to farm without neonics, but I don't need to know. You are the farmer, you find the solution. Rather than saying: "it is not possible", start evaluating other ways. I am a beekeeper and my task is to protect my bees. That is what I do. As do others.

Some farmers realize that, listen to me and work with me. They don't use neonics. I put my bees on their canola fields for pollination and the tests this year showed a 15-20 % greater harvest than without bees. Win-win for both.


----------



## Haraga

That's easy to respond to. It's very simple. The cows aren't foraging on bee pasture like your bees are foraging on cow pasture. The cows are fenced in, your bees are not. Since you cannot contain your bees you must take appropriate actions to ensure their well being. 
PS 15-20% of nothing is nothing.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

You are lucky, because you don't live in France.  People in France are a little "hot". As are some of the french beekeepers who threw live beehives into the offices of the ministry, who gave similiar lame responses to them. Good ol' Europe. French bees tend to be stingy, too. Sometimes I wish we Germans had a bit of this southern temper. Instead we try to find solutions by working together. Usually that is a nice approach, but with some fellows this simply doesn't help.

If the imaginary cow-killing miticide leaches into your cow pasture and kills the cows there, it doesn't matter that the cows don't come over to my yards. The stuff we are talking about is bio-accumalative and can be found in surface and ground and drinking water already. Means, you can't evade it by simple moving. This is why I prefer pyrethroids rather than neonics: you can move your bees out. And you see effects straight away unlike the neonics, which we remember work with nature. Chemical plus nature. How do you avoid immune suppression which comes slowly but nevertheless leads to death? 

Nah. As I stated above, the problems with this stuff are far to great for the environment, not just for bees, to discuss them away.


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> PS 15-20% of nothing is nothing.





Haraga said:


> in my area 90% of the farmers could not stand financially to lose 50% of a crop and continue the next year


Which one is it? 15-20% isn't "nothing" if you can't take a 50% loss


----------



## Ian

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/updates/

_>>"We’re also seeing a sea change in the awareness of the public about pesticides and their effects upon pollinators and wildlife, with the honey bee being used as a poster child. Unfortunately, the overall issue to *pesticide impacts has been hijacked by a tunnel vision focus upon the neonics, with scant evidence that they are actually the main problem.*

My *on-the-ground truthing by visiting beekeepers all over the country* finds that most beekeepers in neonic-rich corn/soy/canola landscapes *report far fewer pesticide incidents than in the past*. My guess is that it is other pesticides, including beekeeper-applied miticides that are more to blame."<<_

This hatred towards farmers is ridiculous and it is lead from assumptions and emotional based conclusions. IF there were actual evidence neonics were greatly effecting our bees, or even the environment, then we would actually have something tangible to make an argument from. In stead we have one reported neonic caused incident to which all the rest of this speculation is drawing conclusions from. 

This test study is simple, gather pollen from neonic crops, and gather pollen from non neonic crops. Feed them for a year. Run multiple test studies, I dont care how many, just DO A STUDY SHOWING A NEGATIVE RESULT. 

Just think...all that attention to the hives feeding patties, and monitoring disease levels... perhaps... the study would end with hives in fantastic shape...  Just saying because my hives fed off canola all summer, and they have entered the shed in fantastic shape...


----------



## dgl1948

Haraga said:


> Dominic, you are so wrong on several points when it comes to farming in western Canada. There are no heavily subsidized programs for loses. I have never heard of the government regulating fertilizer inputs. Dominic in my area 90% of the farmers could not stand financially to lose 50% of a crop and continue the next year. They will do whatever it takes to protect their crop. Protect being the key word. Once again I find it interesting that all this farming advice is coming from people that have no experience farming nor the guts/stupidity to try to farm. All you have to go on is what you read somewhere. Go get some experience farming and then come to the table.


Last time I checked base level of crop insurance was subsidized to the tune of 60%.


----------



## Haraga

dgl1948 said:


> Last time I checked base level of crop insurance was subsidized to the tune of 60%.


Where do you people come up with this BS? What insurance program are you taking about?


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> Where do you people come up with this BS? What insurance program are you taking about?


Crop insurance is subsidized. To the tune of 60% in your province.


----------



## Haraga

zhiv9 said:


> Crop insurance is subsidized. To the tune of 60% in your province.


And I am sure that you can show me a link to this? And what type of insurance are you referring to?


----------



## zhiv9

Haraga said:


> And I am sure that you can show me a link to this? And what type of insurance are you referring to?


I thought it was common knowledge. The farmer kicks in about 40% of the premium, the provincial government 30% and the federal government 30%. In the US it is subsidized by the the federal government in the farm bill.

I am sure there are better references, but here is one: http://www.beaver.ab.ca/public/download/documents/3588

There is nice little chat about it here: http://www.agriville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1386697846


----------



## Haraga

I personally don't buy government managed crop insurance. I buy hail coverage from a private line insurance company. It doesn't pay to buy drought insurance from the government in my area. Hail is our biggest threat in my area.


----------



## dgl1948

Haraga said:


> Where do you people come up with this BS? What insurance program are you taking about?


No BS. Check the facts. That is what we are subsidised here under Sask. Crop Insurance. Well you are at it check out the Ag Stability program and see how much we are subsidised under that. As well as farmers here, we do not pay the road tax on fuel.

From crop insurance page

"Premiums 
SCIC sets premium rates to recover losses (claims paid) over the long-term and to maintain a sustainable program by paying off program debt and building a reasonable reserve. The methodology used by SCIC to calculate premium rates and yields must be certified by an actuary and approved by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada every five years.

Premium is cost-shared with producers paying 40 per cent and the provincial and federal government 60 per cent of costs. Premium dollars are not used to pay for program administration. The full cost of program administration is cost-shared by the federal and provincial governments."


----------



## wildbranch2007

here is a post from bee-l, the thread said finally action in Ontario

http://beesmatter.ca/open-letter/

I think it is appropriate for this thread, but didn't go back and re-read it.


----------



## zhiv9

wildbranch2007 said:


> here is a post from bee-l, the thread said finally action in Ontario
> 
> http://beesmatter.ca/open-letter/
> 
> I think it is appropriate for this thread, but didn't go back and re-read it.


Here is one Ontario beekeepers response to the advertisement/letter:

http://www.ontariobee.com/sites/ontariobee.com/files/Penney-open-letter-feb1.pdf

and here is the OBA's official response to the ad campaign:

http://www.ontariobee.com/sites/ontariobee.com/files/Media-release-BigAg-Ad-Feb2-FIN.pdf


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

*Sperm viability and gene expression in honey bee queens (Apis mellifera) following exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid and the organophosphate acaricide coumaphos*
Veeranan ChaimaneeJay D. EvansYanping ChenCaitlin JacksonJeffery S. Pettis
Journal of Insect Physiology
Available online 12 March 2016, doi:10.1016/j.jinsphys.2016.03.004
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022191016300270


----------

