# Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Their Impacts on Bees: A Systematic Review of Research



## aunt betty

surrounded by controversy? Translate that as "Big Chemical" making smoke distracting us. There is no controversy here. Neonics are real bad for social insects period. No need to study that, its a fact.

No argument or controversy here and these aren't the droids you're looking for...move along.


----------



## Dan the bee guy

aunt betty said:


> surrounded by controversy? Translate that as "Big Chemical" making smoke distracting us. There is no controversy here. Neonics are real bad for social insects period. No need to study that, its a fact.
> 
> No argument or controversy here and these aren't the droids you're looking for...move along.


Also big agriculture no need to use crop rotation any more to control pests just use more chemicals.


----------



## Harley Craig

betty, I'm about 40 min south of you, so I too am in the heart of neionics. I haven't lost one single colony due to neonics, and haven't heard one complaint from anyone in our club. how many have you lost? wouldn't one think that those of us here at ground zero would be loosing them left and right? if fact if my bees listened to the propaganda surrounding this subject they would just give up, but they aren't they are thriving, without treatments none the less. Maybe it's only a problem for those who treat? Maybe it's the straw that breaks the camels back after they have been exposed to miticides??? Either way, I would definitely say the jury is still out on this one.


----------



## Harley Craig

Dan the bee guy said:


> Also big agriculture no need to use crop rotation any more to control pests just use more chemicals.



don't know a single farmer that doesn't still rotate crop


----------



## Dan the bee guy

Harley Craig said:


> don't know a single farmer that doesn't still rotate crop


Happy to here that . But it is happening .


----------



## jim lyon

Read through most of this. It's basically a study of the studies. Conclusion? More studies are needed of course.


----------



## Harley Craig

Dan the bee guy said:


> Happy to here that . But it is happening .



don't get me wrong, there are rare occasions when a field is too wet to get into and they miss the window for corn and have to double up on a later season bean crop, but it's not considered best practices anywhere that Im aware of. And around here, you can bet if that happens, that fall after they harvest the field will get tiled so it decreases the chance that it will happen again.


----------



## Dan the bee guy

Harley Craig said:


> don't get me wrong, there are rare occasions when a field is too wet to get into and they miss the window for corn and have to double up on a later season bean crop, but it's not considered best practices anywhere that Im aware of. And around here, you can bet if that happens, that fall after they harvest the field will get tiled so it decreases the chance that it will happen again.


Right next to me a big farm rented some land then he put corn in for many years . Then I sold my farm ,he planted corn right across the road from his and the differences in the color was astounding my old farm had deep green color while across the road it looked yellow


----------



## Ian

aunt betty said:


> distracting us. There is no controversy here. Neonics are real bad for social insects period. No need to study that, its a fact.
> .


That's the spirit! ...and exactly what the issue has become... No need for science or objective reasoning


----------



## Harley Craig

Dan the bee guy said:


> Right next to me a big farm rented some land then he put corn in for many years . Then I sold my farm ,he planted corn right across the road from his and the differences in the color was astounding my old farm had deep green color while across the road it looked yellow


that guy was an idiot and hurting his yields big time, and his nitrogen bill was probably huge so he was loosing money on both ends. im sure he's not the only one either. Maybe he didn't have a bean head? LOL Either way, it's not considered best practices


----------



## Dave Burrup

"There is no controversy here. Neonics are real bad for social insects period. No need to study that, its a fact."

A closed mind never questions, and never learns.


----------



## Pick

Crop rotation is widely practiced here in Florida. Typical rotation is, Corn, peanuts, cotton, pasture, melons.


----------



## Harley Craig

Pick said:


> Crop rotation is widely practiced here in Florida. Typical rotation is, Corn, peanuts, cotton, pasture, melons.


I wish they rotated that much here. Here is a typical rotation would be corn one year and beans the next. In the fields they are able to get the beans out early on, they double crop with winter wheat.


----------



## aunt betty

Harley Craig said:


> betty, I'm about 40 min south of you, so I too am in the heart of neionics. I haven't lost one single colony due to neonics, and haven't heard one complaint from anyone in our club. how many have you lost? wouldn't one think that those of us here at ground zero would be loosing them left and right? if fact if my bees listened to the propaganda surrounding this subject they would just give up, but they aren't they are thriving, without treatments none the less. Maybe it's only a problem for those who treat? Maybe it's the straw that breaks the camels back after they have been exposed to miticides??? Either way, I would definitely say the jury is still out on this one.


Hold on buddy. The neonics is the seed coating and is getting powderized during planting. There is some type of fine powder lubricant the farmers use. Ever look close at a field at how the seeds are planted in a perfect grid? 
Very hi-tech stuff that's over our heads but: 

The seed coating and the lubricant drift at planting time and can destroy a colony of bees or at least all the field bees. Want to see pictures? Teach me how and I'll post some pics of piles of dead bees in front of an apiary that will make you sick. The propaganda is real during planting time. Bees are like little flying dustmops and they pick up the seed coating dust.

It affects the queens some say. Don't know just saying what the experienced people are telling me. I have a feeling that you know these people but not dropping names.

It's important that we discuss these things because it does affect our bees. How much? I do not know.


----------



## Ian

Planter dust is the issue everyone should be focusing on, that actually is a problem. We use a different seed lubricant that reduces the dust blown residues. 
When it's blown onto flowering trees aside from the field, to which the bees are foraging, it "supposingly" will kill bees just as they bring that pollen into the hives. I have not seen any piles of dead bees but my suspission is its long term effects on the queen.


----------



## Harley Craig

aunt betty said:


> Hold on buddy. The neonics is the seed coating and is getting powderized during planting. There is some type of fine powder lubricant the farmers use. Ever look close at a field at how the seeds are planted in a perfect grid?
> Very hi-tech stuff that's over our heads but:
> 
> The seed coating and the lubricant drift at planting time and can destroy a colony of bees or at least all the field bees. Want to see pictures? Teach me how and I'll post some pics of piles of dead bees in front of an apiary that will make you sick. The propaganda is real during planting time. Bees are like little flying dustmops and they pick up the seed coating dust.
> 
> It affects the queens some say. Don't know just saying what the experienced people are telling me. I have a feeling that you know these people but not dropping names.
> 
> It's important that we discuss these things because it does affect our bees. How much? I do not know.



nobody is talking about the dust. yes planting dust will kill bees ( whether it has a neionic coating or not) . Harvest dust will kill bees, pour organic flour in your hive it will kill bees. All of the research that they claim are killing bees is based of it being a systemic pesticide and the bees bringing it back in pollen or nectar. the only pesticide kills I'm aware of is when some idiot sprays his fruit trees while in bloom


----------



## Ian

That leftist campain; 'we can not see it, or detect it, but we know it's there, and this is what it is, this is what it's doing and this is what we need to do... Because we know and we need to stop them'

Why focus on that unknown problem ? We need to focus on the issues that we have and can actually Fix?
The reason is they are not wanting to fix, the agenda is to eliminate


----------



## D Coates

Ian said:


> That leftist campain; 'we can not see it, or detect it, but we know it's there, and this is what it is, this is what it's doing and this is what we need to do... Because we know and we need to stop them'
> 
> Why focus on that unknown problem ? We need to focus on the issues that we have and can actually Fix?
> The reason is they are not wanting to fix, the agenda is to eliminate


Downright pithy. The elimination is indeed what the overarching goal is.

I'm always amazed how folks can state that it's a known "fact" but then can't show proof. Anything/one that disagrees with this is part of the smokescreen is part of "Big Ag." Then there is invariably the lamenting of others being so close minded to their "truth"... 

Until there is scientifically repeatable proof, it's just another unsupported claim like all the other ones, not "truth."


----------



## brettj777

Harley Craig said:


> if my bees listened to the propaganda surrounding this subject they would just give up,


Priceless


----------



## aunt betty

The reason this topic is controversial is the fact that someone is profiting and we threaten their profits by asking questions like "is it killing bees". 

This "story" has been played out at least once before. DDT
It was bad, it was good, and a lot of scientists disagreed on it because they were paid to.

Tetraethyl lead: same story. Start paying attention to how well our system mishandles science. That tetraethyl lead story is real...look it up. It's deep.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

So, if neonicotinoid insecticides are banned, will the insecticides that replace them be _better _for the bees? :scratch:


----------



## jim lyon

Profits?


----------



## DPBsbees

My issues with neonics are:
1. The farmers don't even have a choice because you can't buy seed of the better varieties without them.
2. They only remain in the plant for about 2 weeks. Are farmers using other pesticides after this?
3. The pests they were designed for are not around in sufficient numbers to treat. Would you treat your hives if you found no mites?
4. In Italy, when they got rid of them hive losses dropped significantly and crop yields were not impacted.
BTW: I got this info at a conference at EAS this year and I truly believe the people there had nothing to gain by providing this info. In my opinion, we're spreading poison in great amounts for little to no benefit. It doesn't even matter if if impacts bees. I just doesn't make sense unless you are Bayer or Monsanto.


----------



## deknow

aunt betty said:


> Start paying attention to how well our system mishandles science.


If 'activists' want the high ground on this one, then they have to 'handle science' better than the evil corporations. Unfortunately, there is almost zero critique within the 'activist' community towards bad science, or bad science reporting if the 'problems' support their cause.

I've given several talks I call 'The People's Homework' about how to read a paper and find out what it actually says...and I've done everything I can to encourage beekeepers to make a habit of reading some of these studies so they can understand them.

At a recent conference, I was speaking about some of these issues extemporaniously (a little informal intro). In speaking about this, an enthusiastic attendee who likes to read studies said, 'even if you can't read the study, read the abstract as it is a summary of what the study found'. Although in an ideal world that would be true, in fact (as another attendee pointed out), the abstract is what the author wants you to think the study found.

The only 'system' that can properly handle science is one in which the science is actually read and critiqued on it's own merits, no matter where it is from or what it says.


----------



## D Coates

aunt betty said:


> The reason this topic is controversial is the fact that someone is profiting and we threaten their profits by asking questions like "is it killing bees".
> 
> This "story" has been played out at least once before. DDT
> It was bad, it was good, and a lot of scientists disagreed on it because they were paid to.
> 
> Tetraethyl lead: same story. Start paying attention to how well our system mishandles science. That tetraethyl lead story is real...look it up. It's deep.



Be careful with the DDT reference. Pulling off DDT has cause the deaths of millions of people from insect borne pathogens. Those people were from 3rd word countries so who cares as long as we get to feel good about ourselves? Countries that still use and used it didn't see their raptors disappear either. 

As for making money. Both sides are doing it. Don't think the Anti-neonics aren't making millions in fund raising (remember there are tons of these groups). Many have staked their ground as anti-neonic/pesticide of any form. The only product they produce is propaganda and community activism so their cost are low. Anything that disagrees with that threatens their income too.

Personally I'll stick to scientifically repeatable results. Prove it, and I'll be the first to say I was wrong if its' scientifically proven (i.e. repeatable) that neonics are responsible for the die offs. However, the die offs seemed to go away on their own here yet neonics kept on being used as before if not more. What's even odder is neonics are use in Australia and they've had none of these claimed issues. What's missing in Australia? Varroa mites.... We might want to look there, but then the anti-neonic groups can't make their money claiming evil corporations are trying to kill the earth (or some other hogwash).


----------



## DPBsbees

I think we have our logic messed up in the US. What needs to be proven is that the insecticide is required. Can anyone really argue that it wouldn't be better if we used less of all the pesticides if we really don't need them? The so called bans in some other countries are this way. They can still be used if a need can be shown. There is no IPM being performed with these seeds coated with neonics.


----------



## deknow

Given that beekeepers will put anythring from organophosphates to banannas in their hives if they think it will decrease loss, increase yield, or mitigate risk ('just in case').....

This is more 'do as I say, not as I do'. The beekeeping 'industry' turned a blind eye to the widespread illegal use of Amitraz...yet they want to supervise what/how farmers do what they do?


----------



## DPBsbees

deknow said:


> Given that beekeepers will put anythring from organophosphates to banannas in their hives if they think it will decrease loss, increase yield, or mitigate risk ('just in case').....
> 
> This is more 'do as I say, not as I do'. The beekeeping 'industry' turned a blind eye to the widespread illegal use of Amitraz...yet they want to supervise what/how farmers do what they do?


I consider the present day neonic coated seeds about the same as if beekeepers couldn't buy foundation that wasn't already coated with CheckMite.


----------



## deknow

DPBsbees said:


> I consider the present day neonic coated seeds about the same as if beekeepers couldn't buy foundation that wasn't already coated with CheckMite.


I don't know of any data contrary to what Penn State found in 2008...that commercially available foundation has concerningly large amounts of fluvalinate _and_ coumaphos.

My understanding is that wax from places where it isn't thusly contaminated (like africa or other places where the beekeepers can't afford and/or don't need these chems) is sought after in the cosmetics industry.

I don't know of anyone that claims to use or have available thin foundation for cut comb (where the wax might get eaten by a human) that has been tested and found clean.

But that is besides the point....producing corn seed isn't complicated, nor is it expensive. What is expensive is the complex breeding, GMO, complex hybridization, testing, etc of high tech corn. To the producers of this stuff, the coating mitigates the risk (is insurance against) of a customer having insect damage early in the growth cycle and being unhappy with the product.

By no means do I think these seed coatings work as a net gain...I think they are quite harmful in many ways. ....but it is not hard to grow corn without this stuff...seed is available and not hard to grow.


----------



## Ian

Your right, it's not hard to grow the crops without all the developed tech. The hard part is keeping that ledger in the black. 
I started farming with dad 18 years ago, a big crop was 30 bushels... The farm was literally year to year. We adopted this tech and doubled our yields CONSISTENTLY. Today we are getting ahead. 
If consumers don't want the tech, they gota pay up. It's this part of the equation they always leave out.


----------



## clyderoad

Ian said:


> Your right, it's not hard to grow the crops without all the developed tech. The hard part is keeping that ledger in the black.
> 
> If consumers don't want the tech, they gota pay up. It's this part of the equation they always leave out.


BINGO


----------



## Ian

"The reason this topic is controversial is the fact that someone is profiting and we threaten their profits"

If there is no profits, there is no farming ... Unless everyone decides to grow their own food. In that case it would then be easier to import their food and just not think of all these issues, because it's not in their back yard.


----------



## phyber

Slightly on and off topic at the same time:

I helped a neighbor plant some peach trees purchased from Home Depot. Only after applying the top mulch did I see the tag that they were treated with neonics.

What is the lifespan of any actual or measurable level of this in the tree? Surely it can't last years, and the trees shouldn't flower for another year at best...Anything I can do different? Encourage him to dig them back up and remove the potting soil the trees came in?


----------



## AstroBee

deknow said:


> If 'activists' want the high ground on this one, then they have to 'handle science' better than the evil corporations. Unfortunately, there is almost zero critique within the 'activist' community towards bad science, or bad science reporting if the 'problems' support their cause.
> 
> I've given several talks I call 'The People's Homework' about how to read a paper and find out what it actually says...and I've done everything I can to encourage beekeepers to make a habit of reading some of these studies so they can understand them.
> 
> At a recent conference, I was speaking about some of these issues extemporaniously (a little informal intro). In speaking about this, an enthusiastic attendee who likes to read studies said, 'even if you can't read the study, read the abstract as it is a summary of what the study found'. Although in an ideal world that would be true, in fact (as another attendee pointed out), the abstract is what the author wants you to think the study found.
> 
> The only 'system' that can properly handle science is one in which the science is actually read and critiqued on it's own merits, no matter where it is from or what it says.



Excellent observation. 

I have "unscientifically" polled lots of people who are strongly against pesticides and often I find that their true understanding is superficial. They seem very good at parroting the propaganda, but lack a deeper understanding on the subject. That certainly doesn't slow them down on repeating it and spreading their perspective to as many who will listen. I'd really like them to spend more time reading Randy Oliver's writings. I say all this as someone who lives in an area rich with neonics and other pesticides. I lose bees each year to pesticides. In fact, can't recall a single year in the past 15 that I haven't experienced some level of bee kill related to pesticides. That said, I have zero evidence that neonics are particularly dangerous to honey bees. Farmers spraying on a schedule that fits their desire, well, that's a different story...


----------



## jim lyon

I would agree that Dean has made some excellent observations. I would only take issue with his stance that it isn't hard to grow corn without seed coatings. I'm not an experienced farmer but have grown up with many close friends who are lifetime farmers. Insect damage to corn from before emergence to the first weeks after emergence (when the plant is quite easily killed) can be impossible to predict and it can happen literally overnight. It is also much more widespread in the current day no till applications where the rotting and composting of the previous years crop residue makes a perfect environment to breed crop pests. In short, going without seed coating is a high stakes crapshoot where the additional cost of seed coatings pales in comparison to the best case scenario of expensive replanting.


----------



## Haraga

You nailed it Jim.


----------



## deknow

My fault. ...I don't think I was clear.

I was trying to point out that if one (or a coalition of farmers) don't want coated seed, there are workable ways to produce it.

I hear a lot about what Monsanto or Bayer or industry 'should or should not do'...and not a lot of emphasis on why, if there is such a demand for low tech seeds, someone isnt producing them.


----------



## AstroBee

jim lyon said:


> Insect damage to corn from before emergence to the first weeks after emergence (when the plant is quite easily killed) can be impossible to predict and it can happen literally overnight.



I've heard that same thing from a trusted farmer. I suspect that is a key advantage of seed coated plants.


----------



## j.kuder

Harley Craig said:


> nobody is talking about the dust. yes planting dust will kill bees ( whether it has a neionic coating or not) . Harvest dust will kill bees, pour organic flour in your hive it will kill bees. All of the research that they claim are killing bees is based of it being a systemic pesticide and the bees bringing it back in pollen or nectar. the only pesticide kills I'm aware of is when some idiot sprays his fruit trees while in bloom


and there are lots of idiots. take the one across the rd. from my place for instance spraying a field during a 10 -15 mph. wind with gusts over 20mph. that spray drifted at least a 1/2 a mile in all directions


----------



## j.kuder

DPBsbees said:


> I think we have our logic messed up in the US. What needs to be proven is that the insecticide is required. Can anyone really argue that it wouldn't be better if we used less of all the pesticides if we really don't need them? .


my mother-in-law rest her soul. used to be an ant-a-phobic if she saw an ant she would break out the ant killer/poison she would spray the kitchen counters where we prepared our food. we had to take her spray away. then we found she was hiding it and sprayed when we weren't looking and we took that away.
solution clean the crumbs and sugar crystals off the counter and rinse dirty dishes. no more ants. a little more work maybe but safer. 
this is the logic you talk about. just throw some chemicals on it if you don't see bad consequences right away it must be ok. look at cigarettes or agent orange, asbestos, lead.


----------



## marshmasterpat

D Coates said:


> Be careful with the DDT reference. Pulling off DDT has cause the deaths of millions of people from insect borne pathogens. Those people were from 3rd word countries so who cares as long as we get to feel good about ourselves? Countries that still use and used it didn't see their raptors disappear either.
> .


D Coates - This is something that many people really miss. DDT was fogged from trucks heavily during the last big polio outbreak (30s I think). Trucks were driving down the streets in mid day in San Antonio fogging and people were walking through the stuff (yes I believe it is injected into the muffler spray of some type diesel engine). But were they really following dosage suggestions (if there were any at that time). Everyone was using it in some places including some of the federal resource protection agencies. I have seen the fogger sitting rusting up at one place back in the 1990s when an old guy in maintenance told us what it was for. 

It was way over used. But you are right about not causing problems in many parts of the world. And it is still be used in a few places.  Just not talked about.

Around 1990s I knew small farmers (less than 500 acres) that were using pesticides with the idea that if a little is good, more it better for rice weevils. Then some folks that got in trouble over it because it caused some local issues. Never made the big papers, never a big stink, just sort of county area stink, but a couple people were not farming for several years because of it.


----------



## Dave Burrup

j.kuder said:


> and there are lots of idiots. take the one across the rd. from my place for instance spraying a field during a 10 -15 mph. wind with gusts over 20mph. that spray drifted at least a 1/2 a mile in all directions


In all direction. Now you are being fear monger, and spreading bull. Spray drift does not ever move against the wind. The only way to get drift in all directions is to spay on a perfectly calm morning.


----------



## Ian

Spray drift generally is more severe with plane application for obvious reasons. Even in windy conditions field high clear machines are equips with low drift nozzles which basically eliminate drifting issues. We still leave a buffer strip around our bee yards but half mile high clear drift usually happens during calm humid conditions.


----------



## Haraga

j.kuder said:


> and there are lots of idiots. take the one across the rd. from my place for instance spraying a field during a 10 -15 mph. wind with gusts over 20mph. that spray drifted at least a 1/2 a mile in all directions


"In all directions"
Boy I would like to see that. I think with that statement you just removed all doubt.


----------



## sqkcrk

I had a guy at the State Fair who asked me if the State should start paying beekeepers for colony loss now that the cause of CCD is known. Implying that neonics has conclusively been shown to be the cause of CCD. Seems for fetched to me. But I understand that Ontario, Canada does that.

What do you all think? Should NY cover hive loss?


----------



## Ian

Lol, now prove the hive actually died from neonic CCD in order to get paid 

Not sure about ONtario but Manitoba has a winter mortality insurance program.


----------



## sqkcrk

How does that work, Ian?


----------



## Ian

It's not a money making venture but it does protect from high loss winters. Premium paid on hives going in, $2.75, and a 30% loss "deductible" used to calculate payouts on $150 hive valuation


----------

